'Disrespectful attack on American people': Gabbard reacts to Obama's remarks on 'Russia hoax' report
Show more
Show less
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
3 days ago
- Time of India
From Epstein to Obama: Is Donald Trump using Russiagate as a smokescreen? And how Tulsi Gabbard is changing the conversation...
In Mad Men, the fictional adman Don Draper was given a unique problem: sell Madison Square Garden to the public. The plot was based on real-life developers tearing down Penn Station to make way for MSG, prompting an outcry that—this being the 1960s—manifested not in tweets, but in New York Times op-eds. Draper, ever the magician of misdirection, reassures the developers: 'If you don't like what they're saying, change the conversation.' And now another Donald who knows how to sell it in Madison Square Garden is borrowing from the Draper playbook. Faced with growing anger from his own base over the heavily redacted Epstein files and a Justice Department that insists there's 'no client list,' Donald Trump 's administration suddenly rolled out a batch of declassified Russiagate documents. The revelations—pushed by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard—claim that Barack Obama 's intelligence chiefs orchestrated a political hit job on Trump in 2016. No matter how damning they may appear, the timing is unmistakable. Gabbard wasn't just releasing documents. She was changing the conversation. Mad Men - Change the conversation Throwing a Punch to Hide a Bruise There's a phrase in politics borrowed from boxing: 'throwing a punch to hide a bruise.' The Trump administration—known more for punches than cover-ups—is now doing both. On one side, you have Gabbard, the newly-minted DNI, swaggering into the White House press room with a folder of declassified Russiagate material, naming Obama, Brennan, Clapper, and Comey as conspirators in a grand anti-Trump hoax. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Nikoo Homes: Luxury Starts @ ₹1.2 Cr* Nikoo Homes Sadahalli Learn More Undo On the other side, you have the Epstein files—the infamous 'client list' Trump once vowed to expose—now censored, redacted, and buried by his own Justice Department. The question practically asks itself: is Trump using Russiagate to change the subject from Epstein? And perhaps more importantly: is it working? The Epstein Reversal: From 'We'll Release Everything' to 'There Is No List' In 2024, Donald Trump made a campaign promise so red-meat red it sizzled on contact: he'd expose 'everyone' involved with Jeffrey Epstein . 'We'll declassify it all,' he told reporters. 'And no one will be spared.' His base cheered. The Q crowd posted memes of Hillary Clinton behind bars. Even swing voters, sickened by the Epstein-Maxwell horror show, leaned in. Fast-forward to 2025. Trump is back in office. His Attorney General, Pam Bondi, holds up thick black binders at a press conference—hundreds of pages, she says, from the first 'phase' of Epstein disclosure. She hands them to hand-picked right-wing influencers like it's a game show giveaway. Except there's a catch: the documents are redacted into oblivion. Names are blacked out. The infamous 'client list'? Nowhere in sight. When asked why, Bondi's Justice Department offered a legal fig leaf: the files contain 'highly sensitive victim information' and potentially child sexual abuse material. There's no list, they insisted. Case closed. It didn't go down well. Even Trump's most loyal followers turned on him. You promised transparency, they roared. You said you weren't part of the swamp. Former allies like Steve Bannon and Laura Loomer sounded the alarm. If you don't release those files, Loomer warned on X, it will consume your presidency. By June, the outrage had reached critical mass. The House Freedom Caucus revolted. MAGA influencers trended #ReleaseTheList. Faced with rebellion, Trump backpedaled, promising that the rest of the files were 'being reviewed.' Bondi, meanwhile, admitted the FBI had initially turned over only 200 pages—then, oops, 'forgot' thousands more. The excuse? Bureaucratic oversight. The reality? Panic. The files were radioactive. They named names. Big names. So the Trump administration stalled—and stalled hard. Enter Tulsi Gabbard: The Distractress-in-Chief Just as the Epstein backlash hit fever pitch, Tulsi Gabbard showed up with a manila folder and a message: Forget the pedophile billionaire. Let's talk about Obama. Standing at the same podium where Bondi had fumbled, Gabbard held up her own bombshell: a House Intelligence Committee report alleging that Obama's intel chiefs 'manufactured' the claim that Putin wanted Trump to win in 2016. She used all the right words: 'treasonous conspiracy,' 'weaponized intelligence,' 'Obama-led plot.' The MAGA base swooned. Trump, desperate for narrative control, seized on it like a drowning man clutching a life raft. In a speech to Republican lawmakers, he thundered: 'Barack Hussein Obama cheated. They all cheated.' He called it proof of a 'coup.' Fox News dutifully reoriented its programming. The chyron war began: 'OBAMA'S DEEP STATE EXPOSED' replaced 'WHERE IS EPSTEIN'S LIST?' in primetime. But while the headlines changed, the facts didn't. Because if you actually read the report Gabbard declassified, it says—brace yourself—that Russia did interfere in 2016, that Putin did want to destabilize Clinton, and that the hacking of the DNC was real. The only thing under debate? Whether US intelligence had enough basis to say Putin preferred Trump. It's not the smoking gun Trump wants. It's a footnote in an old argument. But that doesn't matter. The purpose was never truth. It was smoke. Glorious, pluming smoke to hide the fire underneath. The Timing Was No Coincidence Gabbard's release came hours after Bondi's disastrous Epstein presser. That's not a coincidence. That's stagecraft. The DOJ had just enraged the far-right by quietly announcing that it was 'closing' the Epstein investigation. No new charges. No prosecutions. Just a neat little bow and a promise of privacy. But the optics? Catastrophic. Trump had painted himself as the anti-elite crusader. Now, he looked like just another gatekeeper. So Gabbard was deployed. Not to protect national security. Not to expose wrongdoing. But to give the base a new villain. Obama. The Deep State. Russiagate, Season 6. Even the visuals were calibrated: Tulsi with a binder, flanked by flags, echoing the Bondi moment—except this time, with fire instead of fizzle. It was the political equivalent of throwing chum to sharks. The Loyalty Trap The most dangerous threat to Trump isn't Democrats or the media—it's his own base turning on him. And they are. It's not the left calling him out. It's the conspiracy crowd. The Infowars faithful. The Elon Musk fanboys. The 'sovereign citizen' types. The ones who believed him when he said he'd burn it all down. Now they see him protecting the very secrets they thought he'd expose. When Trump tweets about Gabbard's revelations, they reply: 'Cool. Now release the Epstein files.' When he posts about Russia, they comment: 'Where's the client list?' Even Speaker Mike Johnson had to cancel votes in the House because Republican members refused to proceed unless the Epstein files were released. One White House insider put it bluntly: 'The issue is screwing up the schedule.' Trump is boxed in. If he releases the full Epstein files, he risks implicating allies—or worse, himself. If he doesn't, he loses the one thing he's always relied on: the unwavering loyalty of his base. Obama's Ghost vs Epstein's Island The contrast couldn't be sharper. On one side: a seven-year-old intelligence memo that Trump wants to re-litigate like a bitter ex replaying a fight from 2016. On the other: a dead man in a jail cell, a network of underage victims, and a 'little black book' that reads like a Bond villain's contact sheet. Guess which one the public cares about? Gabbard's Russiagate revival is a calculated political play. But it's not a cure. It's a sedative. And it doesn't answer the question that gnaws at everyone from reporters to Redditors: What was Epstein protecting, and who protected him? Until that question is answered, no amount of Deep State declassifications will suffice. The Final Gamble There's a tragic irony here. Trump was once the guy who asked the uncomfortable questions. What happened to Epstein? Why wasn't he on suicide watch? Where's the tape? Now he's the one hiding the answers. He gave the base a villain in 2016: Hillary Clinton. He gave them a mission in 2020: Stop the Steal. In 2025, he promised justice for Epstein's victims. Now, he's offering redacted PDFs and reruns of Russiagate. It's not enough. Gabbard's document drop might buy headlines. It might fire up the base. But it won't shake the creeping sense that Trump—once the human Molotov cocktail hurled at the system—has become just another fire marshal. He lit a fuse in 2016. Now he's trying to smother the smoke with paperwork. And in politics, there's no greater sin than looking like the thing you swore to destroy. One Last Mad Men Lesson When Don Draper was told Lucky Strike cigarettes were poisonous, he didn't argue with the facts. He didn't deny the damage. He simply changed the conversation. He pointed at the manufacturing process and said, 'It's toasted.' Everyone knew all cigarettes were toasted. That wasn't the point. The point was to make people feel like they knew something others didn't. To take something toxic—and rebrand it as reassuring. The Trump administration is doing the same thing now. The Epstein files are radioactive. So they dusted off an old Russiagate memo, slapped a 'declassified' stamp on it, and fed it to the press with a wink and a flag. It's not transparency. It's not accountability. It's just toasted. "It's Toasted" scene - Mad Men - Pilot
Time of India
3 days ago
- Time of India
Did Vladimir Putin prefer Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump in 2016? Declassified intelligence report makes startling claim
In a twist to the long-running Russiagate saga, newly declassified intelligence documents suggest that the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) may have misrepresented Russian President Vladimir Putin 's true preferences in the 2016 US election. Contrary to the widely accepted narrative that Russia aimed to boost Donald Trump 's chances, the reports show that key intelligence indicators suggesting Putin may have preferred Hillary Clinton were ignored or dismissed. The ICA's failure to explore alternative hypotheses has been called a "serious tradecraft mistake" with high-impact consequences, influencing top US government decisions across three branches. These revelations are shifting the focus of Russiagate from alleged collusion with Trump to overlooked intelligence about Clinton. Declassified reports: CIA ignored signs Putin may have wanted Clinton to win According to Finding #7 from the declassified oversight report, the ICA failed to perform a systematic evaluation of alternative explanations, a core requirement of intelligence tradecraft under ICD 203. Specifically, it dismissed the possibility that Putin did not care who won, or even had strategic reasons to prefer a Clinton presidency. The overlooked evidence suggests that: Putin might have viewed Clinton as a more vulnerable and predictable adversary, potentially easier to manipulate diplomatically. Russia held back more damaging kompromat on Clinton, suggesting a calculated move to retain leverage over a future Clinton administration, leverage that would not exist with Trump. The ICA authors' insistence on a 'single-track hypothesis' led them to ignore contrary intelligence and attempt to shape weak evidence to support the conclusion that Putin favored Trump. A 'high-impact' intelligence failure with political consequences The report criticizes the ICA's methodology, especially given its massive influence. The document was disseminated across 250 US officials, including members of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, and heavily influenced public opinion. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Understand The Importance Of Steam-Based Sterilization contentcuehub Search Now Undo Analysts argue that the ICA's failure to account for alternative theories misled US policymakers at a critical time. Furthermore: The ICA's narrow focus fueled years of partisan conflict and undermined public trust in democratic institutions. The claim that Putin 'aspired' to help Trump may have lacked solid grounding, while stronger evidence pointing to Clinton as the real strategic choice was sidelined. Intelligence insiders now admit the ICA 'glossed over' the possibility that Putin withheld pre-election operations for future use, particularly against Clinton. Revisiting the narrative, reconsidering the truth The recent declassification of intelligence documents has cast new light on the origins and direction of the Russiagate narrative. While Donald Trump faced years of scrutiny over alleged Russian ties, including investigations, public doubt, and political fallout, it now appears that some intelligence suggesting Vladimir Putin may have preferred Hillary Clinton was known but not given equal attention. If true, this raises difficult questions about the role of selective disclosure and political influence within intelligence channels. For Trump and his supporters, this serves as vindication, not just from the false collusion accusations, but from a broader establishment effort to delegitimize his presidency before it even began. The fact that this evidence was hidden until now suggests institutional bias at the highest levels. As the US enters another election cycle, the importance of transparency and trust in democratic institutions becomes even more urgent. Both sides of the political divide can agree that the public deserves a full accounting, not just of what happened, but of who decided what the American people were allowed to know.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Time of India
'Disrespectful attack on American people': Gabbard reacts to Obama's remarks on 'Russia hoax' report
Tulsi Gabbard responded to former President Barack Obama's comments following her explosive report on Russiagate. Gabbard defended her claims and called out what she says is a pattern of misinformation and political deflection. Watch her sharp rebuttal and what it means for the ongoing debate over government transparency and media accountability. Show more Show less
