Tag: trump derangement syndrome

DNI Tulsi Gabbard Torches Media for Spreading Obama’s Russia Hoax — Says Press Complicit in “Historic Lie” to Sabotage Trump: ‘They Printed What the Deep State Told Them to Print’

The Deep State house of cards is collapsing — and DNI Tulsi Gabbard just lit the match.

During an interview on OANN with former Rep. Matt Gaetz, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard accused the Obama Administration and its loyal media mouthpieces of orchestrating and perpetuating a “historic lie” to sabotage Donald Trump’s presidency before it even began.

As The Gateway Pundit reported earlier this week, Gabbard’s second explosive document release contains indisputable evidence: Barack Obama not only knew the Russia Collusion narrative was bogus — he ordered it.

The so-called Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), rushed out in January 2017, was a politically motivated hit job — a fabricated intelligence document, pushed by CIA Director John Brennan, and blessed by Obama himself — designed to frame Donald Trump as a Russian asset.

During a surprise appearance at Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s briefing, Gabbard called out the media to their faces:

TULSI: “I’m not asking you to take my word for it. I’m asking you in the media to conduct honest journalism — and for the American people to see for yourselves.”

But instead of owning up to their role in pushing Obama’s fake narrative, the so-called “mainstream” media scrambled to bury the truth.

CNN’s Response? PANIC. The network infamously known for breathlessly reporting the Steele dossier and pushing the Russia hoax cut the feed as Gabbard detailed Obama’s criminal involvement.

Keep reading

The Intelligence Community Needs To Be Dismantled

At the direction of President Barack Obama in late 2016, our intelligence agencies pulled off what can only be described as a coup and a treasonous conspiracy against President-elect Donald Trump — a conspiracy that continued throughout his entire first term in office, hobbling his presidency and thwarting the will of the American electorate.

That’s what the bombshell documents released this week by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard reveal: a criminal scheme, at the highest levels of the federal government, to deprive Trump the fruits of his electoral victory and, by extension, the American people of meaningful self-government.

At the center of this scheme was President Obama and his intelligence chiefs, who in December 2016 launched a conspiracy to prevent Trump from taking office or, failing that, to hamstring his presidency. “The evidence that we have found and that we have released directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment. There are multiple pieces of evidence and intelligence that confirm that fact,” Gabbard said Wednesday, adding that her office has forwarded all documents to the Justice Department and FBI “to investigate the criminal implications of this.”

It’s possible that those responsible for this long-running coup will face some kind of criminal prosecution and possibly conviction, but it’s highly unlikely. No one should hold their breath waiting for an Obama mugshot, as well-deserved as that might be given what he and his top officials did.

However, that doesn’t mean that nothing at all can be done. The conspiracy that these documents reveal should lead to a thorough reform of our intelligence agencies — not for the sake of political retribution, but for the survival of our republic. Simply put, our intelligence agencies as currently constituted are incompatible with republican self-government and the rule of law. They now function here in America much as they have functioned abroad for decades: as coup machines, undermining national sovereignty and imposing their will over and against the will of the electorate.

If nothing else comes of this scandal, it should be this: the complete dismantling of the intelligence community and its total reconstitution into agencies that can be held accountable to democratically-elected leaders. Right now, it’s accountable to no one, as the recent revelations demonstrate.

What makes such reform difficult isn’t just the power and insularity of these agencies, but that in this particular case they were weaponized by an outgoing president, Obama, who gave his intel chiefs a directive to push out a narrative, backed by official intelligence assessments, that Moscow stole the election for Trump. If a corrupt president is able to use the intel agencies like this, then reform of the agencies is necessary to prevent it from ever happening again.

The ins and outs of how all this happened, and what exactly Obama and his intelligence chiefs did in November and December of 2016, is admittedly a bit confusing, especially for those who never followed or perhaps have forgotten what happened back then and why we should care now, more than eight years later.

My colleagues here at The Federalist have in recent days done the heavy lifting of laying it all out in clear and unmistakable terms: Mollie Hemingway explained how top intelligence officials were overruled by Obama’s CIA director, John Brennan, who insisted on the “key judgment” in a January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that Russia had interfered in the election because Moscow “aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances.” The intelligence officials knew there was no evidence to substantiate that claim, which became a cornerstone of the Russia collusion narrative that Trump conspired with Russia to “steal” the 2016 election.

Shawn Fleetwood wrote about newly declassified records showing that “the phony dossier intel agencies used to spy on Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign was included in a critical Obama-era report on Russia’s activities in the 2016 election — despite claims from top Obama officials that it wasn’t.” That report, the above-mentioned ICA, relied on the infamous Steele dossier as evidence that Trump colluded with Moscow. Why? Because that was the only evidence they had to substantiate the explosive claim. The Steele dossier was of course an outlandish piece of opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign, and everything in it was fabricated.

Keep in mind the key part of all this is that after Trump won the 2016 election, but before he took office, Obama, Brennan, DNI James Clapper, and FBI Director James Comey, along with other top intel officials, deliberately manipulated the ICA so they could claim that Moscow had helped Trump steal the election. Russia has for a long time meddled in our elections, seeking to sow chaos and undermine the democratic process. But in 2016, Obama and his intel chiefs decided to manufacture a narrative that this time Russia didn’t just want to sow chaos, it wanted to help Trump win and then intervened to make that happen. That’s the central claim of the Russia collusion hoax, and what we learned this week is that it was all based on totally bogus evidence — evidence that was cobbled together at the behest of Obama himself.

But the Obama team didn’t stop there. As my colleague Sean Davis has explained, “Obama intel officials then prepared separate versions of the ICA — one for Congress, which did not include references to Steele dossier in the main body, a declassified version for public release which also excluded the dossier even though it was unclassified, and one for Obama and other executive branch officials, which included the Steele dossier references in the main body. The newly declassified review of the ICA concluded that this sleight of hand was done to allow top intel officials to avoid any public scrutiny or accountability for their inclusion of false, Clinton-funded opposition research in an ICA.”

Keep reading

Russiagate Explained: The Sins Of The 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment

A key part of the House Permanent Selection Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) review is about then-CIA director John Brennan’s reliance on an obscure fragment to determine in the 2017 ICA that Putin “aspired to help Trump’s chances of victory when possible.”

The fragment, which is in bold below, comes from a raw human source intelligence report, or HUMINT in intelligence-speak.

“Putin had made this decision [to leak DNC emails) after he had come to believe t h a t the Democratic nominee had better odds of winning the U.S. presidential election, and that [candidate Trump], whose victory Putin was counting on, most likely would not be able to pull off a convincing victory.”

You might think that means Putin wanted Trump to win. That’s one interpretation.

But there were five different interpretations among the five people who wrote the ICA.

A senior CIA operations officers remarked: “We don’t know what was meant by that,” and “five people read it five ways,” the HPSCI reports says.

Usually that’s no problem, because as the Intelligence Community Directive standards (ICD 203) make clear, alternative interpretations should be included. Incredibly, the ICA failed to do that even though there was great disagreement on the fragment’s meaning.

The significance of this fragment to the ICA case that Putin “aspired” for candidate Trump to win cannot be overstated. The major “high confidence” judgment of the ICA rests on one opinion about a text fragment with uncertain meaning, that may be a garble, and for which it is not clear how it was obtained. This text-which would not have been published without DCIA’s orders to do so—is cited using only one interpretation of its meaning and without considering alternative interpretations.

The HPSCI gives some examples of alternative interpretations for “whose victory Putin was counting on.” Since the information was acquired in July 2016, it could have meant Putin “expected” a Trump victory at the upcoming Republican National Convention. The HPSCI notes that the convention’s outcome “was still uncertain to do active efforts to deny Trump a majority of convention delegates. This was a headline issue for the US political media at the time, though many pundits nonetheless expected — or ‘counted on’ — a Trump victory.”

Keep reading

MSNBC Contributor Goes Full Drama Queen Over Colbert Cancelation: ‘Really Scary’

People on the left truly seem to live in an alternate universe. During a recent segment on MSNBC, contributor Molly Jong-Fast reacted to the Colbert cancelation by saying that it’s ‘really scary.’

It’s scary that a TV show got canceled? That happens all the time. In this case, the show in question was losing tens of millions of dollars a year.

She actually goes on and compares this situation to the McCarthy anti-communism hearings. This isn’t even remotely similar to that but she takes herself and her words so seriously.

“And even if it’s not quid pro quo, the idea of self-censorship. And I talk about my grandfather, Howard Fast, who was jailed by McCarthy during The House UN-American Activities, that that our government has done this before, that history is very much filled with moments like this.”

Keep reading

Trump Derangement Syndrome Isn’t Just a Pejorative Term Anymore

A pair of Republican representatives is pushing Congress to address one of the most serious domestic issues of our time. What started out as a joke – a slur, of sorts – has become a very real public mental health crisis. Since late 2016, Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) has spread as swiftly as COVID-19 and could, for most of the infected, be more debilitating. And it’s no longer just a humorous dig at leftists – especially after two attempts on President Donald Trump’s life. Back in May, Reps. Warren Davidson (R-OH) and Barry Moore (R-AL) released statements on the introduction of the Trump Derangement Syndrome Research Act of 2025. This was not an epic prank. The congressmen want the National Institute of Mental Health (NIH) to study the disorder.

The late Charles Krauthammer, a political writer and pundit but a psychiatrist by training, coined the term “Bush derangement syndrome” in 2003. Leftists certainly displayed a visceral hatred of then-President George W. Bush, though it did not push them to adopt extreme and often irrational positions, as Trump Derangement Syndrome does.

Diagnosing Trump Derangement Syndrome

Anti-Trump journalist Fareed Zakaria once described TDS as “hatred of President Trump so intense that it impairs people’s judgment.” He wasn’t wrong. Personality disorders – what some clinical psychologists would collectively call sociopathy – affect the way the afflicted view themselves, their fellow human beings, and everyone’s place in the world. Emotions are governed by these disorders.

Keep reading

Tulsi Fires Back at Barack Obama, Says She Will be Releasing More Trump-Russia Hoax Docs Tomorrow to Refute Obama’s Statement

ODNI Tulsi Gabbard fired back at Barack Obama on Tuesday afternoon after the former president released a rare statement in response to Trump’s assertion Obama was the ringleader of the Russia hoax.

The office of former President Barack Obama responded to Trump’s assertion that Barack Obama was the “ringleader” of the Russia collusion hoax.

According to a declassified presidential briefing from December 2016, Barack Obama knew the Trump-Russia collusion narrative was a hoax.

Barack Obama knew it was a hoax and he was personally involved in manufacturing and politicizing the intelligence to create the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.

On Tuesday President Trump said Obama is guilty of treason.

“Barack Hussein Obama is the ringleader. Hillary Clinton was right there with him and so was Sleepy Joe Biden… and so were the rest of them. Comey, Clapper, the whole group,” Trump said on Tuesday during remarks to reporters in the Oval Office.

“This was treason…they tried to steal the election…” Trump said.

Keep reading

CBS Is About to Have a Big, Expensive Stephen Colbert Problem — and Howard Stern Is the Precedent

There’s precedent for this: Twenty years ago this year, Howard Stern left terrestrial radio, opting for the Sirius Satellite (later Sirius XM) moneybag. Twenty years later, Howard Stern has gone from an A-list superstar to a has-been; the natural consequence of hiding behind a paywall for so long.

Without the feeder system of terrestrial radio to onboard new fans, eventually, his older fans lost interest and left, and nobody new took their place. And now Howard Stern — a man whose audience was once 20 million strong — has become a complete and total nobody.

Consider: Stern’s 1993 “Private Parts” book sold over 1.1 million copies. It was the fastest-selling title in Simon & Schuster history.

A few decades later, he released the book “Howard Stern Comes Again” (2019) with the exact same publisher, Simon & Schuster. While accurate book stats are tricky to track, in one listing, Stern’s 2019 book was credited with just 265,295 sales, finishing about 2,500 units behind Mark Levin’s seventh-ranked book title, “Unfreedom of the Press.” (There were even anecdotal reports of Stern’s book being sold at the dollar store, the tragic fate of so many over-published and under-demanded book titles.) Stern’s audience is a pitiful sliver of what it once was.

And eventually, that’ll be Stephen Colbert’s fate, too. But don’t focus on that yet: The important part is what happened after Stern announced he’d be leaving terrestrial radio (Oct. 6, 2004) but before he actually left on Dec. 16, 2005.

Stern spent much of his final months on terrestrial radio hyping up how awesome his new satellite radio show was gonna be (often by throwing shade at traditional radio). It led to a 43-page CBS lawsuit for “[misappropriating] millions of dollars’ worth of CBS Radio air time for his own financial benefit.” (The lawsuit was later settled, with Sirius paying CBS Radio a few million bucks, while also receiving rights to rebroadcast Stern’s old radio tapes.)

In retrospect, nobody at CBS should’ve been surprised: Of course Stern was gonna hype up his move to satellite! His new financial model depended on it! (Indeed, Stern later sued Sirius XM — and lost — when he demanded a payment of $300 million for the new subscribers gained via the Sirius-XM merger.)

Here we are, twenty years later, and CBS is in the same exact situation as before.

Keep reading

From Chicago to the White House: The “Russia Hoax” has Barack Obama’s DNA All Over It

Could Barack Obama have orchestrated the “Russia hoax” – what Donald Trump has called “the crime of the century”?

A closer look at Obama’s political rise in Chicago and his governing style in Washington suggests it’s far from implausible, and even likely.

While the mainstream media has long celebrated Obama for his eloquence, historic symbolism, and aspirational rhetoric about “hope and change,” his career tells a completely different story.

Beneath the polished image lies a consistent pattern of ruthless tactics and deceptive narratives straight from the Chicago machine playbook.

“The Chicago Way” refers to a hardball and often corrupt style of political operation that uses brute force, patronage, and intimidation to gain or maintain power.

Retaliation against enemies was the norm in Chicago as political opponents were often targeted using legal, bureaucratic, or personal means to silence or discredit them.

Obama’s first foray into politics foreshadowed this approach. In his 1996 Illinois State Senate race, rather than win through debate and democracy, Obama used legal technicalities to challenge the petition signatures of his opponents, including incumbent Alice Palmer, knocking them all off the ballot for an easy Obama victory.

A similar pattern emerged in Obama’s 2004 U.S. Senate race. In both the primary and general elections, damaging private divorce records of his opponents were made public that all but eliminated the opposition.

Though he denied involvement, his campaign strategist David Axelrod, a former journalist who had previously worked for one of the candidates, was widely suspected of orchestrating the leaks.

Keep reading

Russiagate’s Architects Suppressed Doubts To Peddle False Claims

Although Robert Mueller failed to find an election conspiracy between Donald Trump and Moscow, the former Special Counsel threw a lifeline to the Russiagate narrative by alleging that the Kremlin had engaged in a “sweeping and systematic” effort to get Trump elected and “sow discord” among Americans. 

Six years later, that questionable but enduring claim continues to unravel.

According to newly declassified documents, U.S. intelligence leaders concealed high-level doubts about one of Russiagate’s foundational allegations: that Russia stole and leaked Democratic Party material to help Trump defeat Hillary Clinton. In a September 2016 report that was never made public until now, the NSA and the FBI broke with their intelligence counterparts and expressed “low confidence” in the attribution to Russia.

The previously undisclosed dissent about Russia’s alleged hacking activities in the 2016 election is among several revelations released last week by Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s Director of National Intelligence. According to Gabbard, President Obama and senior members of his cabinet “manufactured and politicized intelligence” in its waning months to wage “a years-long coup against President Trump.”

Gabbard’s material adds to a body of evidence previously reported by RealClearInvestigations that challenges the widely parroted claim about the quality of evidence and the extent of Russian “interference operations” in the 2016 election. These conclusions – based on questionable assertions presented as hard facts – have been falsely portrayed as an intelligence consensus. When Trump, the nation’s commander-in-chief, cast doubt on the Russian interference allegations in a July 2018 news conference, former CIA chief John Brennan denounced him as “nothing short of treasonous.”

It turns out that Trump was not out of sync with the U.S. intelligence community he was accused of betraying. 

“Low Confidence” in Core Allegation

Until now, the purported U.S. intelligence consensus on Russian meddling has been conveyed to the public in three seminal reports. 

The first was a January 2017 intelligence community assessment (ICA) released in the final days of the Obama administration under the direction of Brennan and then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. The ICA accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of ordering an “influence campaign” to “denigrate” Democratic candidate Clinton and “help” Trump win the 2016 election. Some of this effort involved propaganda on Russian media outlets and messaging on social media. 

The larger component hinged on the allegation that the GRU, Russia’s main intelligence agency, stole emails and documents from the Democratic Party and released that material principally via two online entities, DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, as well as the whistleblower organization WikiLeaks. Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has long denied that Russia or any other state actor was his source. Nevertheless, the January 2017 ICA stated that U.S. intelligence had  “high confidence” that Russia engineered the hack. 

Keep reading

“The Gloves Are Off…Go F**k Yourself!” – Stephen Colbert FLIPS OUT After President Trump Savagely Mocks Him Over His Cancelled Show

Fired CBS host Stephen Colbert threw a tantrum and lashed out at President Trump last night after getting fired.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, CBS canceled The Late Show with Stephen Colbert last Thursday for financial reasons, especially given the low ratings. The show will end after the next season in May 2026.

The following day, Trump celebrated the news while mocking Colbert’s low ratings.

“I absolutely love that Colbert got fired. His talent was even less than his ratings,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Colbert expressed confusion over being fired for financial reasons, pointing out that The Late Show is currently No. 1 in ratings and suggesting an ulterior motive.

“Over the weekend, someone at CBS followed up their gracious press release, followed up with a gracious anonymous leak saying, ‘They pulled the plug on our show because of losses pegged between $40 million and $50 million a year.” $40 million is a big number. I could see us losing $24 million, but where would Paramount have possibly spent the other $16 million?” Colbert said, referencing Paramount’s decision to settle a lawsuit with the Trump Administration over the editing of Kamala Harris’s 60 Minutes interview.

“Over the weekend, it sunk in that they’re killing off our show, but they made one mistake: They left me alive. And now, for the next 10 months, the gloves are off,” Colbert boasted.

After reading off Trump’s Truth Social post, which responded to his termination, Colbert lost his temper.

How dare you, sir?! Would an untalented man be able to compose the following satirical witticism?” Colbert fired back. “Go f**k yourself!”

Keep reading