Summary
Republican senators are privately pushing to review Tulsi Gabbard’s FBI file amid concerns about her alignment with Russian interests following her nomination as Trump’s director of national intelligence.
Gabbard’s past support for Edward Snowden, who leaked U.S. state secrets, has drawn particular scrutiny, as has her history of echoing Russian talking points on Ukraine and Syria.
While GOP senators are publicly deferring to Trump’s pick, some, including Sens. Mike Rounds and Susan Collins, emphasize the importance of full background checks and hearings to address potential security risks.
You should look up exactly what was said, not what others insinuate.
Well, the United States was propping up radical elements with Syria’s anti-Assad rebels. Fighters posed as Free Syrian Army “moderate rebels” to obtain U.S. weapons before promptly defecting to al-Nusra.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/id-take-tulsis-record-in-syria-over-the-cias/
No, she said there are 25 to 30 American-funded biological laboratories in Ukraine. This is true, and public knowledge.
She served in the Army and is now very anti war. War hawks on all sides have a vested interest in painting her as a Russian Asset.
She very heavily implied it was for bioweapons. Why else would having laboratories be justification for war?
She 100% supports letting Russia bulldoze Ukraine.
She’s only anti-war where war is against Russia’s interests.
No, she called for an immediate ceasefire at the laboratories as they could spread dangerous pathogens. The World Health Organization made a similar call. Are they all Russian assets too?
[Citation needed]
[Citation needed]
It sounds like you are regurgitating propaganda without having confirmed any details yourself.
like Trump and a lot of Pro MAGA people, their trick is to say things that aren’t explicit so they can lie later and say that’s not what they meant.
Gabbard and her defenders will take each individual statement or act without context or predecessor and lie claiming that specific instance doesn’t prove anything. They’ll object to putting them all together to make the tapestry they represent.
I agree that taken each on their own with no context and no history, nothing Gabbard has said or done constitutes evidence of compromise.
But 20 years of her bullshit makes it absolutely clear that she’s either an asset or a straight up agent.