WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2025
The New York Times lays it out: The New York Times has done an excellent job summarizing the latest assault—the assault which started with Tulsi Gabbard's pathetic conflations at the end of last week.
Their report also suggests an obvious pair of questions—a pair of questions which ought to be asked.
In print editions, the report appeared today on page 14—but online, it sits at the very top of the "Today's Paper" website. Broadwater and Barnes have done such a good job that we thought we'd run you through their report.
Headline included, the report starts as shown below, with the latest peculiar meltdown by the sitting president:
Trump Escalates Attacks on Obama and Clinton as Questions Swirl About Epstein
President Trump, under fire over his administration’s handling of the Epstein files, escalated his distract-and-deflect strategy on Tuesday, accusing former President Barack Obama of treason and declaring, “It’s time to go after people.”
Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump condemned questions about the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein as “sort of a witch hunt,” and then launched into a rant against a now-familiar string of rivals and the media.
“The witch hunt that you should be talking about is they caught President Obama,” Mr. Trump said, referring to a report from Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, that tried to undermine the eight-year-old assessment that Russia favored his election in 2016.
“Obama was trying to lead a coup,” Mr. Trump said. “And it was with Hillary Clinton.”
Sad—but so went the latest meltdown. And you thought the highly erratic Agamemnon was bad!
"Mr. Trump’s extended digression...was a stark example of his campaign of retribution against an ever-growing list of enemies that has little analogue in American history," Broadwater and Barnes then wrote.
As they started their report, the reporters were stressing yesterday's attack from President Trump himself. They under-reported the past several days of flamboyant claims by Gabbard—flamboyant charges she had advanced across a group of Fox programs.
Soon, though, they summarized Gabbard's absurd behavior, all of which had been uniformly praised by the gaggle of Stepfords on Fox:
Ms. Gabbard’s report, which claimed there was a “treasonous conspiracy” by top Obama officials, contradicted a lengthy study by the Senate Intelligence Committee that was signed by all Republican members of the committee, including Marco Rubio, now the secretary of state.
The Obama administration never contended that the Russians had manipulated votes; instead, the administration, and the Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee, concluded that Russia mounted a major effort to influence voters.
Still, in his remarks on Tuesday, Mr. Trump claimed that he could have sent Mrs. Clinton, the former secretary of state and another of his political rivals, to prison but chose not to. He said he would show no such leniency to Mr. Obama.
There the president went again. On the other hand, sad! Let's scope out the basic conflation:
Back in the fall of 2016, it had been established that the Russians hadn't "manipulated votes" in that year's election. That is, they hadn't hacked into any American voting systems in such a way as to change vote totals.
Later, President Obama asked for a full report on the various ways the Russians had tried to influence voters. When he did, he wasn't denying that previous finding. In fact, he restated that previous finding when the new study was launched.
Last week, up jumped Gabbard! She contended that Obama's request for that fuller probe had involved a devious repudiation of the earlier finding—the finding that no vote totals had been changed by Russian hacking operations.
At that point, a full-blown "treasonous conspiracy" managed to spring full-blown from the director's head. Over the course of the past five days, it's been driven along by waves of shaky paraphrase performed by the waves of deviants who perform on the Fox News Channel:
According to Gabbard, Obama had manufactured a "treasonous conspiracy" designed to undermine the earlier finding about the one particular way in which the Russkies hadn't caused Trump's election.
This allegation was stupid all the way down, especially since that Republican-led Senate committee had agreed, after years of study, that the Russkies did interfere in the 2016 election, in various ways, with the intention of helping Trump.
Is something "wrong" with Tulsi Gabbard? While we're at it, is it possible that something is even wrong with President Trump?
Also, is something wrong with a Blue American world which just keeps averting its gaze from what is said and done on the Fox News Channel? Is something wrong with a political tribe which insists on looking away—which refuses to say their names and report what they keep doing?
Is something wrong with Gabbard? We'd call that an excellent question!
How about with the various people whose names we keep saying? With the various people who read from script on Fox & Friends, on Fox & Friends Weekend, on The Big Weekend Show, but also on Jesse Watters Primetime, on Gutfeld! and on The Five?
What is stopping the New York Times from reporting the things that are said and done on that succession of gong-shows? Why do Brooks and Kristof and O'Donnell and Maddow just keep looking away?
The judgment displayed by Blue America's various orgs has been bad enough. The Fox News Channel is a corporate assault on the fading hope that the rapidly failing American nation can hope to produce something resembling an intelligent national discourse.
Is something wrong with the ludicrous Gabbard? Over on the Fox News Channel, the tools all said they loved what she said!
We're living in two countries now. Two is the most destructive number. Two countries is one country too much!
ReplyDelete"Is something wrong with the ludicrous Gabbard?"
Gabbard is the best, the most impressive American politician/government official I have ever seen; 100% honest and 100% righteous. So far anyway.
So, yes, something's wrong with Gabbard. Because this is extremely atypical for American politicians/government officials.
The report Gabbard put out and has been pimping to the media rests on the conflation of:
Deletea) 'cyber attacks on election infrastructure' with
b) all methods Russia used to 'influence' the election.
b) is a much broader category than a). The Obama admin found that a) had not occurred, but that numerous actions took place that fall under b).
Nothing morally or ethically wrong here, unless you're an out and out Trumptard, in which case you start ranting about treasonous conspiracy.
So Gabbard's a hack, pure and simple.
Hector and Bob and others are damning Tulsi Gabbard's criticisms without fully knowing their basis. I'm listening to her right now. She alleges an enormous amount of objective evidence that her critics are not even trying to refute. They're just ignoring her full arguments.
DeleteYou're a hack, 3:26.
DeleteGabbard proved that everything, every Russiagate's statement, including the January 6, 2017 "Intelligence Community Assessment" stating that Russian President Vladimir Putin “developed a clear preference” for Donald Trump and “aspired to help his chances of victory” is bullshit, a purposely concocted fake.
Of course it's a treasonous conspiracy, what else would you call it?
I agree with your assessment of Tulsi Gabbard. The Obama regime is going to have a long three years.
DeleteA hack! Based on the outcome of no legal review anywhere. You are in a cult that worships a child rapist. Sick weird people.
DeleteAll the proof Obama was behind the Russia hoax are in the Epstein files.
DeleteWomp! Womp!
Better luck not electing a child rapist to be President of the United States, next time.
This issue is so so fascinating.
DeleteAnother example of the Felon and his deluded cult members outright racism: "Still, in his remarks on Tuesday, Mr. Trump claimed that he could have sent Mrs. Clinton, the former secretary of state and another of his political rivals, to prison but chose not to. He said he would show no such leniency to Mr. Obama." Weirdos.
DeleteGabbard asked the media not to take her word, but instead to reviews the 200 pages of information that she released. Any serious debate over the charges against Obama et. al. should be based on this 200 pages of evidence. I don't know whether it will be fully made public.. I hope it is. A discussion without reference to all this data is pointless.
ReplyDeleteDiC,
DeleteI've got a 200 page report in front of me saying the moon is made of blue cheese and tastes great on a spring salad. Please don't engage in any serious debate about my claim until you've read the whole report.
Here's an idea: why don't you or one of your fellow denizens of MAGA world provide us with a single, concrete allegation of something Obama et al did that is so darn troubling to you.
Then a discussion could take place about that charge. But concreteness isn't really what MAGA's about, is it?
The NY Times explains it quite succinctly. Why would anyone inflict upon themselves to read her gobbledygook.
DeleteDavid & fellow Russian Agent Gabbard continue to besmirch Rubio about the Senate investigative work into Russian interference that he headed. So you saying our SoS is a deep state plant??? Oh the horror!!! AHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! Weirdos, can't do the maths. Also, your demented hero rapes children. Sick.
DeleteWhere there's smoke...Trump raped a 13-year old because she reminded him of his daughter.
DeleteTrump doesn’t smoke.
DeleteThere is no Republican voter who isn't a bigot.
DeleteTrump admin bid to unseal trove of Jeffrey Epstein grand jury transcripts denied by federal judge
ReplyDeleteThat was the plan all along, right? You understand this, don't you, David? The administration knew that the judge would not be able to release the transcripts, which, by the way, no one was pining to see in the first place.
DeleteIlya - I agree. What needs to be done is to make a deal with Ghislaine Maxwell so that she can divulge all that she knows. I think that can be done by offering a pardon in exchange for complete testimony.
DeleteThere's an article in the WSJ is how Trump's name is all over the Epstein's files, which, I imagine is not a surprise to anyone. There are lots of other names there as well. Why do we need Maxwell? So that she can testify under oath that Trump did not engaged in sex with underage girls?
DeleteMaxwell is in prison, just starting a 20-year sentence. She is seeking a pardon from Trump.
DeleteYour idea is for Trump to make a deal with her "so she can divulge all she knows."
Now put on your thinking cap. Will Maxwell, as part of such a deal, divulge information damaging to Trump?
Hector -- Exactly! That's what I was alluding to in a roundabout way. She will testify that Trump did nothing untowardly, and he will commute/reduce her sentence. Declare that the witch hunt is over, and attempt to redirect MAGA towards the new conspiracy theory: Obama's very bad, no good, horrible treasonous conspiracy. They have those, even in Australia.
DeleteIlya,
DeleteYes, it will be a very one-sided divulgence.
Hy David did you hear Cash Patel was the one blabbing about the Felon being all over the nonexistent Epstein Files (that were maliciously fabricated by Obama and the usual DEEP STATE suspects) all over DC. I am taking book on how many days until Patel and his co-dysfunctional Q adjacent Bogiononino conspiracy weirdo get the boot. I figure it is a full time job for you to weave all these competing truths and by far all the bullshit theories together as a coherent narrative in yoour tiny little head. And I would feel sorry for you ifn's you were not always covering for a child rapist you sick man.
DeleteKash Patel did not commit suicide next week.
DeleteWhat do people think will be revealed about Trump and Epstein from the files?
DeleteI think revelations will be more of the quantitative nature. Trump is probably mentioned in the Epstein files quite frequently.
DeleteMentioned how? What will the mentions be about? What would be incriminating about them.?
DeleteWe don't care, anything to increase the size of his cankles.
DeleteIt’s easy to guess what the references to Trump in the Epstein files might be: Trump is against sex with underage girls, so he and I aren’t friends any more.
DeleteDNI Tulsi Gabbard made her case to the media in repeatedly asking them to actually read the declassified evidence. However, there were few takers. This was the same group that promulgated the original false Russian claims and refused to consider such opposing evidence.
ReplyDeleteIt's going to be fun over the next three years when Obama gets the same treatment Democrats subjected Trump to and ends up indicted, possibly convicted.
All Presidential Acts are legal now dufus, plus if Supremes go full Nazi you know the evidence of Russian Interference Barry would have is SoS Rubio's Senate report. So yea, there will be no court case. Just a distraction from Daddy wanting you to get the image of his fat ass raping children out yo head. Weirdo.
DeleteRussiagate was silly, but not one millionth as silly as thinking the Republican Party has any problem at all with child rape.
DeleteJesus Christ you are a fucking idiot David. You worship a man who rapes children. Get help.
ReplyDeleteLet's consider this: Trump had suffered no ill consequences from whatever intelligence agencies had determined in regards to the Russian interference.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree, Ilya. Trump's first term was less effective, because he had to deal with all the false charges. Actually all Americans suffered ill consequences.
DeleteOh, my! All Americans, no less! Trump's term was ineffective because he's fucking moron. Did it stop him from building the wall? Did it stop him from replacing Obamacare with something "great"? You know full well that what you posted is nonsense.
Delete"False charges"?
DeleteNo president ever has had that happen until Trump, right?
Even if the current allegations turn out to be proven (and pis line up for takeoff at LaGuardia) how is this any different from Trump's years long brother campaign?
Pigs, not pis
DeleteBirther, not brother
DeleteBirther doth maketh more sense.
DeleteQuaker — the difference was that the false birther accusation was less effective than the Russia collusion hoax.
Deleteabove comment from me
DeleteNo need to tell us David, we knew, it had your signature stupid.
DeleteTo translate from David-speak, if I may: the birther lie was less effective than the hysterical screeching about the witch hunt, which is a different kind of lie. I think both appeal to a very similar set of people.
Delete"the birther lie"
DeleteAre you talking about the guy who advertised himself as "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii" later lying about being born in Hawaii?
"...the difference was that the false birther accusation was less effective than the Russia collusion hoax."
DeleteI see. No one bought those lies, so no harm done?
"Actually all Americans suffered ill consequences."
DeleteNot sure you intended it to read like that but the estimated excessive deaths from COVID due to Trump's mishandling of the pandemic, over 200,000 by 2 independent studies, certainly attests that some suffered more than others.
Hey 1:15: The thing most people still don't know, Hawaii had a tradition, still going in 1961, to print news of birth in two newspapers and produce a birth certificate for half white Kenyans. This was uncovered by Trump's team of crack (fueled) lawyers, but the enemy of the people will not tell us. And you are a moron and a weirdo.
Deleteanon@10:22 -- The birther conspiracist, aka Anon@1:15, aka Mao, has been spouting the same tired , old shit for years. Yes, Mao is both a moron and a weirdo, although there's an outside chance that he/she/it is just playing a character, a la Colbert, in which case I applaud his brilliance. Like most of his kind, when you stick his nose in his shit, and tell him that it is shit, he just doubles down and screams that it is cake.
DeleteI try to stay away from this place since no moderation gets normies and Q battling wits against nitwits. But Mao hanging out his weirdo laundry for twenty plus year is impressive for a dimbot troll. Remember they were pumping for the glorious adventures of PNAC sponsored forever wars in the Midwest for oil and profit. Once a douche...
DeleteBy the way, Steven Pinker is innocent.
ReplyDeleteBut is Pinker not guilty of not raping children?
DeleteOr are you saying he is only guilty of fondling terrified naked little girls?
DeletePinker is on the client list/flight logs.
DeleteA young female witness testified to "servicing" Pinker when he visited Epstein's island.
Pinker helped Epstein's legal defense, even after Epstein was a convicted pedo.
Pinker is guilty.
Reporter Disses the American People
ReplyDeletea reporter asked "whether she (Gabbard) was merely adding to the politicization by making grave allegations of wrongdoing against Obama officials, and about whether the documents released by her office conflated different issues."
“I think that’s a very disrespectful attack on the American people, who deserve the truth,” Gabbard said.
Gabbard added, "The public can go fuck themselves. The President has executive privilege."
Delete“I think that’s a very disrespectful attack on the American people, who deserve the truth,” Gabbard said.
DeleteIt's the Animal House defense! Well played, Tulsi!
QIB for the win!
DeleteCan't say I'm surprised the Republican Party is proudly out as pro-pedophile. This was inevitable, once Reagan invited religious weirdos to take over the Klan meetings.
ReplyDeleteWhat if Trump did screw under-age girls? Would that be so bad?
DeleteHe's a three-time Republican Presidential nominee because of it.
DeleteYes.
Delete9:43,
Delete"if".
You funny.
Suppose he did. So what?
DeleteHe is a monstrous criminal that's what, you sick fuck.
Delete(But we already know that, but this one could finally stick.)
DeleteLet's cut Trump some slack, he admits that he draws the line at 12 years old, so all girls 11 and under can breathe a sigh of relief.
DeleteOf course, these days all women can relax, Trump no longer has access to his tiny penis, the folds of his belly fat have subsumed the ambitions of the little fellow.
All the blood that could help him get erect is stuck in his cankles.
DeleteMaybe he meant thirteen is too old, he likes them twelve or younger.
DeleteThe NY Times is now biased left. A couple of points based on Bob's quote. The Times says, as a fact, "Ms. Gabbard’s report...contradicted a lengthy study by the Senate Intelligence Committee." I watched Gabbard and Leavitt's presser. One of them, I think it was Gabbard, argued that the Senate report did not contradict her statements in several key details. She gave specific details supporting her statement.
ReplyDeleteThe Times created a straw man by pointing out that the Obama administration never contended that the Russians had manipulated votes. But, Tulsi made several other important accusations.
These are damning, but IMO the two biggest flaws in the Times article are
-- the Times doesn't include their own analysis of the 200 pages of material that was released. That's the kind of first person reporting the the Times used to.
-- the Times doesn't give Gabbard the opportunity to include her arguments. E.g., Gabbard claims that Russia wanted Hillary to win. She deduces that from the fact that Russia had damaging information about Hillary that they didn't use. during the campaign. It's like a debate in which only one side is allowed to speak.
Big dummy. Your Daddy is a child rapist.
Delete"Ms. Gabbard’s report...contradicted a lengthy study by the Senate Intelligence Committee."
DeleteBut surely the Senate Intelligence Committee's "lengthy study" is based on the same falsified "assessments" produced by the CIA and all the rest of the Trump-hating spooks.
David, who authored the new assessment that Gabbard relied on for today's show?
Delete"Gabbard claims that Russia wanted Hillary to win."
DeleteAnd why would that be? Makes perfect sense to a cult member, apparently, or DiC wouldn't be espousing such utter nonsense. Here's an idea. Look up the names Paul Manafort and Konstantin Kilimnikt and get back to us. Jeezus.
"One of them, I think it was Gabbard, argued that the Senate report did not contradict her statements in several key details."
DeleteI see. Her ridiculous presentation was not contradicted on ALL points by the Senate investigation.
That's a strong statement of support, that is.
You libs used to be proud assholes, proudly declaring that "in response to the controversy over Hunter Biden’s laptop, I said that, given what I think of Trump, I wouldn’t have cared if Hunter had the corpses of children in his basement".
DeleteChanged the record now? Scared? Yes, your asshole-bosses are scared. Good. I hope it'll go farther than mere public humiliation, that some of them will be hanged. Or at least jailed. You know, American prisons are a very "diverse" environment. Racially and in sexual orientation. You asshole-bosses will enjoy it.
You're a strange person, @3:00.
Delete3:00,
DeleteThe louder you squeal, the harder I laugh.
3:00,
Deletewhat perverted demons that occupy your psyche are you quoting?
"The Times created a straw man by pointing out that the Obama administration never contended that the Russians had manipulated votes."
DeleteNope. The Times has to point this out because Gabbard is conflating the pre-election IC report that concluded no cyber hacking to manipulate votes with the post-election IC report detailing all the non-cyber ways Russia tried to help Trump.
Multiple comments have previously explained this. Try to keep up.
The difference is the intelligence report from January 2017 said that they determined that Putin wanted to help Trump. But we know now that that was not the consensus in the intelligence community.
DeletePutin may have wanted to hinder Hillary Clinton but that doesn't mean he wanted to help. Donald Trump. Remember, at the time, no one in the entire world thought Trump had a chance anyway.
Quit making yo self look like a complete fucking idiot 11:28, "Putin may have wanted to hinder Hillary Clinton but that doesn't mean he wanted to help Donald Trump" do go on...
DeleteWhat about that statement do you not understand? What about it is confusing?
DeleteRussia helped Trump "win" in 2016.
DeleteEven so, that has little to do with the hot news item of the year, which is that Trump did illegal things with Epstein and now the Republicans are trying to cover it up.
The Republican trolls twisting themselves into pretzels to deny the reality America already knows, is quite amusing.
Putin has been actively warring against the west since 2014. Of course he wanted his asset to destroy the country. And I gotta admit, Trump is doing one hell of a job doing just that. Who needs a fucking constitution, separation of powers, or rules? Just fucking trash the place while drooling about deep states and various conspiracies, just remember to always punch down on lower castes to keep the idiot rubes happy.
DeleteThe consensus of the intelligence community was that Putin wanted to harm Clinton. A small group of senior officials changed that at the last minute after a meeting with President Obama and told the public that the consensus of the intelligence community was that Putin wanted to help Trump.
DeleteThis is what gets the child raping racist subhumans upset. That the intelligence community lied to the public about Putin wanting to help Trump.
But it's not a distinction you really have to concern yourself with.
Delete12:06 what the hell you say. "Consensus... harm Clinton, ..changed that... to wanting to help Trump?" You know, like man, there is no change there, like you know what man?
DeleteSorry, see you sacastical 12:06, it be hard nowadays.
DeleteOh. Okay, you feel those are the same thing? You see them as linguistically interchangeable and not reflective of intent? Thanks for explaining you are interesting interpretation to me.
DeleteI have no idea what the fuck up with 12:34.
DeleteHere's what the Senate committee's report said in its findings:
ReplyDeleteThe Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president. Moscow's intent was
to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process.
In her assessment released today, Gabbard spends a lot of energy disputing an intelligence assessment that said Putin "preferred" Trump. OK. I'll grant that there's a slender difference between "Putin wanted to help Trump" and "Putin preferred Trump."
But Gabbard wants to use that flimsy difference to build a case for "treasonous conspiracy"?
Madness.
That bolded part is now contradicted. The intelligence community did not agree that Putin wanted to help Trump. That's the difference. That's what changed after Obama called the meeting on December 9th.
DeleteYou're right that it's madness, but it's not madness in the way that you think.
DeleteI watched Russian goons drunkenly celebrating the victory of Orange J Chickenshit in 2016. Literally singing "We are the champions". Go fuck yourself, Boris.
DeleteHeather Cox Richardson:
ReplyDelete"Gabbard compounded that effort at the White House press conference by reading material in the report as if it were fact, saying that Russia had “high-level [Democratic National Committee] e-mails that detailed evidence of Hillary's ‘psycho emotional problems, uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness.’ And that then-secretary Clinton was allegedly on a daily regimen of heavy tranquilizers,” along with a number of other charges that Clinton had broken the law. Gabbard did not mention that these allegations were in fact identified in the report as material prepared by Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Services.
"Just to be clear: The director of national intelligence for the United States of America is making allegations against a former U.S. presidential candidate based on material from Russia’s intelligence services."
So Gabbard is back in her comfort zone: spouting Russian propaganda to America.
Your own quote says that Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Services got it from high-level DNC e-mails.
DeleteDoes Ms. Richardson imply that information extracted from high-level DNC e-mails got haram-ed somehow by being accessed by Russia’s intelligence services? It's an interesting idea.
dumb fuck
DeleteJust to be even clearer: what does Clinton's excessive cheerfulness have to do with the 'treasonous conspiracy' that is the ostensible subject of this 'investigation'?
Delete4:32 Please learn how to read before trying to comment.
Delete"Your own quote says that Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Services got it from high-level DNC e-mails."
DeleteGood bot. Here's your cookie.
Are there any deep dives out there, which explain why the Republican Party is so into raping children.
ReplyDeleteChildren are so beautiful.
DeleteThat the Republican Party is THE party for child rape is not in dispute. The real question is "why?"
DeleteYes, this was explained here yesterday.
DeleteIt is well understood why some people are obsessed with pedos and groomers: it is because they themselves are victims of the same crimes. These crimes tend to be cyclical and generational.
Check out the stats of how common and frequent it is for children in the US to be molested/raped; it is startling.
As a society, we are pretty bad at parenting, this is largely due to how precarious our lives are, which itself is due to the massive wealth inequality driven by capitalism and an undying urge for dominance.
Yeah, that’s it, capitalism causes molestation and rape. These problems didn’t happen before the rise of capitalism, and non-capitalist countries don’t have them today.
DeleteThe USA is so great, we're the only country that elects child rapists to be their leaders.
Delete