Tulsi Gabbard's Bombshell Report on Obama’s Intel Manipulation - Unveiling 2016 Election Conspiracy

The type of weaponization described in the context of the 2016 U.S. elections and subsequent events could have involved several mechanisms by U.S. agencies and potentially international apparatus, including allies of America. This weaponization would have aimed at discrediting, surveilling, and marginalizing Trump supporters, leveraging both domestic and international resources. Here's a detailed description: Mechanisms of Weaponization

Surveillance and Intelligence Gathering:

Domestic Agencies: The FBI, CIA, and NSA could have engaged in extensive surveillance of Trump supporters, using tools like FISA warrants, wiretaps, and digital tracking. This might have included monitoring communications, social media activity, and financial transactions under the guise of national security concerns related to Russian interference.

International Allies: Agencies like MI6 (UK), ASIO (Australia), and others within the Five Eyes alliance might have shared intelligence or conducted parallel operations, especially if they perceived Trump as a threat to established international order or alliances. This could involve intercepting communications or providing intelligence that supported the narrative of Russian collusion.

Disinformation Campaigns:

Media Manipulation: Leaks to media outlets, both domestic and international, could have been used to shape public perception. This might have involved planting stories that exaggerated or fabricated connections between Trump supporters and Russian entities, aiming to discredit them.

Social Media Operations: Bots, trolls, and coordinated campaigns on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and others could have amplified negative narratives, creating a hostile environment for Trump supporters. This might have been executed by both U.S. agencies and foreign entities, possibly with the tacit approval or coordination of allied intelligence services.

Legal and Judicial Actions:

Selective Prosecution: The Department of Justice might have targeted Trump supporters with investigations, indictments, or legal actions based on tenuous evidence, aiming to intimidate or silence them. This could include the use of the Steele Dossier to justify FISA warrants, as alleged in the Gabbard report.
Civil Liberties Encroachments: Actions like the IRS targeting conservative groups, as seen in previous administrations, could have been replicated or expanded, affecting the financial and organizational capabilities of Trump supporters.

Psychological Operations (PsyOps):

Narrative Control: Efforts to control the narrative through repeated messaging that Trump supporters were complicit in foreign interference could have led to public shaming, loss of employment, and social ostracization. This might have been coordinated with international media to ensure a global reach.

Intimidation Tactics: Public figures, activists, and ordinary citizens supporting Trump could have faced harassment, doxxing, or threats, potentially orchestrated or encouraged by state actors or their proxies.

Potential Damage to Lives

Personal and Professional Repercussions:

Loss of Employment: Individuals could have been fired or blacklisted from industries due to their political affiliations, especially in sectors sensitive to public opinion like academia, media, or government contracting.

Financial Ruin:

Legal battles, fines, or frozen assets due to investigations could have led to bankruptcy or severe financial strain.

Reputation Damage: The stigma of being labeled as complicit in foreign interference could have ruined personal and professional reputations, making it difficult to secure employment or maintain social relationships.

Psychological Impact:

Stress and Anxiety: Constant surveillance, media attacks, and legal threats could have caused significant mental health issues, including anxiety, depression, and PTSD.

Social Isolation:

The hostile environment created by disinformation campaigns could have led to alienation from friends, family, and communities, exacerbating feelings of isolation.

Political and Social Marginalization:

Voting Suppression:

Efforts to discredit Trump supporters could have indirectly suppressed their political participation, affecting future elections.

Erosion of Trust: The weaponization of agencies could have eroded trust in government institutions, leading to a broader societal impact on civic engagement and belief in democratic processes.

International Repercussions:

Travel Restrictions: Individuals might have faced difficulties traveling internationally due to shared intelligence flagging them as security risks.

Diplomatic Pressure:

Allies could have exerted pressure on U.S. citizens supporting Trump, especially those with international business interests, through economic sanctions or diplomatic channels.

Historical and Contemporary Context

Historical Precedents:

The Church Committee investigations in the 1970s revealed extensive domestic surveillance by U.S. intelligence agencies, which could serve as a model for similar operations against political opponents.

Contemporary Examples:

The targeting of parents at school board meetings during the Biden administration, as mentioned in the White House document, indicates a willingness to use federal power against perceived threats, which could have been amplified against Trump supporters.

International Coordination:

The Five Eyes alliance's history of sharing intelligence suggests a potential for coordinated action against a common perceived threat, especially if Trump’s policies were seen as disruptive to international norms.

Conclusion

The weaponization described would have likely involved a multifaceted approach combining surveillance, disinformation, legal actions, and psychological operations, potentially coordinated with international allies. The damage to the lives of Trump supporters could have been profound, affecting their personal, professional, and psychological well-being, and contributing to broader societal polarization and distrust in institutions. This scenario, while speculative in its full extent, aligns with the concerns raised in the Gabbard report and historical patterns of political targeting.

Tulsi Gabbard, as the Director of National Intelligence, released a report alleging a conspiracy by the Obama administration to sabotage Donald Trump's presidency through the creation of a false narrative about Russian interference in the 2016 election. [1]

The report claims that the Obama administration directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment known to be false, aiming to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's election. [1]

Investigators reportedly spent over a thousand hours interviewing 20 CIA and FBI officials, uncovering that the Obama administration doctored intelligence to suggest Vladimir Putin preferred Trump over Hillary Clinton. [1]

The report details how John Brennan, then CIA Director, handpicked five analysts to write the assessment in a siloed manner, ensuring none knew what the others were doing, which was described as a "rush job" to publish before Trump's inauguration. [1]

Key elements of the fabricated narrative included claims that Putin wanted Trump to win, took actions to help him, and that Russians had blackmail on Trump, none of which were supported by reliable intelligence. [1]

The report suggests that senior CIA officials initially refused to traffic in these allegations but were overruled by Brennan and FBI Director James Comey, who insisted on pushing the narrative without verifiable evidence. [1]

The Obama administration is accused of cherry-picking intelligence, lying about sources, misquoting them, and suppressing counter-narrative intelligence, even using anonymous internet postings. [1]

CIA analysts admitted that their actions violated their own tradecraft standards due to pressure from political appointees, allegedly coming directly from Obama. [1]

The report claims that the Russian interference narrative was used to brainwash the electorate, with 60% of Democrats believing Russians hacked voting machines to help Trump win. [1]

Despite solid intelligence suggesting Putin had no preference for Trump and had compromising information on Clinton that was never released, the Obama administration pushed the hoax to undermine faith in American democracy, aligning with Putin's goal of creating chaos. [1]

Gabbard referred the findings to the Department of Justice and FBI for investigation into potential criminal implications, with evidence pointing directly to Obama leading the manufacturing of the intellectual assessments. [1]

The backstory includes the 2016 U.S. elections, where Russian interference was a significant issue, leading Obama to order an investigation into the matter before leaving office. [2]

The Vault 7 leak by WikiLeaks in 2017, which detailed CIA capabilities, fueled conspiracy theories about the CIA framing Russia for the 2016 election interference, though technical analysis refuted these claims. [3]

The ongoing political and social discord in the U.S. following the 2016 elections has been exacerbated by such allegations, impacting public trust in elections and intelligence agencies. [2]