Other Dangerous One: Intel Officials Demand Gabbard Get Unprecedented Hearing

There are two cabinet nominations that pose unique risk over and above all others in the Donald Trump administration. If one takes for granted the fact that the Director of the FBI does – ultimately – answer first to the Attorney General as head of the Justice Department, then therein lies the maximum domestic danger encompassed in a radicalized agenda lays with the attorney general nomination. And then there is the maximum foreign danger inherent to and accompanying the nomination for the Director of National Intelligence the radicalized Tuuli Gabbard. Likely due to the fact that initially the Gaetz nomination and then to Peter Hegseth’s troubles, this one – Gabbard’s nomination has received less attention. But it certainly deserves it now as demonstrated by a recent bipartisan letter signed by 100 former intelligence officials that want an unprecedented closed-door and classified portion of the Senate to consider her nomination.

Such a hearing is warranted and would be for anyone who Russian media has called “Russia’s girlfriend.” Ask yourself how it has come to pass that a prominent American politician has become a figure that Russia would claim as their own and then ask yourself how it is that it is that exact person who Donald Trump tapped to handle the nation’s most closely guarded secrets. Per Axios reporting:

Nearly 100 former national security officials signed a letter to Senate leaders raising concerns about President-elect Trump’s nomination of former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard to serve as director of national intelligence.

It is extremely difficult to get 100 bipartisan people to agree on anything in this political climate. Indeed, hard to even define bipartisanship with the left, the moderate-right (Non-MAGA) and MAGA. And yet here they are. And there are “here” for good reason, as it is a huge challenge to innocently justify how it was that Gabbard came to mirror the Russian position with respect to Syria:

Her most infamous controversy is a 2017 trip to Syria, when she met Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad. She subsequently declared that Assad — the Russia-and Iran-backed leader accused of using chemical weapons against his own civilians — was “not the enemy.”

If Assad was not “the” enemy he certainly was “an enemy” as defined as outside the entirety of accepted international norms but for Russian support – which was purely a matter of tactics while setting aside brutal human rights abuses. It is that inexplicable position that warrants an unprecedented type of hearing and below we’ll look at what that hearing might mean:

The former officials urged Thune and Schumer to hold closed-door hearings to review “all information available to the U.S. government” regarding Gabbard. “Several of Ms. Gabbard’s past actions call into question her ability to deliver unbiased intelligence briefings to the President, Congress, and to the entire national security apparatus,” the letter stated.

This tells me that there is intelligence out there that strongly suggests that Gabbard is on Russia’s payroll and-or compromised. Indeed, how it came to be that Gabbard declared herself a candidate for the 2020 election – what appeared to be the guaranteed third party candidate that would sink Joe Biden, could easily be the ultimate culprit. How did she come to that position and was she alone in her idea or was it given to her?

Think about scenarios by which the government could have evidence that Gabbard was a Russian asset but has yet to bring the charges. In order to charge someone with treason – never mind a prominent politician who might be a threat to both Biden and Trump (All depending on context) they would have to have proof beyond any that could reasonably be expected. But the fact that they’re willing to put that evidence on the table in a secure hearing, one in which they might be able to prove that intelligence exists questioning whether she could even be loyal to Donald Trump – never mind the nation, but even loyal to Donald Trump, is the ultimate red flag. As above, is there any other logical conclusion as to why they would request such a hearing?

If they had explosive allegations that did not touch on secret intelligence about her ties to Russia, wouldn’t that be the perfect evidence with which to lay in wait? At least and until the situation with Hegseth resolves itself? Perhaps they even have such evidence, something that could come out in an open setting. But the fact that so many are asking to have a hearing in which it could all be presented begs for any other explanation except for the fact that such explosive allegations exist.

She represents a greater threat than the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State for one reason. As powerful as those positions may be, they will not act without the president’s absolute backing on anything. They can’t – by definition. Moreover, especially the Secretary of Defense, they both lead departments in which any truly aberrant actions could be checked by either the joint chiefs or the under-secretaries. Only the attorney general and his or her ability to bring charges against literally anyone, is the only other real independent power, and it’s limited to domestic issues.

But not the Director of National Intelligence for one clear reason. She is a bottleneck above all others – the CIA, the NSA, the wholly under-appreciated and misunderstood National Reconnaissance office  (Satellites, Net, many other top secret methods), military intelligence, and soft intelligence (State Department, Treasury, Corporate, even Church) – all of it bottlenecks at the Director of Intelligence and thus she would be in a position to independently pick and choose which intelligence to bring to Trump as president. HE should be terrified that he won’t see every bit of information and consideration going into any decision. What if the U.S. intelligence community has information on just how Russia goes about spying on the U.S.? Shouldn’t Trump be made aware? Perhaps he would be, but why take the risk?

Yes, why take the risk? Inevitably it leads back to Donald Trump and why he made the choice. But having been through one administration, and a post-administration, in which not a single bit of hard evidence appeared that Donald Trump had provable, tangible, issues with Russia, and given the fact that he was elected, it vitiates the whole issue and all ability to really speak to those concerns. I am done making assumptions about Trump’s Russia thing – it was just never proven and it’s time to set it aside to focus on the next problematic entanglement. This is the most powerful under position when it comes to foreign policy and risk to the United States.

If one needed further convincing – and I think I could convince hardened Trump supporters, even – I keep pounding on our relationship with China because I think it is so underappreciated by American voters. It has become almost cliche now to emotionally feel that Trump’s adversaries – like China (He is staunchly anti-China) is somehow friendlier to “us” as Democrats – not even slightly true. On this, the country simply must come together. There is no option.

China represents the biggest direct foreign threat to American interests as well as an indirect corporate menace in stealing commercial secrets that go straight to its military. Consider the fact that China just built a 16-level overpass and sprawling metro system with the deepest tunnel in the world in a city of 32 million that you’ve never even heard of – Chongquing – this is an economic, space, net, and military power that has a record of utterly brutalizing its own minority citizens, and this is our collective adversary. Russia would love to pit us fully against China alone, deflecting from Russia  – and so is it worth the risk that Gubbard might pass along “iffy” intelligence that makes China seem even more nefarious, if for no other reason than as to distract from Russia? It could weaken the American position, put us at risk of armed conflict, set Russia free, all serving Putin’s interests. She would probably not actively intervene to undermine the nation, the threat is more passive – but why take the risk of either one?

Given that a closed door session is so wholly unprecedented, I cannot conceive of a reason to have such a hearing unless there was utterly devastating intelligence against Gabbard. That fact alone – the need to have a closed door secret hearing – is reason enough to nominate someone who at the very least doesn’t require that level of inquiry. The evidence seems more likely than not to exist.

The Pamela Bondi decision is of massive consequences but it’s slightly different. Yes, she has a past in which she took the donation and dropped the Trump University case. Yes, she has spoken at Trump rallies. But she did have a career pre-Trump, she got elected on her own as Florida’s attorney general, and thus there is some hope that she could still exercise some independence and judgment – just run with it momentarily. (As opposed to Gaetz.) She sits possibly as heading up the most powerful domestic position outside the White House. Gabbard has no such independent existence in her career in the House. Even coming up as a Democrat – an entry level requirement in Hawaii – she was still tied to Trump’s rise.

Gabbard and her “pro-Assad” and pro-Russia positions beg for any innocent explanation and I’m at a loss. Last, give me a reason that the Senate wouldn’t hold such a hearing in the face of such a unique request. The office isn’t that old, there is no real tradition of only having open sessions as in other cabinet posts. Perhaps this office should require such a hearing for any nominee. But without regard to future considerations in nominating such a person, Gabbard and that position represent the biggest foreign threat, and there are persecuted lives in Russia, Syria, and China to tug at your heart to consider in whether it would be best to back everyone – including those in the White House, as threatened by Gabbard’s possible compromised position.

Is there any other innocent or sensible explanation? And again, I think the case should inspire even hardened MAGA supporters to really look at whether Gabbard is the one to head that office. Ultimately, Trump’s success depends on the nation’s success – but it’s all threatened by Putin’s genius, motivated by his agenda. This is the office on which to take a stand against another nomination.

God Bless: I can be reached at [email protected] and on X @JasonMiciak, and now on Bluesky.

Support the site with a subscription today and see no more ads!

Go Ad-free Now!