Tulsi Gabbard — More files will be released tomorrow that directly refute the statement by Obama.
“We will be pulling a whole host of statements made by the Obama administration…that state over and over again, after this Jan. 2017 manufactured intel document was created, that repeat the narrative…Russian hackers worked to aid Trump in the election.”
“Obama CIA Director John Brennan said there’s strong consensus to support the CIA claim Russian hackers aided Donald Trump’s election.”
“There is a VAST body of evidence and intelligence that debunks and refutes this statement.” – @TulsiGabbard
https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1947802718510227853
1 minute
AND
INTEL CONFIRMED: She has just acknowledged the forthcoming declassification of additional documents later this week.
We have now officially entered the DECLASSIFICATION PHASE of the operation.
This is not about speed—it’s about strategic sequencing. The objective is to methodically expose the architecture of corruption while giving the uninitiated public (the “normies”) sufficient time to process and internalize the scope of what’s being revealed.
?Next stop: Prosecutions. But understand—this is a phased attritional campaign, not a rapid assault. Precision matters. Optics matter. Timing is everything.
Remain patient. Hold the line. This is a battlefield of perception—and we are winning.
Russian hackers”
Well, this means it SHOULD BE time to reveal what FBI knows about Seth Rich.
Was that hacked, or did an insider pull the Podesta emails?
And, it should mean its time to talk to Julian Assange.
If we don’t hear from them both, then we are not getting the full picture.
PS … re 9/11, I’ll bet 95% of the pre event IC reporting would have said there is no evidence that Saudi Arabian terrorists were plotting an attack. But if a very small minority did, they would have been right.
Meaning, preponderances of reporting one way or another never forecloses the opposite being the reality when it comes down to a singular event. Ie, what specific knowledge flipped the assessment, contrary to the preponderance of contrary evidence?
THEN … you have to go back and assess who knew what when about The Dossier?
I think there was some evidence that was known to be false as well.
But then it comes down to who was duped and who was in on the scam?
That all is going to leave room for plausible denials.