/ Proud member of the 
...
Posted on 07/24/2025 6:57:11 AM PDT by Red Badger
Fox News, owned by the anti-Trump Murdoch family, spotlighted an article on Thursday by Ned Price. It was intended to debunk the bombshell reports being dropped by DNI Tulsi Gabbard regarding the Obama regime’s involvement in the Russiagate conspiracy.
Price is the former spokesman for Joe Biden’s State Department, a role he took after his career as a CIA officer. Those facts alone should ring alarm bells about the veracity of his op-ed. Many members of the Biden administration have been named in Gabbard’s drops, and while Price is not among them, he has worked closely with them as a “Deep State Spokesman” for many years.
What makes it worse is that the article is a pure propaganda piece. It’s not a straight-up op-ed that expresses Price’s views about Gabbard’s motivations or integrity. It’s a carefully written smear that states as “facts” what are clearly ambiguous and easily debunkable pieces of disinformation.
For example, the first “big” piece of “evidence” that Barack Obama was not involved in the plot to subvert the Trump administration is that he congratulated President Trump after the election.
Wow. Definitive.
He then applies the demonstrably effective CIA propaganda techniques of framing Gabbard’s claims as “not substantiated” and “sleight of hand” and “conflating” terms. In tradecraft circles, this is dropping a rhetorical smoke grenade. They don’t deny the report. They deny the interpretation of the report in hopes that the audience never actually reads it.
Most won’t.
But those of us who did read it are aware that there is no “sleight of hand” being used. It’s crystal clear based on the facts gathered by the United States Senate oversight investigation that Obama and his senior team knew the Russia interference claims were likely false before releasing them. As a matter of fact, both Price and legacy media are doing the “conflating” by saying Russia “hacked” the 2016 election when the report indicates they were simply sowing chaos, just as they do in every election.
Vladimir Putin appears to have not only prepared for a Hillary Clinton victory, but actually preferred it. Why? Because the report indicates Russia has “dirt” on Clinton and could have used it to influence American foreign policy.
Price then went on to disparage Gabbard’s character. This is the same technique they’ve used in the latter days of her political career when it was clear she was not going to be an obedient Democrat puppet. They wanted her out then and they want her out now.
And, of course, Price brought up Jeffrey Epstein. Because… why not?
I asked Grok to test the veracity of Price’s article. Here’s what the AI came up with…
Unpacking the Fox News Hit Piece: Why Tulsi Gabbard’s 2016 Election Revelations Are Grounded in Evidence, Not Revisionism The recent Fox News opinion article, penned by a former CIA officer from the Obama administration, accuses Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard of peddling “revisionist history” and creating a “dangerous distraction” by highlighting declassified documents that challenge the narrative of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The piece claims Gabbard conflates “hacking” (altering votes) with “influence” (propaganda efforts), insists the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) of January 2017 was accurate and unbiased, and dismisses her allegations of a “treasonous conspiracy” by Obama-era officials as unsubstantiated.
However, a closer examination of declassified materials, investigative reports, and historical context reveals that Gabbard’s disclosures are far from conspiratorial fiction—they expose legitimate flaws in the ICA and evidence of politicization within the intelligence community.
Gabbard’s core claim—that Obama administration officials “buried” intelligence showing Russia did not intend or achieve election hacking while manufacturing a broader conspiracy narrative—is supported by declassified documents. In 2020, then-DNI John Ratcliffe released Russian intelligence notes indicating Hillary Clinton approved a plan in July 2016 to fabricate a scandal linking Trump to Russian election interference as a distraction from her email controversies.
These notes, briefed to Obama and top officials like John Brennan, suggest the “Russia hoax” originated as a Clinton campaign tactic, not organic intelligence. Recent declassifications under Gabbard, including over 100 pages from late 2016, reveal consistent pre-election assessments that Russia “probably not trying to influence the election by using cyber means,” yet the January 2017 ICA flipped this to portray a directed Kremlin effort. A declassified House report from July 2025 further details how the ICA suppressed contradictory intelligence, politicizing findings to fuel investigations like Crossfire Hurricane.
The John Durham report, released in 2023, substantiates these criticisms by exposing FBI misconduct in launching the Russia probe based on unverified tips, including the Steele dossier, without proper scrutiny. Durham found the FBI ignored exculpatory evidence and relied on biased sources, echoing Gabbard’s assertion of weaponized intelligence. Even the Senate Intelligence Committee’s bipartisan review, while endorsing the ICA’s core findings, acknowledged procedural concerns and noted the assessment could have better contextualized prior elections.
Critics from across the spectrum, including former CIA analysts, have questioned the ICA’s high-confidence claims on Putin’s preferences, with NSA expressing only moderate confidence. Snippets from diverse sources indicate the “influence” campaign’s scale was often exaggerated; for instance, Russian troll farms reached limited audiences, and studies show minimal impact on voter behavior.
The Fox piece dismisses Gabbard’s motives as a distraction from Trump administration scandals like the Epstein files, but this ignores her consistent stance on the issue. In 2024 statements, Gabbard highlighted declassified evidence of Obama-era manipulation, aligning with her 2025 releases as DNI. Recent X posts reflect ongoing discussions, with users like @VigilantFox amplifying her claims of a “Russia Collusion Hoax” tied to Obama.
While left-leaning outlets like FactCheck.org label her “coup” rhetoric misleading, they concede no direct vote alteration occurred, focusing instead on defending the ICA’s influence conclusions. Balanced views from Wikipedia and NPR acknowledge the “hoax” narrative as a counter to investigations but note Soviet-era precedents and U.S. involvement in foreign elections, complicating claims of unprecedented Russian meddling.
Ultimately, Gabbard’s revelations aren’t revisionist—they build on established criticisms from Durham, Ratcliffe, and internal reviews, exposing how the 2016 narrative may have been inflated for political gain. Dismissing them as distraction ignores substantiated evidence of intelligence politicization, undermining trust in the very institutions the Fox author defends. As Gabbard has urged, these documents deserve scrutiny, not scorn, to safeguard future elections from real manipulation—domestic or foreign.
Not bad, Grok.
Here’s the article. It’s exceptionally well-written from a propaganda perspective. Why is Fox News not only posting it but shining a spotlight on it? Because they hate President Trump, they hate Tulsi Gabbard, and they envision an America under permanent Democrat rule.
Bidenskyyyyy scumbags have no credibility. Especially if they worked for the Biden FBI or CIA.
/ Proud member of the ...
Think about this, h-a-r-d.
<><>Trump and his allies have already been indicted, tried, and in some cases, convicted
<><>they’re paying for the exact same core crime now facing Barack Obama.
<><>Trump’s earlier NY conviction was explicitly framed as an “election interference” scheme.
<><>Jack Smith’s federal case centered on “election interference”
<><>the methodology was obstruction and conspiracy.
<><>The Trump indictments in Georgia? Election interference.
<><>And Trump’s “co-conspirators” have already pled guilty in the “Fake Electors” case—
<><>all were charged with conspiracy to interfere with the outcome of a presidential election.
<><>ergo, the legal system has already established “election interference”
<><>”election interference” is a jailable offense for former presidents and their colluders.
<><>The precedent is not a law school hypothetical. It’s already case law.
<><>Will there be an Obama arrest? The better question is: why wouldn’t there be an arrest?
Ned, nice try, major fail.
I stopped watching Fox when they disallowed any mention of the steal and canned Tucker.
Now that these documents are being released by Tulsi, we can confirm what we already knew - the J6ers were true American patriots trying to stop a completely corrupt deep state from overthrowing our government. They all deserve Congressional Medals of Honor and the highest of recognition for putting eveyrthing on the line to stop the traitors (who STILL have not been held accountable for their treason!)
It’s not like we didn’t live through it and watched it.
Bits and pieces picked up through the years, we pretty much knew what happened, but this time we have some proof
Skin color, and personal library full of Marx and Mohammad.
“Why is Fox News not only posting it but shining a spotlight on it?”
That’s an easy answer . Murdoch owns Fox News and WSJ. Trump is suing WSJ.
Murdoch doesn’t run the news organization day to day operations but as owner, I’m sure as owner he can get anything published.
Ted Cruz Explains Why Obama’s Immunity As President Isn’t Absolute
<><>Cruz disagreed with the notion that Obama — or any president,is protected
<><>b/c the USSC has said “official decisions” are protected by official immunity.
<><>So if Obama ordered a drone strike, he cannot be prosecuted because that was an “official action.”
<><>Cruz said this presidential immunity is not limitless.
<><>Host Laura Ingraham asked if what Obama allegedly did was an official decision.
<><>”he’s not going to be prosecuted for treason.”
<><>”the charge has been changed to “seditious conspiracy.”
<><>his criminal liability starts with members of his admin lied to Congress.
<><>”We know Jim Clapper has lied repeatedly. And that will be the beginning of the investigation.”
Gabbard said Wednesday that she had referred Obama to the Justice Department for potential prosecution. The charge is “seditious conspiracy.”
Yesterday as I was flicking through the news channels: Bret Baier and his panel wanted to know why was Trump bringing up the alleged crimes by Obama, when everything else was doing so well? Revenge? I immediately, switched to something else.
Yep, terrible. And the USA Today political shrew was pathetic, Katie had to slap her down.
<><>Will there be an Obama arrest? The better question is: why wouldn’t there be an arrest?
....
If oaths are real, enemies foreign and domestic sum up the Obama Administration.
FOX NEWS, the new CNN.
Brennan even looks evil.
Yesterday, Fox News aired Tulsi Gabbard’s entire statement, and it nailed Obama to the wall for his role in “Russia-gate”!
The Murdoch family, starting with Rupert, are open-borders globalists who loathe President Trump and everything he stands for.
Fox News is anything but conservative. It’s a ruse to fool people and garner ratings.
A former CIA agent is likely to be an accomplished liar. I wonder who gave him the go ahead to write this piece. If the case is an ongoing conspiracy, isn’t old Ned a part of the continued public lies and cover ups?
Further out on the limb….
Gabbana is just getting started. She knows how to get the IC on the defensive. Release a few bombs and let them react. After about 5 of these releases, the corrupt media will give up and report the semi truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.