Summary

Republican senators are privately pushing to review Tulsi Gabbard’s FBI file amid concerns about her alignment with Russian interests following her nomination as Trump’s director of national intelligence.

Gabbard’s past support for Edward Snowden, who leaked U.S. state secrets, has drawn particular scrutiny, as has her history of echoing Russian talking points on Ukraine and Syria.

While GOP senators are publicly deferring to Trump’s pick, some, including Sens. Mike Rounds and Susan Collins, emphasize the importance of full background checks and hearings to address potential security risks.

  • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    She very heavily implied it was for bioweapons. Why else would having laboratories be justification for war?

    She 100% supports letting Russia bulldoze Ukraine.

    She’s only anti-war where war is against Russia’s interests.

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      She very heavily implied it was for bioweapons. Why else would having laboratories be justification for war?

      No, she called for an immediate ceasefire at the laboratories as they could spread dangerous pathogens. The World Health Organization made a similar call. Are they all Russian assets too?

      She 100% supports letting Russia bulldoze Ukraine.

      [Citation needed]

      She’s only anti-war where war is against Russia’s interests.

      [Citation needed]


      It sounds like you are regurgitating propaganda without having confirmed any details yourself.

    • ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      like Trump and a lot of Pro MAGA people, their trick is to say things that aren’t explicit so they can lie later and say that’s not what they meant.

      Gabbard and her defenders will take each individual statement or act without context or predecessor and lie claiming that specific instance doesn’t prove anything. They’ll object to putting them all together to make the tapestry they represent.

      I agree that taken each on their own with no context and no history, nothing Gabbard has said or done constitutes evidence of compromise.

      But 20 years of her bullshit makes it absolutely clear that she’s either an asset or a straight up agent.