The “Republicans against Trump” account, that bastion of nuanced political commentary, has once again graced us with their pearls of wisdom. They claim Donald Trump has nominated Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence.
What a revelation! According to these keen observers, she’s not just any ordinary nominee; no, she’s a “known Russian asset” and an “Assad apologist.” Because, naturally, in their world, anyone who doesn’t toe the establishment line or dares to question the narrative must be in Putin’s pocket. And how convenient for Putin, right? He must be rolling in the aisles laughing, counting his rubles for a job well done.
🚨BREAKING: Donald Trump nominates Tulsi Gabbard, a known Russian asset and Bashar al-Assad apologist for Director of National Intelligence.
Putin got what he paid for pic.twitter.com/pGL2xBOInP
— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) November 13, 2024
Here we have a decorated war veteran, a woman who has served her country, being reduced to a caricature in a tweet by those who evidently have never seen daylight beyond their echo chambers. Bravo, you’ve truly outdone yourselves in the art of smear and innuendo.
Even Alexander Vindman got in on the action…
Newsweek: Vindman Calls Gabbard ‘Agent of Russian Disinformation’ After Fox Segment
Alexander Vindman, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, criticized former Representative Tulsi Gabbard, a Hawaii Democrat, over remarks she made Friday about sanctioning Russia in response to its invasion of Ukraine.
Gabbard was filling in as a host on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight when she said that Europe is in a “massive energy crisis right now” because of the sanctions that were placed on Russia, which she described as “nothing short of a modern day siege.”
“This comes at a great cost, but Joe Biden told us ‘hey, this is necessary to defend Ukraine,'” the former congresswoman said, referring to the president’s remarks in February when he said that “defending freedom will have costs for us as well, here at home.”
“You are a liar @TulsiGabbard. You lie for notoriety and self promotion. Worse yet, as an agent of Russian disinformation you promote Russian aggression and endanger America. You have picked a side. Your side is Russia and authoritarianism,” he wrote.
Here is a documented refutation to the claims that Tulsi Gabbard is a “Russian agent”:
1. Lack of Concrete Evidence:
Senate Intelligence Committee Report: Despite extensive investigations into Russian interference in U.S. elections, no credible evidence has been found linking Gabbard directly to Russian intelligence or operations. This includes the Senate Intelligence Committee’s five-year investigation into Russian interference, which, according to posts on X, found no connection between Gabbard and Russia.
2. Clinton’s Accusations:
Legal Action: Tulsi Gabbard responded to Hillary Clinton’s insinuation by filing a $50 million defamation lawsuit in 2020, claiming Clinton’s remarks were part of a smear campaign. Although the lawsuit was withdrawn, it highlighted the lack of direct evidence against Gabbard.
Clarification: Clinton’s comments were later clarified by her spokesperson, Nick Merrill, to be aimed at the Republican Party’s interest in Gabbard as a potential third-party candidate, not an explicit accusation of being a Russian agent. However, the initial remarks were widely interpreted as such, leading to significant controversy.
3. Media and Narrative Analysis:
Media Coverage: Critics argue that the narrative around Gabbard being a Russian asset often relies on innuendo rather than hard evidence. For instance, the New York Times article titled “What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To?” highlighted her popularity among alt-right and libertarian circles, but this association alone does not equate to being an agent of Russia.
Greenwald’s Critique: Journalist Glenn Greenwald on X pointed out the absurdity of such claims, especially given Gabbard’s military service, suggesting that these allegations often stem from political opposition rather than factual basis.
The absolute dumbest people in the world think Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian agent, and that Putin will now control the intelligence apparatus. https://t.co/ksRKE2VZHj
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 13, 2024
4. Gabbard’s Actions and Policies:
Anti-Interventionist Stance: Gabbard’s policies, particularly her anti-interventionism, align with many within the peace movement and not exclusively with Russian interests. Her critique of U.S. foreign policy, especially regarding Syria, has been echoed by various political factions, not just Russian propaganda.
Legislative Record: Her legislative efforts, like co-sponsoring bills to protect election infrastructure from hackers or calling for an independent investigation into Russian election interference, contradict the narrative of her being a Russian agent.
5. Financial Contributions:
Small Donations: The claim that Gabbard received money from a “Russian agent” refers to Elena Branson, who made a total of $59.95 in donations to Gabbard’s campaign. This amount and the lack of any substantial coordinated effort with Russian entities do not suggest significant influence or control over Gabbard’s campaign.
A writer a Mother Jones, not known for their Conservative stance, enters the chat.
Twitter Made Me Do the Unthinkable: Defend Tulsi Gabbard
The Daily Beast yesterday published an article that immediately electrified liberal Twitter. The headline: “Accused Russian Agent Gave to One Politician: Tulsi Gabbard.”
A lot of accounts with blue waves and Ukrainian flags in their bios sprang into action. The former Hawaii congresswoman was quickly labeled a Russian “mole,” a Putin “asset,” and—depressingly—”Tulsi Moscow Gabbard.” Within hours, the story had racked up thousands of retweets and tens of thousands of likes.
This is what the Daily Beast reported: Federal prosecutors are accusing dual Russian-American national Elena Branson (aka Elena Chernykh) of lobbying on behalf of the Kremlin for over a decade without registering to do so. At one point while Gabbard was in Congress, Branson began a lobbying campaign to block a local proposal to change the name of a 19th century Russian fort in Hawaii. During this process, a Kauai County councilwoman emailed the staffer of an unnamed representative (implied, but not confirmed, to be Gabbard), offering to connect the representative with Branson. Nine days later, Branson made two political donations to Tulsi Gabbard. The total amount, mentioned five paragraphs into the article: $59.95.
Tulsi has always been (to put it politely) a bit outside the mainstream. As a representative, she met with vicious Syrian dictator (and Putin ally) Bashar al-Assad and voiced skepticism of allegations that he carried out war crimes. Her shambolic primary campaign reportedly received widespread support from Russian bots and propaganda outlets and garnered plaudits from the likes of Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, Richard Spencer, David Duke, and Mike Cernovich. And since then, she’s leaned into her burgeoning support from the far right, even securing a CPAC speaking slot.
But Gabbard doesn’t have to be a Russian spy to have isolationist foreign policy views, to blame the invasion of Ukraine on the Biden administration and NATO, or even to receive approval from Russian propaganda outlets. (Like it or not, a number of other Americans seem to hold these opinions.) You can call Gabbard wrong, misguided, or bonkers, but a $60 donation from an alleged Russian agent, lobbying to preserve the name of a fort, is not enough to support Manchurian Candidate-style narratives that she’s somehow on Putin’s payroll.
6. Political Independence:
Party Critique: Gabbard’s criticism of both the Democratic and Republican parties, her departure from the Democratic Party, and her subsequent alignment with some conservative views further illustrate her independence, which does not align with the image of a controlled agent.
7. Public and Political Figures’ Defense:
Support from Across the Aisle: Her military service and political positions have been defended by figures across the political spectrum. For example, former President Donald Trump has praised her, and even some Democrats, like Bernie Sanders, have vouched for her integrity.
USA Today: Bernie Sanders defends Tulsi Gabbard, says claim that she’s a Russian asset is ‘outrageous’
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has added his name to the list of lawmakers defending fellow 2020 presidential candidate, Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, after 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton suggested she was a “favorite” of the Russian government..
“Tulsi Gabbard has put her life on the line to defend this country,” Sanders said in a tweet Monday. “People can disagree on issues, but it is outrageous for anyone to suggest that Tulsi is a foreign asset.”
8. Russian Media Attention:
Amplification vs. Agent: While Russian media like RT have covered Gabbard positively, this does not equate to her being an agent. Russian propaganda often amplifies narratives that align with their interests, but many politicians have experienced similar coverage without accusations of being agents.
Conclusion:
The baseless allegations branding Tulsi Gabbard as a “Russian agent” are nothing short of a political witch hunt, a desperate, low-brow tactic employed by those who can’t handle a woman with the audacity to question their sacred cows. It’s the classic move of the politically bankrupt: if you can’t debate on policy, you smear with insinuation. Her critics, unable to face the mirror of their own failed foreign policies, resorted to painting her with the brush of foreign allegiance, conveniently forgetting her service to this nation, her legislative record, or the simple fact that in America, having a different view isn’t a crime—it’s called democracy.
These accusations seem to be the last refuge for those whose arguments are as empty as their moral compass. To claim Gabbard is a Russian puppet is not just a leap of logic; it’s a dive into the abyss of political desperation. It’s an insult to the intelligence of the American public and a slap in the face to anyone who has served this country. Gabbard’s critics, particularly within the Democratic establishment, have shown themselves to be more interested in character assassination than in engaging in substantive political discourse.
Their narrative is nothing more than a concoction of innuendo, thinly veiled by the guise of national security, when in reality, it’s about silencing dissent. It’s about painting anyone who dares to critique the status quo as an enemy of the state. But let’s call it what it is: a smear campaign, a political vendetta, and an affront to the principles of free speech and independent thought. Those who propagate this hoax deserve the contempt of history for their willingness to undermine a fellow American for political gain.