Forum

The @WSJ claims DNI Gabbard “stalled” a whistleblower complaint.

The facts tell the truth.👇 

WSJ leads with: “An intelligence official has alleged wrongdoing…” But buried 13 paragraphs down: The Biden-Era inspector general determined the allegations weren’t credible.

Let’s be clear: The complaint against the DNI FAILED credibility review. 

WSJ claims the DNI’s office “hindered dissemination.”

FACTS:
-Security guidance was provided
-The ICIG—not the DNI—manages delivery to the Hill
-Coordination with Congress is already underway

As outlined in the ICIG’s letter, @DNIGabbard followed the law—immediately. Once notified of the technical requirement to provide security guidance:

DNI Gabbard:
-Acted immediately
-Delivered what was required
-Supported lawful whistleblower channels
-Even for a complaint deemed baseless 

NO “cloak-and-dagger mystery.” WSJ calls this “reminiscent of a John le Carré novel.” In reality, it's a routine classified handling protocol.

Secure storage. Restricted access. Controlled transmission.

These aren’t theatrics. It’s mandatory safeguards used across the Intelligence Community every day to protect national security. Calling standard compliance “spycraft” doesn’t reveal wrongdoing. 

@DNIGabbard Andrew Bakaj, the whistleblower’s attorney, is NO neutral actor. He’s a partisan advocate with a documented history of advancing complaints against Trump-era officials.⤵️ 

@DNIGabbard Bakaj’s Record:
-Counsel on multiple politically charged complaints
-Former Democratic Hill staffer
-Publicly frames cases as fights against the administration

So when @WSJ relies heavily on his claims, that’s not journalism—it’s opposition research dressed up as reporting. 

@DNIGabbard @WSJ Instead of reporting facts, @WSJ built a narrative. Sourcing the same partisan voices, omitting key findings, and repeating speculation until it looked like news.

Readers deserve better.

@DNIGabbard @WSJ 🔗