Forum

You are not going to believe where the evidence is pointing to, but it appears all paths lead to one kingpin of power and influence, not only in the swamp but across the globe!

In a dramatic turn that reads more like a political thriller than a routine oversight action, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has ignited a political firestorm with her latest move: a criminal referral to the Department of Justice (DOJ) targeting unnamed Obama-era officials over the controversial 2016 Russia election interference assessment.

The shockwaves from this revelation are reverberating not just through the intelligence community but also through the legacy of the “Russia Hoax,” a term President Donald Trump has long used to describe the investigation into his campaign’s alleged ties to Moscow.

Could Brennan or Comey have acted independently? Or were they, as some conspiracy-minded critics have long claimed, operating under the tacit or explicit direction of even higher officials, perhaps even from the Oval Office during Barack Obama’s final year in power?

Will the DOJ discover Barack Obama was the kingpin to one of the greatest hoaxes in history? Let's just say, Obama better lawyer up and fast.

Within days the DOJ will come to the bottom of the hoax, and it just may lead all the way up to Barack Obama, but then again, he too could have been played. We’ll find out!

Our hats are off to Tulsi Gabbard; she is going after the truth at light speed. Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman and one-time presidential candidate, declassified a series of documents on Friday that she claims point to deliberate manipulation of intelligence by top officials in the Obama administration. The purpose? According to Gabbard, it was to fabricate a justification for the FBI’s surveillance and investigation of the Trump campaign.

“The American people deserve to know the truth,” Gabbard wrote in a fiery social media post. “I am turning over all documents to the DOJ for criminal referral.”

While the names of the officials in her sights were not disclosed, speculation quickly turned to familiar figures: former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey. Notably, both are already reportedly under scrutiny from the FBI for allegedly making false statements to Congress. This latest referral could mark a significant escalation and perhaps the clearest signal yet that the once-dismissed claims of politicization inside intelligence agencies may now be facing legal accountability.

In this week’s interview, Steve Eichler, JD, founder of the Patriot Command Center, said, “It’s like following a trail of bread crumbs. Crumb by crumb, the path gets ever closer to the possible perpetrators of this hoax, and it’s not looking good for several high-profile officials.”

What makes this development even more compelling is how it aligns with earlier efforts by former CIA Director and now-CIA whistleblower John Ratcliffe, who also declassified intelligence suggesting internal dissent and potential fabrication in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). That assessment, widely touted by media and Democratic officials, concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

Gabbard and others allege that it was never a clear-cut consensus and may have been driven more by politics than raw intelligence.

If proven true, this could mean the roots of the “Russia Hoax” weren't planted by Russian hackers or shadowy oligarchs, but by high-ranking officials in Washington.

In light of these developments, some are beginning to speculate that the so-called “kingpin” behind the Russia hoax may not be a spy in Moscow but a political operator much closer to home.

Gabbard hasn’t named names yet. However, if Gabbard's criminal referral is supported by credible evidence, it could be the initial step towards what many Trump supporters perceive as a long-overdue reckoning.

Democrats have responded swiftly, accusing Gabbard of “rewriting history.” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, pointed to the committee’s own bipartisan 2020 report that reaffirmed the ICA’s findings and dismissed allegations of politicization. Connecticut Representative Jim Himes echoed those sentiments, insisting that “every legitimate investigation” has supported the original 2016 assessment.

However, critics argue that Gabbard’s disclosures suggest something very different, that the foundational documents of those investigations may themselves be strangely tainted.

While special counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe ended without major convictions, it did reveal troubling lapses in FBI procedure, including the falsification of surveillance documents. Now, with Gabbard’s declassifications and referral, new light may be cast on whether those lapses were incompetence or intentional.

In the background of all these developments looms a broader question: If intelligence was politicized to derail a presidential campaign or to later delegitimize a presidency, what does that mean for future elections and public trust in U.S. institutions?

The narrative surrounding Russian interference and Trump’s alleged collusion has dominated American political life for nearly a decade. But if Tulsi Gabbard’s allegations prove accurate, the real scandal may not be about foreign meddling but domestic betrayal.

Final Word: If suspicions hold true, the Russia Hoax mystery may rewrite history, and it will not be pretty.