BREAKING: DNI Gabbard Reveals Evidence Showing The Obama Team…
Tulsi Gabbard, the former Democratic congresswoman turned independent firebrand, has ignited a buzz with her bombshell accusations against Barack Obama and his intelligence chiefs, alleging they orchestrated a “treasonous conspiracy” to fabricate the Trump-Russia collusion narrative after the 2016 election.
Get uncensored news—follow us on Rumble!
Gabbard, now serving as the Director of National Intelligence, released a blistering memo accusing top Obama-era officials, including James Comey, John Brennan, and James Clapper, of systematically weaponizing the intelligence community to undermine Donald Trump’s presidency.
“The American people deserve the truth,” Gabbard declared in the memo. “What happened in 2016 was not a defense of democracy; it was an attack on it, executed from within by those entrusted to protect it.”
According to Gabbard, the alleged conspiracy began the moment Trump won the 2016 election, triggering panic within the Obama administration.
Instead of ensuring a peaceful transfer of power, senior officials, she contends, mobilized to delegitimize the incoming president.
The memo outlines a calculated campaign involving the suppression of contradictory intelligence and the dissemination of discredited sources like the Steele dossier, long since debunked as partisan propaganda.
Gabbard labeled the operation a “years-long coup” designed to corrode the foundations of American democracy by falsely branding Trump a foreign agent.
“These officials betrayed the Constitution,” she wrote, “and they must be held accountable.”
She has formally submitted the memo and related classified documents to the Department of Justice, urging federal prosecutors to open criminal cases against those involved in what she terms “the greatest internal betrayal in U.S. history.”
Donald Trump, who has long railed against the so-called “Russia hoax,” welcomed Gabbard’s revelations with full-throated approval. “They finally got caught,” he said, calling it “the exposure of thugs.”
Trump’s endorsement further solidified Gabbard’s standing within the America First movement, elevating her from dissident Democrat to conservative hero.
Conservative leaders and Trump allies have rallied around her findings, demanding congressional hearings and special counsel investigations into the conduct of Obama-era officials.
Despite the gravity of the charges, establishment media outlets have mostly downplayed the memo’s release. Meanwhile, online conservative communities have hailed it as the smoking gun vindicating Trump’s long-standing claims.
Predictably, Democratic leaders have dismissed Gabbard’s accusations. Senator Mark Warner, Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, responded bluntly, saying Gabbard is “not competent” to assess the evidence.
Warner reaffirmed the committee’s conclusion that Russia actively interfered in the 2016 election, despite admitting there was no tampering with vote tallies.
“This isn’t just about misinformation,” Warner added. “It’s an assault on the integrity of our institutions.”
The memo, however, directly challenges that narrative. Gabbard claims that declassified documents show the Obama administration had intelligence indicating Russia played no role in altering the 2016 election outcome.
Critics on the left accuse Gabbard of stoking conspiracy theories to curry favor with MAGA voters, even suggesting the memo is a distraction from other political scandals.
But her supporters say she’s courageously pulling back the curtain on a coordinated assault against the people’s will and the peaceful transition of power.
“This is bigger than Watergate,” one Trump advisor said. “This was treason, plain and simple, and it came from the very top.”
BOMBSHELL: The Minnesota Assassin Told FBI That Tim Walz Wanted Him to K*ll Amy Klobuchar
Vance Luther Boelter, the man accused of a violent killing spree in Minnesota, reportedly left behind a chilling confession letter that made explosive accusations against Governor Tim Walz.
Get uncensored news—follow us on Rumble!
The letter, sent to the FBI, claimed that Walz personally ordered Boelter to assassinate Senator Amy Klobuchar.
The motive? According to Boelter, it was so Walz could eventually take her seat in the U.S. Senate.
While the mainstream media has rushed to dismiss the letter as “rambling” and “incoherent,” the accusations are too serious to ignore. This is not the time for spin or damage control.
According to the New York Post, Boelter was “once appointed to a Minnesota state panel by Walz” but later expressed support for former President Trump.
He reportedly held pro-life views and was seen as politically conservative.
Boelter allegedly wrote, “Walz promised I would be protected if I carried out the job. He told me that the mission was critical to the future of Minnesota’s leadership.”
In the letter, Boelter detailed what he described as covert training and preparation. He claimed that he was given “support and instructions” on how to carry out the hit.
“He said it would be patriotic,” Boelter reportedly wrote. “That it was necessary for the safety and future of the party. He said Klobuchar had become a liability.”
The claims are bizarre, but what’s more bizarre is the reaction from the press. Instead of investigating the content of the letter, most outlets rushed to paint Boelter as mentally ill.
The Star Tribune called the letter “incoherent and hard to follow.” They focused entirely on Boelter’s mental health and history of delusion, ignoring the seriousness of accusing a sitting governor of orchestrating political violence.
There has been no indication that the FBI will investigate the claims. Instead, law enforcement insists there is “no evidence” linking Walz to any plot.
That may be true, but isn’t it the FBI’s job to investigate allegations like this thoroughly before ruling them out?
A sitting governor being named in a politically motivated murder plot should at least trigger a full-scale investigation. But when Democrats are named, investigations tend to disappear overnight.
If the roles were reversed, and a conservative governor had been named in a letter like this, it would be wall-to-wall coverage for weeks.
The press would demand accountability. The FBI would be pressured to investigate every sentence in that letter. But with Walz involved, the media machine has gone quiet.
Boelter’s family has not commented publicly, but a relative told KARE 11, “He always seemed paranoid about politics. But none of us ever thought he’d act on it.”
That quote is being used to discredit the letter, but it also shows that Boelter was obsessed with political leadership. Could he have been manipulated?
“Once Tesla fully solves autonomy and has Optimus in volume production, anyone still holding a short position will be obliterated, even Gates,” Musk tweeted, further highlighting his confidence in Tesla’s ability to dominate the future of energy and automation.
While the motive remains unclear, the silence from Minnesota officials is deafening. Why is Walz not addressing the accusation directly?
The people of Minnesota deserve answers. At the very least, the governor should acknowledge the claim and call for a full investigation to clear his name.
Supreme Court Deals Massive Win to Trump
The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major legal victory on Thursday, ruling 6–3 to severely limit the ability of federal judges to block his policies nationwide. The decision represents a dramatic shift in judicial power, curbing the far-left’s favorite tactic of using friendly courts to grind the Trump agenda to a halt.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett ruled in favor of Trump’s legal team in Trump v. CASA, a case involving his executive order that challenged birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.
In the majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote, “District courts have equitable authority to grant relief only to the parties before them. They do not possess a roving commission to issue injunctions affecting nonparties nationwide.”
The ruling effectively bars lower court judges from issuing universal injunctions that apply beyond the plaintiffs involved, a strategy that left-wing groups have long used to stall conservative policies.
“Federal courts are not designed to exercise legislative power,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch in a concurring opinion. “They are to resolve cases and controversies—not to issue edicts for the entire country based on the claims of a few.”
This landmark decision is already being celebrated by constitutional conservatives as a long-overdue reining in of activist judges who have repeatedly blocked Trump’s orders during both of his terms.
“This is a massive win for the rule of law,” said Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network. “The courts are finally putting a stop to the abuse of universal injunctions that have been weaponized by the left.”
The case stems from Executive Order 14160, signed by Trump earlier this year, which declares that children born to illegal immigrants on U.S. soil are not automatically granted citizenship unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful resident.
Although lower courts blocked the policy immediately, this ruling restricts their ability to do so broadly. The injunction now only applies to the original plaintiffs, not to the entire country.
“This ruling is a victory for accountability,” said Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), a longtime critic of nationwide injunctions. “Liberal activists in black robes will no longer be able to override the will of the American people from one courtroom.”
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately to emphasize that such injunctions were never contemplated by the Founders. “Universal injunctions find no support in the history of equity jurisprudence,” he stated. “They distort our constitutional structure.”
While the policy concerning birthright citizenship remains partially blocked, the Court gave the Biden-appointed lower courts 30 days to restructure their rulings and consider class-action alternatives, stripping them of the power to obstruct nationwide.
Liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, expressing concern that the ruling limits the judiciary’s ability to act swiftly against what they view as unlawful executive overreach.
“This decision will make it more difficult for courts to protect rights,” Justice Sotomayor wrote, ignoring the fact that the ruling simply restores proper judicial limits.
The Washington Post reluctantly admitted, “The decision means lower courts cannot immediately halt enforcement of the executive order nationwide,” a bitter pill for left-wing groups who have relied on that power.
Reuters observed, “The court’s conservative majority has repeatedly criticized the widespread use of universal injunctions,” and noted this was a “significant victory” for Trump.
Al Jazeera reacted with dismay, calling the decision “explosive” and warning it could lead to “a patchwork of policies across jurisdictions”—precisely the balance of powers our Constitution intended.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) grumbled that the ruling “potentially allows partial enforcement of Trump’s birthright citizenship order,” proving that the left understands what’s at stake.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh underscored the point in a concurrence, writing, “A judge’s job is not to dictate national policy. It is to resolve legal disputes between named parties.”
This decision marks another major victory for Trump as the Supreme Court wraps up its term, reinforcing his commitment to restoring constitutional order after years of leftist judicial activism.
Trump supporters hailed the outcome as a blow to the activist left. “This sends a message: rogue judges can no longer hijack national policy with a single pen stroke,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch.
Constitutional law professor Ilya Shapiro said, “The Court finally clipped the wings of lower courts that have been acting like mini-legislatures. This restores balance.”
The ruling could affect future challenges to Trump’s executive orders, from border enforcement to student visa policies and the ongoing war against the deep state.
More importantly, it sends a signal that the days of judge-shopping for liberal outcomes are over. Trump’s Supreme Court justices have delivered on what they promised: constitutional restraint and common sense.
