The Rotten Core of a Manufactured Scandal
Image: IOL / Ron AI
Did President Barack Obama play a role in the fabrication of the Russia collusion narrative? According to former Representative Tulsi Gabbard—once a rising star within the Democratic Party and now a gadfly for political truth—the answer is unequivocally yes. More than that, Gabbard suggests the Obama administration orchestrated a 'treasonous conspiracy' in 2016, one that weaponised the intelligence community and buried exculpatory findings that contradicted their desired political outcome.
Let us not pretend this charge is light. A 'treasonous conspiracy' suggests not merely malfeasance but a betrayal of the public trust at the highest levels of government. If these allegations are true—and the declassified documents and testimonies increasingly suggest they are—then we are dealing with one of the most corrosive abuses of power in American history. And yet, predictably, the usual suspects in the Democratic Party and their allies in corporate media have denounced these revelations not with evidence, but with noise.
Men like Adam Schiff, the architect and chief propagandist of the Russia hoax, have long enjoyed the luxury of consequence-free deception. Schiff assured the nation, repeatedly and confidently, that he had 'direct evidence' of collusion between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin's government. No such evidence ever materialised. None. Instead, what we received was a years-long investigation—one that disrupted a presidency, undermined international credibility, and cost the American taxpayers tens of millions—only to conclude there was no collusion.
The Mueller Report confirmed it. The Durham investigation exposed the rot. And yet, the architects of the lie remain untouched, their reputations defended by a press that long ago abandoned its role as watchdog in favour of partisan priesthood.
What Gabbard alleges, however, takes this abuse of power a step further. According to her review of intelligence findings—now echoed by former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe—the original assessments from our intelligence community clearly stated that Russia's efforts had no material effect on the outcome of the 2016 election. In other words, while Russia may have engaged in cyber-meddling and online influence operations (as every major power does), it had no decisive impact on voting outcomes. That should have been the headline. Instead, it was buried.
Why? Because truth was inconvenient to power. Because the narrative of Russian interference served a political end: to delegitimise Trump's presidency before it even began. What followed was not a sober investigation into foreign threats, but a coordinated disinformation campaign by our own intelligence apparatus at the urging of political elites. It was, as Former US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia might argue, an affront not merely to the legal process but to the very idea of republican government.
In Morrison v. Olson, Justice Scalia famously dissented alone, warning against the creation of a fourth branch of government—unaccountable bureaucracies with the power to influence political outcomes. 'A government of laws, and not of men,' he wrote, 'means that our rulers are bound by the law, just as the governed are.' Yet here we are, in 2024, looking back at a moment when our rulers were the law—when intelligence agencies were pressured into revising their own conclusions to align with political imperatives.
This is not a conspiracy theory. This is the documented history of the modern American state. It is what happens when ideology becomes the lens through which evidence is interpreted, and when political expediency outweighs constitutional restraint.
And now, with Trump poised for a potential return to the White House, the fear among Democrats is palpable. Not because of what Trump might do in the future, but because of what he might uncover from the past. This is the nightmare scenario for the left—not a second Trump term, but a reckoning with the truth. The emails, the memos, the redacted reports—they may not remain buried for much longer.
Gabbard is right to call it treasonous. Whether that charge meets the legal standard or not is almost beside the point. What matters is that Americans were lied to by their own government—systematically, persistently, and with great sophistication. As Thomas Sowell has often warned: 'It is hard to imagine a more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.'
The question now is whether anyone will be held accountable. Or whether, once again, we will look the other way while the powerful write a different version of history—one where the truth is not merely inconvenient, but disposable.
Did President Obama play a role in fabricating the Russia collusion narrative? Former Representative Tulsi Gabbard claims he did, suggesting a treasonous conspiracy that weaponised the intelligence community.
Image: IOL
* Armstrong Williams (www.armstrongwilliams.com; @arightside) is a political analyst, syndicated columnist and owner of the broadcasting company, Howard Stirk Holdings. He is also part owner of The Baltimore Sun.
** The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Independent Media or IOL.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
5 hours ago
- The Star
Trump's Tariffs Must Sow the Seeds for a National Reawakening
Zamikhaya Maseti | Published 9 hours ago Zamikhaya Maseti On August 1, 2025 , South Africa will enter a zone of strategic economic pain, engineered not by global market fluctuations, but by the vengeful hands of conservative economic nationalism. The United States, under the reins of Donald J. Trump, will impose a 30 per cent tariff on all goods and products exported from South Africa to the American markets. This is not a policy of trade readjustment; it is a geoeconomic act of hostility. The justification, wrapped in the language of " reciprocity, " is in reality a strategic blow aimed at disciplining South Africa's geopolitical posture and diplomatic boldness. Trump's economic nationalism, which sits at the ideological centre of Conservative Republicanism, is not merely inward-looking. It is punitive, retaliatory, and profoundly regressive. It has shaken the global trade architecture, not to recalibrate it, but to bend it in favour of America's new mercantilist order. This doctrine does not merely target trade imbalances; it punishes defiance. South Africa is now paying the price for standing on principle, particularly for its posture on Palestine and its landmark case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. It is clear, painfully so, that South Africa is being economically strangled not for what it trades, but for what it believes. Some Western analysts, ever keen to defend the status quo, will dispute this. They will search for economic rationality in an act that is blatantly political. Let them continue their intellectual gymnastics. This moment calls for clarity, not politeness. The truth is that Trump's worldview is transactional and tribal, and in that logic, South Africa has become collateral. That South Africa is seen as an irritant in Washington's new world order is not coincidental; it is structural. And let it be said without fear, Trump's policy on South Africa is influenced not only by economic calculations but by the mythologies peddled by actors like AfriForum and Elon Musk, who have exported the lie of white genocide into America's political bloodstream. But this is not the time for victimhood, nor is it the moment for diplomatic lamentation. It is time for South Africa to do some difficult thinking and embrace a new, muscular pragmatism . Diplomatic efforts, however noble, are unlikely to change Trump's position. Minister Parks Tau and his diplomatic team may work tirelessly, but they are facing a political machine that does not respond to nuance. Trump's narrative is fixed , and in that narrative, South Africa is an unfriendly trading partner whose tariffs harm American interests. He argues, correctly or not, that South African import duties and market access protocols are unfavourable to US goods. That argument, however flawed, resonates with his domestic base, and therefore it will stand. The United States will not blink , and it will not backtrack . Thus, it is not sufficient for South Africa to hope against hope; it must respond. Minister Parks Tau, trade envoys, and industrial leaders must now do the hard intellectual and strategic labour of repositioning the country's economic posture. Nowhere is this urgency more pressing than in the automotive sector, a critical node of South Africa's manufacturing ecosystem. This sector is not only a source of direct jobs; it sustains a complex web of downstream industries, from component manufacturing and logistics to retail and after-market services. It is here that the 30 per cent tariff will hit hardest, and it is here that innovation, not inertia, must be summoned . The sector must accept that the American market , for the foreseeable future, has lost ground. The time has come for South Africa to pivot decisively toward other markets, especially those aligned with its economic diplomacy ambitions. The first option lies in the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), the single largest integrated market on the continent , and the largest globally by number of countries. With over 1.3 billion people and a combined GDP exceeding $3.4 trillion, the AfCFTA offers South Africa a natural and politically friendly trading space. Sub-Saharan Africa, in particular, presents high-value demand for affordable, durable automotive products, especially among its emerging middle classes and youthful populations. Research shows that more than 60 per cent of the region's population is under the age of 25, representing a long-term demand curve that is not speculative, but empirically grounded. Yet, South African companies have been slow to leverage this opportunity. There remains an unhealthy fog of Afro-pessimism and the lingering delusion of South African exceptionalism. These intellectual blindfolds must be cast aside . Africa is not a dumping ground; it is a destination for growt h. The automotive industry must shift from waiting for trade to come to it and instead begin creating strategic partnerships in East, West, and Central Africa. This includes setting up joint ventures, service hubs, and low-cost satellite assembly plants across regional economic communities. The second and equally strategic option lies in a new industrial partnership with China. The presence and popularity of Chinese-made vehicles in the South African domestic market has reached a saturation point. They are competitively priced, technologically competent, and now represent a serious challenge to traditional brands. But if left unmanaged, this trend could lead to the hollowing out of South Africa's manufacturing base. South Africa must use its BRICS membership as a strategic lever. China must be persuaded to localise the manufacturing of its automotive brands in South Africa. This is not a charity request; it is a strategic proposal. Chinese companies should be invited to co-invest in high-tech manufacturing and assembly infrastructure in Eastern Cape, Gauteng, and KwaZulu-Natal. This could take the form of co-assembled production alongside legacy OEMs like Mercedes-Benz SA, which now face looming layoffs. The South African government must incentivise this localisation through targeted industrial policy, special economic zones, and technology-sharing frameworks. In this regard, the principle of ' South Africa Inc ' must be revived with urgency. Under President Cyril Ramaphosa, South Africa Inc refers to the coordinated use of economic diplomacy, government strategy, and business networks to advance national economic interests abroad. Its objectives are to integrate South African companies into key markets, attract strategic investment, and drive regional industrialisation. In Southern Africa, this approach has already delivered notable success, such as increased South African corporate presence in Zambia, Namibia, and Mozambique, particularly in retail, finance, and energy sectors. Now is the time to bring the automotive sector under this umbrella. South African diplomatic missions across Africa and Asia must be tasked explicitly with facilitating market entry, assembling policy frameworks, and brokering industrial partnerships for local manufacturers. This is not merely export promotion; it is the safeguarding of South Africa's industrial sovereignty. In conclusion, the Trump tariffs should not be seen as the end of a trade relationship, but as the beginning of a deeper national reawakening. The South African government must retool its economic diplomacy, its industrial incentives, and its regional vision. The automotive sector, in particular, must abandon old comfort zones and rise to this moment with the courage of imagination and the rigour of strategy. What is at stake is more than exports; it is the future of South Africa's industrial identity. * Zamikhaya Maseti is a Political Economy Analyst with a Magister Philosophiae (M. PHIL) in South African Politics and Political Economy from the University of Port Elizabeth (UPE), now known as the Nelson Mandela University (NMU). ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
eNCA
5 hours ago
- eNCA
Trump, EU chief seek deal in transatlantic tariffs standoff
US President Donald Trump and EU chief Ursula von der Leyen prepared to meet Sunday in Scotland in a push to resolve a months-long transatlantic trade standoff that is going down to the wire. Trump has said he sees a 50-50 chance of reaching a deal with the European Union, having vowed to hit dozens of countries with punitive tariffs unless they hammer out a pact with Washington by August 1. The EU is currently facing the threat of an across-the-board levy of 30 percent from that date. Von der Leyen's European Commission, negotiating on behalf of the EU's member countries, has been pushing hard for a deal to salvage a trading relationship worth an annual $1.9 trillion in goods and services. Any deal with the United States will need approval by all 27 member states. EU ambassadors, on a visit to Greenland, were to meet Sunday morning to discuss the latest negotiations -- and again after any accord. Sunday's sit-down between Trump and the EU chief was to take place at 4:30 pm (1530 GMT) in Turnberry, on Scotland's southwestern coast, where Trump owns a luxury golf resort. The 79-year-old American leader said Friday he hoped to strike "the biggest deal of them all" with the EU. "I think we have a good 50-50 chance" of a deal, the president said, citing sticking points on "maybe 20 different things". He praised von der Leyen as "a highly respected woman" -- a far cry from his erstwhile hostility in accusing the EU of existing to "screw" the United States. But late-night EU talks with US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on Saturday to hammer out the final details were "combative at times," The Financial Times reported. As of Saturday evening, there were "still quite a few open questions" -- notably on pharmaceutical sector tariffs, said one EU diplomat. Tariff levels on the auto sector were also crucial for the Europeans -- notably France and Germany -- and the EU has been pushing for a compromise on steel that could allow a certain quota into the United States before tariffs would apply. - Baseline 15 percent - According to European diplomats, the deal on the table involves a baseline levy of around 15 percent on EU exports to the United States -- the level secured by Japan -- with carve-outs for critical sectors including aircraft, lumber and spirits excluding wine. The EU would commit to ramp up purchases of US liquefied natural gas, along with a series of investment pledges. AFP/File | ROMAIN PERROCHEAU Hit by multiple waves of tariffs since Trump reclaimed the White House, the EU is currently subject to a 25-percent levy on cars, 50 percent on steel and aluminium, and an across-the-board tariff of 10 percent, which Washington threatens to hike to 30 percent in a no-deal scenario. The EU has focused on getting a deal with Washington to avoid sweeping tariffs that would further harm its sluggish economy, with retaliation as a last resort. While 15 percent would be much higher than pre-existing US tariffs on European goods -- at 4.8 percent -- it would mirror the status quo, with companies already facing an additional flat rate of 10 percent. Should talks fail, EU states have greenlit counter tariffs on $109 billion (93 billion euros) of US goods including aircraft and cars to take effect in stages from August 7. Brussels is also drawing up a list of US services to potentially target. Beyond that, countries like France say Brussels should not be afraid to deploy a so-called trade "bazooka" -- EU legislation designed to counter coercion through trade measures which involves restricting access to its market and public contracts. But such a step would mark a major escalation with Washington. - Ratings dropping - Trump has embarked since returning to power on a campaign to reshape US trade with the world. But polls suggest the American public is unconvinced, with a recent Gallup survey showing his approval rating at 37 percent -- down 10 points from January. Having promised "90 deals in 90 days," Trump's administration has so far unveiled five, including with Britain, Japan and the Philippines. Early Sunday, ahead of his meeting with Von der Leyen, Trump was out again on the golf course, having spent most of Saturday playing at Turnberry amid tight security. AFP | ANDY BUCHANAN The trip to Scotland has put physical distance between Trump and the scandal around Jeffrey Epstein, the wealthy financier accused of sex trafficking who died in prison in 2019 before facing trial. In his heyday, Epstein was friends with Trump and others in the New York jet-set, but the president is facing backlash from his own MAGA supporters demanding access to the Epstein case files. With the uproar refusing to die down, a headline agreement with the EU -- in addition to bolstering Trump's dealmaker credentials -- could bring a welcome distraction.
IOL News
13 hours ago
- IOL News
Trump's Tariffs Must Sow the Seeds for a National Reawakening
President Cyril Ramaphosa and his Chinese counterpart President Xi Jinping. China must be persuaded to localise the manufacturing of its automotive brands in South Africa. This is not a charity request; it is a strategic proposal, says the writer. Image: GCIS Zamikhaya Maseti On August 1, 2025, South Africa will enter a zone of strategic economic pain, engineered not by global market fluctuations, but by the vengeful hands of conservative economic nationalism. The United States, under the reins of Donald J. Trump, will impose a 30 per cent tariff on all goods and products exported from South Africa to the American markets. This is not a policy of trade readjustment; it is a geoeconomic act of hostility. The justification, wrapped in the language of "reciprocity," is in reality a strategic blow aimed at disciplining South Africa's geopolitical posture and diplomatic boldness. Trump's economic nationalism, which sits at the ideological centre of Conservative Republicanism, is not merely inward-looking. It is punitive, retaliatory, and profoundly regressive. It has shaken the global trade architecture, not to recalibrate it, but to bend it in favour of America's new mercantilist order. This doctrine does not merely target trade imbalances; it punishes defiance. South Africa is now paying the price for standing on principle, particularly for its posture on Palestine and its landmark case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. It is clear, painfully so, that South Africa is being economically strangled not for what it trades, but for what it believes. Some Western analysts, ever keen to defend the status quo, will dispute this. They will search for economic rationality in an act that is blatantly political. Let them continue their intellectual gymnastics. This moment calls for clarity, not politeness. The truth is that Trump's worldview is transactional and tribal, and in that logic, South Africa has become collateral. That South Africa is seen as an irritant in Washington's new world order is not coincidental; it is structural. And let it be said without fear, Trump's policy on South Africa is influenced not only by economic calculations but by the mythologies peddled by actors like AfriForum and Elon Musk, who have exported the lie of white genocide into America's political bloodstream. But this is not the time for victimhood, nor is it the moment for diplomatic lamentation. It is time for South Africa to do some difficult thinking and embrace a new, muscular pragmatism. Diplomatic efforts, however noble, are unlikely to change Trump's position. Minister Parks Tau and his diplomatic team may work tirelessly, but they are facing a political machine that does not respond to nuance. Trump's narrative is fixed, and in that narrative, South Africa is an unfriendly trading partner whose tariffs harm American interests. He argues, correctly or not, that South African import duties and market access protocols are unfavourable to US goods. That argument, however flawed, resonates with his domestic base, and therefore it will stand. The United States will not blink, and it will not backtrack. Thus, it is not sufficient for South Africa to hope against hope; it must respond. Minister Parks Tau, trade envoys, and industrial leaders must now do the hard intellectual and strategic labour of repositioning the country's economic posture. Nowhere is this urgency more pressing than in the automotive sector, a critical node of South Africa's manufacturing ecosystem. This sector is not only a source of direct jobs; it sustains a complex web of downstream industries, from component manufacturing and logistics to retail and after-market services. It is here that the 30 per cent tariff will hit hardest, and it is here that innovation, not inertia, must be summoned. The sector must accept that the American market, for the foreseeable future, has lost ground. The time has come for South Africa to pivot decisively toward other markets, especially those aligned with its economic diplomacy ambitions. The first option lies in the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), the single largest integrated market on the continent, and the largest globally by number of countries. With over 1.3 billion people and a combined GDP exceeding $3.4 trillion, the AfCFTA offers South Africa a natural and politically friendly trading space. Sub-Saharan Africa, in particular, presents high-value demand for affordable, durable automotive products, especially among its emerging middle classes and youthful populations. Research shows that more than 60 per cent of the region's population is under the age of 25, representing a long-term demand curve that is not speculative, but empirically grounded. Yet, South African companies have been slow to leverage this opportunity. There remains an unhealthy fog of Afro-pessimism and the lingering delusion of South African exceptionalism. These intellectual blindfolds must be cast aside. Africa is not a dumping ground; it is a destination for growth. The automotive industry must shift from waiting for trade to come to it and instead begin creating strategic partnerships in East, West, and Central Africa. This includes setting up joint ventures, service hubs, and low-cost satellite assembly plants across regional economic communities. The second and equally strategic option lies in a new industrial partnership with China. The presence and popularity of Chinese-made vehicles in the South African domestic market has reached a saturation point. They are competitively priced, technologically competent, and now represent a serious challenge to traditional brands. But if left unmanaged, this trend could lead to the hollowing out of South Africa's manufacturing base. South Africa must use its BRICS membership as a strategic lever. China must be persuaded to localise the manufacturing of its automotive brands in South Africa. This is not a charity request; it is a strategic proposal. Chinese companies should be invited to co-invest in high-tech manufacturing and assembly infrastructure in Eastern Cape, Gauteng, and KwaZulu-Natal. This could take the form of co-assembled production alongside legacy OEMs like Mercedes-Benz SA, which now face looming layoffs. The South African government must incentivise this localisation through targeted industrial policy, special economic zones, and technology-sharing frameworks. In this regard, the principle of 'South Africa Inc' must be revived with urgency. Under President Cyril Ramaphosa, South Africa Inc refers to the coordinated use of economic diplomacy, government strategy, and business networks to advance national economic interests abroad. Its objectives are to integrate South African companies into key markets, attract strategic investment, and drive regional industrialisation. In Southern Africa, this approach has already delivered notable success, such as increased South African corporate presence in Zambia, Namibia, and Mozambique, particularly in retail, finance, and energy sectors. Now is the time to bring the automotive sector under this umbrella. South African diplomatic missions across Africa and Asia must be tasked explicitly with facilitating market entry, assembling policy frameworks, and brokering industrial partnerships for local manufacturers. This is not merely export promotion; it is the safeguarding of South Africa's industrial sovereignty. In conclusion, the Trump tariffs should not be seen as the end of a trade relationship, but as the beginning of a deeper national reawakening. The South African government must retool its economic diplomacy, its industrial incentives, and its regional vision. The automotive sector, in particular, must abandon old comfort zones and rise to this moment with the courage of imagination and the rigour of strategy. What is at stake is more than exports; it is the future of South Africa's industrial identity. * Zamikhaya Maseti is a Political Economy Analyst with a Magister Philosophiae (M. PHIL) in South African Politics and Political Economy from the University of Port Elizabeth (UPE), now known as the Nelson Mandela University (NMU). ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
