Tulsi Gabbard unleashes ‘Coup' files targeting Obama-era officials with treason, but is it all a smokescreen to bury Epstein scandal?
Tulsi Gabbard
on Friday, July 18, unleashed a barrage on posts X, accusing former
Obama administration
officials of politicizing intelligence ahead of the 2016 US election. She claims that the intelligence community's assessment of
Russian election interference
was manipulated to falsely suggest that foreign cyber operations influenced Donald
Trump
's victory.
'These documents detail a treasonous conspiracy by officials at the highest levels of the Obama White House,'
Gabbard
posted, adding that the effort was to 'subvert the will of the American people.'
Explore courses from Top Institutes in
Select a Course Category
PGDM
Project Management
Design Thinking
Public Policy
Cybersecurity
Data Science
MBA
Product Management
Leadership
CXO
Healthcare
MCA
Operations Management
Data Analytics
Artificial Intelligence
Digital Marketing
Degree
healthcare
Technology
Data Science
Others
Management
Finance
others
Skills you'll gain:
Financial Analysis & Decision Making
Quantitative & Analytical Skills
Organizational Management & Leadership
Innovation & Entrepreneurship
Duration:
24 Months
IMI Delhi
Post Graduate Diploma in Management (Online)
Starts on
Sep 1, 2024
Get Details
Also Read:
How much is Dylan Dreyer worth in 2025; and who's doing better after her split from Brian Fichera?
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Ethiopia: Bathroom Remodeling Trends in 2025 May Surprise You
Bathroom Remodeling | Search Ads
Search Now
Undo
She further stated she has handed over all related documents to the
Department of Justice
, calling for a full investigation.
Live Events
New declassifications of an old allegation
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released declassified documents that revisit intelligence assessments made after the 2016 election. The documents, originally circulated within national security agencies, suggested that foreign actors, primarily Russia, did not alter vote counts or directly impact election results via cyber means.
Earlier, in one such Presidential Daily Brief from December 2016, intelligence officials reportedly assessed it was 'highly unlikely' that Russian actors had succeeded in changing vote outcomes.
Despite these conclusions, a separate Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) released on January 6, 2017, indicated that Russia sought to help Trump win. That assessment became central to the narrative of Trump-Russia collusion and later led to investigations, including the
Mueller probe
.
The credibility of Muller Probe
The Mueller probe was launched in May 2017 under Special Counsel Robert Mueller to examine Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election, possible links between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives, and whether President Trump obstructed justice. The investigation concluded that Russia did interfere through hacking and propaganda but did not find sufficient evidence to charge Trump or his campaign with conspiracy.
Now, with newly declassified documents released by DNI Tulsi Gabbard, questions have resurfaced about the origins and motivations behind the probe, raising claims that the intelligence was politicized to justify a prolonged campaign to undermine Trump's presidency.
Why Now? Epstein case receives little attention
The timing of Gabbard's post and document release has also raised eyebrows among political observers. On July 17, the WSJ published a report detailing the involvement of President Donald Trump in a 2003 birthday letter that he allegedly signed in a leather-bound album for Jeffrey Epstein. However, he called it fake and threatened legal action.
With renewed interest in the matter, critics point out that Donald Trump has consistently sought to distance himself from the controversial case involving alleged ties between global elites and the now-deceased financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Observers also note a sudden shift in both media and political discourse, steering attention back to long-standing Russia-related narratives and raising questions about whether this pivot is intended to divert focus from the unresolved
Epstein
saga.
Online commentators have begun asking: Is the revival of this 2016 controversy meant to bury or distract from Epstein-related revelations?
Accountability Promised, but Questions Linger
Gabbard, who was confirmed as Director of National Intelligence earlier this year under President Trump's second term, said that her actions are not partisan. 'This is about the integrity of our democratic republic,' she wrote.
While she has called for accountability, none of the individuals named, such as former CIA Director John Brennan, former DNI James Clapper, or former FBI Director James Comey, have publicly responded to the allegations as of publication.
The Department of Justice has not confirmed any formal investigations on the newly declassified documents.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
a minute ago
- Time of India
Friday fury ahead? India's tariff clock is ticking
As the August 1st deadline looms, India faces potential US tariffs due to unresolved trade negotiations. The US team's visit on August 25th signals a missed deadline, increasing the risk of punitive measures. Trump's administration may use tariffs to pressure India, impacting key export sectors and straining bilateral relations despite mixed signals. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads As the clock ticks toward Friday, August 1, the weight of an unresolved trade deal with the United States is beginning to feel increasingly burdensome for US team will visit India on August 25 -- well after the looming deadline -- for the sixth round of negotiations for the proposed bilateral trade agreement between the two countries, an official told PTI on Tuesday. India faces the strong possibility of punitive tariffs from the US, a development that could send ripples through its export economy and broader diplomatic ties with trajectory of US-India trade negotiations has become emblematic of a broader pattern in Washington's trade posture under President Donald Trump . What began as a bilateral discussion aimed at resolving market access issues and addressing tariff asymmetries has evolved into a high-pressure bargaining exercise marked by missed deadlines and implicit slated for July 9, the deadline for concluding the interim trade deal was extended to August 1 by Trump, ostensibly to give negotiations more room. However, the scheduling of a sixth round of talks for August 25 strongly signals that no agreement will be reached in time to meet the new deadline. This delay, while perhaps reflecting the complexity of the deal, is unlikely to be viewed sympathetically by a White House that has increasingly framed trade as a high-stakes, zero-sum has already shown a willingness to use tariffs as a tool of leverage in trade negotiations, not just with strategic competitors like China, but with allies and partners alike. India, though spared from a tariff notification letter after the July 9 deadline passed, remains very much in the crosshairs. The administration's hesitation to act then may have been strategic: a calculated move to keep India at the table without escalating tensions the upcoming August 1 deadline carries more urgency. Trump could reassert his trademark coercive tactics, using tariffs to pressure India into faster concessions. The risk is amplified by the current political tone in Washington, where trade deals are increasingly judged by their speed and assertiveness rather than the nuances of this context, recent remarks made by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stand out as a rare, moderating voice. His assertion that 'quality matters more than timing' suggests a recognition of the complexity involved in crafting a sustainable and equitable trade deal. "We're not going to rush for the sake of doing deals," Bessent told CNBC in an interview nearly a week ago. However, he said that tariffs might re-enter the negotiation toolkit if progress stalls, effectively undermining the very caution he advocates. "We'll see what the President wants to do," he said. "But again, if we somehow boomerang back to the August 1 tariff, I would think that a higher tariff level will put more pressure on those countries to come up with better agreements."This duality -- between a push for quality and a readiness to use tariffs -- mirrors the broader contradictions in the Trump administration's trade approach. While the US claims to be seeking mutual benefit, the reliance on deadlines, threats and unilateral pressure points to a strategy of deal-making by domination rather than now finds itself in a delicate position. With little time left before the August 1 deadline, and no further negotiations scheduled until August 25, it must brace for the economic and diplomatic fallout of potential US tariffs. Key export sectors such as pharmaceuticals and textiles could be hit hard by sudden trade barriers. Moreover, the imposition of tariffs would inject fresh tension into an already complex bilateral relationship, one that spans not just trade but also defense, regional security and technology cooperation. If Washington proceeds with punitive measures, it risks alienating one of its key strategic partners in Asia at a time when counterbalancing China is high on both nations' August 1 approaches, India faces an unenviable situation: a deadline without a deal, and a partner unwilling to wait. The scheduling of the next round of talks for August 25 makes it all but certain that the two sides will miss the current window for an interim agreement. What remains to be seen is whether Trump will act on his threats or hold off once more in the hope of securing a better, more stable outcome of the immediate outcome, the broader takeaway is clear: India must prepare for a more transactional and turbulent trade relationship with the US, where pressure and pace increasingly trump patience and process.
News18
26 minutes ago
- News18
Justice Department Seeks Disciplinary Action Against DC Judge Over Trump Remarks
The complaint was submitted under the name of Chad Mizelle, Bondi's chief of staff. The US Department of Justice (DoJ) has launched a formal complaint against Chief Judge James Boasberg of the US District Court in Washington, D.C., accusing him of judicial misconduct over comments he allegedly made about President Donald Trump's administration. The complaint was filed on Monday, as reported by CNN. US Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed the development in a post on X (formerly Twitter), stating, 'Today at my direction, the Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint against US District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg for making improper public comments about President Trump and his Administration." The complaint was submitted under the name of Chad Mizelle, Bondi's chief of staff, and delivered to Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The allegations stem from comments Boasberg is reported to have made during a judicial conference held in March. According to a report by POLITICO, which reviewed the contents of the formal complaint, Judge Boasberg allegedly implied that the Trump administration might 'disregard rulings of federal courts," thereby risking a 'constitutional crisis." The letter further claims Boasberg sought to improperly influence Chief Justice John Roberts and around two dozen other judges with his remarks. Mizelle argued that the judge's comments violated the 'presumption of regularity," a legal principle that assumes government officials act lawfully and in good faith. She also defended the administration's actions, stating that it had complied with existing court orders. Notably, Boasberg had previously blocked a Trump administration effort to deport a group of Venezuelan nationals to a prison facility in El Salvador. In an emergency hearing, held shortly after the controversial invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, Boasberg ordered that any aircraft already en route to El Salvador should be rerouted back to the US. However, reports suggest that the administration went ahead with its plans, successfully transferring many of the Venezuelan detainees despite the ruling. The complaint by Mizelle further alleges, 'Having assumed President Trump would defy court orders, Judge Boasberg issued a [temporary restraining order] and threatened sanctions, all on a false premise." Mizelle has called for disciplinary measures against Boasberg, including a public reprimand, and has requested that the Alien Enemies Act case currently assigned to him be reassigned to a different judge during the course of the investigation. According to protocol, judicial complaints in the US are usually reviewed by the chief appellate judge, who may dismiss them or order an investigation. A council of judges then decides on possible actions, such as a reprimand or reassigning cases. Removal from the bench, however, requires impeachment and a two-thirds Senate vote. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from geopolitics to diplomacy and global trends. Stay informed with the latest world news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments First Published: July 29, 2025, 20:32 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Mint
31 minutes ago
- Mint
DOJ files misconduct complaint against federal judge James Boasberg over anti-Trump remarks, seeks recusal from key case
US Attorney General Pam Bondi on announced that the Justice Department has filed a misconduct complaint against US District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg. The DOJ alleges Boasberg made 'improper public comments' about President Donald Trump and his administration during a closed-door judicial conference. 'Today at my direction, [DOJ] filed a misconduct complaint against US District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg for making improper public comments about President Trump and his Administration,' Bondi wrote in a post on X (formerly Twitter). The complaint was submitted to Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and was authored by Chad Mizelle, Bondi's chief of staff. According to the document, the remarks were made on March 11 at a Judicial Conference of the United States meeting attended by Chief Justice John Roberts and roughly twelve other judges. Mizelle alleges Judge Boasberg strayed from administrative topics and 'attempted to improperly influence' his colleagues by predicting that the Trump administration would 'disregard rulings of federal courts' and cause 'a constitutional crisis.' 'The Department of Justice respectfully submits this complaint alleging misconduct by US District Court Chief Judge James E. Boasberg… that have undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,' the complaint reads, as quoted by Fox News. Mizelle further stated: 'Although his comments would be inappropriate even if they had some basis, they were even worse because Judge Boasberg had no basis—the Trump Administration has always complied with all court orders.' The complaint also notes that Judge Boasberg failed to cite any examples of non-compliance, making his 'unprecedented predictions' all the more troubling. The DOJ points out that Boasberg made the remarks just days before presiding over a case involving Trump's use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected Venezuelan gang members. According to the complaint, Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order on March 15 blocking deportation flights—an order that was later vacated by the Supreme Court. 'Within days of those statements, Judge Boasberg began acting on his preconceived belief that the Trump Administration would not follow court orders,' Mizelle wrote. The DOJ is asking for the complaint to be referred to a special investigative committee to determine whether Boasberg's conduct amounts to 'conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.' Additionally, the DOJ is requesting that Boasberg be removed from the ongoing case involving deportations of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador to 'prevent further erosion of public confidence while the investigation proceeds.' Boasberg, 62, is an appointee of former President Barack Obama and currently serves as the chief judge of the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Mizelle argued that Boasberg's comments and judicial actions reflect 'bias' and violate the Code of Conduct for US Judges, which requires impartiality. 'Taken together, Judge Boasberg's words and deeds violate Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, and, erode public confidence in judicial neutrality, and warrant a formal investigation,' the complaint concludes. Judge Boasberg has not yet responded publicly to the allegations.
