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.
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.
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.
MUST WATCH: Karoline Leavitt RIPS Jasmine Crockett
With President Donald J. Trump back in office as the 47th President of the United States, new investigations are exposing what many call a shadow presidency under Joe Biden, where radical Democrats allegedly pulled the strings. Chief among them? Senator Elizabeth ‘Pocahontas’ Warren.
Karoline Leavitt came out swinging on Tuesday as she ripped into Texas Democrat Rep. Jasmine Crockett for her vile comment labeling millions of Trump supporters “mentally ill.”
The sharp rebuke was more than justified—Leavitt wasn’t just defending Republicans; she was standing up for working-class Americans insulted by a political elite that increasingly demonizes dissent.
“Jasmine Crockett didn’t just insult Trump,” Leavitt said during her White House briefing. “She smeared over 70 million Americans who believe in freedom, God, secure borders, and the Constitution. Calling them mentally ill is not just false—it’s dangerous.”
Crockett, speaking during a media segment, let her contempt for the MAGA movement show with no filter, claiming Trump voters were “sick” in the head and that they “belong in therapy, not in politics.”
While the left cheered her on, millions of Americans saw the statement for what it really was: pure, unfiltered bigotry aimed at conservative Americans.
Leavitt didn’t hold back.
“What Rep. Crockett said wasn’t just offensive—it revealed how Democrats truly see people outside their coastal elitist bubbles. If you own a gun, believe in traditional marriage, or question open borders, they think you’re deranged,” she said.
The tone-deaf smear by Crockett is reminiscent of Hillary Clinton’s infamous “basket of deplorables” remark and Joe Biden’s divisive rhetoric labeling MAGA supporters a “threat to democracy.”
It’s clear that calling half the country names has become a key campaign strategy for Democrats desperate to cling to power.
“Jasmine Crockett should visit a Trump rally before shooting her mouth off,” Leavitt challenged.
“She’ll meet grandmothers, veterans, farmers, teachers, truckers—all proud Americans who just want their country back. These are the people she called mentally ill. What an absolute disgrace.”
What makes Crockett’s insult even more appalling is the timing.
As Americans face rising inflation, lawlessness in blue cities, and a border crisis spiraling out of control, the Democrats have nothing to offer but more insults and division.
They won’t debate policy because they know they’re losing on every front—so they attack character instead.
“This is what the Democrat Party has become,” said conservative commentator Mark Levin. “They can’t argue facts, so they go for character assassination. And they wonder why they’re losing support in the heartland.”
Grassroots conservatives have taken to social media to respond, with hashtags like #ProudToBeMAGA and #MentallyStrongMAGA trending on X (formerly Twitter).
“This is my diagnosis,” one user posted.
“I work 60 hours a week, pay my taxes, raise my kids to respect America, and vote for Trump. If that makes me mentally ill, then I don’t want to be sane by liberal standards.”
Leavitt closed her remarks by urging Americans not to back down.
“We’ve been called every name in the book—racist, sexist, extremist, now mentally ill. But we’re not going anywhere. We’re growing stronger, louder, and prouder by the day,” she said.
MUST WATCH: Joe Rogan Destroys Bernie Sanders Talking Points
Joe Rogan directly confronted Senator Bernie Sanders during a recent episode of The Joe Rogan Experience, sparking a viral debate about climate science and political motives.
Sanders claimed, “I think the last ten years have been the warmest on record,” pushing for aggressive policies to curb emissions and create green jobs.
Rogan pushed back immediately: “First of all… The reality is that the earth’s temperature has never been static… The Washington Post looked at it… Essentially, they found that we’re in a cooling period.”
He added, “It’s a very inconvenient discovery… but they had to report the data.”
The host wasn’t done. “There’s a lot of money involved in this… this whole climate change emergency issue. And there’s a lot of control.”
Sanders responded firmly, “It ain’t a hoax,” calling for rapid decarbonization and investments in wind and solar energy.
Rogan circled back to the Post article. “They found we’re in a cooling period. It runs counter to what everyone’s parroting, and that should raise flags.”
The conversation shifted to global emissions. Rogan asked, “What about China? They’re the world’s biggest polluter now, right?”
Sanders acknowledged, “They are the number one… We used to be. They’re number one now.”
Still, he insisted, “This isn’t just an American issue. It’s a global issue… and we’re going to see more weather disturbances.”
Rogan challenged the consensus, saying, “Scientists don’t always agree. And when they’re tied to funding, you have to ask: are they motivated by truth or grants?”
He raised concerns about carbon tracking and control. “We’re talking carbon footprint monitoring, 15-minute cities, taxes… This stuff reeks of surveillance.”
Describing some climate programs, Rogan warned, “It’s just another vehicle for control. Creep tactics to monitor what you eat, where you go, what you drive.”
He said, “These are fucking creeps trying to control people and what you do and say and how you spend your money.”
Sanders pivoted slightly, saying pollution is a legitimate concern: “It’s a huge issue. Everyone should agree to that.”
Rogan agreed on pollution but pushed further: “We’re killing the fish. 94 percent of the big fish in the ocean are gone.”
The Washington Post article Rogan referenced examined millions of years of Earth’s temperature data—highlighting several cooling cycles.
That study contrasted sharply with the activist language favored by progressive politicians and media outlets.
Rogan’s tone reflected rising skepticism among conservatives who see climate policy as a Trojan horse for state overreach.
Sanders framed the conversation as a moral imperative, but Rogan challenged the premise, exposing layers of political and financial motivation.
