MUST-SEE: Tulsi Gabbard makes BOMBSHELL CONFESSION at Senate hearing

[0:00] So the assessment of the intelligence community is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was [0:04] obliterated by last summer's airstrikes. Yes. And the opening statement you submitted to the [0:09] committee last night also stated, quote, there has been no effort since then to try to rebuild [0:15] their enrichment capability, end quote, correct? That's right. And that's the assessment of the [0:19] intelligence community. Yes. The White House stated on March 1st of this year that this war [0:24] was launched and was, quote, a military campaign to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by [0:32] the Iranian regime, end quote. That's a statement from the White House. Quote, the imminent nuclear [0:37] threat posed by the Iranian regime. Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that [0:43] there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? The intelligence community assessed [0:50] that Iran maintained the intention to rebuild and to continue to grow their nuclear enrichment capability. [0:56] Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat [1:01] threat posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or no? Senator, the only person who can determine [1:06] what is and is not an imminent threat is the president. False. This is the worldwide, this is the [1:10] worldwide threats hearing where you present to Congress national intelligence, timely objective [1:15] and independent of political considerations. You've stated today that the intelligence community's [1:21] assessment is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated and that, quote, there had been [1:26] no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability. Was it the intelligence [1:32] community's assessment that, nevertheless, despite this obliteration, there was a, quote, imminent [1:38] nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or no? It is not the intelligence community's [1:43] responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat. Okay. That is up to the president. [1:47] Here's the problem. Based on a volume of information and information that he receives. No, it is precisely [1:50] that he receives. It is precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United [1:57] States. This is the worldwide threats hearing where, as you noted in your opening testimony, quote, [2:05] you represent the IC's assessment of threats. You are here to represent the IC's assessment of threats. [2:14] That's a quote from your own opening statement. And so my question is, as you're here to present the IC's [2:20] IC's assessment of threats, was it the assessment of the intelligence community that, as the White House [2:28] claimed on March 1st, there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or no? [2:35] Once again, Senator, the intelligence community has provided the inputs that make up this annual threat [2:42] assessment. You won't answer the question. It is the nature of the imminent threat that the president has to make [2:48] that determination based on a collection and volume of information and intelligence that he is provided [2:53] with. You're here to be timely, objective, and independent of political considerations. [2:58] Exactly what I'm doing. No, you're evading a question because to provide a candid response to the [3:05] committee would contradict a statement from the White House. That was Senator John Ossoff asking the [3:11] apparently impossible question of did Iran pose an imminent threat to the United States to Tulsi Gabbard, [3:17] who seems incapable of giving any answer and instead suggest that the only person in the United States [3:22] of America in its government who's in a position to give any answers on anything is apparently the [3:27] president. And look, Senator Ossoff did a perfect job at pointing out the fact that Tulsi Gabbard is [3:33] being evasive because she didn't want to contradict Trump and the White House. Namely, [3:37] that Iran posed an imminent threat. Iran was a threat. Every country realized what a threat Iran [3:43] was. The question is whether or not they wanted to do something about it. So why are they saying this? [3:47] Because, to be blunt, no one knows why the fuck we're at war and Donald Trump doesn't either. [3:53] So he needed a justification. And what he landed on was that there was no choice because Iran posed an [3:58] imminent threat to us here at the United States. And so right on cue, his underling started echoing this [4:04] sentiment. In response to the resignation letter by Joe Kent conceding that Iran didn't pose an [4:08] imminent threat, Caroline Levitt came out and wrote, there are many false claims in this letter, [4:12] but let me address one specifically that Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation. [4:16] This is the same false claim that Democrats and some in the liberal media have been repeating over [4:20] and over. Which sure is interesting because just days ago, Caroline Levitt herself tweeted, [4:27] quote, to be clear, no such threat from Iran to our homeland exists and it never did. In other words, [4:33] Iran poses no threat to our homeland and they never did. But also, Democrats and the liberal [4:37] media are lying when they say that Iran poses no threat to our homeland. Makes sense for everyone? [4:43] But here's what's even more damning. In that same hearing, Tulsi Gabbard negated her own argument [4:48] by conceding that Iran had made no effort to rebuild their enrichment capability since it was [4:53] quote unquote obliterated by the U.S. in the summer. That opening statement as submitted to the [4:58] committee in advance of this hearing stated that as a result of last summer's airstrikes, [5:03] quote, Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated, end quote, correct? That's right. [5:09] And is that in fact the assessment of the intelligence community? Yes. [5:13] So the assessment of the intelligence community is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was [5:18] obliterated by last summer's airstrikes? Yes. And the opening statement you submitted to the [5:23] committee last night also stated, quote, there has been no effort since then to try to rebuild [5:28] their enrichment capability, end quote, correct? That's right. And that's the assessment of the [5:33] intelligence community. Yes. The White House stated on March 1st of this year that this war was launched [5:40] and was, quote, a military campaign to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime, [5:46] end quote. That's a statement from the White House, quote, the imminent nuclear threat posed by the [5:52] Iranian regime. So if Iran's nuclear enrichment had been obliterated and they made no effort to rebuild [5:58] their enrichment capability, then how did they suddenly pose an imminent threat if we'd already [6:04] gotten the job done in June? The answer is that they didn't. And of course, Tulsi Gabbard knows that. [6:10] But again, her job here is not to tell the truth. It is to protect her boss. And because Trump vomited [6:16] out some nonsense about Iran posing a threat to the U.S., now all of these clowns at his circus need to [6:21] parrot his new talking point and pretend that it's gospel. And what you're left with is the literal [6:27] director of national intelligence refusing to admit that she is capable of answering any basic [6:31] questions about national intelligence. The reality is that she, like everyone else in this White House, [6:37] is perfectly content to abandon all of her previously stated positions if it means that she stays in the [6:42] good graces of a despot. Remember, this was Tulsi Gabbard over the years. [6:47] Let's deal with the situation where we are, where this president and his chicken hawk cabinet [6:52] have led us to the brink of war with Iran. I served in the war in Iraq at the height of the war in 2005, [7:01] a war that took over 4,000 of my brothers and sisters in uniform's lives. The American people need to [7:08] understand that this war with Iran would be far more devastating, far more costly than anything that we [7:14] ever saw in Iraq. It would take many more lives. It would exacerbate the refugee crisis and it wouldn't [7:20] be just contained within Iran. This would turn into a regional war. This is why it's so important [7:26] that every one of us, every single American, stand up and say, no war with Iran. We've got to be [7:33] clear-eyed about the situation that we are in, that inching closer, actually more than inching, [7:39] speeding towards an all-out war with Iran would make the wars that we've seen in Iraq and in Afghanistan [7:47] look like a picnic. It will be far more costly in lives, American lives and American taxpayer dollars [7:54] and all towards accomplishing what goal, what objective. I think that's really at the crux of [7:59] this decision that President Trump made. That's exactly what Trump did. He conducted and committed [8:06] an act of war without congressional authority, seriously escalating the situation with Iran. [8:14] And so now we're at a point of, it's not a matter of, well, are we going to have a war with Iran? We [8:21] are in a war with Iran right now. So the real issue is, are we going to allow this war to continue to [8:27] escalate? And if so, for how long and to achieve what objective? I think you get the point. And yet [8:35] now she's basically turned into Colin Powell 2.0. Tulsi is not in her role despite her shamelessness. [8:42] She is there because of it. It's expressly because she stands for nothing and will shape [8:47] shift to fill whatever role is required of her that she has her job. Donald Trump wanted a cabinet full of [8:53] morally bankrupt, malleable individuals, and Tulsi Gabbard is a testament to the fact that that is [8:58] exactly what he got. [9:00] Before you go, if you enjoyed this content and you want to see more and support independent media, [9:09] please subscribe to this channel. The subscribe button will be right here on this screen. [9:12] But second, the reality is that we are now in a political environment where this administration [9:16] can lean on any of the social media platforms to suppress certain voices if they don't like [9:20] critical coverage. That means my longevity here is in the hands of a few tech billionaires [9:25] who are already making it clear that they are willing to cater to this administration. [9:29] To that end, signing up for my newsletter is a way for me to reach you directly if that ever [9:33] becomes necessary. I'll put the link right here on the screen as well, so please sign up. It's free, [9:37] but there's also an option to do a paid subscription if you'd like to support me and my team. [9:41] I really appreciate it. Thanks so much for watching.