STANFORD UNIVERSITY, BARACK OBAMA AND A PROXY-CENSORSHIP MODEL

In spring 2022, former President Barack Obama delivered a keynote speech at Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center, outlining a broad plan for government oversight of social media via the proposed Platform Accountability and Transparency Act. Just six days later, the Biden administration’s Department of Homeland Security unveiled its “Disinformation Governance Board,” intended to monitor and shape online information in (frankly) a manner that can be likened to an authoritarian truth ministry.

Central to Obama’s framework was a provision empowering the National Science Foundation to finance ostensibly independent nonprofits tasked with moderating online content. This proxy-censorship model—pioneered by DHS in collaboration with Stanford’s Internet Observatory—had actually already been deployed in 2020 to flag election-related posts and in 2021 to target vaccine-skeptic narratives, sidestepping First Amendment constraints.

Now, president Donald Trump’s 2024 victory markedly curtailed these initiatives; and this is considering that his administration stripped funding from key elements of the Censorship Industrial Complex. In addition, the Platform Accountability Act (which sought to hold the owners of social media platforms accountable for content posted on their platforms) stalled in Congress. And at Twitter (now X), Elon Musk dismissed the bulk of its content-moderation team, broadening permissible speech. Meanwhile, even prior to the election, Stanford donor Frank McCourt withdrew support from the Internet Observatory after investigative reporting by research and free speech advocacy platform Public and Racket News, alongside probes led by House Weaponization Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan, revealed its pivotal role in the DHS proxy scheme.

But now, foreign governments, including Europe, the UK, Brazil, Australia, and others are demanding censorship, including of the American people. The risk is that US tech companies will find it significantly less expensive to have a single global censorship regime and just go along with foreign censorship requests. We saw this, for instance, when Facebook complied with the Biden-Harris administration’s demands to censor speech because Facebook needed Biden’s help in dealing with European censorship officials. Similarly, the Brazilian government tried to force Elon Musk to censor the Brazilian people after it froze Starlink’s assets. And so, this is the fundamental issue with this proxy-censorship model—pioneered by the DHS in collaboration with Stanford’s Internet Observatory.

Now, an investigation has revealed that the Stanford Cyber Policy Center—directed by Michael McFaul, the former U.S. Ambassador to Russia during the Obama administration—is central to a secretive and potentially unlawful censorship program that surpasses in scope the one Obama floated in 2022. In particular, on September 24th, the Center convened a closed-door dinner involving its leadership and senior censorship regulators from Europe, the UK, Brazil, California, and Australia. Dubbed “Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape,” the event was funded by Frank McCourt—the founder of the Stanford Internet Observatory—via his Project Liberty Institute (or PLI), to which he has committed $500 million to apparently “bolster democracy” and promote “ethical technology.”

Well, the research and free speech advocacy platform Public contacted all 21 attendees and organisers of the closed door dinner dubbed “Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape” by email but received responses from only four: being the PLI, the Australian government, the UK government, and the European Union. The EU declined to comment, citing insufficient time (despite a 24-hour window), with a spokesperson stating, (quote) “We would need several days.”

The UK government also responded to state that (quote): “The legal framework gives Ofcom power to enforce the duties in the Act which are related to securing protections for people in the UK; it does not give Ofcom powers to enforce under any other legal regimes…. Ofcom has always engaged with various international forums and networks across all of the sectors we regulate, including online safety, spectrum, telecommunications, post, and broadcast and media. Regulators around the world regularly exchange insights, experience, and best practice.”

I’d like for us to then discuss why Regulators like Ofcom do NOT meet regularly to share what can be thought to be plausible insights, experience, and best practice. In fact, when you look at the Online Safety Act in the UK, you get to understand that these gatherings among regulators are about devising their respective roles in a proxy-censorship model.

THE ONLINE SAFETY ACT IS A TOOL OF A PROXY-CENSORSHIP MODEL

As you’d be aware, the Online Safety Act is legislation in the UK that gives the relevant Secretary of State the power to designate and suppress or record a wide range of online content that is “illegal” or “deemed harmful to children”.

The Act creates a new duty of care for online platforms, requiring them to take action against illegal content, or legal content that could be “harmful” to children where children are likely to access it. Platforms failing this duty would be liable to fines of up to £18 million or 10% of their annual turnover, whichever is higher. It also empowers Ofcom to block access to particular websites. Ideally, the act is also supposed to oblige large social media platforms NOT to remove, and to preserve access to, journalistic or “democratically important” content such as user comments on political parties and issues.

Then, the Act also requires platforms, including end-to-end encrypted messengers, to scan for child pornography, despite warnings from experts that it is not possible to implement such a scanning mechanism without undermining users’ privacy. To which the UK government has claimed that it does not intend to enforce this provision of the Act until it becomes “technically feasible” to do so. And then lastly, the Act also obliges technology platforms to introduce systems that will allow users to better filter out the “harmful” content they do not want to see… So this is a more idealistic presentation of what the Online Safety Act seeks to accomplish, and it is presented this way by the Labour-led UK government, so that anyone who opposes it can be dismissed as a child predator sympathiser and an enemy of progress. BUT, here’s what the Act fundamentally contributes, as far as trying to shift the jurisprudence in the UK is concerned.

The Online Safety Act hands sweeping and incredibly dangerous powers to the relevant secretary of state, allowing them to interfere directly with Ofcom’s operations including the authority to dictate the content of its so-called “codes of practice”. This thus represents a dangerous centralisation of power that compromises Ofcom’s supposed independence and opens the door to government control over online speech. And these powers, which can be exercised with minimal oversight and under vague emergency justifications, indicate a government with aspirations that are ultimately authoritarian and dystopian in nature.

Now, in light of this act and its part in the proxy-censorship complex, I’d like to rehash a crucial point about the UK in particular. The point is this: Beyond the authoritarian and dystopian nature of the Online Safety Act, how the Labour-led government is going about with it, further exposes its big government inclinations. And the difference here is how the labour-led government is responding to the dissent resulting from the Act. More specifically, governments receive their operational mandate from the governed (at least that is how it should be). This means we measure a government’s political legitimacy and efficacy based on how well it enacts what the people demanded, as opposed to imposing its dictates on the people. This is why for instance, the UK government has an explicit obligation to implement Brexit because the majority of the country voted for it through the referendum, irrespective of what an incumbent government may think of Brexit.

HOWEVER, when the people of the UK signed a petition that has received over four hundred thousand signatures (as we speak) to repeal the “Online Safety Act”, the government’s response, in a nutshell, was “We hear you and know you’re upset, but think of the children” (which we’ll get to in a moment). But, this number of petition signatures is important because, in the UK, Parliament considers all petitions that get more than 100,000 signatures for a debate – and so clearly, many people want to see repeals of the Online Safety Act.

More broadly, this petition was created by Alex Baynham, and the aim of the petition is stated as being based on the belief that the scope of the Online Safety act is far broader and restrictive than is necessary in a free society. And that those signing it think that Parliament should repeal the act and work towards producing proportionate legislation rather than risking clamping down on civil society.

 Well, on the 28th of July, the UK government responded – and they gave a categorically big government response. The government stated that (quote): “It is right that the regulatory regime for in-scope online services takes a proportionate approach, balancing the protection of users from online harm with the ability for low-risk services to operate effectively and provide benefits to users.” (end quote). In other words, the government concedes to the correctness of the mandate that citizens are demanding it fulfil in light of proportionality, and not infringing on freedoms in a free society.

BUT, then immediately after the government states in its response that (quote): “The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.” It continues to say “Proportionality is a core principle of the Act and is in-built into its duties. As regulator for the online safety regime, Ofcom must consider the size and risk level of different types and kinds of services when recommending steps providers can take to comply with requirements. Duties in the Communications Act 2003 require Ofcom to act with proportionality and target action only where it is needed.” In other words, the government concedes that proportionality is important not to infringe on rights in a free society, but insists that the expanded oversight powers through the Online Safety Act are necessary to protect this free society from itself. 

But, this is nothing short of an aggravating and patronising response! If there is no enjoyment of free speech, then there is no free society period! Free speech is quite literally the yardstick, because it is the difference between constructive and open debate on matters of importance, and fearing to speak up. And if society is governed by a fear to speak up, then what they say is likely not a reflection of what they stand for but of what they think is acceptable to the incumbent government. Therefore, it can never be acceptable for a government to claim to protect a society by expanding its powers to govern speech – proportionately or disproportionately. Free speech is an inalienable freedom, that no government has the power to limit or take away because it is God-given… Well, Zia Yusuf says Reform UK (the party led by Nigel Farage) will repeal the Online Safety Act.

MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATIONS CREATED THE CENSORSHIP INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

But, information has also come to the fore regarding the historical and intensive involvement of military and intelligence organisations in the war on free speech! More specifically, a whistleblower last year provided us with a trove of documents proving that US and UK military & Intelligence employees and contractors adapted counter-terrorism tactics developed abroad, including censorship, debanking, and cross-platform bans – really rivalling or exceeding the Twitter Files and Facebook Files in scale and importance. Now, they describe the activities of an “anti-disinformation” group called the Cyber Threat Intelligence League, or CTIL, that officially began as the volunteer project of data scientists and defence and intelligence veterans but whose tactics over time appear to have been absorbed into multiple official projects, including those of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The CTI League documents offer the missing link answers to key questions not addressed in the Twitter Files and Facebook Files. Combined, they offer a comprehensive picture of the birth of the “anti-disinformation” sector, or what we have called the Censorship Industrial Complex. Now, the whistleblower’s documents describe everything from the genesis of modern digital censorship programs to the role of the military and intelligence agencies, partnerships with civil society organisations and commercial media, and the use of sock puppet accounts and other offensive techniques.

But, here’s where it gets even more interesting: the CTIL files reveal that US and UK military contractors developed and used advanced tactics — including demanding that social media platforms change their Terms of Service — to shape public opinion about Covid-19, and that getting content removed was just one strategy used by the Censorship Industrial Complex. The CTI League, which partnered with the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), THEN aimed to implement something called “AMITT,” which stood for “Adversarial Misinformation and Influence Tactics and Techniques.” Kindly have a listen to Michael Shellenberger as he exposes a key figure involved in this operation, and her name is Renee Teresita and even the “partnerships” that were formed to create this censorship industrial complex.

THE CENSORSHIP INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX’S WAR ON X AND ELON MUSK

Well, so the Department of Homeland Security’s AMITT project was ultimately, therefore, a disinformation framework that included many offensive actions, including discrediting alternative media, using bots and sock puppets, pre-bunking, and pushing counter-messaging AND working to influence government policy. This emphatically tells us that politicians are (once again) not the primary actors behind the war on free speech!

In any case, the specific counters to so-called “disinformation” in AMITT and what became its successor framework, called DISARM, include many tactics that we have observed, such as: “name and shame people who disagree with the narrative of the government of the diabolical conglomerates behind certain agendas, like the vaccine holocaust”; simulating misinformation and disinformation campaigns, AND “using banking to cut off access”, which is something Europe is considering against Elon Musk! In addition, the DISARM framework has included creating policy that makes social media police disinformation”. This especially became notable with the opposition towards X – which has exposed that the war on X and Elon Musk itself has a broader history involving diabolical non-state actors – in particular the UN.

Kindly have a listen as Paul Coleman explains how the global war on X, free speech, and Elon Musk was actually years in the making and includes a UN effort to impose Islamic blasphemy laws on the West.

Paul Coleman points out a terrible irony there towards the end, which is that these diabolical tactics aimed at censorship are coming from the people who pretentiously parade themselves as being in the front seat of defending free speech. Which is why I always tend to emphasise that it is a mistake to assume that the state is not an absolute moral actor or a yardstick to measure ethical conduct, especially when we consider that atrocious policies like slavery, the holocaust and apartheid were all legal!

And true to form, in the status quo entities like the EU are weaponising laws against Musk and the X platform in order to fabricate justification for aggressive actions towards Musk. For instance, you’d recall that the European Union sent a letter to Elon Musk, demanding him to censor Donald Trump during their interview in early August 2024, ahead of the US presidential election in November. The EU proceeded to threaten Musk with legal consequences if he does not prevent the spread of what they label as “disinformation.” But, even that threat followed a pattern of autocratic figures looking to have more censorship on the X platform, in light of what they say is a problem consistent with the ills of what they have defined as mis and dis information. And so, what we are seeing now is that in addition to the EU feeling comfortable demanding censorship in a US election to comply with the Digital Services Act, the UK is continuing on a similar trajectory.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

In a dramatic day of political revelations and historical disclosures, the U.S. Department of Justice has released more than 6,000 documents related to the 1968 assassination of civil rights icon Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., even as President Donald J. Trump leveled explosive new accusations against former President Barack Obama, accusing him of treason.

The newly declassified files concerning Dr. King’s assassination were released under a broader transparency directive issued by the Trump administration, aimed at making decades-old intelligence records available to the public. The move is seen by historians and civil rights advocates as a significant step toward resolving lingering questions surrounding the FBI’s surveillance of King, the events leading up to his death, and the full scope of the government’s involvement in monitoring civil rights leaders during the 1960s.

Civil rights organizations have long called for the full release of these documents. Preliminary reviews suggest the cache includes FBI memos, wiretap transcripts, internal communications, and investigative files previously kept classified.

“This release is about transparency, truth, and justice,” said a spokesperson from the National Archives. “We believe the public has the right to access these materials and to understand the historical context surrounding one of the most pivotal moments in American history.”

Trump Accuses Obama of Treason Over 2016 Election Probe

In a separate and politically charged development, President Trump accused former President Barack Obama of “treason”, citing newly declassified intelligence materials allegedly connected to the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the Russia investigation.

Speaking after a bilateral meeting with the President of the Philippines, Trump claimed that his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, had declassified documents proving the Obama administration “laid the groundwork for a fraudulent investigation into my campaign.”

“This was treason, plain and simple,” Trump said during a press conference at the White House. “Obama knew exactly what he was doing weaponizing intelligence agencies to interfere in an election and spy on a rival campaign.”

While Trump did not provide specific document references during his remarks, aides pointed to a batch of materials recently released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), which allegedly show early interagency discussions about Russian election interference.

The accusations echo Trump’s longstanding claims that the investigation into Russian collusion was politically motivated. Obama-era officials have consistently denied any wrongdoing, defending their actions as part of a legitimate national security response to credible intelligence threats.

Divided Reactions

Reactions to both the MLK file release and Trump’s allegations have been swift and polarized.

Civil rights groups have welcomed the Justice Department’s transparency on the King case, urging a full review of the documents. Meanwhile, Democratic leaders have condemned Trump’s remarks against Obama, calling them “irresponsible and dangerous rhetoric without evidence.”

Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman and now serving as Trump’s Director of National Intelligence, has yet to issue a detailed public statement on the newly released intelligence files related to the 2016 probe.

As the political and historical significance of both stories unfolds, the American public is once again navigating a complex intersection of legacy, truth, and leadership.

“The Juxtaposition in US Politics: 2024 vs 2025”, and to begin with: July is usually a month of celebration in the US, particularly with celebrations beginning on the 4th of July – which is a federal holiday in the United States, commemorating the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, thus establishing the United States of America. But, July 2024 carried significant political shifts.

THE JULY 13TH ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION OF DONALD TRUMP IN PENNSYLVANIA

Among the biggest was the assasination attempt of Donald Trump on July 13th, where Thomas Matthew Crooks fired eight shots from an AR15-style rifle at Trump while speaking at a rally near Butler, Pennsylvania. God literally moved Trump’s head by divine intervention – as was declared by God’s Prophet to the nations, the highly esteemed Rev. Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc. DSc. DD. And as such, Trump’s chant to “Fight, fight, fight” reverberated in the hearts of many in a way that not only shifted political discourse, but made manifest the reality of God’s power and choice for the American election in November 2024.

But, furthermore, upon investigation, the events surrounding the assassination attempt on Trump began to unravel what was hidden about institutional rot in America – beginning with the Secret Service itself. For instance, the Secret Service is known for the duty to protect, with the quintessential black suits, earpieces and protective demeanour. But their failure to prevent the assassination attempt on Trump, not only raised questions, but further led to the exposure of scandals involving employee misconduct and security breaches that have tarnished its reputation. So much so that then US Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle resigned, one day after a contentious session with House lawmakers over security failures that facilitated the assassination attempt on Donald Trump on July 13. Her resignation came after a bipartisan grilling, with numerous Republicans and at least one Democrat lawmaker demanding she resign, as her agency fell short of its “zero-fail mission.”

Cheatle’s testimony also came after an announcement from then Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas that the DOJ was forming an independent review panel charged with examining the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Here;s an excerpt from a House Oversight Committee hearing in which, Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) spoke about some of the obvious issues in the Secret Services execution of their duties, which included the height of agents assigned to physically cover President Trump at the Butler County rally – which was one of the contentious and eyebrow raising issues.

Nevertheless, I think one of the most significant developments that came from that assassination attempt, in addition to what we’ve just outlined, is the spiritual impact of president Trump himself – in fact, it is something that even he has highlighted. For instance, in reflecting on that day a year later, he praised God from the White House for being with him and saving his life on J13. stating that his time on earth was nearly ended but God was with him.

THE COUP AGAINST BIDEN, AND THE BEGINNING OF THE HARRIS CAMPAIGN

Then, came July 21st, and ironically, I do not think anyone was more surprised than Joe Biden when learning of the news of his alleged statement declaring his drop from the 2024 presidential race. And this is because by July 2024, Joe Bidden appeared adamant not to exit the presidential race. And this was despite the fact that following his poor performance at the first presidential debate on the 28th of June, pressure already began to mount over his physical and mental frailties, and whether he had the capacity to run for a second term – HOWEVER, he insisted he was fit and would continue to run for office. But, then he announced his resignation from the presidential campaign through a letter on social media. The announcement reportedly STUNNED White House and campaign aides who only discovered its contents hours later – especially since the letter was shared on social media. In fact, a few hours before the announcement was made, the Biden campaign co-chair Cedric Richmond was on media platforms emphasising Biden’s commitment to keep running.

Well based on the circumstances under which Biden left the presidential race, the suggestion that this was a coup proceeded to gain momentum – and this was with good reason. First, the letter (that was alleged to be from Biden), and which was posted on Biden’s X account, stated that he was withdrawing from the race and endorsing Kamala Harris as his successor. However, the fact that the announcement was made via a letter on social media, rather than a live statement led to speculation that Biden may not have made the decision voluntarily. Secondly, many political commentators and social media users proceeded to suggest that the letter may have been put out on Biden’s behalf, forcing him to accept a fait accompli, being a situation that has already been completed and is therefore irreversible. In fact, some even went so far as to suggest that Biden may not have been cognitively aware of what was happening, due to his then alleged dementia.

But, what made that development interesting are remarks that came from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, also known as AOC, regarding the agenda of those in the Democrat party. And while I do not agree with a lot of what she tends to say, I think she was worth listening to in that respect. And this is especially because she has been a close ally of Bernie Sanders and saw previously what the Democrat establishment did to him in favour of Hillary Clinton. In that, years ago now, Wikileaks released information that resulted in allegations of bias against Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign; where – in apparent contradiction with the DNC leadership’s publicly stated neutrality – several DNC operatives were found to have openly derided Sanders’s campaign and discussed ways to advance Hillary Clinton’s nomination.

Now, Democrats were obviously not conceding to the coup narrative, and were instead arguing that there was just a collective concern for Biden’s health, while they were simultaneously gaslighting Americans, claiming that Biden is sharp as a tack. But, first, collective concern for Biden’s health does not negate the fact that Biden seemed adamant to keep running for president until the letter on X suddenly claimed otherwise. Secondly, collective concern for Biden’s health also gives rise to the question of why he then still remained in office as the president if he and others were concerned about his capacity to run. In other words, Joe Biden was not supposed to have it both ways: in that, if he could run for re-election due to challenges in his health, then a parallel discussion needed to take place concerning his capacity to continue to sit in office. But, for the most part, Democrats tried to make Biden’s drop from the presidential race appear as a consequence of mutual concerns of his age and health, and nothing consequential.

THE NEWS OF BIDEN’S DECLINE HAVE PROMPTED MANY TO ASK WHO RAN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT

Fast forward to 2025, and the tides have shifted. First, in May 2025 there was an announcement that Joe Biden was diagnosed with prostate cancer, characterized by a Gleason score of 9 (being Grade Group 5) with metastasis to the bone. While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone- sensitive which allows for effective management. Now, firstly, I certainly hope that former US president Joe Biden recovers and lives in good health. Secondly, many of us are aware that this negatively implicates democrats and white house staffers because they have to have known – especially if there are supposed to be regular health checks and tests on the president. In fact, Dr Zeke Emanuel admitted on MSNBC that Joe Biden had cancer while serving as President, likely dating back to the start of his term in 2021, with no disagreement among experts on the timeline. Therefore, clearly Democrats knew, and were now attempting to use Joe Biden’s cancer diagnosis to obfuscate his cognitive decline and the fact that they hid it from the public for the four years of his stolen presidency.

Now, Hunter Biden appeared in a new interview (after being pardoned by his father six months ago), and he pulled back the curtain on his father’s health and medication use around the time he debated Donald Trump and then dropped out of the presidential race. Well, Representative James Comer (who is the chairman of the House Oversight committee, looking into Joe Biden’s closest aides and requesting they answer questions about Biden’s “mental and physical faculties” while he was in office)… he discusses what some of the revelations mean for ongoing investigations into those who might have covered up the reality of the former president’s health. He also touched on an interesting development to look forward to, which is that the committee scheduled former chief of staff Ron Klain to interview on July 24, and what is especially interesting about former chief of staff Ron Klain, is that he volunteered to come, and so will not have the option to plead the fifth – and so, it should be a revelatory interview.

WAS BIDEN’S PRESIDENCY BARACK OBAMA’S THIRD TERM IN OFFICE?

Well, it ‘s beginning to appear more and more as though Joe Biden’s presidency was nothing more than Barack Obama’s third term. The White House and agencies across the executive branch were staffed with Obama-era operatives including Susan Rice, Lisa Monaco, and others. And so, Barack Obama was seemingly running the show at the White House from behind the scenes (or at least was among those who were), all while Democrats paraded Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as the optically progressive duo.

In light of this, conservative commentator Stephen Philip said something quite apt: he said, “The nation-destroying problems afflicting America (in the Bide-Harris era) are not the mistakes of a senile president. They are the successes of a malevolent shadow president.” This is to say that Joe Biden was Obama’s “presidential avatar.” Yes, Biden became the congressionally certified president of the United States; his portrait is in the history books; he became the guest of honour at the events he attended – despite joking that he played second-fiddle to his wife, to Kamala Harris or to someone else. In addition, yes, in 2024 he technically became the one running for reelection, despite the fact that his campaign was essentially nonexistent.

But, it also became impossible to miss this man’s mental decline. He has spent 40 percent of his presidency on vacation. He often appeared tired or confused. Yet things were getting done at the White House. And by this I mean unpopular, self-destructive, immoral policies were getting ramrodded past constitutional separations of powers and checks and balances, not to mention tens of millions of concerned citizens who were finding themselves increasingly indebted and oppressed by someone with power to get those measures implemented.

Well, the man wielding this power was not the man in the White House during the previous administration whose mental, physical, political, and criminal vulnerabilities were on full display. RATHER, it was the man who was taking advantage of these vulnerabilities from behind the scenes – being Barack Obama.

Ironically, when Joe Biden was clearly not performing well, even Barack Obama shifted allegiance, with communication in dictating concerns about his health. Democrats are definitionally fickle! They will not hesitate to destroy their own, if they see a selfishly defined benefit. If they did it to Berie Sanders, the could do it to Biden, and they can do it to others going forward.

OBAMA-GATE: THE UNRAVELLING OF THE CREATION OF THE RUSSIA HOAX

Now, in 2025, the shifting tide is unrelenting on the Obama legacy – and necessarily so – which brings us to Obamagate. Tulsi Gabbard, as Director of National Intelligence, released a declassified report alleging that Obama administration officials manipulated intelligence related to Russian interference in the 2016 election to undermine President Trump. The report claims that senior Obama officials, including James Comey, John Brennan, James Clapper, and Susan Rice, intentionally created a “manufactured, politicised piece of intelligence” to subvert the will of the American people who voted for Trump. Gabbard further details how there was a document drafted for President Obama in early December 2016, which affirmed that Russia DID NOT have the intent or capability to hack the election outcome, and yet that Document was pulled before publication. Then, the following day, then US president Obama called a National Security Council meeting to discuss Russian interference, leading to the creation of a document that falsely claimed Russia influenced the election.

Obama has orchestrated a lot of the institutional rot we see in America, that has even resulted in the weaponisation of institutions of justice against Trump!  In any case, Tulsi Gabbard has referred the documents to the Department of Justice for further investigation, emphasising the need for accountability to maintain trust in the integrity of the democratic republic. Meanwhile, this revelation comes after President Trump ordered the declassification of all files related to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, contradicting previous intelligence assessments that Russia sought to influence the 2016 election.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso