Tulsi a national security risk? Who would have ever guessed

[jon-nyc]

This is the WSJ saying it reviewed the letter from the inspector general to Gabbard but yeah let’s pretend it’s AI slop if it helps you sleep at night.

[Horace]

Whistleblower complaint filed having something vaguely to do with Tulsi and another administration agency -> complaint makes no splash -> whistleblower's lawyer sends letter to administration and WSJ complaining that there should have been a bigger splash -> Jon thinks the whistleblower's issue is now corroborated by the WSJ.

[Mik]

@jon-nyc said in Tulsi a national security risk? Who would have ever guessed:

This is the WSJ saying it reviewed the letter from the inspector general to Gabbard but yeah let’s pretend it’s AI slop if it helps you sleep at night.

I sleep fine. If you have something, bring it.

[jon-nyc]

The letter has been withheld from Congress. The question is why.

[Horace]

[Horace]

Since no answer from the administration would be accepted by the Trump hating tribe, what we really have is a demand to see the complaint, or else they'll just assume the worst. Zero credence for the possibility that disseminating the complaint would be bad for nat'l security.

[Mik]

Pretty glaring omission on the OP.

[Horace]

@Mik said in Tulsi a national security risk? Who would have ever guessed:

Pretty glaring omission on the OP.

Sometimes I wonder whether Jon's twitter feed might be biased.

[jon-nyc]

Yes but the actual inspector general has not concluded that.

And still no transmission to Congress.

[jon-nyc]

@Mik said in Tulsi a national security risk? Who would have ever guessed:

Pretty glaring omission on the OP.

The OP linked the entire article

[Horace]

Linked the paywalled article, and cut out the juiciest bit that confirms his biases most.