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

So the assessment of the intelligence community is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated by last summer's airstrikes.

Yes.

In the opening statement you submitted to the committee last night also stated, quote, there has been no effort since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability, end quote, correct?

That's right.

And that's the assessment of the intelligence community.

Yes.

The White House stated on March 1st of this year that this war was launched and was, quote, a military campaign to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime, end quote. That's a statement from the White House. Quote the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime. Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was an imminent nuclear

threat posed by the Iranian regime?

The intelligence community assessed that Iran maintained the intention to rebuild and to continue to grow their nuclear enrichment

Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was a quote imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?

Yes, or no senator the only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president.

False.

This is the worldwide threats hearing where you present to Congress national intelligence, timely objective and independent of political considerations. You've stated today that the intelligence community's assessment is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated and that quote there had been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability. Was it the intelligence community's assessment that nevertheless despite this obliteration

there was a quote imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or no?

It is not the intelligence community's responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat.

Okay.

That is up to the president based on a volume of information and evidence that he receives.

No, it is precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United States. This is the worldwide threats hearing where, as you noted in your opening testimony, quote, you represent the IC's assessment of threats. You are here to represent the IC's assessment of threats. That's a quote from your own opening statement.

And so my question is, as you're here to present the IC's assessment of threats, was it the assessment of the intelligence community that as the White House claimed on March 1st, there was a quote imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?

Yes or no? Once again, Senator, the intelligence community has provided the inputs that make up this annual threat assessment. You won't answer the question. It is the nature of the imminent threat that the president has to make that determination based on a collection in volume of information and intelligence that he is provided with.

You're here to be timely, objective, and independent of political considerations.

Exactly what I'm doing.

No, you're evading a question because to provide a candid response to the committee would contradict a statement from the White House.

That was Senator Jon Ossoff asking the apparently impossible question of, did Iran pose an imminent threat to the United States to Tulsi Gabbard, who seems incapable of giving any answer and instead suggests that the only person in the United States of America, in its government, who's in a position to give any answers on anything, is apparently the president. And look, Senator Ossoff did a perfect job at pointing out the fact that Tulsi Gabbard is being evasive because she didn't want to contradict Trump and the White House, namely

that Iran posed an imminent threat.

Iran was a threat. Every country realized what a threat Iran was. The question is whether or not they wanted to do something about it.

So why are they saying this? Because to be blunt, no one knows why the fuck we're at war and Donald Trump doesn't either. So he needed a justification. And what he landed on was that there was no choice because Iran posed an imminent threat to us here at the United States.

And so right on cue, his underling started echoing this sentiment. In response to the resignation letter by Joe Kent conceding that Iran didn't pose an imminent threat, Caroline Leavitt came out and wrote, there are many false claims in this letter but let me address one specifically that Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation. This is the same false claim that Democrats and some in the liberal media have been repeating over and over. Which sure is interesting because just days ago, Caroline

Leavitt herself tweeted, quote, to be clear, no such threat from Iran to our homeland exists and it never did. In other words, Iran poses no threat to our homeland and they never did. But also Democrats in the liberal media are lying when they say that Iran poses no threat to our homeland. Makes sense for everyone.

But here's what's even more damning. In that same hearing, Tulsi Gabbard negated her own argument by conceding that Iran had made no effort to rebuild their enrichment capability since it was, quote-unquote, obliterated by the U.S. in the summer.

That opening statement as submitted to the committee in advance of this hearing stated that as a result of last summer's airstrikes, quote, Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated, end quote, correct?

That's right.

And is that, in fact, the assessment of the intelligence community?

Yes.

So the assessment of the intelligence community is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated by last summer's airstrikes?

Yes.

In the opening statement you submitted to the committee last night also stated, quote, there has been no effort since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability, end quote, correct? That's right. And that's the assessment of the intelligence community?

Yes.

The White House stated on March 1st of this year that this war was launched and was, quote, a military campaign to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime and quote That's a statement from the White House quote the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime

So if Iran's nuclear enrichment had been obliterated and they made no effort to rebuild their enrichment capability Then how did they suddenly pose an imminent threat if we'd already gotten the job done in June? The answer is that they didn't. And of course Tulsi Gabbard knows that, but again, her job here is not to tell the truth, it is to protect her boss.

And because Trump vomited out some nonsense about Iran posing a threat to the US, now all of these clowns at his circus need to parrot his new talking point and pretend that it's gospel. And what you're left with is the literal director of national intelligence refusing to admit that she is capable of answering any basic questions about national intelligence. The reality is that she, like everyone else in this White House, is perfectly content

to abandon all of her previously stated positions if it means that she stays in the good graces of a despot. Remember, this was Tulsi Gabbard over the years.

Let's deal with the situation where we are, where this president and his chicken hawk cabinet 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, a war that took over 4,000 of my brothers and sisters in uniforms lives. The American people need to understand that this war with Iran would be far more devastating, far more costly than anything that we ever saw in Iraq.

It would take many more lives. It would exacerbate the refugee crisis. And it wouldn't be just contained within Iran. This would turn into a regional war. This is why it's so important that every one of us, every single American stand up and say no war with Iran. We've got to be clear eyed about the situation that we are in, that inching closer, actually

more than inching, speeding towards an all out war with Iran would make the wars that we've seen in Iraq and in Afghanistan look like a picnic. It will be far more costly in lives, American lives and American taxpayer dollars and all towards accomplishing what goal, what objective? I think that's really at the crux of this decision that President Trump made. That's exactly what Trump did.

He conducted and committed an act of war without congressional authority, seriously escalating the situation with Iran. 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 are in a war with Iran right now. So the real issue is, are we going to allow this war to continue to escalate? And if so, for how long and to

achieve what objective?

I think you get the point. And yet now she's basically turned into Colin Powell 2.0. Tulsi is not in her role despite her shamelessness. She is there because of it. It's expressly

because she stands for nothing and will shape shift to fill whatever role is required of in her role despite her shamelessness, she is there BECAUSE of it. It's expressly BECAUSE

she stands for nothing and will shapeshift to fill whatever role is required of her that she has her job. Donald Trump wanted a cabinet full of morally bankrupt, malleable individuals, job. Donald Trump wanted a cabinet full of morally bankrupt, malleable individuals, and Tulsi Gabbard is a testament to the fact that that is exactly what he got. dot. is a good thing.