Tulsi Gabbard Fires Intelligence Officials After Release of TdA Report
www.rollingstone.com
Tulsi Gabbard fired two high level intelligence officials days after releasing a report contradicting Trump's claims about Tren de Aragua.

Summary

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard fired National Intelligence Council Acting Chair Mike Collins and Deputy Maria Langan-Riekhof after they contradicted Trump’s claims about the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.

A declassified NIC report found no Maduro-directed effort behind TDA’s U.S. activity, opposing Trump’s justification for suspending Venezuelan migrants’ due-process rights.

Whistleblowers accused the officials of undermining Trump. Gabbard is relocating the NIC from the CIA to her office.

Critics warned the firings suggest intelligence is being shaped to suit political agendas, not facts.

  • Archangel@lemm.ee
    128·
    18 days ago

    Gabbard is reportedly moving the NIC from the CIA to her own office in order to “directly hold accountable any improper action and politicization of intelligence,” per Fox News.

    Oh, the irony. There is so much irony, it hurts.

  • Trimatrix@lemmy.world
    581·
    18 days ago

    Serious question. But where do I find unfucked sources of news? Like I use to be able to take things like the NIHS, CDC seriously but can’t anymore. Government is pretty much syncopating towards the executive branch.

    I am more or less looking for sources of news that is in their interest to report the facts as accurately as possible.

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
    342·
    18 days ago

    If you’re narking on people who are saying the intelligence doesn’t support those claims, as being “disloyal”, you’re not being a whistleblower.

    You’re being a Nazis prick fucking over someone just doing their job to get ahead of the curve.

        • neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.works
          42·
          17 days ago

          If you look at the definition you provided, right there on the second line underneath the word, it says: “Less common spelling of narc”

          And if you pull up the definition for narc: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/narc

          It contains all the different ways to use it in exactly the way I described in my first response to you :)

          That is the correct spelling of it. Nark might be acceptable by webster’s standards as a less common alternative, but it’s not how that word was spelled or used until people started colloquially mis-spelling it. That is what merriam-Webster’s does, they keep up with language as it evolves.

          But to be clear, Nark is not the canon spelling for this. Narc is. Nark is a misspelling that became colloquially accepted. That does not make it the correct spelling 🙂

          • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
            25·
            17 days ago

            That is what merriam-Webster’s does, they keep up with language as it evolves.

            Read that again.

            But to be clear, Nark is not the canon spelling for this. Narc is. Nark is a misspelling that became colloquially accepted. That does not make it the correct spelling 🙂

            There are many hundreds of regional variations on how we use language, and if you want to go broad enough, spell words. (Center, Centre. Color, Colour. Defense, Defence.) If one were to somehow manage to catalogue everything in such fine detail, one’s use of language would likely be able to be traced down to what highschool clique one belonged. Or cliques. For those of us that have moved to places that have moved… it might even be able to show that transition and place it in a time frame.

            Further, it’s slang. There is always some variation on slang; and correcting someone’s spelling over informal… is asinine. you might have a point, if I were writing for a doctoral thesis where anything but formal, technical language is to be abhorred. But if this were a doctoral thesis, it would be just as innapropriate to use narc- because it is slang.

            Next you’re going to be explaining how it’s “y’all” and not “ya’ll” or " 'yall" or “yall” or even “youse all”

            now go back to that first bit I quote and explain to me how language can possibly have a canon, particularly in informal, casual usage.

            • neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.works
              22·
              17 days ago

              This is a waste of time for us both it seems. Allow me to recap.

              I was making a response to clarify that that was not the correct/common spelling people would associate with the term in the context you tried to use it in. Then you posted a response that literally proved my point. Then I pointed that out with screenshots and links. Now you’re deep into this trying to double down on a broken argument for something that really doesn’t matter man.

              You don’t want to learn something you (almost certainly) weren’t aware of before this exchange. That’s fair. That’s your bag to carry, not mine. It’s not my job to force you agree with very minor misuses of esoteric bits of language that I happen to know a fair bit about and can (and have) backed up.

              Nobody really cares, and I really should take my own advice here and stop responding, so I probably will after this.

              I’m not interested in trying to sort through your hangups with a free therapy session. 🙂

              Good luck.

              Edit: and it appears you’ve just gone back and downvoted me. Well done. You’ve really showed me who was right here.

              • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
                13·
                17 days ago

                Edit: and it appears you’ve just gone back and downvoted me. Well done. You’ve really showed me who was right here.

                Lol. Because you’re wrong and being insufferable about it.

                It’s not my job to force you agree with very minor misuses of esoteric bits of language that I happen to know a fair bit about and can (and have) backed up.

                You haven’t backed up anything.

                Nark is recognized as correct spelling. Dictionaries don’t include misspellings in entries. You don’t also see ‘narck’ or ‘knarc’ or ‘knark’ or any other potential misspelling. Even in MW, it is describes as “a less common variant”.

                ‘Nark’ is a correctly spelled word. it’s also within proper grammar as I used it.

                What I suspect you are trying- and not saying- is that ‘nark’ is not preferred by whatever manual of style you happen to subscribe to. Which is totally, and utterly irrelevant. We are not in a formal venue. We are in a causal venue, and you don’t get to dictate how I express myself. this is not a scientific journal, nor a newspaper. none of the style guides you might care to mention apply. Not the Chicago Manual of Style, nor any other university’s or college’s. Not the AP manual of style, or any other in-house manual of style a paper might use. Neither the AMA guide nor the APA guide, nor the Redbook.

  • D_C@lemm.ee
    20·
    17 days ago

    Good Russian assets protect their Russian leaders bought and paid for Russian puppets!!

  • ssillyssadass@lemmy.world
    19·
    17 days ago

    Prerequisites for getting a job in the US Government:

    1. Don’t speak out against Trump or his regime in any way

    That’s it

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      6·
      17 days ago

      while not a hard prerequisite, having as little experience as possible also helps a lot.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    14·
    17 days ago

    I’d ask how dumb is she, but that is just asking the obvious.

    If you don’t know that creating yes men will undermine you due to a lack of facts, you deserve everything you will get

  • GuyFawkes@midwest.socialEnglish
    13·
    18 days ago

    Critics warned the firings suggest intelligence is being shaped to suit political agendas, not facts.

    Ah, so just like they live the rest of their reality then? Might be the first thing they’re consistent about!