LIVE: Whistleblower SOUNDS ALARM on Trump SCANDAL Gabbard Tried to BURY

DNI Tulsi Gabbard is accused of obstructing the transmission of an urgent intelligence whistleblower report and its underlying classified document to Congress for eight months. This significantly exceeds the three-week delay by DNI Joseph Maguire in 2019 concerning the Trump-Zelensky call, which led to Trump's first impeachment.

The host states, 'DNI Tulsi Gabbard, director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, obstructed transmitting this report and the underlying classified document the report is based on to Congress, not for 3 weeks, but for 8 months.' Andrew Bakaj confirms the accuracy of the host's opening statement.

The underlying intelligence, collected in the spring of last year, captures activity conducted by an individual close to the president. Gabbard allegedly directed this intelligence not to be distributed further within the intelligence community and made herself the only one on the distribution list, after discussing it with the president's chief of staff, Susie Wilds.

Bakaj explains, 'In the spring of last year, there was intelligence that was gathered by an agency that that captured um activity that's being conducted by somebody close to the president... she directed that intelligence not be distributed any further within the intelligence community.'

While the intelligence is not considered overclassified, executive privilege is now being asserted to redact portions of the underlying disclosure transmitted to Congress. This prevents even the 'Gang of Eight' (top congressional leaders with highest clearances) from seeing the full, unredacted information, raising concerns about hiding politically embarrassing details.

Bakaj states, 'there's an assertion of uh executive privilege. And as I understand it, whatever has been transmitted to Congress... they're not redacting for Congress because of the classification. Now, they're redacting from Congress because they're asserting executive privilege.'

The acting ICIG, Tamara Johnson, initially deemed the whistleblower's disclosure urgent but couldn't determine its credibility. Two days later, after news reports surfaced about Gabbard placing Dennis Kirk in the ICIG's office to monitor activity, Johnson reversed her decision, finding the disclosure 'not credible.' This reversal and the alleged monitoring raise serious questions about the independence and neutrality of the ICIG's office.

Bakaj reveals, 'I did not know until this week that two days later the acting IG received a new information presumably by Tulsa Gabbard... and reversed her or corrected her decision in an amended memorandum saying that she found that the disclosure was not credible.' He adds, 'Tulsa Gabbard had placed this person into the ICIG's office to monitor the activity within the IG's office. That destroys the independence and neutrality of the IG.'

The ICIG's method for determining credibility is criticized as flawed. If a whistleblower provides secondhand information (e.g., heard in a meeting) and the alleged wrongdoer denies it (firsthand account), the wrongdoer's account is given higher credibility, effectively shutting down investigations without proper fact-finding. This undermines the purpose of the 14-day urgent concern process, which is meant for initial determination, not full investigation.

Bakaj explains, 'if information is provided by a whistleblower that may be secondhand... and when they speak to the alleged subject of the investigation... and they say, 'Well, I didn't do it.' that person's credibility because they're talking about themselves firsthand is higher than somebody saying that they heard this... and that shuts it down. That's not that's a crazy way of determining credibility in my mind.'