As Twitchy readers know, The Guardian wrote a fairly ugly hit piece about a so-called whistleblower who blew the whistle on Tulsi Gabbard.
Gabbard, of course, denied it and ultimately made them all look stupid.
Especially now that we know who was involved in putting everything together ... you'll see a bunch of familiar names here:
The @guardian are now dissembling because in their attempted hit on @TulsiGabbard, they relied on the word of the CIA operative "lawyer" Andrew Bakaj, who worked for Hillary and Schumer on the Hill and represented the Vindmans in the fake Ukraine impeachment.
— Svetlana Lokhova (@RealSLokhova) February 9, 2026
Bakaj has now… https://t.co/TGJ1PMkbiH pic.twitter.com/8sEadnKCAZ
Post continues:
Bakaj has now walked back the whole story. The British intelligence-ran Guardian are now having to "correct" i.e. retract.
There's more, of course.
Interesting that this hit on @TulsiGabbard is coming from the British Guardian.
— Svetlana Lokhova (@RealSLokhova) February 7, 2026
The actual article is bs, of course.
But it shows you who the leaker is, which appears to be Senator Mark Warner's cutout(s)
Christopher Steele/British intel run the Guardian so that's probably… pic.twitter.com/D8x7UpamKo
Post continues:
... how the leak was organized.
I assume they washed it through UK because it's too sensitive to do in the US where they would run into national security issues. Whereas once published, then the US papers can quote the British ones.
Standard CIA tactic is placing fake stories through foreign newspapers.
So I would say it's the anti-Trump elements in the CIA and the NSA as well as Warner and his crew plus the British.
Just like Russiagate
Recommended
While we're certainly not experts, the names involved in this hit piece DO sound very familiar to the group who tried to take Trump down, including the Mark Warner connection.
The Guardian got taken by a "whistleblower," published a false story, and had to issue a major correction, and CNN's media reporter Brian Stelter hasn't mentioned it.
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) February 9, 2026
This is supposed to be his beat.
By the way, for those keeping score, this isn't a "clarification," as journalist Cate Brown says.
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) February 9, 2026
It's a *correction* that completely nukes the original story and should be noted as such.
But "clarification" makes it seem less like they wrote a false hit piece. https://t.co/oaQ5DGLNzP pic.twitter.com/5KuMw2xub5
You'd think they'd have learned their lesson by now, but no.
Stay tuned.
============================================================
Related:
============================================================