Laura Loomer is now accusing Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian agent 🤣

Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) on X

shit, I think she's right

@0xseraphim from Loomer:

"Slide 4 contains the internal work product of an American corporation (Black and Veatch) that worked with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) in Ukraine. The Russian Government claims to have captured these documents during their invasion of Ukraine. The Russian Government then widely publicized these products in their own official reports in 2022."

So Loomer is trying to paint American intelligence as Russian intelligence, just because Russians publicized it?

@CraigDemel I do not know what Loomer is trying to achieve here. I agree with the analysis that Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian agent. Gabbard’s release misleadingly repackages publicly known U.S.-Ukraine CTR/BTRP biosecurity work in a way that amplifies a Russian disinformation narrative.

Specifically in the context of the above screenshot, I agree that the U.S.-Ukraine biological cooperation is "Cooperative Threat Reduction" (as in, securing dangerous pathogen collections, improving biosafety, and supporting disease surveillance), and not a U.S.-Ukrainian bioweapons program as pushed by Russian disinformation efforts.

I also agree with Loomer when she points out that Gabbard’s ODNI release is misleadingly framed. The press release talks about “biolabs,” alleged coverups, dangerous pathogens, and “in some cases” gain-of-function research, but the released slides do not establish these things took place in Ukraine at all. The release’s framing is intentionally designed to blur the distinction between ordinary "dangerous pathogen" public health/biosecurity work and biological weapons work. She can't get around the fact that there is no evidence that Ukraine’s cooperative program with the U.S. was involved in biological weapons or gain-of-function research.

The effect of the release is to amplify a Russian narrative. Russia has already cited the declassified materials as support for its allegations. Gabbard's goal is to provide Russia a manufactured excuse.

@CraigDemel @0xseraphim Loomer's tweets are interesting, but they're not directly relevant to this market. Only credible evidence of an actual working relationship (e.g. evidence of handling, compensation, tasking, or alternatively a confession) counts, and I've seen zero such evidence so far. That being said, the slides published by Tulsi Gabbard are highly suspicious.

1st slide: Is actually saying the opposite of what Gabbard claims it says.
2nd slide: Is full of errors in a way that makes it impossible to take it seriously (e.g. Ukraine's capital city, Kyiv, misplaced way down in the south of the country).
3rd slide: Public American contractor information and also Russian propaganda (both can be true at the same time).
4th slide: Same as the 3rd, with the difference that this was used by the Russians to accuse the US and Ukraine of military biological activities at the UN Security Council (https://www.the-trench.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/UNSC-20221024-Russia-letter-Article-VI-Documentation.pdf, page 83). The Security Council did not buy it and almost unanimously rejected this "evidence".

Gabbard did not present any new information and is just amplifying the Russian framing*, which is consistent with her working for Russia. It seems unlikely that she'd take a foreseeable political hit (also from Laura Loomer) for no compensation at all. Without evidence however, the possibility remains that e.g. she sincerely believes all of this and / or that she did not foresee or miscalculated the obvious backlash.

----

* Framing is independent of the original source of information, which happens to be American in this case. Propaganda doesn't have to invent new information all the time. On the contrary, the best lies are wrapped around a core of truth.

@0xseraphim Is there any actual analysis for this? Hillary Clinton made a claim about Russian influence at one point, after Gabbard accused her of being pro-war a few times. But AFAICT that's it.

@CraigDemel what do you consider to be "actual analysis"? What "this" are you referring to?

@0xseraphim "this" refers to "the analysis that Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian agent". I have not seen any analysis at all, only an allegation.

@CraigDemel you are asking "Is there any actual analysis for the analysis that Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian agent?" ?

I'm not sure how to help you there unfortunately. Perhaps you want to define, in your view, where the line is drawn between allegations and analysis? Then you could describe what an "actual analysis" would possibly look like?

@0xseraphim No, I'm asking for the analysis to which you were referring.

@CraigDemel you're going to need to be a bit clearer there because this conversation appears to be going in circles

@0xseraphim You said above, "I agree with the analysis that Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian agent." But it appears no such analysis has been performed.

@CraigDemel ah I see what's going on. You may have an unconventional definition of the word analysis. Here is Wikipedia's definition:

@0xseraphim My understanding is conventional. I have seen no evidence, thought, or breaking down into parts. Only the repetition of a D party base meme.

@CraigDemel then no matter what explanation or analysis you're given, if you see it through that framing then your conditioning will move you to say that it's not an "actual analysis". In light of this breakthrough, I have lost interest in this conversation 😂

@0xseraphim So far I have seen zero analysis from you. "Tulsi is likely a Russian agent because it fits pattern X" would be an example of analysis. "I believe everything said by my tribe" is not.

I will certainly understand you if you do not wish to continue the conversation at this point.

@CraigDemel buddy you can't even read

@0xseraphim Thank you for finally providing the substance of your analysis. So to steelman, you think her releasing correct information which "serves a Russian disinformation narrative" is most likely to be because she is a Russian agent?

@CraigDemel you are subconsciously aware of the limitations of your worldview and you are projecting this onto the person on the other side of the conversation. I am not a participant in your weird little Republican/Democrat culture war nonsense. There is no value in continuing this discussion since you don't have the ability to think about reality outside of this framing. There is no point discussing explanations with you, because your fabricated reality would make you just blank the whole thing out.

@0xseraphim to what part of my steel man are you objecting?

@CraigDemel I'm objecting to you as a person

@0xseraphim Thanks, this will help a lot of people in determining how much weight to give to your statements.

@CraigDemel good thing this is a prediction market then, eh?

https://x.com/DNIGabbard/status/1946271402971312514

She follows Russia's narrative on nuclear weapons and Iran: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/tulsi-gabbard-sidelined-trump-administration-discussions-israel-iran-rcna212702