Let’s walk through the timeline. Because the timeline is the confession.

May 25, 2025: an anonymous intelligence community employee files a whistleblower complaint against Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.

The allegation: Gabbard restricted the distribution of a “highly sensitive intelligence report for political reasons” and the general counsel’s office failed to report a “potential crime” to the Justice Department.

June 4, 2025: Acting Inspector General Tamara Johnson reviews the complaint. She determines that “if true” the allegations would constitute a matter of “urgent concern.” But she cannot assess the credibility of the claims.

“If true.” Two words doing all the heavy lifting. If true, it’s urgent. But she can’t determine whether it’s true.

June 9, 2025: five days later, Johnson receives new evidence. She issues a supplemental determination. The first allegation — that Gabbard restricted intelligence distribution for political reasons — “did not appear credible.”

Not credible. Five days of review. New evidence examined. Conclusion: the core allegation against Gabbard was not believable.

The Current IG Goes Further

Inspector General Christopher Fox was appointed after the complaint was filed. Fresh eyes. No institutional history with the case. No political entanglements with the complainant.

Fox conducted his own review. His conclusions, transmitted to the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees:

He confirmed his predecessor’s finding that the allegations did not appear credible.

Then he went further. Fox stated he would “disagree with his predecessor’s determination that the matter met the definition of ‘urgent concern’ under statute.”

Not only are the allegations not credible — they never even qualified as an “urgent concern” in the first place.

The complaint failed on credibility. It failed on statutory threshold. It failed on every level at which a whistleblower complaint is evaluated.

The Wall Street Journal Ran It Anyway

Here’s what the Journal did with this information.

They published an “exclusive” presenting the complaint as a serious, explosive development. A classified whistleblower filing against the Director of National Intelligence. Months of wrangling. Congressional concern. Allegations of stonewalling.

Thirteen paragraphs into the story — buried deep enough that most readers would never reach it — the Journal acknowledged that the acting inspector general had found the allegations “weren’t credible.”

The exoneration was in the story. At paragraph thirteen. Where nobody reads.

The accusation was the headline. The dismissal was an afterthought.

This is how information warfare works in American media. The charge gets the front page. The acquittal gets a footnote.

The 2019 Playbook, Recycled

In August 2019, an anonymous intelligence community employee filed a whistleblower complaint against President Trump regarding a phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky.

The complaint was leaked to media. The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post ran simultaneous stories. Congressional Democrats demanded investigations. The complaint became the basis for Trump’s first impeachment.

The actual transcript of the call showed nothing illegal. The impeachment failed in the Senate. But the process achieved its purpose: months of political paralysis, media saturation, and diplomatic disruption.

The Gabbard complaint follows the identical template.

Anonymous intelligence employee. Classified complaint. Media leaks. Prestige outlet “exclusives.” Congressional outrage. Demands for investigation.

Same playbook. Same outlets. Same anonymous sources. Same pattern of weaponizing the whistleblower process against political opponents.

The only difference: this time, the complaint collapsed in five days instead of surviving long enough to trigger impeachment proceedings.

Why Gabbard Was the Target

The complaint was filed on May 25, 2025.

Gabbard had been DNI for approximately three months. She was already conducting reviews of intelligence community operations, personnel, and processes.

The complaint alleged she restricted intelligence distribution “for political reasons.”

Translation: Gabbard was reviewing who had access to sensitive intelligence and tightening distribution. That’s her job. The DNI is responsible for overseeing intelligence sharing across 18 agencies. Controlling access to highly sensitive reports isn’t political — it’s the core function of the position.

But to someone who was losing access they previously enjoyed, tightened distribution looks like political restriction. Especially if the person losing access had grown accustomed to the permissive environment of the Biden-era intelligence community.

The complaint wasn’t about Gabbard doing something wrong. It was about Gabbard doing something the complainant didn’t like.

The Lawyer Who Can’t See the Evidence

One of the more absurd details: the whistleblower’s attorney couldn’t access the underlying evidence because it was too highly classified.

So a complaint was filed based on allegations the attorney couldn’t independently verify, evaluated by an inspector general who initially couldn’t assess credibility, and then leaked to media who reported it as a bombshell.

Nobody involved in the public narrative had seen the actual evidence. The complaint was treated as credible by the press despite the fact that even the complainant’s own lawyer couldn’t verify the underlying facts.

In any functional system, that would be disqualifying. In Washington, it’s Tuesday.

The Media Coordination Was Immediate

The Wall Street Journal story dropped. Within hours, the Washington Post ran its own angle — questioning why Gabbard had been present at the Fulton County FBI raid. The New York Times followed with its piece about Trump congratulating the agents.

Three outlets. Three angles. One target. One week.

This level of coordination doesn’t happen organically. Sources don’t simultaneously decide to leak to three competing outlets. The timing, the sequencing, and the complementary angles indicate orchestration.

Someone or some group decided that Gabbard needed to be discredited. They distributed information to three prestige outlets with enough variation to appear independent while ensuring maximum saturation.

The complaint was the ammunition. The media was the delivery system. The goal was removing Gabbard — or at minimum, paralyzing her investigation into 2020 election irregularities.

It Failed

The complaint was found not credible. The inspector general confirmed it didn’t meet the statutory threshold. The underlying allegations collapsed under examination.

Gabbard is still DNI. The Fulton County investigation continues. The 700 boxes of seized ballots are being examined.

The playbook failed.

It failed because the timeline moved too fast. In 2019, the Trump-Ukraine complaint survived for months before the transcript was released. The media had time to build an impeachment narrative.

In 2026, the inspector general dismissed the Gabbard complaint in five days. The current IG confirmed the dismissal. Just the News obtained the letter documenting the findings. The whole operation collapsed before it could generate enough momentum to force action.

The Deep State’s Weapons Are Dulling

The whistleblower process was designed to protect legitimate government employees who expose genuine wrongdoing.

It has been systematically weaponized to attack political opponents.

The 2019 complaint against Trump. The CR-15 corruption squad monitoring Republican senators. The FBI agent who tried to open a criminal investigation into Elon Musk for posting on X. And now a complaint against Gabbard that was dismissed as not credible within days of filing.

Each instance follows the same pattern: the complaint is filed, leaked to media, reported as devastating, and then quietly debunked after the political damage is done.

But the debunking is happening faster now. The institutional protections that used to shield these operations are eroding. Inspectors general are applying actual scrutiny. Whistleblower complaints are being evaluated on merit rather than political utility.

The weapons still exist. But they’re dulling. And the people wielding them are running out of credibility.

The complaint against Gabbard was confirmed as worthless. The paper it was written on, as one commentator noted, has more utility in the bathroom than in a courtroom.

And Tulsi Gabbard is still investigating.