I already support her, you don't need to sell her to me...kek

That is a stamp of approval for Tulsi in my book.

The more dangerous they are means the more MAGA.

This traitorous bitch just confirmed the wisdom of Gabbard as Trump's choice. Anyone who causes these morons anxiety is a sure winner for us garbage people.

She just rose in my estimation by 50 percent.

Meanwhile the CIA pushes war, drugs, trafficking, coups, and assassinations.

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1857091197187059713/vid/avc1/1288x720/pbd21DFpP-wsDpWj.mp4

Their faces say it all. They are so out of touch that they think their opinions matter. I hope I get to see both while being perp walked. Throw in Morning Joe, too. DEI, ya know.

hahaha hear the gulp after she says is 'not in the interest of the American people, not in the interest of our national security or on the leadership of the global stage.

And again after she mentions Vladimir Putin. Someone scared or what?

She'll do just fine.

NCSWIC

Pull all their security clearances. Problem solved.

Spanburger should be looking in the mirror when speaking about conspiracies.

And this confirms that Tulsi is a good choice lol

Here is Abigail promoting May as Jewish month. A bit too the nose, this one:

https://twitter.com/RepSpanberger/status/1654199430583668743

“Nominating someone who has a track record of pushing conspiracy theories … is not only irresponsible choice, but also dangerous”.

If people like this are saying similar things - is this a Q proof? It sounds like.

Let’s think logically:

The new DNI (with a track record of “conspiracy theories”) starts the job. What are the possible scenarios?

• The DNI gains the access to the best information in class and finds out that the “conspiracy theories” were just false … curing the brain from ever believing these type of theories again.

• The DNI gains the access and finds out that all these theories were true!

“… is not only irresponsible choice, but also dangerous”.

Let’s look at our scenarios:

• Is the first one dangerous? Nope.

• Is the second dangerous? Yep! Dangerous for them.

What the ex-CIA just told us? Is this a Q proof (right from the Deep State)?

what do you expect from the Dems,yeah she's the perfect choice,when you start hearing some repubs bashing on whomever trump appointed then its time for elons promise to primary and we all know their fixin to pop up their ugly heads.

14,000 provisional ballots on a thumb drive secured her first election to Congress, edging out an actual Patriotic candidate, and nobody dared ask any questions, because she was "former CIA".

She pushes conspiracy theories (That became true) and aligns herself with dictators (one of which won the Presidency) now what

Don't forget to pull the security clearances of all non-gov't employees immediately, and the clearances of the traitors as they're identified ...

A friend who was a CIA Deputy Director left the agency not long after Obama was elected. It was due to people like Spanberger.

. . . and just like THAT, every libtard in the country became the first REAL conspiracy theorists.

None of US ever earned that stupid tag -- on our side no theories were involved.

Any real Anon, who understand that all agencies were allowing evil to thrive before the military intervention and Trump's rise to power, for good, needs to question anyone who was there playing deep states game! Question everything!

I don't trust her at all, no one brings up the fact that she worked in psychological operations.