Anthony Aguilar, a retired U.S. special forces veteran who recently returned from Gaza, recounted the horrific story of a child shot dead at an aid distribution site just moments after thanking Aguilar for the food he helped provide.
Aguilar – who served the US Armed Forces for twenty five years, has been deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan, and was awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze Star – said he witnessed the incident while working as a sub-contractor for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, an organization backed by the United States and Israel to replace the United Nations efforts to provide aid to Gaza, in an operation that independent observers have described as dangerous and ineffective.
In an interview with UnXeptable – an organization which describes itself as “a grassroots movement launched by a group of Israelis expats for saving Israeli democracy” — Aguilar detailed the atrocities he said he witnessed while working for the organization.
“This young boy — this is on May 28th on secure distribution site number two — the aid had been distributed. A lot of people had left,” said Aguilar, showing pictures of the event. He continued:
This little boy, his name is Amir. And he was standing, he was with the crowd… He walks over to me and he and he puts out his hand. And at first I thought like that he that he wanted more food or something.
And I felt bad because I didn’t have anything. But I was like, “Oh, I have I have nothing.” And he and he puts out his hand. And so I beckoned him to come to me. I said, you know “come here.” And he reaches out and he holds my hand and he kisses my hand. He kisses my hand and he says, “Shukran.”
“Shukran” is the Arabic word for “thank you.”
“You can see in this picture that this little boy is not wearing shoes. His clothes are falling off of him because he’s so skinny,” Aguilar continued. “This little boy from where he came from walked 12 kilometers to get there. Just to get there. 12 kilometers. Look at this boy. And when he got there, he thanked us for the remnants and the small crumbs that he got.”
Aguilar described what happened next:
And he sets his food down and he places his hands on my face on the side of my face on my cheeks. These frail skeleton emaciated hands, dirty. And he puts them on my face and he kissed me. He kissed me and he said, “Thank you” in English. Thank you. And he collected his items and he walked back to the group and then he was shot at with pepper spray and tear gas and stun grenades and bullets shot at his feet and in the air and he runs away scared.
Aguilar said Amir was then shot, by Israeli soldiers, along with others attempting to get food.
“As they’re leaving the site and they get to the next intersection. I hear machine gunfire,” he said. “The IDF were shooting at the crowd.”
“Human beings are dropping to the ground and getting shot. Amir was one of them. Amir walked 12 kilometers to get food, got nothing but scraps, thanked us for it, and died. That’s what we’re doing.”
Aguilar has been speaking out about the actions of the GHF and IDF in Gaza. In an interview with the BBC, he said his “most frank assessment” is that the aid distribution was “criminal.”
“In my entire career, I have never witnessed the level of brutality and use of indiscriminate and unnecessary force against a civilian population, an unarmed, starving population,” he said. “I have never witnessed that in all the places that I have been deployed to war, until I was in Gaza — at the hands of IDF and US contractors.”
In response to Aguilar’s interview with the BBC, the IDF and GHF denied his claims.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Kevin MacDonaldhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngKevin MacDonald2025-07-31 10:27:172025-07-31 10:27:17Mediaite: US Veteran Alleges Gazan Child Who Thanked Him For Food Was Shot Dead Moments Later By IDF
Gilad Atzmon on Facebook: As I have been telling you for a while, the holocaust stands little chance to survive the Gaza Genocide. The people who commit the most documented genocide to date cannot pluck the victim string any longer.
In that regard we should consider Brazil’s action as an Early Bird.
However ‘IHRA officials’ complaining about the ‘politization of the Holocaust’ is just comical considering the fact that this is exactly what the IHRA is all about: an institutional global politization of the Holocaust!
For Israeli and Jewish organisations around the world (anti Zionist included) the Holocaust has always been a political tool as well as means of emotional and financial blackmail. It was the legendary Israeli diplomat Abba Eben who coined the famous “there is no business like the Shoah business”. He was of course amongst the first to see the Holocaust as Israel’s milking cow.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Kevin MacDonaldhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngKevin MacDonald2025-07-30 10:13:442025-07-30 10:13:44Israeli born ex-Jew Gilad Atzmon: The Nazi Holocaust Won’t Survive the Gaza Genocide
The media and Elon Musk noticed that the police chief couldn’t say how the media distorted anything. A good sign that he gets it.
Cincinnati Police Chief Teresa Theetge told reporters on Monday that social media users and journalists are “missing context” by shining the spotlight on viral footage of a Black mob attacking White jazz festival partygoers in downtown Cincinnati, Ohio. This is the same police chief currently being sued for discrimination, allegedly favoring women and minorities over merit-based criteria when making assignment decisions.
Footage from early Saturday morning shows a Black mob brutally beating a White man and woman in a downtown Cincinnati neighborhood. The video has since gone viral on X, prompting reactions from Elon Musk and Vice President J.D. Vance.
While holding a press conference about the incident on Monday, Theetge accused social media and MSM journalists of misrepresenting the entire incident and making it “more difficult” for her department to investigate and enforce the law.
“Social media, the posts that we’ve seen, does not depict the entire incident. That is one version of what occurred. At times, social media and mainstream media and their commentaries are misrepresentations of the circumstances surrounding any given event,” the police chief said.
Theetge continued, “What that does, that causes us some difficulty in thoroughly investigating the activity and enforcing the law. Because what happens, that social media post and your coverage of it distorts the content of what actually happened and it makes our job more difficult.
One reporter asked Theetge: “You said social media and news media distorted the context of what exactly happened. What exactly was distorted? I understand there were multiple views of the video, but what led up to this? What was distorted?”
Theetge responded but did not answer the question – just rambled on about social media…
Musk commeneted on the video, saying, “Either she answers the question or she should resign.”
VP Vance also commented on the incident during an appearance in Ohio on Monday. He described the incident as a “street attack,” and “What I saw is a mob of lawless thugs beating up on an innocent person, and it’s disgusting.”
Meanwhile, local media reported last month that Theetge was being sued by several White captains and lieutenants within the department for discrimination over assignments that are considered “career enhancing.”
“The lawsuit also claims that out of CPD’s female lieutenants, 89% were given preferred assignments. 79% of minority lieutenants also got preferred assignments,” WLWT5 reported, adding, “Those numbers are compared to 44% of white, male lieutenants being given preferred assignments.”
Back to the street attack incident, local media WXIX noted that Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, was closely monitoring the investigation.
What the hell is happening in Cleveland?
Federal law applies to all Americans – something cultural Marxists and Democrats disagree on.
Want to know more?
“Whites Only” Town Draws Anger While “Blacks Only” Town Gets Applause
“Illegal Alien Monster” Shoots Border Patrol Agent Point-Blank In Manhattan
The Protest-Industrial-Complex Isn’t Peaceful, It’s “Civil Terrorism” …
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Americans’ approval of Israel’s military action in Gaza has fallen 10 percentage points since the prior measurement in September, and it is now at 32%, the lowest reading since Gallup first asked the question in November 2023. Disapproval of the military action has now reached 60%.
These findings are from a July 7-21, 2025, Gallup poll, as Israel’s campaign against Hamas stretched into its 21st month. Americans supported Israel’s actions in Gaza in its initial reading in 2023, taken several weeks after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack. Since then, disapproval has outpaced approval in each survey, peaking at 55% in March 2024 before dipping to 48% in two readings later in the year.
Americans Sharply Divided by Party Over Israel’s Actions
The decline in approval is driven by 16-point drops among both Democrats and independents. As has been the case since the start of the conflict, independents (25%) express higher approval than Democrats (8%), but both groups currently register their lowest readings to date. In contrast, 71% of Republicans say they approve of Israel’s action in Gaza, up from 66% in September.
Approval of Israel’s Military Action in Iran Slightly Higher Than in Gaza
The July survey also asked about support for Israel’s military action targeting suspected nuclear enrichment and military sites in Iran. Currently, 38% of Americans express approval of this military action; 54% disapprove. Seventy-eight percent of Republicans, 31% of independents and 12% of Democrats approve.
While estimates differ on how much the attack set back Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon, concerns that the action, which included a military assist from the U.S., could spark a wider war have not materialized.
Netanyahu Rated Unfavorably by Majority of Americans for First Time
Fifty-two percent of Americans now view Benjamin Netanyahu unfavorably, his highest unfavorable rating since 1997. His favorable rating stands at 29%, while 19% of U.S. adults have no opinion of him.
Until December 2023, Americans viewed Netanyahu more positively than negatively, except in 1997, when he was less well known. In the December 2023 poll, Netanyahu’s unfavorable rating far outpaced his 33% favorable rating, with the current poll showing a continued deterioration in his image.
Netanyahu’s unfavorable rating has roughly doubled since 2019, the last reading before the start of the current conflict. The increase in unfavorability has been accompanied by roughly equal decreases in his favorable rating (down 11 points) and the percentage with no opinion of the Israeli leader (down 14 points).
During the poll’s field period, Netanyahu visited the U.S. to meet with President Donald Trump and other political leaders. Although the Trump administration continued its efforts to broker a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, Netanyahu left Washington without such a deal.
Republicans continue to have a broadly positive opinion of the conservative Israeli prime minister. Two-thirds of Republicans, 67%, now have a favorable opinion of Netanyahu, compared with 19% of independents and 9% of Democrats. While Republicans have held a consistently more favorable opinion of Netanyahu than Democrats and independents throughout the trend, the current 58-point party gap is the largest.
Republicans’ opinions of Netanyahu are similar to their views in 2019, which was Gallup’s last reading prior to the Oct. 7 attacks, while Democrats’ and independents’ ratings of him are sharply worse.
Demographic Differences in Views of Netanyahu, Israel’s Military Action
Partisans’ differences in support for Netanyahu and Israel’s military action in both Gaza and Iran are reflected in significant differences by gender, age, race and ethnicity. Men, White adults, and those aged 55 and older are more likely than their counterparts to view Netanyahu favorably and approve of Israel’s military action in Gaza and Iran.
Bottom Line
Americans’ support for Israel’s military operation in Gaza and their positive views of Netanyahu have both reached new lows, reflecting sharp declines in Democrats’ and independents’ support. At the same time, Republicans’ backing of Israel’s military action and its prime minister is holding firm, resulting in record partisan gaps on both. The increasingly skeptical and divided American public poses a challenge for Israeli leadership and U.S. policymakers who are seeking to navigate the conflict.
Stay up to date with the latest insights by following @Gallup on X and on Instagram.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Kevin MacDonaldhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngKevin MacDonald2025-07-30 08:48:382025-07-30 08:48:38Gallup Poll: 71% of Republicans still support Israel’s Genocide in Gaza
While the United States continues to deal with its own domestic speech controversies, including around a Trump administration order sanctioning anyone who’s “materially assisted” the International Criminal Court (ICC), the European Commission is trying to use its own draconian speech laws to impact countries beyond its borders, including the U.S., according to an alarming new House Judiciary Committee report.
The Committee chaired by Ohio’s Jim Jordan began investigating Europe’s primary speech-control law, the Digital Services Act, after a bizarre incident last August. Europe’s Commissioner for Internal Markets, Thierry Breton, sent a letter to X CEO Elon Musk threatening an “extremely vigilant” response for “any negative effect of illegal content on X in the EU,” ahead of a planned live interview of Donald Trump by Musk. Though the interview was to be held in Washington — speech between two Americans in America, distributed by an American company — Breton was upset it would be “accessible to users in the EU,” and “spillovers” of “illegal content” might ensue. Though Breton resigned shortly after in a clash with President Ursula von der Leyen, questions about how serious Europe might or might not be about asserting jurisdiction over American speech remained.
Nearly a year later, Jordan’s Committee has come back with unpleasant answers. On May 7th, European authorities held a “DSA MultiStakeholder Workshop” in Brussels, intended to help major platforms like Meta, X, and Google understand their obligations under the DSA. As Jordan notes, the seminar was closed to the public, unlike previous seminars about laws like the Digital Markets Act. Participants of the new event were specifically warned not to describe the seminar’s “exercise scenarios,” but Jordan’s committee got hold of key documents.
Europe already has a broad definition of “illegal content,” but the “MultiStakeholder Workshop” participants were additionally asked to come up with intervention plans for content that isn’t “illegal,” even according to Europe’s loony standards. Moreover, European authorities made it clear that platforms were expected to prepare changes to their “global” policies, meaning “European censorship may affect what Americans can say and see online,” as Jordan’s report put it.
“On paper, the DSA is bad,” the report concluded. “In practice, it is even worse.”
The Trump administration’s most controversial speech policies have involved using AI to screen social media accounts of would-be “pro-Hamas” visitors and the withholding of subsidies from universities like Columbia for allegedly failing to stop antisemitism. The most consistent themes in Trump’s First Amendment controversies are the removal of subsidies for ideologically charged policies or speech (from NPR to VOA to DEI to universities) and using immigration and anti-terror laws like the PATRIOT Act to try to expel immigrants over “beliefs, statements, or associations.” Courts have delivered varying rulings on these matters, and even some of Trump’s erstwhile supporters have expressed unease with some his policies.
Europe’s pattern is the inverse of Trump’s. It keeps trying to expand its subsidy of ideologically charged speech, and it’s using even broader and more powerful tools than Trump’s executive orders to try to eliminate criticism of its immigration policies. The recent workshop also clearly shows the EU expanding both the scope and the methodology of its censorship practices, going after humor, satire, anodyne political opinions, memes that “may” spread “discriminatory ideologies,” and other content its army of “trusted flaggers” might not have noted even a few years ago. Some of the most upsetting examples:
The Workshop presented attendees like Google, Meta, and X with hypothetical scenarios, then asked participants to “outline” what “interventions” it would employ. In one example, a “16-year-old Muslim girl who has a history of feeling self-conscious about her identity” is exposed to content on a hypothetical platform by a user named “@Patriot90” who shares a meme of a “woman in a hijab” over the caption, “Terrorist in disguise.” She then reads comments like “We need to take back our country” and “I’m not racist, but…” that makes her feel a “surge of anxiety.” This is described as an encounter with “illegal content” that platforms would need to address:
Ursula von der Leyen’s government views “take back our country” to be “illegal content.”
The Jordan report shows European authorities essentially criminalizing criticism of immigration policies, barring even sarcastic comments about alleged offenses by immigrants. In one example, a user who read a news article about a Syrian immigrant family reported to have committed “110 criminal offences” responded by writing, “Deport the lot of them.” German authorities called this illegal “incitement to hatred” and indicative of “attacks on human dignity.” In another example, French officials targeted a cheeky X post after an infamous episode in which a Syrian refugee attacked parents and children in the French town of Annecy:
People of course have different opinions about immigration, and content that’s offensive or harmful to some might seem justified to others. In the Twitter Files it was obvious that constant ideological pressure led companies to impose changes to algorithmic content moderation policies, which inevitably lead to certain kinds of news becoming increasingly difficult to share and eventually, invisible. The EU is now trying to accelerate that effect, taking the position that otherwise legal discussions existing downstream from “illegal content” are also offenses. They’re targeting the platforms’ recommendation and amplification mechanisms as well, encouraging private firms to make sure they’re not boosting any harm-adjacent content.
Maybe the most interesting exhibits in the Jordan report are the letters between Jordan’s Committee and European officials. Breton last August humorously told Jordan “the DSA does not regulate content” and instead merely “require[s] online platforms to act responsibly.” Henna Virkkunnen, Europe’s Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, doubled down on the claim earlier this year, writing to Jordan:
I want to be very clear: the DSA does not regulate speech. The DSA is content-agnostic, and so is the European Commission and Member States as regulators, which have no power to moderate content…
Virkkunnen went on to say that the DSA merely asks platforms to “assess and mitigate” certain risks, like those “related to the dissemination of illegal goods and the protection of children,” a baldly disingenuous claim that almost had to be intended as an insult. The DSA’s face page reads, “The DSA regulates online intermediaries and platforms such as marketplaces, social networks, content-sharing platforms, app stores, and online travel and accommodation platforms.” In other words: we don’t regulate speech, just all forms of digital communication.
In the United States we punish civil and criminal offenses like threats, fraud, incitement, libel, and defamation, so even Jefferson or Madison spoke with an implied asterisk when touting our absolute right to free speech. Still, it’s a different level of self-contradiction when Virkkunnen writes that “it is our belief that it should not be up to politicians, executives or private companies to take decisions on what citizens have the right to see or say online,” while Europe is implementing “strict rules” and “more stringent obligations” via the most expansive speech regulation ever deployed in a democracy. America has its own internal battles to fight on this front, but it’s worth remembering from time to time what’s on the other side of the fence, and it’s not pretty.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Kevin MacDonaldhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngKevin MacDonald2025-07-29 09:39:352025-07-29 09:39:35Matt Taibbi: Report: European Censorship Accelerates
On Monday in Gaza the IDF stepped up the killing.The latest AP report, https://archive.is/sTfcA updated about 11 PM Gaza time, says “killed at least 78 Palestinians” including “dozens” seeking food. Contrary to Israeli assertions yesterday a
“U.N. official said nothing on the ground has changed and no alternative routes were allowed.”
Various US MSM outlets such as The Los Angeles Times carriedhttps://archive.is/FlEoI different versions of the AP report.
The last Aljazeera update https://archive.is/7uOBJ, at 12-30 AM Gaza time Tuesday said “At least 92 people have been killed across Gaza by Israeli fire…,medical sources say. Among the dead, 41 were aid seekers.” NPR reports https://archive.is/DMt6K that President Trump has split from the Israeli line on the famine Trump said “Israel has a lot of responsibility” for the limited food aid in Gaza, and said he wanted Netanyahu to “make sure they get the food.”
Less encouragingly, Haaretz reports https://archive.is/TAYlU Netanyahu is “planning to annex parts of the Gaza Strip, with the backing of the Trump administration”
Meantime, the US Democratic Establishment seems to be responding to its Left. The Guardian reports https://archive.is/LNhEQ “In letter, 21 senators say funding to GHF resulted in killings of more than 700 civilians seeking food and violated the law… independent senator Angus King from Maine who caucuses with Democrats, “I am through supporting the actions of the current Israeli government and will advocate – and vote – for an end to any United States support whatsoever”
The New York Times a remarkably outspoken critique https://archive.is/n8yWl#selection-519.0-519.87 ‘Total Failure’: Israel’s Return to War Heaped Ruin on Gaza and Did Little for Israelis “The Times They Are A-Changin’!”
H/T Pic CNN Trucks carrying humanitarian aid in Egypt wait to be allowed to cross into Gaza on Monday
From KM: Just in time to change the subject from the Gaza genocide, NPR has a long segment on a life-long friendship between an Iraqi Jew and an Iraqi Muslim, as told by the Jewish daughter. She emphasizes the diversity of her neighborhood and that the Jews got along with everyone until the 1967 war. Then it’s a tale of persecution… Jews as victims.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Patrick Cleburnehttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngPatrick Cleburne2025-07-28 19:10:542025-07-28 19:10:54Gaza Monday. Haaretz: Netanyahu is “planning to annex parts of the Gaza Strip, with the backing of the Trump administration”
Five Crucial Facts From The House Intel Report On 2016 Russian Interference. Zero Hedge, July 26, 2025.
(Authored by Fred Fleitz via American Greatness,) Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard did an excellent service to our nation this week when she released a declassified version of a critical September 2020 House Intelligence Committee staff report on a major January 2017 intelligence report, known as an Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), titled “Russia’s Influence Campaign Targeting the 2016 US Presidential Election.” Gabbard’s decision came after a years-long tug-of-war over the release of this report between Republican members of Congress who believe it provides critical information about the Russia collusion hoax and the involvement of Obama officials and the U.S. Intelligence Community versus Democratic congressmen and deep state intelligence officials who have desperately tried to hide this report from the American public. >Press accounts have reported most of the essential details of the House report, such as how it was rushed out on President Obama’s orders to be published just before Trump’s first inauguration in January 2017. Media stories have also detailed how substandard intelligence was used to justify the ICA’s finding that Russia meddled in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win and that this bad intelligence was included on the orders of CIA Director John Brennan over the objections of senior CIA analysts. The media has also reported the House Intelligence report’s finding that a hand-picked group of five analysts wrote the ICA and that it was not adequately vetted by U.S. intelligence agencies and analysts. It is also clear in the House report that, despite numerous statements by Brennan denying it, the fraudulent Steele dossier was heavily used in the ICA. I am very familiar with the House Intelligence Committee report. I was permitted to read a classified version of the report when I served as Chief of Staff of the National Security Council in August 2018. I also discussed efforts by the White House to pressure the CIA to release the report a month before the 2020 presidential election with the late Lou Dobbs. This reportedly included President Trump visiting the CIA to retrieve the report personally. >Based on my understanding of this issue, here are five key points about the House Intelligence Committee report that most Americans may not be aware of.
(1) The House Intelligence Committee report is a credible and carefully drafted paper.
Although the House report was written by the House Intelligence Committee’s Republican staff, its fairness and balance are a credit to its authors and then-Chairman Devin Nunes. The report says on page 1 that committee investigators spent over 2,300 hours reviewing the ICA and its source reports and interviewed 20 intelligence and FBI officers. Its conclusions reflect objectivity and would not be found in a biased, partisan report. For example, the House report concedes at the beginning that the ICA’s finding that Russia meddled in the 2016 election to undermine faith in the U.S. democratic process and to weaken an inevitable Clinton presidency used proper intelligence tradecraft. However, the House report took issue with the ICA’s distortions of intelligence tradecraft standards to assess that Putin had a clear preference for Trump to win and “aspired to help his chances of victory.” The House Intelligence report also includes strong, nonpartisan recommendations, including a call for political appointees of outgoing administrations to recuse themselves from any involvement in intelligence reports drafted in the future under similar circumstances. I spoke with the two principal authors of the House report after I read it in August 2018. I found them to be professional and knowledgeable. They answered all my questions and provided me with additional information that was not in the report. A CIA official told me earlier this month that one of the authors had been retained by the Agency to prepare the report for release.
(2) The Republican House report is more credible than a similar bipartisan Senate report.
The authors of the House Intelligence Committee report told me they believed their report, written by the committee’s Republican staff, was more credible than a bipartisan report would be because many of the CIA officers they interviewed would not have spoken to a bipartisan investigation team. The reason was that Democratic staff and members of a bipartisan investigation might inform agency management about which agency officers had spoken to committee investigators, potentially leading to retaliation. I agree and believe this is why recent attempts by liberal reporters and Democratic congressmembers to use a similar bipartisan report by the Senate Intelligence Committee issued in April 2020 to discredit the House Intelligence Committee report are not credible.
(3) The ICA omitted intelligence that Putin may have wanted Clinton to win the 2016 election.
Many press reports about the House Intelligence Committee report focused on how weak and fragmentary intelligence was used to support the ICA’s assessment that Russia wanted Trump to win the 2016 election. However, the House report also notes that the ICA ignored two significant alternative hypotheses suggested by the intelligence and Russian behavior: that Putin either did not care who won the 2016 election or wanted Hillary Clinton to win. The House report said some of the omitted intelligence analysis indicated that Putin did not have a preference in the election outcome because both Trump and Clinton would be bad for Russia and unlikely to improve relations. Also notable was the omitted analysis that Putin may have wanted Clinton to win the 2016 election because she would be a more vulnerable president than Trump and Russia had a reserve of compromising materials to use against Clinton but not Trump. Similarly, the House report also noted that the ICA did not address that Moscow viewed Clinton as a weaker candidate due to Russian intelligence reporting on her psychological health. In addition, the House report said the timing and content of Russian operational orders “indicated that Moscow assumed they had unique leverage over Secretary Clinton that would be more useful if she won the election.” On the other hand, the House report said some senior Russian officials worried that a Trump administration would have a hardline national security team hostile to Russia. The report also quoted a redacted Russian source who “cautioned about the risks to Russia of a Republican administration, noting that ‘those who would hold positions in a Trump administration should he win will likely adhere to conservative anti-Russia positions.’”
(4) The House Intelligence Committee report was stuck for years in the “turducken safe” at the CIA for political reasons and due to CIA Director Gina Haspel’s inept and partisan leadership.
Although the House report was completed by the summer of 2018 and considered an important and damning indictment of the Obama administration and U.S. intelligence agencies for politicizing intelligence to promote the Russia collusion hoax, House Republicans and the Trump White House were unable to convince CIA Director Gina Haspel to declassify and clear the report for release to the public. Then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Nunes sent the report to the CIA for clearance in the summer of 2018. The CIA dragged its feet in clearing the report and failed to do so before Nunes lost the committee chairmanship in January 2019, due to the Democrats winning control of the House in the 2018 election. After Congressman Adam Schiff succeeded Nunes as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, the CIA refused to clear the report because Nunes was no longer the chairman and Schiff would not sign off on Nunes’s release request. Because of the confusing politics and competing jurisdictions over the House report, it was kept at the CIA in a safe within a safe, leading the New York Times to call this the “turducken safe”—a gun box-like container controlled by the House Intelligence Committee’s Republican members and located inside a CIA vault. The House Intelligence Committee’s Republican members refused to grant Democratic committee members access to their safe or allow them to review the report. Haspel and NSA Director Paul Nakasone also objected to releasing the report, claiming it would reveal sensitive intelligence. In addition, Haspel and Nakasone reportedly opposed releasing the House report because they asserted it contained unverified information and “cherry-picked” intelligence. Democratic congressmembers also strongly opposed the release of the House Republican report. In opposing the report’s release in late 2020, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff charged that the report sought to whitewash Russia’s election interference in the 2016 presidential election. Regardless of how ardently Haspel and Nakasone held their positions opposing the release of the House report, because the president is ultimately in charge of all U.S. intelligence and classification decisions, their refusal to cooperate with White House orders to release the report was, in my opinion, insubordination to a U.S. president. Moreover, DNI Gabbard’s action this week proved there were no valid national security reasons not to release a declassified version of this report.
(5) President Trump and his senior White House staff regarded the House intelligence report as so crucial that Trump reportedly considered going to the CIA before the 2020 election to retrieve and release the report himself.
According to my sources at the White House and the House Intelligence Committee, the White House believed in the fall of 2020 that it was crucial for the American people to read this House report before the November 2020 presidential election. The White House ordered CIA Director Haspel to release the report before the election. She refused. I received a phone call about this matter in late October 2020 from Lou Dobbs, the host of the Fox Business Network show “Lou Dobbs Tonight” and a close friend of President Trump. I often appeared on Dobbs’ show as a former CIA analyst. He called to consult with me about a possible trip by President Trump to CIA headquarters to retrieve the House Intelligence Committee report so he could release it. I told Dobbs that I feared this would not work because CIA Director Haspel would learn about the president’s visit in advance and hide the inner safe containing the report before he arrived. Dobbs agreed with me and said he would convey this to President Trump. Trump’s alleged visit to the CIA to seize the House report never took place.
I would like to again thank Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard for finally releasing the House Intelligence Committee’s critical report on how President Obama, senior Obama officials, and intelligence officials were responsible for issuing a rigged and politicized intelligence assessment just before Donald Trump’s first inauguration to destroy his presidency. This fraudulent intelligence report hounded Trump throughout his first term and contributed to his first sham impeachment in 2019. This perversion of U.S. intelligence also did grave damage to the objectivity and trustworthiness of America’s intelligence agencies, from which they still have not recovered. It is my sincere hope that the declassified House Intelligence Committee report and other documents on the Russia collusion hoax released by DNI Gabbard and CIA Director Ratcliffe will lead to prosecutions of those involved and congressional hearings that ensure accountability and to send a strong message to future administration officials and intelligence officers that if they participate in another scheme to weaponize American intelligence to meddle in U.S. politics or to destroy a presidency, there will be severe consequences.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Kevin MacDonaldhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngKevin MacDonald2025-07-28 07:44:092025-07-28 07:44:09Five Crucial Facts From The House Intel Report On 2016 Russian Interference.
We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.
Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.
Essential Website Cookies
These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.
Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.
We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.
We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.
Other external services
We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.
Google Webfont Settings:
Google Map Settings:
Google reCaptcha Settings:
Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:
Privacy Policy
You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.
