The narrative pushed by The Wall Street Journal was a mess from the start — heavy on insinuation, light on facts.
The headline takeaway was designed to sound ominous: a classified whistleblower complaint filed against Tulsi Gabbard. Cue the usual Washington panic, breathless speculation, and vague hand-wringing about “process concerns” and Congress being kept in the dark.
But once you peel back the layers, the story collapses.
The attorney representing the so-called whistleblower can’t even access the alleged evidence — not because it’s being hidden improperly, but because it’s classified at an exceptionally high level. That didn’t stop the media from treating the complaint as presumptively serious, even though no one pushing the narrative could actually substantiate it.
Enjoying our conservative news and commentary? Make sure you share and tell your friends about us!
And here’s the part that undercuts the entire storyline: the inspector general reviewed the complaint and found it lacked credibility.
This whole episode feels like a throwback to the Russian collusion hoax — the same tired formula dusted off once again.
A story drops. The media trumpets it as a bombshell. Pundits breathlessly hint at scandal. And for about twenty seconds, you’re meant to believe something devastating has finally landed.
Then you actually look at it. And the entire thing collapses.
The narrative disintegrates almost immediately under even minimal scrutiny, sliced apart by its own contradictions. What was sold as a serious revelation turns out to be empty theater — a headline in search of facts. You’re supposed to be shocked, right up until the fine print makes it obvious there’s nothing there.
Now it’s confirmed: the complaint was garbage:
The assessment by the current Inspector General, who was appointed after the complaint, confirms to Congress his predecessor’s findings and also provides new details about the allegations against Gabbard, the letter, which was reviewed by Just the News, shows. That letter was transmitted to the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees.
According to the Intelligence Community watchdog Christopher Fox, the whistleblower submitted a complaint on May 25, 2025, alleging that Gabbard restricted the distribution of a “highly sensitive intelligence report for political reasons” and that the responsible general counsel’s office failed to report the “potential crime” to the Justice Department.
His predecessor, acting Inspector General Tamara Johnson, determined on June 4, 2025, that “if true” the allegation amounted to a matter of “urgent concern” but was not able to assess the credibility of the allegations.
Under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, “urgent concerns” are matters that “an IC employee reasonably believes to evidence violations of law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.”
However, in a follow-up determination after reviewing new evidence, she assessed that the claims “did not appear credible,” the current Inspector General wrote. “On June 9, 2025, after receiving newly-obtained evidence, Acting IC IG Johnson issued a supplemental determination memorandum, finding that the first allegation did not appear credible while remaining unable to assess the apparent credibility of the second allegation,” Inspector General Christopher Fox wrote to the leadership of the House and Senate intelligence panels.
Further, Fox told the congressional leaders that in a fresh review of the whistleblower’s allegations, he would disagree with his predecessor’s determination that the matter met the definition of “urgent concern” under statute.
It’s now confirmed to be a Fugazi filing. The other tactic pulled from the deep state’s legal playbook against Trump during his first term mirrors the method used for his impeachment over the Ukraine call.
As we anticipated, the paper it was penned on proves to be more useful for wiping yourself than anything else.
