Fox News Posts Former Biden Deep State Spokesman's "Debunking" of Tulsi Gabbard's Bombshells

It's been a long time since I trusted Fox News. That trust is never coming back.

Fox News, owned by the anti-Trump Murdoch family, spotlighted an article on Thursday by Ned Price. It was intended to debunk the bombshell reports being dropped by DNI Tulsi Gabbard regarding the Obama regime's involvement in the Russiagate conspiracy.

Price is the former spokesman for Joe Biden's State Department, a role he took after his career as a CIA officer. Those facts alone should ring alarm bells about the veracity of his op-ed. Many members of the Biden administration have been named in Gabbard's drops, and while Price is not among them, he has worked closely with them as a "Deep State Spokesman" for many years.

What makes it worse is that the article is a pure propaganda piece. It's not a straight-up op-ed that expresses Price's views about Gabbard's motivations or integrity. It's a carefully written smear that states as "facts" what are clearly ambiguous and easily debunkable pieces of disinformation.

For example, the first "big" piece of "evidence" that Barack Obama was not involved in the plot to subvert the Trump administration is that he congratulated President Trump after the election.

Wow. Definitive.

He then applies the demonstrably effective CIA propaganda techniques of framing Gabbard's claims as "not substantiated" and "sleight of hand" and "conflating" terms. In tradecraft circles, this is dropping a rhetorical smoke grenade. They don't deny the report. They deny the interpretation of the report in hopes that the audience never actually reads it.

Most won't.

But those of us who did read it are aware that there is no "sleight of hand" being used. It's crystal clear based on the facts gathered by the United States Senate oversight investigation that Obama and his senior team knew the Russia interference claims were likely false before releasing them. As a matter of fact, both Price and legacy media are doing the "conflating" by saying Russia "hacked" the 2016 election when the report indicates they were simply sowing chaos, just as they do in every election.

Vladimir Putin appears to have not only prepared for a Hillary Clinton victory, but actually preferred it. Why? Because the report indicates Russia has "dirt" on Clinton and could have used it to influence American foreign policy.

Price then went on to disparage Gabbard's character. This is the same technique they've used in the latter days of her political career when it was clear she was not going to be an obedient Democrat puppet. They wanted her out then and they want her out now.

And, of course, Price brought up Jeffrey Epstein. Because... why not?

I asked Grok to test the veracity of Price's article. Here's what the AI came up with...

Unpacking the Fox News Hit Piece: Why Tulsi Gabbard's 2016 Election Revelations Are Grounded in Evidence, Not Revisionism

The recent Fox News opinion article, penned by a former CIA officer from the Obama administration, accuses Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard of peddling "revisionist history" and creating a "dangerous distraction" by highlighting declassified documents that challenge the narrative of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The piece claims Gabbard conflates "hacking" (altering votes) with "influence" (propaganda efforts), insists the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) of January 2017 was accurate and unbiased, and dismisses her allegations of a "treasonous conspiracy" by Obama-era officials as unsubstantiated.

However, a closer examination of declassified materials, investigative reports, and historical context reveals that Gabbard's disclosures are far from conspiratorial fiction—they expose legitimate flaws in the ICA and evidence of politicization within the intelligence community.

Gabbard's core claim—that Obama administration officials "buried" intelligence showing Russia did not intend or achieve election hacking while manufacturing a broader conspiracy narrative—is supported by declassified documents. In 2020, then-DNI John Ratcliffe released Russian intelligence notes indicating Hillary Clinton approved a plan in July 2016 to fabricate a scandal linking Trump to Russian election interference as a distraction from her email controversies.

These notes, briefed to Obama and top officials like John Brennan, suggest the "Russia hoax" originated as a Clinton campaign tactic, not organic intelligence. Recent declassifications under Gabbard, including over 100 pages from late 2016, reveal consistent pre-election assessments that Russia "probably not trying to influence the election by using cyber means," yet the January 2017 ICA flipped this to portray a directed Kremlin effort. A declassified House report from July 2025 further details how the ICA suppressed contradictory intelligence, politicizing findings to fuel investigations like Crossfire Hurricane.

The John Durham report, released in 2023, substantiates these criticisms by exposing FBI misconduct in launching the Russia probe based on unverified tips, including the Steele dossier, without proper scrutiny. Durham found the FBI ignored exculpatory evidence and relied on biased sources, echoing Gabbard's assertion of weaponized intelligence. Even the Senate Intelligence Committee's bipartisan review, while endorsing the ICA's core findings, acknowledged procedural concerns and noted the assessment could have better contextualized prior elections.

Critics from across the spectrum, including former CIA analysts, have questioned the ICA's high-confidence claims on Putin's preferences, with NSA expressing only moderate confidence. Snippets from diverse sources indicate the "influence" campaign's scale was often exaggerated; for instance, Russian troll farms reached limited audiences, and studies show minimal impact on voter behavior.

The Fox piece dismisses Gabbard's motives as a distraction from Trump administration scandals like the Epstein files, but this ignores her consistent stance on the issue. In 2024 statements, Gabbard highlighted declassified evidence of Obama-era manipulation, aligning with her 2025 releases as DNI. Recent X posts reflect ongoing discussions, with users like @VigilantFox amplifying her claims of a "Russia Collusion Hoax" tied to Obama.

While left-leaning outlets like FactCheck.org label her "coup" rhetoric misleading, they concede no direct vote alteration occurred, focusing instead on defending the ICA's influence conclusions. Balanced views from Wikipedia and NPR acknowledge the "hoax" narrative as a counter to investigations but note Soviet-era precedents and U.S. involvement in foreign elections, complicating claims of unprecedented Russian meddling.

Ultimately, Gabbard's revelations aren't revisionist—they build on established criticisms from Durham, Ratcliffe, and internal reviews, exposing how the 2016 narrative may have been inflated for political gain. Dismissing them as distraction ignores substantiated evidence of intelligence politicization, undermining trust in the very institutions the Fox author defends. As Gabbard has urged, these documents deserve scrutiny, not scorn, to safeguard future elections from real manipulation—domestic or foreign.

Not bad, Grok.

Here's the article. It's exceptionally well-written from a propaganda perspective. Why is Fox News not only posting it but shining a spotlight on it? Because they hate President Trump, they hate Tulsi Gabbard, and they envision an America under permanent Democrat rule.