(Substack)—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.
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.