Video: Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA07) Rips Tulsi Gabbard Pick as “Extraordinarily Dangerous,” “Irresponsible”; Wonders “whether there might be any sort of effort [by foreign adversaries] at engaging or influencing her”

Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA07) nailed it this morning on “Morning Joe” regarding Trump’s horrendous, “extraordinarily dangerous,” “irresponsible” choice of Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence. See below for video and highlights; as you’ll see, Spanberger doesn’t hold back, for good reason (nor should ANYONE at this point)!

• “Well, I think importantly the choice of Tulsi Gabbard as DNI is not in the best interest of the American people, it’s not in the best interest of our national security or our position of leadership on the global stage. The role of the DNI is fulsome, it’s complex. The DNI is responsible for what information goes to the President in the Presidential Daily Brief. The DNI has access to *every single secret* that we have as a nation. The DNI knows the sources, the methods, the ways that we are able to attain information. And so nominating someone who has a clear track record of pushing conspiracy theories and aligning herself and excusing the behavior of authoritarians and dictators like Bashar al-Assad, who she met with shortly after he used chemical weapons on his own citizens. Or defending the actions of Vladimir Putin. Totally at odds with American interests. Anyone who would do those things is certainly not only an irresponsible choice, but a dangerous choice to fill this role.”
• “You know, certainly, I did not vote for Donald Trump for so many reasons. And among those reasons was a worry and a concern related to the people who would fill his cabinet and his Administration. But even within the constraints of the poor choices or the questionable choices that we knew he would make, there is the politics of it. There are people who are aligned with President Trump and then there are people who are aligned with President Trump who objectively will be dangerous to national security. And we are seeing with his choices that he is choosing for select roles, certainly for the DNI, for the AG, and potentially for Secretary of Defense, people who are objectively not qualified. But when it comes to the specifics of the DNI role, someone who has aligned herself previously with Russia and Syria, with regimes the world over should not be in a position to have any of the information that is, you know, America’s greatest secrets. And just to give an example of why I say that, you know, the United States provided intelligence to Ukraine before the russian invasion – intelligence that said that we knew that Russia intended to Invade. That information came from somewhere. That information came from something that – and I’m a former CIA officer – we call sources and methods, right? And the sources and methods, the ways that the United States gains information is through technologies that we keep secret, through relationships with people who risk their lives to ensure that the United States has good information. And so the idea that someone who has aligned herself with and defended Vladimir Putin could potentially have information related to the sources and methods of how it is that we knew that Russia was going to invade Ukraine is just one singular example, I think, helps illuminate why this is so extraordinarily dangerous. And it’s not just the information we collect and not just the sources and methods used by the intelligence community working on behalf of the United States, our brave men and women who are doing good work. It’s also the Intelligence that shared with us from our partners the world over. And so I question when someone like Tulsi Gabbard might be in the Role of DNI, will our partners – our British partners…I don’t have to list them all –  who share information with us, meant to keep us safe, meant to keep them safe, will they do that if they question that their information might get passed on to somebody about whom that information might be, about a country that they are at odds with. And so it’s not only an irresponsible choice, it’s a deeply, deeply dangerous choice.”
• “...looking at the types of comments that we have heard from Tulsi Gabbard, I think the clearest through line of people’s concerns, but speaking predominantly for myself, is whether there might be any sort of effort at engaging or influencing her. The source of it doesn’t necessarily matter. The reality is that we have someone who as a sitting member of Congress, would fly off to meet with al-Assad on her own without any sort of overarching understanding what was at play, the concerns that existed, the fact that this is a man who had just used chemical weapons on his own citizens. And here she chose to make herself an emisssary of the United States. It’s irresponsible. Whatever motivation behind that, who knows what they talked about, the types of things she would say. But someone who is willing to do Vladimir Putin’s bidding on television and in the public sphere, certainly whatever the motivation is behind it, she is surely going to be doing that behind closed doors as well. And it’s dangerous, it’s disqualifying. Frankly, there are many choices that wouldn’t be my top pick, but at least would be a responsible choice to lead the extraordinary men and women of the intelligence community, protect and safeguard our secrets and uphold the strength of the US on the global stage.”