Outrage Erupts as Obama Accused of “Weaponizing” Intelligence Agencies

Published

5 months ago

July 25, 2025

Allegations Spark Political Firestorm

Former President Barack Obama is again at the center of controversy after high-profile figures in the current administration, led by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, accused him of orchestrating a “weaponization” of U.S. intelligence agencies. This explosive charge claims that Obama and his top national security officials manipulated intelligence findings in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election to undermine Donald Trump’s victory and legitimacy as president.

How the Controversy Unfolded

Declassified Reports Released: Earlier this week, Gabbard unveiled documents and House Intelligence Committee reports she says reveal that the Obama administration directed intelligence agencies to manufacture and politicize information about Russian interference in 2016, allegedly with the intent of launching what became known as the Trump–Russia investigation.
Specific Allegations:
- The reports allege Obama’s team ordered intelligence agencies, including the CIA, FBI, NSA, and DHS, to compile a new assessment at the president’s request after the election—contradicting earlier internal assessments that downplayed Russia’s impact on the vote outcome.

According to Gabbard, Obama officials then leaked false or misleading statements to major media outlets to build the case that Russia had intervened on Trump’s behalf, directly fueling public and political suspicion.
“Treasonous Conspiracy” Claims: Both Gabbard and President Trump further characterized these alleged actions as part of a “years-long coup” designed to delegitimize Trump’s presidency, labeling the events a “treasonous conspiracy”

The Political Fallout

Trump’s Public Accusations: President Trump has seized on the new disclosures, urging investigations and repeating accusations of “treason” against Obama, while calling for criminal accountability for those involved.

Obama’s Response: Obama’s representatives fiercely rejected the allegations, branding them as “outrageous” and “bizarre” efforts to distract from the current administration’s own controversies. They emphasized that independent, bipartisan Senate investigations have confirmed Russia’s attempts to sway the 2016 election but rejected the notion that Obama or his officials tampered with the election outcome or intelligence findings.
Mixed Reaction from Officials: Former Obama-era officials named in the reports, including James Clapper, John Brennan, and Susan Rice, have largely remained silent, while Democrats called the claims a partisan distraction and warned of the risks posed by declassifying sensitive intelligence.

The State of the Evidence

Contentious Documents: The newly released documents reportedly include emails, internal memos, and summaries of high-level National Security Council meetings in late 2016. Critics of the claims argue that much of the “evidence” is drawn from previously debunked theories or partisan committee findings.

Ongoing Investigations: The Department of Justice announced the formation of a task force to review the evidence and determine whether further legal action is warranted.

Growing Partisan Divide

This confrontation marks another escalation in the nation’s ongoing partisan battle over the 2016 election, the legitimacy of intelligence agencies, and the boundaries of presidential power. As both sides dig in, the controversy over the “weaponization” of intelligence agencies by the Obama administration remains a central—and fiercely disputed—topic in the American political arena.

US May Completely Cut Income Tax Due to Tariff Revenue

Published

2 weeks ago

November 30, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

President Donald Trump says the United States might one day get rid of federal income tax because of money the government collects from tariffs on imported goods. Tariffs are extra taxes the U.S. puts on products that come from other countries.

What Trump Is Saying

Trump has said that tariff money could become so large that it might allow the government to cut income taxes “almost completely.” He has also talked about possibly phasing out income tax over the next few years if tariff money keeps going up.

How Taxes Work Now

Right now, the federal government gets much more money from income taxes than from tariffs. Income taxes bring in trillions of dollars each year, while tariffs bring in only a small part of that total. Because of this gap, experts say tariffs would need to grow by many times to replace income tax money.

Questions From Experts

Many economists and tax experts doubt that tariffs alone could pay for the whole federal budget. They warn that very high tariffs could make many imported goods more expensive for shoppers in the United States. This could hit lower- and middle‑income families hardest, because they spend a big share of their money on everyday items.

What Congress Must Do

The president can change some tariffs, but only Congress can change or end the federal income tax. That means any real plan to remove income tax would need new laws passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. So far, there is no detailed law or full budget plan on this idea.

What It Means Right Now

For now, Trump’s comments are a proposal, not a change in the law. People and businesses still have to pay federal income tax under the current rules. The debate over using tariffs instead of income taxes is likely to continue among lawmakers, experts, and voters.

News

Candace Owens Says Macrons Funded Plot to Kill Her

Published

3 weeks ago

November 24, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

Conservative commentator Candace Owens has made explosive allegations that French President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron orchestrated and financed a plot to assassinate her. Owens alleges that she was alerted by a high-ranking source within the French government who revealed that the assassination was to be carried out by an elite French police unit, the National Gendarmerie Intervention Group (GIGN), along with the involvement of at least one Israeli operative. According to Owens, this “joint state operation” was motivated by her outspoken coverage and conspiratorial claims about Brigitte Macron, including controversial statements questioning the First Lady’s gender identity.

Owens further claims the payments for the assassination were funneled through a secret French elite club called Club des Cent, suggesting a sophisticated and well-financed scheme. She also links this alleged plot to the assassination of her late friend Charlie Kirk in 2025, suggesting that his killer received training from France’s 13th Foreign Legion Brigade and that these events are part of a larger multi-state conspiracy.

Despite these serious accusations, Owens has not publicly shared concrete evidence, and French, Israeli, and American authorities have not confirmed any part of the story. The Macron family has previously filed defamation lawsuits against Owens over her unfounded assertions about them, highlighting a tense and ongoing feud.

Owens has vowed to provide further details, including identities and financial proof, if given the opportunity, and has called on the public and patriotic investigators to examine the matter closely. While her claims have stirred widespread attention and heated debate across social media and conservative circles, they currently remain unsubstantiated allegations amid a highly charged political and media environment.

This controversy adds a new and dramatic layer to Owens’ volatile relationship with the Macrons, marking perhaps the most sensational claim so far in her ongoing public disputes with the French presidential couple.

News

Fugees Rapper Pras Michel Sentenced to 14 Years in Campaign Scandal

Published

3 weeks ago

November 21, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

Pras Michel, Grammy-winning rapper and founding member of the iconic group the Fugees, has been sentenced to 14 years in federal prison for his role in a sprawling illegal campaign finance and foreign influence scheme. The sentencing was handed down on November 20, 2025, by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington, D.C., following Michel’s conviction in April 2023 on charges including conspiracy, money laundering, acting as an unregistered foreign agent, and witness tampering.

At the heart of the scandal was Michel’s involvement in funneling over $120 million from fugitive Malaysian financier Low Taek Jho—known as Jho Low—into the 2012 reelection campaign of former President Barack Obama. Prosecutors detailed how Michel helped hide the origin of foreign donations through shell companies and straw donors, violating U.S. campaign finance laws that prohibit foreign contributions. Beyond the Obama campaign, Michel also engaged in illegal lobbying efforts during the Trump administration to obstruct investigations into Low’s role in the notorious 1MDB scandal, a massive Malaysian sovereign wealth fund corruption case.

Prosecutors described Michel as having “betrayed his country for financial gain,” persistently lying and manipulating government entities over nearly a decade. They advocated for a life sentence, emphasizing the severity of his offenses and the threat posed to U.S. national security. Testimonies during the high-profile trial included notable figures such as Hollywood actor Leonardo DiCaprio and former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Michel’s defense team condemned the harsh sentence as “entirely disproportionate,” arguing that similar cases resulted in lighter penalties, and pointed out that Michel received no espionage charges—a key consideration in foreign agent prosecutions. They announced plans to appeal the verdict and sentence. Following the prison term, Michel faces three years of supervised release and forfeiture of more than $64 million tied to the illegal campaign finance activity.

Michel, who shot to fame in the 1990s as part of the Fugees alongside Lauryn Hill and Wyclef Jean, now confronts a dramatic fall from grace that underscores the extensive consequences of illicit foreign influence in American politics. Despite this setback, his representatives remain grateful for the support received, stating that this chapter does not mark the end of his journey.

This landmark case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of safeguarding U.S. elections from covert foreign interference and the serious repercussions for those who betray democratic principles for financial gain.bbc+4