US Gabbard Says More Than 100 Intelligence Officers Fired for Chat Messages - Coconut Surfer Mommy Purges Glow Trannies

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Article|Archive

Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, said on Tuesday that more than 100 intelligence officers from 15 agencies had been fired for sexually explicit discussions on a government chat tool.

The chat program was administered by the National Security Agency and intended for discussions of sensitive security matters. But a group of employees used it for discussions that contained sexual themes, intelligence officials said this week. The chats also included explicit discussion of gender transition surgery, officials said.

Transcripts of the chat were first disclosed Monday by Christopher Rufo, a conservative activist who writes for City Journal.

Appearing Tuesday evening on Fox News, Ms. Gabbard said she had issued a directive to fire more than 100 people who participated in the discussions and to strip the officers of their security clearances. She said the chats were an “egregious violation of trust” that violated “basic rules and standards” of workplace professionalism.

A spokeswoman for the office said on X that Ms. Gabbard had sent a memo to all intelligence agencies asking them to identify all employees who had participated in “sexually explicit chat rooms” on the N.S.A. tool by Friday.
Ms. Gabbard put her actions in the larger context of her efforts to depoliticize the intelligence community and the Trump administration’s efforts to hold employees accountable.

“Today’s action, in holding these individuals accountable, is just the beginning of what we are seeing across the Trump administration,” Ms. Gabbard said. She added that officials had moved to “clean house, root out that rot and corruption, and weaponization and politicization, so we can start to rebuild that trust in these institutions.”

The Central Intelligence Agency and Ms. Gabbard’s office have moved to fire an undisclosed number of employees who worked on diversity issues during the Biden administration. That action was paused by a federal judge who was reviewing the action and was expected to make a ruling on Thursday.

Unlike with the explicit chats, there is no allegation of wrongdoing by the officers involved in recruiting and diversity efforts, and the officers have sued the government arguing they should be offered other posts.

In her appearance on Fox, Ms. Gabbard said the Trump administration was going to seek to get rid of officers whose primary loyalty was to themselves, and not to the United States or its Constitution. She said after she took the action to fire the people involved in the chats, other officers came forward to tell her about other inappropriate activity.

“People are stepping forward because they are all on board with the mission to clean house and refocus on our core mission of serving the American people,” Ms. Gabbard said.
 
Since they're in the IC, it's going to be some of these:

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/what-we-do/members-of-the-ic (archive.ph)
Gonna be ALL of them. Believe the tentacles of this particular monster reach within every one of these agencies. You can bet all but the ODNI are in all-out panic mode right now, hunting the participants down and kicking their asses out before making their reports to the Surf Mommy. The military organizations, am sure, have already contacted their servicing Judge Advocate Generals to help prepare charges against any military members discovered to be participants. Those in charge of these organizations are shitting bricks not just over what has happened but over the impact on their careers. The military organizations aren't just getting whacked by the Surf Mommy, but will also get whacked by Pete and their respective service secretaries. Coast Guard and DHS will also get it from Kristi Noem; bet she can be a real bitch when she wants to be, and she's going to want to be a real bitch in this case. Simply inexcusable. FBI will get it from Patel and State Department will feel Rubio's wrath.
 
Given how hardcore this troon infestation at the heart of the world's most powerful intelligence agencies, was about going after those they perceived as enemies. Such as LibsofTikTok and such. It sure would be interesting if there were any discussions regarding a New Zealand Fruit Growing Association and it's head fruit grower Jersh Troon? And are there any connections that lead back to Elliot Fong Jones?
I honestly wouldn't doubt it.
 
So the chat logs are censored but could we glean who some of these freaks are by looking at linked in and seeing what glowies changed their status just now?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Smar Mijou
Unironically based, Gabbard's appointment is the sole silver lining of Trump 2. The intelligence community has way too many retarded coomers who are goddamn hazard to everyone personally and professionally, and it needs to be thoroughly purged.

Trump 2 had me ask AI a prompt.

If Donald Trump were the Terminator in "Terminator 2: Judgment Day," he might appear as a T-800 model with a distinctive hairstyle, possibly a comb-over version of the Terminator's short hair. His catchphrases could include "I'll be back, believe me" and "Hasta la vista, fake news." He would likely be reprogrammed to protect John Connor from the T-1000 kamala Harris while promoting his own brand of cybernetic real estate and tweeting about the dangers of Skynet. His mission would involve using non-lethal force to eliminate threats, all while maintaining a flamboyant and confident demeanor.

As the "Trumpinator," his cybernetic body would be clad in a custom-tailored suit instead of the traditional leather jacket, complete with a red tie that somehow never gets damaged, no matter how intense the action. His sunglasses might have a golden tint, reflecting his signature style. Instead of wielding a shotgun hidden in a box of roses, he might carry a gold-plated weapon or an energy cannon emblazoned with the words "Make Humanity Great Again."

Personality and Dialogue

The Trumpinator would bring a unique personality to the role. While stoic like the original T-800, he’d occasionally break into long-winded monologues about how Skynet is "the worst AI ever created" and how "nobody terminates better than me." He’d also frequently remind everyone that he’s "the best protector John Connor could ever have—better than any other Terminator, believe me."

Some potential reimagined lines:

"The future is tremendous, but only if we stop Skynet. I know futures. I’ve built futures."

"Come with me if you want to win—bigly."

"Hasta la vista, loser."

Action Sequences

In action scenes, the Trumpinator might use unconventional methods to defeat enemies. For example:

He could outwit the T-1000 by distracting it with over-the-top verbal taunts or confusing it with circular logic.

Instead of brute strength alone, he might deploy flashy gadgets or even holograms of himself to mislead his foes.

Thematic Elements

The movie’s themes could shift slightly as well. Instead of focusing solely on humanity's survival against machines, there might be an added subplot about "negotiating" with Skynet to avoid Judgment Day altogether. The Trumpinator might try to broker a deal with Skynet, claiming he could "make Skynet more successful without destroying humanity."

Final Showdown

In the climactic battle at the steel mill, the Trumpinator would dramatically sacrifice himself to destroy Skynet's technology—but not before delivering an epic speech about how his sacrifice will go down as "the greatest termination in history." Of course, he’d make sure to leave behind a self-promotional hologram that continues to remind people of his legacy.

This tongue-in-cheek reimagining blends the over-the-top nature of both Trump’s public persona and the iconic Terminator character from T2. It would certainly make for an unforgettable alternate version of the classic film!
 

The Era of Purges

The firing of trans officials is part of a broader pattern of exclusion​

Don Moynihan Feb 27, 2025 (Substack / Archive)

Here is what happened. An intelligence employee at the National Security Agency leaked chats of fellow officers to a political activist. The chats included inappropriate messages, mostly around medical issues, plus mockery of political commenters. The political activist published the chats, calling for the employees to be punished. The richest man in the world used his social media platform to promote the attack. The new Director of National Intelligence immediately fired the analysts.

What seems problematic with this story? The inappropriate discussion on a work platform is unprofessional. But it is also hard to eliminate. If you are a supervisor, maybe you issue a warning.

The bigger issue is that a political activist has a direct pipeline into everything government employees are saying, even platforms that are supposed to include sensitive security messages. Who leaked the information?

The bigger issue is that the DNI fired these employees without even a hint of due process.

The bigger issue is that these employees were targeted and fired because they were trans.

It is simply impossible to believe that a group of White male analysts would have been peremptorily fired for engaging in what their Commander in Chief has deemed “locker room talk.” The political activist being mocked, LibsofTikTok, were known for their anti-trans activism. That is why she was being mocked in the first place.

The political activist who broke the story, Chris Rufo, also mischaracterizes much of the discussion: he presents shared advice about transition surgeries and related medical issues as sexually deviant fetishes, leading to headlines like this in right-wing media:

cartel.jpg


Pink News analyzed the leaked chats and characterized the discussions as “honest and open accounts of various LGBTQ+ topics and experiences, many of them apparently written by trans employees and offered up as useful advice for colleagues.” People outside the trans community may have different levels of comfort with these discussions, but the context is that Rufo and others have consistently fed a stereotype of trans people as dangerous deviants. You don’t have to condone what the employees did to realize that the accusations of deviance are being used here in a way that would never be the case for other employees.

None of this is about security. Not really. It is about purging certain people and identities from public life. Whatever you think about trans people, you should be disturbed by this. If you are familiar with the Lavender Scare — when gay people were purged from government positions in the 1940s to 1960s — you probably know it as a cautionary tale from an intolerant past. A tale of moral panic and persecutions not to be repeated. But it is being repeated.

There is a broader context. Purges are occurring at a historic rate in your government, for a variety of reasons. Governmentwide purges of employees are occurring to create a smaller and more acquiescent government for Trump and Musk. Purges in the military and Department of Justice ensure a legal and military infrastructure that will do the President’s bidding.

But some purges are about identity, both the identity of those being purged or simply hat welcoming diverse identities is not unacceptable. DEI staff are being purged. People who attended a DEI training are being purged. Anti-discrimination policies have been removed. A tipline was created to identify workers who were in anyway associated with DEI. None of these people broke any law. They merely helped implement the priorities of a past President.

LGBTQ and especially trans public employees are targeted. Trump has ordered that trans people not be allowed serve in the military, and for existing trans service members to be purged.

hhasry.jpg

The Office of Personnel Management issued a memo saying that resource groups tied to identity can no longer operate. This means that employees who are seeking to organize with other LGBTQ employees cannot do so. In the US Department of Agriculture, employees were asked to identify the leaders of these groups. LGBTQ people now have to worry that they will be reported on by their fellow employees, as Rufo’s victims were.

The hypocrisy is obvious. After a DOGE employee was discovered making racist statements online, he resigned, only to be welcomed back after Musk, the Vice-President and the President urged his return. Hating people is fine. But being the target of hate is grounds for firing.

How many of those people who bemoaned cancel culture — many of whom also had a sideline in anti-trans hate — will push back? Chris Rufo is no longer pretending that concern about cancel culture needs to be even-handed. He says the rules of cancel culture simply need to be rewritten:

to determine how the Right can protect its own members from unjust cancellation attempts and how it can enforce just consequences on political opponents who violate the new terms.

Time and again Rufo’s harassment campaigns have worked because institutions and the media go along with one story he is telling — that he is battling institutional corruption — while deliberately ignoring another story he is telling about a campaign to purge certain ideas and people from public life.

His attacks on Black scholars, including the successful campaign to remove the President of Harvard, were not about academic integrity, but about ending DEI in academia. His attacks on CRT were not about the actual literature of critical race theory, but about rebranding scholarship related to race and gender as radical and in need of censorship. He has labeled teachers who discuss gender identity to be groomers. He fueled the false claim that immigrants were eating their neighbors cats and dogs. At this point, why would anyone take his claims at face value?

At the federal level, of course, Rufo’s anti-trans fellow passengers are in charge, and just looking for fuel for their intolerance. All of the people in this story, apart from the people fired, have a record of attacking trans people. The activists are known for trying to chase trans people out of public life, and their posts have led to threats, including bomb threats. The richest man in the world has a record of anti-trans statements, including saying his trans child was “dead” to him. The DNI Director has associated LGBTQ people with pedophilia. They work for a President who made demonizing trans people a cornerstone of his campaign.

At some point, institutions need to stop the most obvious propagandists as serious voices. At some point, they have to decide if they are satisfied playing their assigned role in Rufo’s play.

I regret to inform you the New York Times is at it again. Their first account of the firings mentions Rufo, but not his record of smear campaigns, mentions transition surgeries, but not that the purge is targeted to trans people, or the broader context of attacks they are facing. The Times is not alone. This is what you get if you google “Gabbard”—an uncritical framing of the story as punishment for “explicit chats” rather than about identity.

Maybe later versions will do better, but their initial instinct is to hew to Gabbard’s account: the employees were unprofessional, and need to be fired. The Times uncritically repeated Gabbard’s claim that the firing was part of an effort to:

clean house, root out that rot and corruption, and weaponization and politicization, so we can start to rebuild that trust in these institutions.
Rebuilding trust in the institutions? How do you rebuild trust based on purges?
 
Back