The Guardian recently published what can only be described as an ugly hit piece built around a so-called whistleblower allegedly exposing Tulsi Gabbard. As with so many stories of this type, the accusation was treated as credible on arrival, amplified breathlessly, and then quietly unraveled once Gabbard responded and the underlying claims were subjected to even minimal scrutiny. The end result was not just a denial, but a public dismantling that left the original reporting in shambles.
The @guardian are now dissembling because in their attempted hit on @TulsiGabbard, they relied on the word of the CIA operative “lawyer” Andrew Bakaj, who worked for Hillary and Schumer on the Hill and represented the Vindmans in the fake Ukraine impeachment.
Bakaj has now… https://t.co/TGJ1PMkbiH pic.twitter.com/8sEadnKCAZ
— Svetlana Lokhova (@RealSLokhova) February 9, 2026
At the center of the story was attorney Mark Zaid Bakaj, who had been promoting the whistleblower’s claims and briefing reporters. That narrative has now collapsed. Bakaj has walked back key elements of the story, and The Guardian has been forced to issue what it politely calls a “correction,” but which functionally operates as a retraction. The core allegations that drove the initial headline no longer exist in anything resembling their original form.
What makes this episode more interesting is what emerges once you look at who was involved in assembling and pushing the leak. A number of names connected to the story are strikingly familiar to anyone who followed the long arc of Trump-era intelligence controversies. The same constellation of figures, legal advocates, political operatives, and media outlets appears once again, playing roles that look suspiciously similar to those they played during Russiagate.
Interesting that this hit on @TulsiGabbard is coming from the British Guardian.
The actual article is bs, of course.
But it shows you who the leaker is, which appears to be Senator Mark Warner’s cutout(s)
Christopher Steele/British intel run the Guardian so that’s probably… pic.twitter.com/D8x7UpamKo
— Svetlana Lokhova (@RealSLokhova) February 7, 2026
The mechanics of the leak itself also raise questions. The decision to route the story through a British outlet rather than an American one is notable. Publishing sensitive intelligence-related claims domestically can run into immediate national security and legal obstacles. Once those claims appear in a foreign paper, however, U.S. outlets can cite them freely, laundering the information back into the American media ecosystem with a layer of plausible deniability. That tactic is not new, and it has been discussed for years in the context of intelligence influence operations.
The Guardian got taken by a “whistleblower,” published a false story, and had to issue a major correction, and CNN’s media reporter Brian Stelter hasn’t mentioned it.
This is supposed to be his beat.
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) February 9, 2026
This has led critics to speculate that anti-Trump elements within U.S. intelligence agencies, allied political figures, and sympathetic foreign partners were involved in shaping and promoting the narrative. Senator Mark Warner’s name has again surfaced in that context, reinforcing the sense of déjà vu for observers who remember how often his office appeared at key junctures during earlier attempts to politically cripple Trump.
By the way, for those keeping score, this isn’t a “clarification,” as journalist Cate Brown says.
It’s a *correction* that completely nukes the original story and should be noted as such.
But “clarification” makes it seem less like they wrote a false hit piece. https://t.co/oaQ5DGLNzP pic.twitter.com/5KuMw2xub5
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) February 9, 2026
None of this requires belief in elaborate conspiracies to recognize a pattern. We have seen this movie before: anonymous or semi-anonymous sources, vague allegations, dramatic headlines, immediate media saturation, followed by quiet revisions once the claims can no longer be defended. In this case, the walk-back was so severe that it retroactively exposed the original reporting as irresponsible at best.
