Stephen Turner’s work—especially in Liberal Democracy 3.0: Civil Society in an Age of Experts and The Politics of Expertise—offers a framework for understanding Tulsi Gabbard’s charges that the lame-duck Obama administration conspired against the incoming Trump administration through politicized intelligence.
Turner argues that liberal democracies have evolved into systems increasingly governed not by public deliberation but by expert bodies—what he calls “commissions”—which function beyond democratic accountability. These commissions include intelligence agencies, regulatory bodies, and transnational expert groups. Power has shifted from elected officials to expert-dominated institutions that control what is politically discussable by monopolizing knowledge. When Gabbard alleges that intelligence was used politically, she’s pointing directly at agencies entrusted with neutral expertise but exercising political agency without democratic oversight.
In The Politics of Expertise, Turner examines how expert institutions aggregate knowledge in a way that appears neutral but is structurally biased by the institutions’ interests and the power they wield. These bodies define what counts as legitimate knowledge, sidelining dissent and reframing political disagreements as technical problems. This resonates with concerns about intelligence assessments being used not just to inform policy but to shape political outcomes—like undermining a rival administration.
Turner also explains how appeals to expert authority (e.g. intelligence briefings) often cloak politically motivated actions in the appearance of epistemic neutrality. This allows elites to act with impunity, using expert discourse to suppress opposition and justify decisions made outside democratic deliberation.
Turner's analysis illuminates how the Obama administration’s alleged actions—if true—could fit into a larger pattern of democratic erosion via the rise of expert rule. His work shifts the question from “Was it legal?” to “How did expert authority come to substitute for democratic legitimacy?”
Turner’s recent works deepen the analysis:
-
In Making Democratic Theory Democratic: Democracy, Law, and Administration after Weber and Kelsen (2023), Turner and Mazur show how administrative law and expert bureaucracy have colonized democratic functions, creating a system where deliberation and accountability are displaced by technocratic discretion. This framework helps explain how intelligence agencies could operate independently of elected oversight and shape political transitions, exactly the concern raised by Gabbard.
-
In COSMOS + TAXIS Response: Debating Weber and Kelsen in the 21st Century (2025), Turner discusses how emergencies—like the Covid-19 pandemic—created openings for governments to expand discretionary authority based on “expert knowledge,” bypassing normal democratic procedures. This parallels how intelligence findings on Russia, for example, were used without meaningful legislative scrutiny.
-
Post-truth, or Post-Academic?: The Transformation of Science and the Obsolescence of 'Reality' (2024) extends Turner’s analysis of epistemic degradation. He argues that the authority of science has shifted from pursuit of truth to the bureaucratic production of “good enough” knowledge for policy. Intelligence claims—like Russian interference narratives—fit this mold: institutionally convenient, bureaucratically validated, but epistemically fragile.
-
Max Weber and the Two Universities (2024) connects academic freedom and politicized universities to the broader theme of epistemic capture. The paper highlights how elite institutions avoid genuine pluralism while enforcing ideologically aligned narratives—a dynamic mirrored in how certain intelligence claims gain institutional traction without critical challenge.
-
In his article Epistemic Coercion, Turner explains how expert claims acquire binding political power not through persuasion but through the structural inability of laypersons or elected officials to contest them. That’s the core of Gabbard’s concern: the intelligence apparatus making assertions that are politically determinative and yet immune from challenge.
1. Post-truth, or Post-Academic?: The Transformation of Science and the Obsolescence of “Reality” (2024)
Turner argues that “science” in the post-1995 era has morphed into bureaucratized, policy-serving knowledge production—less about truth, more about regulatory utility. This shift applies to intelligence agencies too: rather than uncovering truth, they produce “reliable enough” narratives for justifying interventions. The Russia-Trump narrative fits this pattern: institutional knowledge crafted for legitimacy, not clarity.
2. Max Weber and the Two Universities (2024)
Turner analyzes how elite academia has abandoned the Weberian vocation of clarifying values in favor of activism cloaked in scholarship. He highlights a convergence of elite universities, technocratic expertise, and ideological uniformity. This ecosystem reinforces the authority of political-intelligence narratives while marginalizing dissent—again echoing Gabbard’s concern about politicized “truths.”
3. COSMOS + TAXIS Response: Debating Weber and Kelsen in the 21st Century (2025)
This response tackles how administration and law have drifted from democratic control. Turner discusses how emergency powers—justified by expertise—now replace deliberation. COVID-era governance exemplified this, but so did the intelligence community’s justifications for surveillance, FISA abuse, and leaks—all under the guise of “protecting democracy.”
4. Epistemic Coercion (2014)
Here, Turner argues that when laypeople and even elected officials can no longer question expert claims, they are coerced epistemically—pressured to accept claims they can't assess. Intelligence briefings about threats from Russia or Syria fall squarely into this category. Gabbard’s position challenges precisely this dynamic.
5. Making Democratic Theory Democratic (2023)
Turner and Mazur make a key claim: that modern administrative systems, especially those legitimized by expertise, have replaced the democratic will with bureaucratic logic. Intelligence agencies, shielded from scrutiny and accountable mainly to other technocrats, exemplify this drift.
Here are more thoughts:
1. Post-truth, or Post-Academic?: The Transformation of Science and the Obsolescence of “Reality” (2024)
Turner shows how the authority of science has decayed into what he calls “reliable enough” knowledge—produced to meet bureaucratic and regulatory needs, not to establish truth. This “good enough” science often backs policy by default. Applied to intelligence, this insight suggests that assessments—e.g., about Russian interference—can become politically weaponized tools, designed to justify action, not to discover reality.
2. Epistemic Coercion (2014)
This concept captures what happens when laypersons (or even elected officials) are forced to accept expert judgments they cannot verify or contest. Gabbard’s complaint—about intelligence being used to entrap or discredit—matches Turner’s warning: that expertise becomes a form of domination when alternatives are ruled out not by debate but by default.
3. COSMOS + TAXIS: Debating Weber and Kelsen in the 21st Century (2025)
Turner explores how crises (like Covid or security threats) create conditions for expanding discretionary powers under expert justification—bypassing public reason. Intelligence operations justified by claims of national emergency or foreign interference fall into this pattern. What was once ideology is now buried inside technocratic discourse.
4. Making Democratic Theory Democratic (2023)
Turner and Mazur argue that democratic theory must be rebuilt to confront the administrative state’s takeover. Intelligence agencies, largely unaccountable and operating under the radar of constitutional constraints, embody this new administrative logic—legitimated by internal standards, not by democratic deliberation.
1. Pandemic Governance & Public Health Expertise
Turner’s concept of the “epistemic coup” (see Liberal Democracy 3.0: Civil Society in an Age of Experts and The Politics of Expertise)—where decision-making shifts from elected officials to unelected experts—is vivid in the COVID-19 pandemic. Public health experts became de facto policymakers, with broad mandates but little democratic accountability. Policies like lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine passports were implemented with claims to scientific necessity, but behind those claims were value judgments, trade-offs, and political consequences that were masked by the aura of expertise.
Turner argues that citizens can’t effectively engage with expert claims because of the sheer complexity and specialization involved. This shifts power away from the public toward technocratic bodies. We saw this in how criticism of pandemic policies was framed as “anti-science,” rather than democratic dissent. That’s exactly the kind of discursive closure Turner warns about (see What Is the Problem with Experts?).
2. AI, Algorithmic Governance, and ‘Post-Normal’ Expertise
Turner’s idea of post-normal science (see Chapter 15 of The Politics of Expertise) is tailor-made for current debates over artificial intelligence. Post-normal conditions arise when facts are uncertain, stakes are high, and decisions urgent—classic AI territory. We now outsource decision-making to algorithmic systems we barely understand, developed by opaque entities with massive influence.
Turner would flag the illusion of neutrality. The designers of AI systems claim objectivity and hide behind technical language, yet their decisions encode values and assumptions. The public has no pathway to contest or even understand these judgments. That’s Turner's core critique: expertise isn’t neutral, but becomes a source of unaccountable political authority.
3. Climate Policy and “The Science”
Climate change is another space where Turner’s work hits hard. Political leaders say they “follow the science,” but what they actually do is delegate power to a class of expert institutions that set targets and frame the narrative of what is and isn’t possible. Turner calls this the rise of “commissions” (Liberal Democracy 3.0: Civil Society in an Age of Experts), which remove key questions from public debate. Whether it’s carbon taxes, nuclear power, or geoengineering, decisions are framed in technical terms that resist public input.
Turner’s approach would encourage us to ask: Who decides what counts as good science? Who benefits from the framing? What institutional interests are at stake? And what voices are being excluded?
4. The Weaponization of Misinformation Discourse
A deeply Turnerian issue today is how expertise is used to police speech—especially through misinformation labels. Platforms and governments increasingly rely on panels of experts to determine what’s “true,” with real consequences for public discourse. Turner’s theory would interpret this as an attempt to depoliticize contested claims by turning them into technical problems, thereby sidelining public deliberation.
When “trust the experts” becomes a reason to silence dissent, we’re no longer in liberal democracy 2.0 (based on discussion), but firmly in 3.0—where politics is ruled through expert commissions (see again Liberal Democracy 3.0 and the EU critique in Chapter 10 of The Politics of Expertise).
Bottom Line
Turner’s big insight is that the structure of expertise itself—not just individual experts—is a political force. In domain after domain, from AI to pandemics to climate change, expertise is doing what Turner predicted: displacing democratic deliberation, shielding power from contestation, and reshaping what it means to govern.
1. The Elite University Crisis and the Decline of Academic Neutrality
In "Max Weber and the Two Universities" (2024), Turner explores how academic institutions have shifted from Weber’s ideal of value-neutral inquiry to politicized institutions where moral-political narratives dominate. The resignation of Harvard president Claudine Gay after plagiarism accusations and her poor performance before Congress during the October 2023 Gaza protests is a direct expression of this shift. Universities have become battlegrounds for identity politics, where traditional standards like academic freedom and intellectual merit are subordinated to ideological positioning. Turner diagnoses this not just as a political problem, but as a deep institutional transformation in the meaning of scholarship.
2. Pandemic Emergency Powers and the Breakdown of Democratic Legality
In "Response: Debating Weber and Kelsen in the 21st Century" (2025), Turner and Mazur argue that discretionary and emergency powers have become the norm, justified not by law or democratic deliberation, but by appeals to expert authority. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this trend. Governments used public health expertise to justify sweeping restrictions, often bypassing legislatures. This is an example of the “epistemic coup” Turner identified earlier: governance justified by expertise, not consent. Turner calls for a “political education” that reveals how administration has detached itself from democratic structures.
3. The “Post-Truth” War over Reality in Science and Media
In "Post-Truth, or Post-Academic?" (2024), Turner argues that what’s called "post-truth" is really the result of how science has been transformed by institutional funding, bureaucratic incentives, and regulatory frameworks. The current mistrust in public science—on issues from vaccines to climate change—stems not from public irrationality but from science’s own transformation into “reliable-enough” knowledge tailored for policy and product pipelines. This diagnosis helps explain widespread skepticism toward expert institutions: the loss of epistemic legitimacy isn’t just a PR issue; it’s baked into the structure of contemporary science.
4. Speech Policing and the Expansion of Epistemic Coercion
In "Epistemic Coercion," Turner draws attention to how expert consensus can be enforced through institutional mechanisms of coercion—deplatforming, professional sanctions, and more. The contemporary obsession with labeling ideas as “misinformation” or “hate speech” plays into this logic. It’s not just censorship; it’s epistemic discipline. The suppression of dissent over COVID policy, the gender debate, or geopolitical conflicts like Ukraine and Gaza reflects a system where institutions claim the right to define not just what is true, but what may be said.
5. Democracy Hollowed Out by Technocratic Bureaucracy
In "Making Democratic Theory Democratic" (2023), Turner critiques mainstream democratic theory for ignoring the administrative state. Contemporary liberal democracies delegate enormous power to regulatory agencies, expert commissions, and technocratic bodies insulated from public oversight. Whether it’s the ECB, the EPA, or the FDA, decisions of massive consequence are made far from democratic contestation. Turner argues that Kelsen’s ideal of a democratic legal order needs to be revived to confront this reality—by recognizing how law and administration now operate with increasing autonomy from democratic politics.
1. Epistemic Elites and the Rise of Political Purification (Taibbi @ 3:14–4:06)
“This Russiagate story changed my life... either that’s true or this is the biggest fraud of all time... and we went through three years of mania.”
Turner:
“After the Cold War, the centrality of science and the university as truth-producing institutions declined, supplanted by ideological combat framed in moral terms.”
The breakdown of elite consensus described by Turner tracks closely with Taibbi’s sense of epistemic betrayal: journalists became moral enforcers rather than investigators. Russiagate functioned as a substitute Cold War—a unifying narrative that reaffirmed elite liberal norms by constructing Trump as a foreign usurper, thus delegitimizing electoral outcomes outside elite consensus.
2. Institutional Deference to Intelligence (Taibbi @ 4:22–5:13)
“We finally got a peek at the actual evidence... and it turns out nothing substantiated it... an incredible shock.”
Turner:
“One consequence of the rise of the national security state has been the conflation of secrecy and truth. Intelligence, like religion in an earlier era, can claim authority without public verification.”
Here, Turner helps clarify the epistemic dynamics Taibbi and Kiriakou describe: Brennan’s oral-only conversation with a defector was treated as dispositive. This signals a deeper shift: intelligence has come to replace deliberative truth processes with mystified authority, as if public argument is too dangerous or complex.
3. Journalism’s Transformation into Advocacy (Taibbi @ 20:32–21:22)
“Our mandate used to be: find the stuff, put it out, and let the public decide... now it’s ‘here’s what you need to know.’”
Turner:
“The normative center of journalism collapsed as the profession increasingly aligned with elite, ideologically sorted audiences. Reporters became mouthpieces for epistemic tribes.”
Taibbi’s critique of journalistic mission drift echoes Turner’s concern that post-Cold War institutions lost legitimacy by abandoning procedural neutrality. The press no longer mediates between facts and publics—it curates narratives for specific factions.
4. Surveillance, Conspiracy, and Political Religion (Taibbi @ 34:01–34:47)
“There were news stories... saying Israel had been told not to share intelligence with the new U.S. president. Think about the implications of doing that to your own country.”
Turner:
“Once politics becomes sacralized, dissent transforms into heresy. Institutions then defend legitimacy with secrecy, surveillance, and narrative policing.”
Turner’s framing helps us see this not just as bureaucratic overreach but as institutional self-defense within a legitimacy crisis. Trump’s election triggered an autoimmune response from elite institutions that had no procedural way to absorb an outsider presidency.
5. Careerism and the “Moral Mandate” (Taibbi @ 23:03–23:57)
“Brennan... was ready to move up to SecDef... so he was going to be absolutely indispensable to a President Hillary Clinton.”
Turner:
“Institutional actors rationalize their violations of neutrality as fulfilling higher moral obligations... elite factions believe themselves to be defending democracy by subverting its processes.”
This maps precisely onto Kiriakou and Taibbi’s theory: Brennan wasn’t just currying favor—he believed (or acted as if) sabotaging Trump was defending the moral order itself. In Turner’s language, elites become “epistemically immune” to evidence that contradicts their political theology.
Conclusion: The Cold War is Dead, Long Live the Cold War
Turner’s insight is that we now operate with Cold War structures (intelligence primacy, ideological policing, proxy battles) but without Cold War legitimacy (national consensus, procedural trust). Russiagate, as Taibbi and Kiriakou expose, wasn't just a political dirty trick—it was a case study in the collapse of epistemic authority and the sociological transformation of U.S. elites.
Assuming Tulsi Gabbard’s charges are substantially true—that the Obama administration, during its lame-duck period, used intelligence agencies to undermine the incoming Trump administration—the possible legal or constitutional violations, or at minimum political transgressions, could include the following:
1. Improper Use of Intelligence for Political Purposes
Possible crimes or violations:
-
18 U.S.C. § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law: If intelligence was used to surveil political opponents without legal basis.
-
18 U.S.C. § 1001 – False statements: Applies if false representations were made to investigators, Congress, or the FISA court.
-
The Privacy Act of 1974 – If government officials accessed or disclosed personal information on political opponents without lawful basis.
What it means if true:
This would reflect a breakdown in the firewall between partisan politics and national security. Intelligence tools designed to protect the nation were turned inward, against a rival party, undermining democratic legitimacy.
2. FISA Abuse and Surveillance Violations
Possible crimes or violations:
-
Illegal surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) if warrants (e.g., against Carter Page) were obtained using misrepresented or unverified evidence.
-
Misuse of the Steele dossier, paid for by the Clinton campaign, could amount to fraud on the court.
What it means if true:
Weaponizing secret courts to spy on political opponents effectively nullifies electoral democracy. It's the domestic version of authoritarian surveillance used to retain power.
3. Undermining a Lawful Transition of Power
Possible violations:
-
Violation of the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, which requires cooperation between outgoing and incoming administrations.
-
Potential civil conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, if there was coordination to hinder the President-elect from executing lawful duties.
What it means if true:
This implies a soft coup mentality within segments of the national security state—using bureaucratic power to resist, delay, or sabotage the elected government before it even takes office.
4. Leaks of Classified Information
Possible crimes:
-
18 U.S.C. § 798 – Disclosure of classified information.
-
Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 793–798) – For unlawful retention or transmission of national defense information.
What it means if true:
Leaks to the press intended to cripple the new administration or shape public perception may have come from within the Obama administration. These would be criminal acts cloaked in whistleblowing rhetoric but aimed at destabilization.
5. Material Misrepresentation to Congress or the Public
Possible crimes:
-
Brennan, Clapper, or Comey making misleading statements under oath could violate 18 U.S.C. § 1621 (perjury) or § 1001 (false statements).
What it means if true:
It suggests a pattern of narrative construction—rather than truth-seeking—at the highest levels of the intelligence community, using authority and secrecy to shield political operations.
If Not Crimes, Then What?
Even if none of these actions are provably criminal, Turner’s framework shows they still amount to a breakdown of democratic norms:
-
Rule by Experts: Intelligence elites assuming moral authority to override the electoral process.
-
Epistemic Closure: Media and academia uncritically repeating state narratives, suppressing dissent.
-
Post-Deliberative Governance: Policy outcomes determined in advance by commissions and bureaucracies, not public deliberation.
Bottom line:
If Gabbard is right, the Obama administration presided over an elite consensus that rejected Trump not just politically but existentially, and used the intelligence apparatus to operationalize that rejection. Whether or not prosecutable, this would mean democratic forms were upheld while democratic substance was violated. That’s Turner’s warning: the mask of legitimacy hiding technocratic self-preservation.
GROK says: Stephen P. Turner work addresses the manipulation of expert systems (like intelligence agencies) for political ends and the erosion of democratic norms through institutional overreach.
- Politicization of Expertise:
- In Politics of Expertise, Turner argues that expert systems, such as intelligence agencies, are vulnerable to politicization when their authority is used to advance partisan agendas. The transcript highlights allegations that Obama’s administration, particularly through John Brennan, pressured intelligence analysts to produce a report aligning with a predetermined narrative about Russian interference favoring Trump. Turner would likely view this as a case of "expert capture," where political actors co-opt technical expertise to legitimize controversial actions. Gabbard’s claim that Obama’s directives were "unusual" and relied on "unclear or unknown sources" aligns with Turner’s concern about the distortion of expert processes to serve power.
- Turner’s work emphasizes that expertise depends on trust in institutional integrity. The transcript’s discussion of Brennan allegedly overriding analysts’ findings (e.g., adding the Steele dossier as an appendix despite objections) suggests a violation of this trust. Turner would argue that such actions undermine the legitimacy of intelligence agencies, as they deviate from evidence-based standards, a point echoed in the transcript when Kuryaku notes that analysts are taught to report unsupported claims to the Inspector General.
- Institutional Power and Accountability:
- In Liberal Democracy 3.0, Turner examines how modern democracies grapple with the tension between bureaucratic autonomy and democratic accountability. The allegations in the transcript that Brennan and Comey engaged in actions tantamount to a "coup" against a democratically elected president reflect Turner’s concern about unelected officials wielding disproportionate power. Gabbard’s investigation into these actions, as described in the news snippet, could be seen as an attempt to restore accountability, though Turner might caution that her own politicized rhetoric (e.g., calling it a "treasonous conspiracy") risks further eroding institutional neutrality.
- Turner’s concept of "institutional drift" is relevant here. He argues that institutions can shift away from their original mandates when co-opted by political pressures. The transcript’s reference to Obama ordering a rushed intelligence assessment in December 2016, combined with leaks to the press, suggests a drift in the intelligence community’s role from objective analysis to political weaponization. Turner would likely see this as a systemic failure, where the absence of robust checks allowed senior officials to manipulate processes without immediate consequences.
- Sociology of Knowledge and Narrative Construction:
- Turner’s The Social Theory of Practices explores how knowledge is constructed and disseminated within social and institutional contexts. The "Tulsi-Obama story" involves competing narratives: one where Obama’s administration manufactured a false Russian interference story to undermine Trump, and another where Russia’s actions were real but exaggerated or misinterpreted. Turner would argue that these narratives are shaped by power dynamics within institutions like the CIA and FBI, where senior figures like Brennan can control what counts as "knowledge" by selectively promoting certain intelligence (e.g., a single defector’s oral account) while suppressing others (e.g., Putin’s reported ambivalence about Trump vs. Clinton).
- The transcript’s mention of the Steele dossier as "amateurish" and its inclusion in the intelligence assessment despite skepticism illustrates Turner’s point about how flawed knowledge practices can gain traction when backed by institutional authority. Gabbard’s release of the 2017 House Intelligence Committee report, as noted in the news snippet, challenges this constructed knowledge, but Turner might warn that her selective declassification could itself be a form of narrative manipulation, serving Trump’s political goals.
Matt Taibbi’s InsightsMatt Taibbi provides a critical lens on how media and intelligence agencies shape public perception.
- Russia Gate as a Media and Intelligence Scandal:
- Taibbi describes Russia Gate as a transformative event that shifted his political outlook and career, highlighting its role as a "gigantic PR/advertising campaign" that divided American society. His work in Hate Inc. argues that media outlets amplify divisive narratives to drive engagement, a point reflected in the transcript’s critique of outlets like MSNBC’s Morning Joe for doubling down on the Russian interference narrative despite evidence to the contrary. Gabbard’s release of the 2017 House report, as discussed in the news snippet, aligns with Taibbi’s view that the original intelligence assessment was based on flimsy evidence (e.g., Brennan’s single-source conversation), which the media uncritically amplified.
- Taibbi’s reporting on Russia Gate, particularly in his Substack and Racket News, emphasizes the lack of accountability for intelligence officials and media figures who pushed unverified claims. The transcript’s discussion of Brennan and Comey potentially facing charges for lying to Congress or engaging in a "conspiracy" echoes Taibbi’s broader critique of elite impunity. He sees the absence of a "reckoning" (unlike the WMD scandal) as a failure of democratic checks, a theme central to his journalism.
- Politicization and Institutional Corruption:
- Taibbi’s work often focuses on how institutions like the intelligence community and media collude to serve political ends. In the transcript, he and Kuryaku discuss how Obama’s administration allegedly pressured agencies to produce a rushed assessment, with leaks to the New York Times and Washington Post signaling a pre-determined conclusion. This aligns with Taibbi’s arguments in Hate Inc. that media and government elites work together to craft narratives that protect their interests. Gabbard’s accusations against Obama, as reported in the news snippet, resonate with Taibbi’s view that the 2016 assessment was a politicized effort to undermine Trump, though he acknowledges the lack of clear evidence for criminality.
- The transcript’s reference to the Steele dossier’s inclusion in the assessment, despite its flaws, supports Taibbi’s critique of intelligence agencies cherry-picking data to fit a narrative. His reporting on the dossier, particularly in collaboration with figures like Aaron Maté, emphasizes its unverified nature and the media’s role in hyping it. Gabbard’s release of documents questioning the dossier’s role, as noted in the news snippet, reinforces Taibbi’s narrative of institutional corruption.
- Tulsi Gabbard’s Role and Media Backlash:
- Taibbi’s discussion in the transcript highlights the attacks on Gabbard, particularly by MSNBC, which labeled her a "conspiracy theorist" and Russian asset. His work, including articles on Substack, critiques these attacks as part of a broader smear campaign against dissenters from the Russia Gate narrative. The news snippet’s mention of Gabbard’s document releases and her accusations against Obama aligns with Taibbi’s defense of her as a whistleblower exposing intelligence abuses, though he acknowledges her personal stake (e.g., her own surveillance under the Quiet Skies program).
- Taibbi’s Hate Inc. framework of media as a "hate machine" explains the vitriol against Gabbard, as seen in the transcript’s reference to NBC and MSNBC timing a hit piece to her 2019 presidential campaign launch. He argues that such attacks are designed to marginalize voices challenging establishment narratives, a point reinforced by the news snippet’s note of Democratic criticism (e.g., Senator Mark Warner’s concerns about sensitive sources).
Connecting Turner and Taibbi to the Tulsi-Obama StoryThe "Tulsi-Obama story," as framed by the news snippet and transcript, centers on Gabbard’s allegations that Obama orchestrated a politicized intelligence assessment to undermine Trump, potentially constituting a "treasonous conspiracy." Both Turner and Taibbi offer complementary insights into this narrative:
- Shared Themes:
- Politicization of Institutions: Turner’s theoretical work on expertise and institutional drift provides a framework for understanding how Obama’s alleged directives (e.g., rushing the 2016 assessment, including the Steele dossier) represent a misuse of intelligence agencies. Taibbi’s journalistic work concretizes this by detailing specific instances of manipulation, such as Brennan’s reliance on a single defector’s oral account and the suppression of contradictory intelligence (e.g., Putin’s reported indifference).
- Erosion of Trust: Turner’s emphasis on the fragility of institutional trust aligns with Taibbi’s observation that Russia Gate created a societal schism between those who believed the narrative and those who questioned it. Gabbard’s document releases, as described in the news snippet, aim to restore trust by exposing flaws in the 2016 assessment, but both thinkers would caution that her approach risks further politicization if driven by partisan motives.
- Accountability and Power: Turner’s concern about unaccountable bureaucratic power is echoed in Taibbi’s call for a reckoning for figures like Brennan and Comey. The transcript’s discussion of potential felony charges (e.g., under the Espionage Act) reflects their shared belief that systemic abuses require serious consequences to deter future misconduct.
- Divergent Perspectives:
- Turner’s sociological approach is more abstract, focusing on systemic patterns rather than specific actors. He would likely analyze the Tulsi-Obama story as a case study of how political pressures distort expert systems, without necessarily endorsing Gabbard’s narrative. Taibbi, as a journalist, is more invested in the specifics of Russia Gate, viewing Gabbard’s actions as a corrective to a specific injustice, though he acknowledges the complexity of proving criminality.
- Turner might critique Gabbard’s rhetoric (e.g., "treasonous conspiracy") as an overreach that risks mirroring the politicization she condemns, while Taibbi is more sympathetic to her, given his own experience of being ostracized for questioning Russia Gate.
Analysis of the News SnippetThe news snippet provides context for the "Tulsi-Obama story," framing Gabbard’s document releases and accusations against Obama as part of Trump’s broader campaign of retribution. Key points include:
- Gabbard’s Claims: Gabbard asserts that Obama led a politicized intelligence assessment, supported by a 2017 House Intelligence Committee report she declassified. The report questions the claim that Putin favored Trump, citing a single biased source and rushed processes.
- Counterarguments: Democrats and former officials argue that the report doesn’t change the consensus that Russia meddled to harm Clinton, and they criticize Gabbard’s release for risking sensitive sources. The Senate Intelligence Committee and Durham’s investigation upheld the 2016 assessment’s core findings.
- Political Context: The snippet suggests Trump is using the Obama attacks to deflect from scrutiny over the Epstein files, while Gabbard’s actions are portrayed as both a defense of Trump and a continuation of her anti-establishment stance.
Stephen P. Turner’s work provides a sophisticated lens for understanding the Tulsi-Obama story as a case study in the erosion of democratic legitimacy through the politicization of expert systems, particularly intelligence agencies. His concepts of epistemic coercion, post-normal science, institutional drift, and the rule of commissions are directly applicable to Gabbard’s allegations that the Obama administration manipulated intelligence to undermine the incoming Trump administration. Below, I’ll apply these concepts to specific aspects of the story, drawing on the transcript, the news snippet, and your provided analysis.
- Epistemic Coercion and the Intelligence Community’s Role:
- Turner’s Concept: In Epistemic Coercion (2014), Turner argues that expert systems gain political power by presenting claims as unassailable truths, leaving laypersons and even elected officials unable to contest them due to their complexity or secrecy. This creates a form of domination where dissent is marginalized as ignorance or heresy.
- Application to Tulsi-Obama Story: Gabbard’s claim, as reported in the news snippet, that Obama’s administration issued “unusual directives” to produce a rushed intelligence assessment about Russian interference in 2016 exemplifies epistemic coercion. The transcript details how John Brennan allegedly relied on a single, oral account from a Russian defector to assert Putin’s preference for Trump, bypassing standard tradecraft (e.g., formal reporting through a reports officer, as Kuryaku notes at 8:33–9:16). This unverified claim was presented as authoritative intelligence, with the Steele dossier appended despite objections (6:02–6:13), effectively coercing analysts and the public into accepting a narrative without transparent evidence. Turner would see this as a deliberate use of secrecy and expertise to foreclose democratic debate, aligning with your point that intelligence became a “politically determinative” tool immune from challenge.
- Implications: The transcript’s revelation that the House Intelligence Committee report (declassified by Gabbard) found “nothing substantiated” Putin’s preference for Trump (4:56–5:01) underscores Turner’s warning about the fragility of expert claims when divorced from evidence. Gabbard’s release of this report, as noted in the news snippet, challenges the epistemic authority of the 2016 assessment, but Turner might caution that her own rhetoric (e.g., “treasonous conspiracy”) risks replicating the same coercive dynamic by framing the issue in moral absolutes rather than fostering open inquiry.
- Post-Normal Science and “Good Enough” Intelligence:
- Turner’s Concept: In Post-truth, or Post-Academic? (2024), Turner argues that modern science and expertise prioritize “reliable enough” knowledge for bureaucratic or policy purposes over truth-seeking. This shift is driven by institutional incentives, where knowledge is produced to justify pre-determined outcomes rather than to uncover reality.
- Application to Tulsi-Obama Story: The transcript’s discussion of the 2016 intelligence assessment as a rushed product, driven by Obama’s directive and Brennan’s insistence on including the Steele dossier (5:56–6:08), mirrors Turner’s concept of post-normal science. The assessment, as described in the news snippet, relied on “fragmentary” intelligence from a single, biased source (a defector), yet was presented as conclusive evidence of Russian interference favoring Trump. Kuryaku’s shock that analysts did not report Brennan’s actions to the Inspector General (6:08–6:22) highlights how institutional pressures can override professional standards, producing intelligence that is “good enough” to justify political action (e.g., delegitimizing Trump) but epistemically weak. Your point about the Russia-Trump narrative being “institutionally convenient” directly aligns with this dynamic.
- Implications: Turner would argue that this case illustrates a broader decay in epistemic legitimacy, where intelligence agencies, like scientific institutions, prioritize utility over truth. The news snippet’s note that the Senate Intelligence Committee and John Durham’s investigation upheld the 2016 assessment’s core findings (that Russia meddled to harm Clinton) suggests a competing narrative, but Turner would question whether even these findings were shaped by bureaucratic imperatives rather than rigorous evidence. Gabbard’s declassification efforts aim to expose this, but the risk, as Turner might note, is that selective declassification could itself serve a political agenda, perpetuating the cycle of post-normal knowledge production.
- Institutional Drift and the Rule of Commissions:
- Turner’s Concept: In Liberal Democracy 3.0 (2003) and Making Democratic Theory Democratic (2023), Turner describes how expert-dominated “commissions” (e.g., intelligence agencies, regulatory bodies) have displaced democratic deliberation, operating with autonomy and minimal accountability. This drift transforms liberal democracy into a technocratic system where unelected elites wield significant power.
- Application to Tulsi-Obama Story: Gabbard’s allegation, as per the news snippet, that Obama led the “manufacturing” of the 2016 intelligence assessment points to a classic example of institutional drift. The transcript details how Brennan and Comey, as heads of the CIA and FBI, allegedly pushed a narrative that contradicted analyst findings (5:26–5:40) and suppressed evidence suggesting Putin’s ambivalence about Trump vs. Clinton (11:40–12:15). This suggests that intelligence agencies acted as a “commission” that prioritized political goals (undermining Trump) over their mandate to provide objective analysis. Your reference to the “soft coup mentality” within the national security state captures Turner’s concern about unelected officials assuming authority to override electoral outcomes.
- Implications: Turner’s framework highlights the danger of this drift: when agencies like the CIA or FBI operate beyond democratic oversight, they undermine the legitimacy of the political system. The transcript’s mention of leaks to the New York Times and Washington Post on December 9, 2016, simultaneous with Obama’s directive for a new assessment (24:00–24:31), suggests a coordinated effort to shape public perception, bypassing legislative or public scrutiny. Turner would see this as a symptom of a democracy hollowed out by technocratic power, where intelligence elites act as gatekeepers of what is politically possible. Gabbard’s investigation, while exposing this drift, risks being co-opted into a counter-narrative that itself avoids broader democratic deliberation, as Turner might warn.
- The Sacralization of Politics and Narrative Policing:
- Turner’s Concept: In Max Weber and the Two Universities (2024) and COSMOS + TAXIS Response (2025), Turner argues that modern institutions, including academia and bureaucracies, have shifted from value-neutral inquiry to enforcing ideologically aligned narratives. Dissent is treated as heresy, and crises (e.g., security threats) are used to justify expanded discretionary powers, often framed as moral imperatives.
- Application to Tulsi-Obama Story: The transcript’s discussion of the Russia Gate narrative as a “gigantic PR/advertising campaign” that divided American society (18:00–18:08) aligns with Turner’s concept of sacralized politics. Taibbi’s anecdote about a DNC attorney believing Trump was a “Manchurian candidate” (16:43–17:11) illustrates how the narrative became a moral crusade, with dissenters like Gabbard labeled as Russian assets or conspiracy theorists (35:23–37:02). The news snippet’s report of Democratic criticism (e.g., Senator Mark Warner’s claim that Gabbard’s document release risks sensitive sources) reflects this policing of dissent, framing challenges to the 2016 assessment as threats to national security. Turner would see this as an attempt to sacralize the intelligence community’s narrative, rendering it immune to contestation.
- Implications: Turner’s insight suggests that the Tulsi-Obama story is not just about specific actions but about a broader transformation in how political legitimacy is maintained. The transcript’s reference to news stories claiming Israel was told not to share intelligence with Trump (34:15–34:34) highlights the extreme measures taken to delegitimize an elected president, treating his administration as a foreign threat. This sacralization, as Turner notes, turns politics into a battle of moral absolutes, where institutional actors like Brennan or Comey rationalize their actions as defending democracy (your point about Brennan’s careerist “moral mandate” at 22:20–23:03). Gabbard’s response, while aimed at exposing this, risks adopting a similar moralistic tone, potentially deepening the divide Turner describes.
Matt Taibbi’s Perspective: Deepening the NarrativeMatt Taibbi’s work, as reflected in the transcript and his broader journalism (e.g., Hate Inc., Substack, and Racket News), provides a granular, evidence-driven critique of the Russia Gate scandal and its implications for the Tulsi-Obama story. His insights complement Turner’s theoretical framework by grounding it in specific events and actors.
- Russia Gate as an Epistemic Betrayal:
- In the transcript, Taibbi describes Russia Gate as a life-changing event that exposed the “biggest fraud of all time” (3:20–3:47). His work in Hate Inc. argues that the media, in collusion with intelligence officials, amplified unverified claims to serve partisan ends, creating a schism between those who believed the narrative and those who questioned it (18:08–18:27). The news snippet’s reference to Gabbard’s declassification of the 2017 House Intelligence Committee report, which challenges the Putin-Trump preference claim, supports Taibbi’s view that the 2016 assessment was based on flimsy evidence (e.g., Brennan’s single-source conversation, 7:12–7:44).
- Deepening the Analysis: Taibbi’s reporting on Substack and Racket News often focuses on specific documents and leaks, such as the Twitter Files, which revealed how government agencies pressured tech platforms to align with official narratives. Applying this to the Tulsi-Obama story, Taibbi would likely argue that the simultaneous leaks to the New York Times and Washington Post on December 9, 2016 (24:20–24:25), were part of a deliberate strategy to cement the Russia Gate narrative before Trump’s inauguration. This aligns with your point about leaks as potential violations of the Espionage Act (24:52–25:16), suggesting a pattern of intelligence officials using media to bypass democratic accountability.
- The Steele Dossier and Narrative Manipulation:
- The transcript’s discussion of the Steele dossier’s inclusion in the 2016 assessment, despite its “amateurish” nature (12:28–13:29), is a focal point of Taibbi’s critique. He argues that the dossier, funded by the Clinton campaign, was unverified “rumor” that intelligence officials used to smear Trump (13:18–13:47). The news snippet confirms that former officials acknowledged the dossier’s inclusion as a mistake but insisted it did not influence the assessment’s core findings. Taibbi would counter that its mere presence in an annex lent it undue legitimacy, a point echoed in the House report’s claim that it “misrepresented the significance and credibility” of Steele’s work.
- Deepening the Analysis: Taibbi’s work on the dossier, particularly in collaboration with Aaron Maté, emphasizes how intelligence officials like Brennan and Comey selectively used unverified information to justify surveillance (e.g., the FISA warrant on Carter Page, 14:13–14:20). This supports your argument about potential FISA abuse and fraud on the court. Taibbi would likely see Gabbard’s document releases as a critical step in exposing this manipulation, though he might acknowledge, as the news snippet suggests, that her actions could be perceived as serving Trump’s political agenda, complicating her role as a neutral whistleblower.
- Attacks on Gabbard and Institutional Backlash:
- Taibbi’s defense of Gabbard in the transcript (35:23–38:25) highlights how she was smeared as a “conspiracy theorist” and Russian asset by media outlets like MSNBC, particularly after her 2019 presidential campaign announcement. He connects this to earlier instances of narrative policing, such as the Hamilton 68 project, which falsely linked Gabbard to Russian bots (36:16–36:55). The news snippet’s note of Democratic criticism (e.g., Warner’s concerns about sensitive sources) reinforces Taibbi’s view that establishment institutions reflexively attack dissenters to protect their authority.
- Deepening the Analysis: Taibbi’s Hate Inc. framework of media as a “hate machine” explains why Gabbard’s allegations against Obama provoke such intense backlash. Her surveillance under the Quiet Skies program (38:10–38:44) and the media’s framing of her as a Kremlin favorite (37:02–37:14) illustrate how institutions use epistemic coercion to marginalize challengers. Taibbi’s personal experience of being “pushed out” of mainstream journalism (17:42–17:47) parallels Gabbard’s marginalization, suggesting a systemic pattern where dissent from the Russia Gate narrative is punished. This aligns with your point about the “sacralization of politics” turning dissent into heresy.
- Improper Use of Intelligence for Political Purposes:
- Potential Violations:
- 18 U.S.C. § 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law): If intelligence agencies surveilled Trump campaign members (e.g., Carter Page, George Papadopoulos) without legal basis, this could constitute a deprivation of their civil rights. The transcript’s mention of the FISA warrant on Page (14:13–14:20) and Papadopoulos’s imprisonment (15:33–15:53) suggests politically motivated surveillance, though proving intent is challenging.
- 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (False Statements): Brennan and Comey’s alleged misleading testimony to Congress about the 2016 assessment (25:42–25:48) could violate this statute. The transcript notes that the House report found the Putin-Trump preference claim unsubstantiated (4:56–5:01), suggesting possible misrepresentation.
- The Privacy Act of 1974: Unauthorized disclosure of personal information on Trump associates could apply, particularly if leaks involved surveillance data (e.g., the transcript’s reference to leaks about Trump’s reaction to the dossier, 33:05–33:18).
- Turner’s Perspective: These violations reflect the “epistemic coup” Turner describes, where intelligence elites use their authority to override democratic processes. The lack of accountability for such actions, as Taibbi notes (4:11–4:22), underscores Turner’s concern about the autonomy of expert commissions.
- Taibbi’s Perspective: Taibbi would argue that these actions were part of a deliberate strategy to delegitimize Trump, as evidenced by the coordinated leaks and dossier inclusion (24:20–24:31, 12:28–13:29). He sees this as a betrayal of journalistic and intelligence integrity, aligning with your point about a “breakdown in the firewall” between politics and national security.
- Likelihood and Implications: While misdemeanor charges for false statements are plausible (as Kuryaku notes, 25:48–25:55), proving intent under § 242 or Privacy Act violations is harder without direct evidence of political targeting. If true, these actions would confirm Turner’s warning about technocratic power undermining democratic legitimacy, as intelligence tools were turned inward to influence electoral outcomes.
- Potential Violations:
- FISA Abuse and Surveillance Violations:
- Potential Violations:
- Illegal Surveillance Under FISA: The transcript’s discussion of the FISA warrant on Carter Page (14:13–14:20) suggests it was based on the unverified Steele dossier, potentially constituting fraud on the FISA court. The news snippet notes that the dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign, raising questions about its use in legal proceedings.
- Fraud on the Court: If Brennan or Comey knowingly submitted unverified information to obtain warrants, this could violate judicial integrity, though proving knowledge is difficult.
- Turner’s Perspective: FISA abuse exemplifies Turner’s concept of institutional drift, where secret processes (like FISA courts) operate beyond democratic scrutiny, enabling elites to target political opponents under the guise of national security. The lack of public access to FISA proceedings aligns with his critique of epistemic coercion.
- Taibbi’s Perspective: Taibbi’s reporting on the dossier and FISA abuses (e.g., in Substack articles) emphasizes how unverified intelligence was weaponized to justify surveillance. He would see Gabbard’s document releases as exposing this abuse, though the news snippet’s note that the dossier did not influence the assessment’s core findings complicates the narrative.
- Likelihood and Implications: FISA abuse is a plausible charge, given the Inspector General’s 2019 report on FISA irregularities in the Trump campaign investigation. However, proving fraud requires evidence of deliberate misrepresentation, which the House report’s focus on a single biased source (news snippet) may not fully substantiate. If true, this would, as you note, nullify electoral democracy by turning surveillance into a political weapon.
- Potential Violations:
- Undermining a Lawful Transition of Power:
- Potential Violations:
- Presidential Transition Act of 1963: The transcript’s claim that Obama’s administration set up a “time bomb” to create an “avalanche of problems” for Trump (34:01–34:09) suggests a failure to cooperate with the incoming administration, potentially violating the Act’s spirit, though legal enforcement is unclear.
- 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (Civil Conspiracy): Coordinated efforts to hinder Trump’s ability to govern (e.g., through leaks or intelligence assessments) could constitute a conspiracy to deprive him of his constitutional duties, though this is a high bar to prove.
- Turner’s Perspective: This aligns with Turner’s concept of the rule of commissions, where unelected bodies act as gatekeepers of power, resisting electoral outcomes they deem unacceptable. The transcript’s reference to intelligence-sharing restrictions with Israel (34:15–34:34) suggests an attempt to isolate Trump, reflecting a technocratic override of democratic will.
- Taibbi’s Perspective: Taibbi views this as a “soft coup” (32:18–32:23), a deliberate effort to sabotage Trump’s presidency before it began. He sees Gabbard’s investigation as exposing this, though the news snippet’s framing of her actions as part of Trump’s “retribution” campaign suggests political motivations that Taibbi might acknowledge as complicating her credibility.
- Likelihood and Implications: Proving a violation of the Presidential Transition Act or civil conspiracy is difficult without direct evidence of intent. However, the transcript’s narrative of a coordinated effort (leaks, assessments, surveillance) supports your “soft coup mentality” argument. If true, this would confirm Turner’s warning about democracy being hollowed out by technocratic elites, undermining the substance of electoral legitimacy.
- Potential Violations:
- Leaks of Classified Information:
- Potential Violations:
- 18 U.S.C. § 798 (Disclosure of Classified Information): The transcript’s mention of leaks to the New York Times and Washington Post on December 9, 2016 (24:20–24:31), if involving classified information, could violate this statute. Kuryaku’s assertion that such leaks constitute espionage (24:52–25:05) aligns with your analysis.
- Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 793–798): Unlawful transmission of national defense information, as in the case of leaked signals intelligence (27:41–27:47), could apply, particularly if orchestrated by senior officials like Brennan or Comey.
- Turner’s Perspective: Leaks reflect Turner’s concept of epistemic closure, where institutions use secrecy to control narratives while selectively releasing information to shape public perception. The simultaneous leaks and assessment directive suggest a deliberate effort to bypass democratic scrutiny, aligning with Turner’s critique of post-deliberative governance.
- Taibbi’s Perspective: Taibbi’s focus on leaks as a “consistent feature” of the Russia Gate scandal (27:28–27:36) underscores their role in narrative manipulation. He would argue that Gabbard’s release of emails showing Obama’s directive (24:00–24:14) exposes this as a coordinated effort to undermine Trump, supporting your Espionage Act argument.
- Likelihood and Implications: The Espionage Act is a plausible charge, given the precedent of prosecuting leaks (e.g., the Senate aide case mentioned at 28:06–28:11). If proven, this would confirm a pattern of criminality cloaked in whistleblowing, as you note, destabilizing the incoming administration and eroding public trust in intelligence institutions.
- Potential Violations:
- Material Misrepresentation to Congress or the Public:
- Potential Violations:
- 18 U.S.C. § 1621 (Perjury) or § 1001 (False Statements): Brennan and Comey’s alleged misleading testimony about the 2016 assessment (25:42–25:48) could violate these statutes, though the transcript notes that lying to Congress is typically a misdemeanor with minimal penalties (25:48–25:55).
- Turner’s Perspective: Such misrepresentations reflect Turner’s concern about epistemic elites using their authority to construct narratives that resist scrutiny. The transcript’s claim that the assessment was based on a single, unverified source (7:12–7:44) suggests a deliberate effort to mislead Congress and the public, aligning with Turner’s critique of post-truth governance.
- Taibbi’s Perspective: Taibbi’s outrage at the lack of a “reckoning” for Russia Gate (4:11–4:22) highlights the impunity of intelligence officials who misrepresented evidence. He would see Gabbard’s investigation as a step toward accountability, though the news snippet’s note that the House report was partisan (drafted only by Republicans) complicates its credibility.
- Likelihood and Implications: Misdemeanor charges for false statements are plausible, as Kuryaku suggests, but felony charges (e.g., conspiracy) would require evidence of coordinated intent. If true, this would confirm Turner’s warning about epistemic degradation, where institutional narratives trump truth, undermining democratic accountability.
- Potential Violations:
If Not Crimes, Then What? Political and Sociological ImplicationsEven if Gabbard’s allegations do not result in criminal convictions, Turner’s and Taibbi’s frameworks highlight their profound implications for democratic norms:
- Rule by Experts: Turner’s concept of the rule of commissions is vividly illustrated by the alleged actions of Obama, Brennan, and Comey. The transcript’s claim that they set up a “time bomb” to destabilize Trump (34:01–34:09) suggests that intelligence elites assumed a moral mandate to override an electoral outcome, as you note in your analysis of Brennan’s careerist ambitions (22:20–23:03). This aligns with Turner’s warning that unelected experts can displace democratic will, creating a governance model where power lies with technocratic insiders.
- Epistemic Closure: Taibbi’s critique of media complicity (20:32–21:22) and Turner’s concept of epistemic coercion converge on the role of media and academia in amplifying the Russia Gate narrative. Dissent is framed as dangerous or unpatriotic, closing off public debate. This supports your point about the “sacralization of politics” turning dissent into heresy.
- Post-Deliberative Governance: Turner’s argument in Making Democratic Theory Democratic that administrative systems bypass deliberation is evident in the rushed 2016 assessment and simultaneous leaks (24:08–24:31). The news snippet’s acknowledgment that Obama officials pressured agencies to complete the review before leaving office confirms this post-deliberative dynamic, where outcomes are predetermined by bureaucratic logic rather than public or legislative input.
