For nearly ten years, Hillary Clinton has characterized President Donald Trump as everything from a “Russian asset” to the “second coming of Hitler.” Not once in that time has she offered a public compliment.

Which is why Clinton’s flowery praise of President Trump on the Raging Moderates podcast with host Jessica Tarlov has left everyone with their jaws on the floor:

“I actually was encouraged by the events of the last several months. First of all, the NATO commitment by individual member states to increase their defense spending is very welcome. It’s something that prior administrations have certainly sought,” Clinton said.

She credited Trump for achieving what others couldn’t — getting NATO members to raise their defense spending commitment from 2% of GDP to 5% by 2035. She went further:

If Trump ended the war between Russia and Ukraine, she would “nominate Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize.”

NATO’s decision followed direct pressure from Trump, who made it clear the U.S. would no longer carry the bulk of the alliance’s defense costs. Clinton acknowledged this was a long-standing U.S. objective — one she and others had failed to achieve.

Over the past 10 years Clinton, who lost the presidential election to Trump in 2016, has not said a SINGLE positive thing about the president.

So why has her tone all of a sudden changed? It may have something to do with all of the new evidence Tusli Gabbard and the FBI have released in the last three weeks.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard revealed that classified documents show the intelligence communities plan to brand Trump a Russian asset originated with Clinton’s 2016 campaign, and that she personally signed off on it. The strategy served a dual purpose: distracting from her own campaign scandal, having a secret server in the bathroom of her personal home, and undermining Trump’s legitimacy as president.

In addition, FBI Director Kash Patel released a memo stating that, during Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State under Barack Obama, the bureau had compiled a strong case alleging she traded political favors for large donations to the Clinton Foundation.

According to Patel’s memo, top DOJ officials intervened to stop the case. Then–Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe allegedly restricted agents from pursuing key leads, and then–Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates ordered the investigation “shut down” entirely.

For ten years, Clinton smeared Trump while enjoying the protection of high-ranking allies inside the federal government. Now that those same allies are out of power, and the legal spotlight is once again focused on her, she seems to have a very different attitude towards the president

Clinton’s remarks might be viewed as statesmanship — if they weren’t arriving at the precise moment her own political misconduct is being exposed. After a decade of unbroken hostility toward Trump, she’s suddenly offering public praise, even entertaining the idea of nominating him for a Nobel Prize.

That’s not a coincidence. It’s a pattern shift — one that raises the question: Is Hillary Clinton speaking as a former rival… or as a political figure preparing her own defense?