Posted on 09/25/2019 9:30:28 AM PDT by Monrose72
Presidential long shot Tulsi Gabbard opted not to back the Democrats' impeachment inquiry into President Trump during a Tuesday interview on CNN. The conversation took place prior to Speaker Pelosi's official announcement, but CNN had already reported what she was going to say during her presser. “Look, my position remains the same. I think that impeachment would be terribly divisive for our already very divided country," Gabbard stated. "I think Congress needs to exercise oversight over the information that’s been leaked. I think that it’s important that this transcript is released to Congress so that Congress can do its job. But I think the question of impeachment really would further tear apart an already divided country." The Hawaii Representative repeatedly stated that Democrats should be focused on beating the president at the ballot box instead of through impeachment, going as far as to say that if her 2020 opponents "don’t think they can" beat Trump, "then maybe they shouldn’t be running."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
That’s why I think letting Hellary run again might not be a bad thing for the Rats.
1. This time she lose even more decisively, no excuses possible,
2. Discredits the Clinton cabal once and for all. Removes even the possibility of something being significantly resurrected through Chelsea.
3. Hard left either gets on board with Hellary again or goes 3rd party and then rides off into irrelevant fringes from which they came. If they stick with Hellary they fall with Hellary.
Being hot and being a veteran doesn’t give her a pass for being a idiot Democrat. She thinks she is slick acting like a “moderate”. Bad mouthing Trump at every microphone is cheap politics and of course she wants Trump impeached irregardless what she says.
I don't have a problem with that. At the moment, the Dem House is led by a definitely non-nippy Nancy.
Yes, there’s people that believe every photo is legit on their page!
um... oh.
Snake in the grass is right.
I’ve always stated that Kamala Harris is going to be the nominee, because she ticks more of their Identity Politics checkboxes than anyone else. However, if the Dems get a sudden bout of hangover realization that full-throated communism is not the way to beat Trump in 2020, then they realize they have the most “sensible” candidate in Major Gabbard, and even Kamala will be thrown under the bus.
Remember, Major Gabbard violated the UCMJ for calling Trump a derogatory name. UCMJ does NOT apply to Congressional privilege, and she’s certainly under Trump’s command. As a military officer, she has limitations that Americans not under Trump’s command are allowed to have. Note that she can actively and aggressively campaign AGAINST Trump, and in fact there is certain political leeway she has in denouncing Trump, but that is not the same thing as calling him a pimp.
In any case, though, if Gabbard were the nominee, I would be more concerned than any other candidate to go up against Trump in the general. My own Spidey-sense says as much.
She is what a Democrat should be, a thoughtful loyal US citizen.
uh, washingtonexaminer, it’s NOT a formal inquiry unless the full House voted to make it one ...
That would be something to take up with the author. Nancy’s big announcement was a nothing burger. Nothing has changed because there has been no formal vote by the house.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.