Posted on 01/31/2025 6:33:31 AM PST by MtnClimber
Tulsi Gabbard is a rare former Democrat who dared to challenge the Democratic establishment. She confronted the party's most powerful players. In 2020, she unmasked Kamala Harris at the debates and instantly became a dangerous threat to them.
She also threatens many on the Right, too. They don’t like that she refuses to call Edward Snowden a “traitor.” So on and on it went, yet another Cotton Mather tribunal aimed at her to admit out loud something they know she does not believe. What they wanted from her was a lie. They wanted her to prove to them that she would bow down, that she was afraid of them, and that she wanted the job enough to do what they told her to do.
If they can get her to betray her principles and lie about what she believes in her mind and heart, they know they can convince her to say or do anything. Well, she is not a corrupt politician or a dishonest person, and shame on them for that grotesque circus we just watched.
Over and over, it went, “Do you think he’s a traitor?” Again and again, she answered, “Edward Snowden broke the law.” She does not believe him to be a traitor, OBVIOUSLY, because she believes his intentions were not to hurt Americans but to inform them that their rights were being violated. It’s not like he was selling nuclear secrets to the Russians, like the Rosenbergs.
Is it any wonder they called her a Russian spy and put her on a terrorist watch list? She makes them nervous because she is a rare, honest politician. They’re just not used to seeing it.
Back in my old life as a Democrat, I was angry enough at Edward Snowden that I mocked Glenn Greenwald when CitizenFour won the Oscar for Documentary Feature. I was coming from a place of ignorance - what else is new? I wish I could take it back. Now I feel like Greenwald is one of the few people I actually trust, and another one of those people is Tulsi Gabbard.
So, I will take their word on Snowden over the word of people who are convinced he deliberately betrayed this country.
Michael Bennet, a Democrat, was by far the most shrill. I look at these Democrats and I think, how are these people still in office? Who votes for them?
Here is Jim Rickards breaking it down on War Room:
And Glenn Greenwald on Megyn Kelly:
This is why we can’t have nice things. These guys were frothing at the mouth with rage. I doubt they’ll vote yes. I hope she can find another way to serve.
Meanwhile, we had yet another horrific episode of hysteria by Adam Schiff who made a fool of himself in the hearings when he went after Kash Patel:
Amy Klobuchar plays the role of the typical Democrat locked away in the Doomsday Bunker with only MSNBC to watch:
But then, we got to watch Ted Cruz smack the Democrats around, which is always fun:
And Glenn Beck with Tristan Justice summing it up on Tulsi and RFK, Jr:
Lots of video links in the article.
Nancy Pelosi met with Assad. The Dems did not have a problem with that.
by liberals on rules, any opposition to her is clearly just proof of sexism.
If the Senate uniparty rejects Gabbard, I think Trump will come back with someone even more “radical.”
In order to technically be a traitor, one must be convicted of committing treason. Snowden was not even charged for treason.
Maybe these senators should be asking the Obama DOJ why they didn’t include a treason indictment instead of Tulsi.
EC
The sad thing about these confirmation hearings is we have to hear these jackasses ask 45 second questions loaded with their BS.
These morons are clowns.
… The Intelligence Community and Big Corporate Interests Control Government. That’s the inescapable conclusion for anyone who watched the grand pantomimes being displayed in the past 24 hours.
There’s a debate amid the newly awakened and many who do not want to believe it; but there is no denying that Trump 2.0 is revealing even more layers of how far astray the Republic has gone.
Institutional Democrats hate Trump, and institutional Republicans are lukewarm, at best, in defending Trump. Both wings of the DC UniParty fear Trump. Extreme efforts at control are always a reaction to fear. I make my case not on supposition, but on empirical reference points that most should understand.
Warner Asks Gabbard Point Blank: 'What Are The Reforms That Have Led You To Now Support 702?'
Within the politics of it,
This is the only current difference between the two clubs, two wings of the same vulture.
Multinational corporations do not like capitalism because within the process of capitalism they do not have control over the financial outcomes. Capitalism breeds competition: multinationals abhor competition, they are totalitarian in ideology and want the entire pie under their control.
Multinational corporations do not like capitalism; underline it, emphasize it, do not forget it.
Capitalism is based on the principles of a free market. Multinationals do not want a free market; they want a controlled market. Their effort toward promoting mandatory vaccine compliance is an example of yet another control they can manipulate for maximum financial benefit. It really is that simple.
Meanwhile the crew of UniParty politicians behind DC know they can benefit from their corporate allies. The multinationals will pay the politicians for control and the politicians will construct defensive legislative outcomes that protect the multinationals. That is what is happening in exponentially increasing sunlight.
Tommy Tuberville Presses RFK Jr. On ADD And Giving Adderall And Ritalin To Children 'Like Candy'
Late last night a quote from Susan Collins appeared saying her reaction to Gabbard’s testimony was very positive. Gabbard said she had no intention of urging a pardon for Snowden and Collins pointed at that as very reassuring.
Collins is EXTREMELY important. As was true with Kavanaugh, she is the vote that the gutless senators can point at and hide behind. If she is voting to confirm Tulsi Gabbard, then other votes will be dragged along.
She is the vote the gutless use for cover.
The quotes from Collins last night were good news. Not conclusive until she casts the two relevant votes (one in committee and one on the floor), but very good news.
This will be a test of Thune’s abilities.
I think that Trump should have Tulsi serve in an “acting” capacity if committee refuses to vote to confirm. I think a thumb-in-the-eye would go a long way to stopping these theatrics.
Hope he rots for a long time, and I wish Gabbard had said something like that.
Tulsi should have asked the Democrats if they thought that Daniel Ellsburg was a traitor.
Snowden is not the issue of most importance.
The issue of most importance is to DRAIN THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY SWAMP. Disruption and upheaval. No more briefings to the president and Congress defined by the attitudes of agency leadership. No more briefings about what someone thinks. No more telepathy.
Pure objectivity. She will fire a lot of people and she has said her own narrative is to undercut interpretations that encourage deploying US troops and putting them at risk.
Snowden is not relevant. The only reason he became a subject is she co-authored a bill with Gaetz in support of Snowden.
The democrats have long struggled to keep only DEA people in government so they don’t become exposed for being so.
Didn’t work
"Senator, this nation recently interred our 39th President, James Earl Carter. One of the most controversial things Mr. Carter did during his presidency was to issue blanket pardons to those Americans who fled to Canada to avoid the military draft during the Vietnam conflict.
We can all agree that those who fled to Canada, "broke the law," at the time, just as Edward Snowden did in disclosing classified materials. Many in this nation are still divided over whether or not the draft evaders' actions were morally justified based on the actions of our government at the time, and if they should have ever received a pardon given the American lives they endangered by virtue of their actions. To this day, good people on both sides of issue continue to agree to disagree, some viewing them as persons of deep conscience and conviction, while others view them as traitors and cowards.
Those soldiers who served in Vietnam faced further moral dilemmas. Every soldier takes an oath to obey the orders of the officers appointed over them; they simultaneously incur a legal, ethical and moral duty to disobey illegal orders that violate the UCMJ, international convention and above all else, the US Constitution. While a service-member's personal moral convictions and objections are not enough, in and of themselves, to render an order unlawful, those same moral convictions are often times a soldier's first red flag that an order may be illegitimate.
While I can not and will not speak for Mr. Snowden, his actions lead me to believe that while illegal, he was hoping to call the nation's attention to practices that should be troubling to any American.
I would remind all in this room that next year, we will be observing the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independance. Some of the persons who signed that document would later serve in this very body, but before doing so, they too were also branded criminals and traitors."
He isn’t the most important issue, but her position on him is just wrong and I get why it bothers some Senators. Can’t believe there is nobody else for that job who couldn’t do the right things but without the baggage.
I have little doubt Snowden probably considered that Manning got light punishment when deciding to do what he did. Leaking like that has to be inexcusable regardless of the motive, and she doesn't appear to believe that.
If the dims and the GOPe both hate/fear her so, then she is obviously the correct pick for the job. It is a shame to have to use that logic, but I see no way around it, knowing what we know now.
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.