Democrat presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI) repeatedly refused to answer questions on whether she desired to legalize all drugs, including heroin, when she was asked about the issue by Fox News&#8217; Sean Hannity on Monday night.
When asked whether there was anything that she wishes she could work with President Donald Trump on, Gabbard answered, &#8220;There&#8217;s far more we want to do on criminal justice reform. I would love to be able to work with President Trump on ending this failed war on drugs.&#8221;
Hannity proceeded to ask Gabbard two times whether she wanted to legalize all drugs and six times whether she wanted to legalize heroin, but Gabbard refused to answer any of the questions.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
HANNITY: Do you want to legalize heroin?
DEMOCRAT TULSI GABBARD: Refuses to answer
H: Heroin?
G:—
H: Heroin?
G:—
H: Would you legalize heroin?
G:—
H: Would you legalize heroin? Don’t make me be a jerk
G:—
H: Heroin, would you legalize it? Would you legalize it?
G:— <a href="https://t.co/d9z9f91PWK">pic.twitter.com/d9z9f91PWK</a>
&mdash; Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1227134360333082624?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 11, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Gabbard is currently running a presidential campaign that is struggling to stay afloat. Real Clear Politics&#8217; average of national polls currently gives the congresswoman only <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">2 percent</a> of the Democratic vote and she has failed to gain traction in early primary states.
Below is an excerpt of Daily Wire Editor at Large Josh Hammer&#8217;s profile piece about Gabbard highlighting her background and policy views:
<blockquote>Tulsi Gabbard has served since 2013 as the U.S. congresswoman for Hawaii’s 2nd Congressional District — a sprawling district that covers large swaths of Oahu/Honolulu County and the entire state outside Oahu. A member of the Democratic Party, Gabbard served as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee from 2013 to 2016. Prior to her service in Congress, Gabbard served in the Hawaii state legislature and as a member of the Honolulu City Council. At the time of her initial successful run for the state legislature, Gabbard was only 21 years old.
Gabbard was born in American Samoa and is of mixed ethnic/religious background. Her Samoan father is a Catholic, and her Hoosier State native mother is a practicing Hindu; Gabbard herself is a practicing Hindu. Gabbard, who has a bachelor degree from Hawaii Pacific University, is a member of the Hawaii Army National Guard. She was deployed to Iraq from 2004 to 2005 as part of a medical field unit, and was subsequently deployed to Kuwait from 2008 to 2009.
Gabbard, a 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate, is known for being a full-spectrum, far-left progressive who embraces social leftism, far-left economic policies, and a staunchly non-interventionist foreign policy. Perhaps above all else, she is known for her longstanding and unusually collegial ties with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, who is supported by the Iranian and Russian regimes.
Electoral History: Gabbard first sought elected office in 2002, when she won her first election to the Hawaii state legislature. Gabbard was only 21 years old at the time. She served in the Hawaii House of Representatives until 2004, and subsequently served as a member of the Honolulu City Council from 2011 to 2012. She spent part of her time between the two political stints deployed in the Middle East with the Hawaii Army National Guard. She attained the rank of major in the National Guard in 2015.
Gabbard first ran for Congress in November 2012, shortly after being featured as a speaker at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. She was elected in a landslide in Hawaii’s deep-blue 2nd Congressional District. The seat had been previously occupied by Mazie Hirono, who is now the state’s junior U.S. senator. Gabbard was overwhelmingly re-elected in 2014, 2016, and 2018.</blockquote>
Continue reading: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/where-does-tulsi-gabbard-stand-issues-heres-josh-hammer">Where Does Tulsi Gabbard Stand On The Issues? Here’s Everything You Need To Know.</a>

Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard Holds Town Hall In Portsmouth, NH

WATCH: Tulsi Gabbard Asked 6 Times If She Wants To Legalize Heroin

Drugs

Tulsi Gabbard

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) defended President Donald Trump&#8217;s decision to fire two brothers at the National Security Council (NSC) and an ambassador on Friday in an interview on Fox News.
Late on Friday, news broke that the Trump administration removed Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and attorney Yevgeny Vindman from the NSC, and also recalled U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland.
&#8220;You know, the president yesterday, as you probably know, Congresswoman, fired Gordon Sondland, our Ambassador to Ukraine, and Alexander Vindman, top security official,&#8221; host Neil Cavuto said. &#8220;A lot of people were likening it to another, you know, Friday night massacre akin to what Richard Nixon did back in the ‘70s. Do you agree with that?&#8221;
&#8220;Ultimately, whether people like or not, there are consequences to elections,&#8221; Gabbard responded. &#8220;And the president has, within his purview, to make the decisions about who he’d like serving in his cabinet.&#8221;
At an earlier point in the interview, Gabbard took aim at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg when asked what she thought about the DNC making the rules easier for Bloomberg to qualify for the debates.
&#8220;It’s wrong. It’s wrong,&#8221; Gabbard responded. &#8220;The fact that a billionaire can come in and have that kind of influence to change the rules of the DNC all of a sudden, not coincidently, to be able to benefit Michael Bloomberg while voters here in New Hampshire and across the country are saying, hey, we want to be able to make the best informed decision possible before we go in and cast our vote, understanding the seriousness of this election.&#8221;
&#8220;But they’re not able to do so so long as both the DNC and some of the corporate media partners are enacting these rules where they are playing favorites,&#8221; Gabbard responded. &#8220;They are picking winners and losers before voters have the opportunity to do so.&#8221;
WATCH:
<iframe title="Tulsi Gabbard on Iowa Caucuses, importance of New Hampshire primary" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/D6k091R1NEg?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
TRANSCRIPT:
<blockquote>NEIL CAVUTO, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: So poking around the state here, we’re seeing a lot of the candidates show up at various rallies and events, including Joe Biden who is busy crisscrossing the state as well. A lot of the candidates will be doing that, including my next guest, the Hawaii Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard who joins us right now in the flesh.
Good to see you.
REP. TULSI GABBARD (D-HI), 2020 DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Good to see you. Thanks for having me.
CAVUTO: You saw this debate over what happened in Iowa.
GABBARD: Yes.
CAVUTO: A lot of people think even Tom Perez, the head of the Democratic National Committee, he should go. What do you think?
GABBARD: I think first, they should actually solve some of the problems. I think the more we learn about all of the things that went wrong really are a disservice to the voters in Iowa who went and they spent their time to let their voices be heard. And yet, their voices have not been heard in a resounding and very clear way.
I would think that, whether it’s the Iowa caucus chair working in concert with the DNC chair, they would proactively, themselves, want to go and make sure that those results are accurately counted to best serve the residents of Iowa.
CAVUTO: You know &#8212; as you know, Iowa holds a unique position as the first in the nation contest. Do you think it should have that four years from now?
GABBARD: That’s up to the states to decide. The states determine when they hold their primary elections. What I’ve been advocating for now for years are some very key reforms to our Democratic primaries. I think they should be open primaries.
I think they should allow same-day registration so you don’t have people in New York, for example, who if they didn’t register, I don’t know, something like five months before election day, they can’t go and vote. And I think we need to get rid of superdelegates.
Once again, this is continuing to be an issue of concern to voters here in New Hampshire who are worried about their vote actually being counted and how they don’t want it to be overruled by a small group of individuals who can come in and say, you know what, I don’t &#8212; I don’t think you guys know what you’re doing. We’re going to come in and decide &#8212;
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: Well, you know they’re talking that way again &#8212;
(CROSSTALK)
GABBARD: &#8212; this election &#8212;
CAVUTO: &#8212; Congresswoman, right?
GABBARD: That’s the concern &#8212;
CAVUTO: I mean, since the emergence of Bernie Sanders as a possible nominee, they’re revisiting this rule in place now &#8212;
GABBARD: Yes.
CAVUTO: &#8212; that superdelegates can’t vote on the first ballot. If they do that &#8212; change that, what do you think?
GABBARD: Well, the issue is &#8212; you know, I think, moving it back from the first ballot to the second ballot was a very small step in the right direction. But I want to be clear, we’ve got to get rid of superdelegates all together. And that change was not anywhere near enough, once again, to make sure that we as Democrats are standing by the decision that voters make on who our Democratic nominee should be.
CAVUTO: And you like the idea of an open primary where this way &#8212; you know, not just anyone in any party &#8212; any stream (ph) would be able to vote. If that were the math, I mean, you would poll a lot better because Conservatives are drawn to you, Independents are drawn to you. But in some of these rules, you’re kind of between a rock and a hard place.
GABBARD: Well, this is bigger than &#8212; this is not about me or my campaign. This is something I’ve been calling for for years, since the 2016 primary elections where I saw and I heard and met with people who are Democrat, who are Independents &#8212; who are here in New Hampshire &#8212; who are undeclared and who want to make sure that their voice is heard. We need to make it as easy and as accessible as possible for people to go in and participate in our democracy.
CAVUTO: How do you feel &#8212; and let’s say, you weren’t able to participate in the debate last night and yet they recently made rules in the party to all but grease the skids for Michael Bloomberg being able to debate. What do you think of that?
GABBARD: It’s wrong. It’s wrong. The fact that a billionaire can come in and have that kind of influence to change the rules of the DNC all of a sudden, not coincidently, to be able to benefit Michael Bloomberg while voters here in New Hampshire and across the country are saying, hey, we want to be able to make the best informed decision possible before we go in and cast our vote, understanding the seriousness of this election. But they’re not able to do so so long as both the DNC and some of the corporate media partners are enacting these rules where they are playing favorites. They are picking winners and losers before voters have the opportunity to do so.
CAVUTO: Do you think you’re just the odd-woman-out in this environment, though, that going after Hillary Clinton, now suing Hillary Clinton out, for saying you’re an agent of the Russians and all that &#8212; challenging the way they go about establishing a nominee and the process they use, that it’s an uphill battle for you &#8212;
GABBARD: Of course.
CAVUTO: &#8212; that you’re going against the tide &#8212;
GABBARD: We’re &#8212; I think it’s how you determine what the tide is. If you’re looking at the powerful elite in Washington, absolutely. I and so many people across the country are challenging the powerful elite who have shown they are not working for the best interests of the people.
So we’re calling for the truth, we’re calling for a straight-forward process for voters to make sure that their voices are heard in this democracy and so that we can actually have a government that’s of, by, and for the people &#8212; not of, by, and for the powerful elite in Washington.
CAVUTO: All right. You’re up against, you know, a fundraising disadvantage. I was noticing, Congresswoman, in this state Tom Steyer has already spent north of $15.5 billion if you include New Hampshire and surrounding media markets.
GABBARD: Yes.
CAVUTO: Michael Bloomberg, who essentially is getting &#8212; you know, not focusing on this state. He’s spent $6.2 million, Bernie Sanders $3.7 million, Mayor Pete, at recently $1.4 million. You are at about $390,000.
GABBARD: We are at a disadvantage. I’ll take the opportunity now to ask your viewers if you’d like to contribute to my campaign &#8212; go to tulsi2020.com because we really are &#8212; I’m focused on really delivering my message directly to voters here in New Hampshire and across the country, understand what &#8212;
CAVUTO: Could you accept any of those other candidates, though &#8212; if any one of them became the nominee, could you support them?
GABBARD: I’m focused &#8212; I’m focused on &#8212; on winning.
CAVUTO: No, I’m sure you are but &#8212;
GABBARD: And here’s why &#8212; and here’s why &#8212;
CAVUTO: You don’t join the camp that says a socialist in Bernie Sanders is the nominee is political suicide?
GABBARD: No, I don’t. I don’t believe that.
CAVUTO: OK.
GABBARD: What I believe and what I hear from voters here is that they want a new generation of leadership. But they also want someone who has experience &#8212; experience to walk in on day one prepared to lead and to serve as Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces and experience to be able to work with Congress to be &#8212; to actually be able to get things done, to solve problems.
And what I bring to the table is experience in both of those areas, having served at the federal, state, and local levels of government, serving in Congress now for seven, going on eight, years, and having served in the military for 17 years and deploying twice to the Middle East, able to bring people together, heal these divides in our country where while we can agree to disagree on certain issues, even strongly, we stand together motivated by this love for our country and an understanding that when we stand and work side-by-side as Americans, we can accomplish anything.
CAVUTO: You know, the president yesterday, as you probably know, Congresswoman, fired Gordon Sondland, our Ambassador to Ukraine, and Alexander Vindman, top security official. A lot of people were likening it to another, you know, Friday night massacre akin to what Richard Nixon did back in the ‘70s. Do you agree with that?
GABBARD: Look, I disagree with so many of Trump’s decisions, especially as it relates to foreign policy. I’ve been very outspoken in that area. Ultimately, whether people like or not, there are consequences to elections. And the president has, within his purview, to make the decisions about who he’d like serving in his cabinet.
CAVUTO: All right. Congresswoman, thank you very much.
GABBARD: Thank you very much.
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: And you have a long day &#8212;
GABBARD: Good to see you, Neil.
CAVUTO: &#8212; days of campaigning &#8212;
GABBARD: Yes, we do. Seventy-two hours.
CAVUTO: All right. Tulsi Gabbard, thank you very, very much.</blockquote>

Democratic Presidential Candidates Participate In Fourth Debate In Ohio

Tulsi Gabbard Defends Trump Firing Vindman Brothers, Sondland. Rips DNC, Bloomberg.

Alexander Vindman

Democratic National Committee

Donald Trump

Gordon Sondland

Michael Bloomberg

Political nerds, rejoice! We here at The Daily Wire have been looking forward to this day for seemingly forever. We have been tracking presidential primary <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/who-will-win-democratic-primary-latest-2020-josh-hammer">polling and analytical trends</a>. We started a weekly election/impeachment-themed newsletter for our subscribers (<a href="http://lp.dailywire.com/getelectionwire/">sign up here!</a>). We prepared <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/where-does-joe-biden-stand-issues-heres-everything-josh-hammer">detailed</a> <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/where-does-bernie-sanders-stand-issues-heres-josh-hammer">profiles</a> for all the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/where-does-elizabeth-warren-stand-issues-heres-josh-hammer">leading</a> <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/where-does-pete-buttigieg-stand-issues-heres-josh-hammer">candidates</a> in the Democratic Party&#8217;s 2020 <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/where-does-andrew-yang-stand-issues-heres-josh-hammer">presidential</a> <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/where-does-michael-bloomberg-stand-on-the-issues-heres-everything-you-need-to-know">primary</a> <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/where-does-amy-klobuchar-stand-issues-heres-josh-hammer">field</a>.
And now we are finally here. The <a href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2020/02/03/iowa-caucus-election-2020-live-coverage-democratic-candidates-results-photos-video/4618248002/">Iowa caucuses tonight</a> will provide politicos across the country with the first tangible results of this already-chaotic process. We will finally move beyond the realm of mere armchair quarterback punditry and enter the realm of numbers, percentages, and statistics.
Here is what I will personally be watching for tonight.
1. Will Bernie Sanders position himself to win Iowa and New Hampshire back-to-back? The Soviet Union-honeymooning socialist leads by 4% over Joe Biden in the RealClearPolitics statewide <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html">polling average</a>, as we enter caucus day. Sanders is now also the <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-6276.html">firm and unequivocal favorite</a> for next week&#8217;s first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary, and all eyes will be attuned tonight to see if he can position himself well to open this primary season by wining the first two states in back-to-back fashion. Since the advent of the modern presidential primary process in 1972, no candidate who has won both Iowa and New Hampshire in back-to-back fashion has gone on to lose his/her party&#8217;s presidential nomination. If Sanders can pull off the feat, then we can bet on the more &#8220;moderate&#8221;/Clintonian forces of the Democratic National Committee establishment entering something closely akin to a state of depression.
2. Can Joe Biden pull it out and re-emerge as the field&#8217;s clear frontrunner? Ever since the unofficial start of the primary process, and certainly since the first Democratic presidential debate last summer, Biden has been viewed (with the perhaps brief exception of a September/October 2019 surge from Elizabeth Warren) as the frontrunner for his party&#8217;s 2020 presidential nomination. It is no longer clear if that is the case — Sanders leads in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Biden&#8217;s South Carolina &#8220;firewall&#8221; seems like an increasingly risky wager (harkening us all back to Rudy Giuliani in Florida in 2008), and election betting market PredictIt now features Sanders as an <a href="https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3633/Who-will-win-the-2020-Democratic-presidential-nomination">increasingly clear favorite</a> over Biden. Biden could really use a victory tonight to stanch the bleeding, and anything worse than a runner-up finish to Sanders would surely be viewed as a disaster at Biden campaign headquarters.
3. Will Elizabeth Warren resuscitate her ailing campaign? Warren emerged over the latter parts of the summer and early fall as a frontrunner in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and many pundits accordingly pegged her as the de facto favorite to ultimately secure the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. Suffice it to say those predictions have not aged well. Warren&#8217;s campaign has been in something of a prolonged free fall since October, and she enters caucus night in a disappointing fourth place in the RealClearPolitics statewide <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html">polling average</a>. A surprising victory is not out of the realm of possibility, but merely beating Biden or Sanders, at this point, would surely be seen as a moral victory for Warren that would buttress her chances in New Hampshire.
4. Will Pete Buttigieg beat one of the &#8220;big three?&#8221; Buttigieg has surpassed Warren in the statewide polling average in Iowa, but in many respects, his national momentum is lagging and it seems that his moment has passed. The former South Bend, Indiana mayor is a native Midwesterner, and over-performing tonight in Iowa is something that Buttigieg likely would need to feel even remotely confident about his languishing chances for the nomination.
5. Can Amy Klobuchar crack the top four? Klobuchar, from Iowa&#8217;s neighboring state Minnesota, has staked much of her long-shot bid on a strong Iowa finish. She consistently over-performs in televised debate formats and is a favorite of her party&#8217;s intellectual chattering class — as perhaps best embodied by her recent co-endorsement from The New York Times&#8217; influential editorial board. If Klobuchar can beat at least Buttigieg or Warren tonight, that will amount to a big victory for her.
&nbsp;
RELATED: <a href="http://lp.dailywire.com/getelectionwire/">Sign up here for Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer’s weekly newsletter on election news, polling data, and analysis: “Election Wire.”</a>
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/who-will-win-democratic-primary-latest-2020-josh-hammer">Who Will Win The Democratic Primary? The Latest On 2020 Presidential Primary Polling.</a>

Iowa caucuses day

What To Watch For During Tonight’s Iowa Caucuses

2020 Election

Amy Klobuchar

Andrew Yang

Bernie Sanders

Democratic Party

Elizabeth Warren

Iowa

Joe Biden

Pete Buttigieg

On Thursday morning, Hillary Clinton decided to weigh in on the impeachment trial of President Trump, tweeting this deathless quote: “In America, no one is above the law.”
Clinton’s tweet was in reference to the impeachment trial of President Trump; her full tweet read, &#8220;Richard Nixon once made this argument:‘When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.’ He was forced to resign in disgrace. In America, no one is above the law.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Richard Nixon once made this argument: &quot;When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.&quot; 
He was forced to resign in disgrace. 
In America, no one is above the law. <a href="https://t.co/MXctxLr1sj">https://t.co/MXctxLr1sj</a>
&mdash; Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) <a href="https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1222905260215324672?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 30, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
But also on Thursday this tidbit of news was released to the public: Tulsi Gabbard’s attorney, Brian Dunne, stated that Clinton has twice refused to accept the legal documents that a process server attempted to deliver to her from the defamation lawsuit filed against her by Gabbard.
Dunne told <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/01/29/hillary-clinton-refuses-to-be-served-tulsi-gabbards-defamation-lawsuit/">The New York Post</a>,  “I find it rather unbelievable that Hillary Clinton is so intimidated by Tulsi Gabbard that she won’t accept service of process. But I guess here we are.”
The Post added, “Dunne said their process server first attempted to effect service at Clinton’s house in Chappaqua on Tuesday afternoon — but was turned away by Secret Service agents. The agents directed the server to Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, who on Wednesday claimed at his Washington, DC, firm, Williams &amp; Connolly, that he was unable to accept service on Clinton’s behalf, said Dunne.&#8221;
Last week, Gabbard sued Clinton for $50 million after Clinton had referred to Gabbard as a “Russian asset” on President Barack Obama&#8217;s former campaign manager David Plouffe’s podcast &#8220;Campaign HQ&#8221; last fall.
As <a href="https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/tulsi-gabbard-gets-lawyers-involved-accuses-hillary-of-defamation-demands-retraction/">The Daily Wire</a> reported, Clinton had stated:
<blockquote>I think they have got their eye on someone who is currently in the Democratic primary  and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She is the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.
That&#8217;s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she&#8217;s also a Russian asset. Yeah, she&#8217;s a Russian asset — I mean, totally. They know they can&#8217;t win without a third-party candidate. So I don&#8217;t know who it&#8217;s going to be, but I will guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most needed.</blockquote>
Although Clinton did not mention Gabbard’s name, when he was asked whether Clinton was indeed referring to Gabbard, Clinton&#8217;s spokesman Nick Merrill confirmed Clinton was referring to Gabbard,  huffing, &#8220;If the nesting doll fits &#8230;”
Gabbard fired back, calling Clinton &#8220;the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long.&#8221;
Gabbard’s legal counsel <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gabbard-campaign-accuses-clinton-of-defamation-over-fabricated-russian-asset-claim-demands-retraction">blasted Clinton</a>, writing that Clinton knew she was telling an untruth:
<blockquote>In making the statement, you knew it was false. Congresswoman Gabbard is not a Russian asset and is not being groomed by Russia. Besides your statement, no law enforcement or intelligence agencies have claimed, much less presented any evidence, that Congresswoman Gabbard is a Russian asset. This fabricated story is so facially improbable that it is actionable as defamation.</blockquote>

2020 Women At Sundance Celebration Hosted By Sundance Institute And Refinery29, Presented By LUNA

Hillary Declares ‘No One Above Law.’ She Also Reportedly Refuses To Be Served Gabbard Lawsuit.

Hillary Clinton

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) announced Wednesday morning that she has filed a defamation lawsuit against Hillary Clinton for the former secretary of state’s claims that Gabbard is a “Russian asset.”
In a <a href="https://www.tulsi2020.com/press/2020-01-22-rep-tulsi-gabbard-files-lawsuit-against-hillary-clinton-over-defamatory-statements">press release</a> published to Gabbard’s presidential election campaign website, Gabbard claimed Clinton “deliberately and maliciously made false statements in an attempt to derail Rep. Gabbard’s campaign.” Clinton made the remarks about Gabbard during an October 17, 2019 interview, saying, “somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary … [is a] favorite of the Russians… Yeah, she’s a Russian asset.”
Gabbard’s press release notes that after Clinton’s comments, the media “extensively republished and disseminated these statements, which were interpreted widely as Clinton asserting that Gabbard is a Russian asset.”
In <a href="https://d3ba7j4nna908t.cloudfront.net/attachments/Tulsi-HRC_2020-01-22_Complaint_filed.pdf">the lawsuit</a> itself, Gabbards attorneys at Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price &amp; Hecht LLP allege that Clinton possibly made the remarks “out of personal animus, political enmity, or fear of real change within a political party Clinton and her allies have long dominated.” They allege Clinton lied about Gabbard “publicly, unambiguously, and with obvious malicious intent” and that the claims have harmed Gabbard.
The lawsuit calls Clinton “a cutthroat politician by any account,” who held a grudge against Gabbard because the Hawaiian politician endorsed Clinton’s presidential rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), in 2016. Clinton went on to lose the election to President Donald Trump.
“Clinton had no basis for making her false assertions about Tulsi—and indeed, there is no factual basis for Clinton’s conspiracy theory. Clinton’s peddling of this theory has harmed Tulsi, has harmed American voters, and has harmed American democracy. Tulsi brings this lawsuit to ensure that the truth prevails and to ensure this country’s political elites are held accountable for intentionally trying to distort the truth in the midst of a critical Presidential election,” the lawsuit says.
Clinton made her now infamous allegations against Gabbard during an interview in October 2019 with former President Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe on his podcast “Campaign HQ.” Clinton’s remarks in full stated:
<blockquote>She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. And, that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset. Yeah, she’s a Russian asset.</blockquote>
The lawsuit alleges that Clinton then “doubled down” on the defamatory statements the next day when her official spokesman, Nick Merrill, told CNN “If the nesting doll fits” when asked whether Clinton had been referring to Gabbard. “This is not some outlandish claim. This is reality,” Merrill continued.
Gabbard’s attorneys claim Clinton’s allegations immediately harmed their client, as “[m]illions of Americans heard (or read about) a well-known authority figure, Clinton, stating as fact that Tulsi was a ‘Russian asset’ and ‘the favorite of the Russians.’” They allege Clinton’s claims were “accepted as true by millions of Americans, including large numbers of voters in battleground Presidential primary states.”
Gabbard claims in her lawsuit that Clinton refused to retract the claim, even though several prominent public figures – as well as Gabbard – asked. Gabbard says she wrote to Clinton to explain how the comments were false and ask for a retraction, but that Clinton refused “and instead stood by them.”
“Tulsi is not a Russian asset. No one—Russia or anyone else—controls her or her presidential campaign,” the lawsuit says. “Instead, Tulsi is a loyal American servant, declaring her allegiance to the United States of America both as a soldier and as a member of Congress. She has been serving for over sixteen years in the United States Army National Guard and has voluntarily deployed twice to war zones in the Middle East.”
While Gabbard’s attorneys claim Clinton’s remarks harmed their client, it will be difficult to prove that in court. The bar for proving defamation against a public figure like Clinton is high, and Gabbard’s lawsuit presents no evidence of actual harm to her or her campaign. They don’t include poll numbers or fundraising numbers as evidence that Clinton’s remarks had any negative effect on the campaign – or any evidence that anyone even remembered what Clinton say four months ago. Still, the lawsuit claims Gabbard “has suffered significant actual damages, personally and professionally, that are estimated to exceed $50 million—and continue to this day.”
The complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District.
This is a breaking story. Check back for updates.

Hillary Clinton, Tulsi Gabbard

Tulsi Gabbard Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), a long-shot 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, called America&#8217;s killing of Iranian terrorist leader Qassem Soleimani a &#8220;tit-for-tat&#8221; response to Soleimani&#8217;s terrorism against American soldiers, saying that killing terrorists like Soleimani who are planning terrorist attacks against the United States &#8220;undermines our national security.&#8221;
&#8220;This was very clearly an act of war by this president without any kind of authorization or declaration of war from Congress, clearly violating the Constitution,&#8221; Gabbard told Fox News. &#8220;It further escalates this tit-for-tat that&#8217;s going on and on and on. It will elicit a very serious response from Iran and pushing us deeper and deeper into this quagmire and it really begs this question, for what? What are we trying to accomplish? What is the end state and the goal here?&#8221;
&#8220;Look, I’ve said for a long time that going to war with Iran would make the war in Iraq and even Afghanistan look like a picnic,&#8221; Gabbard continued. &#8220;It will be far more costly and devastating in American lives and in taxpayer dollars. And I don’t believe the American people want to go to war with Iran. They understand how serious this is.&#8221;
&#8220;Congresswoman, how do you justify it when you lack at the statistics?&#8221; Fox News co-host Ainsley Earhardt asked. &#8220;The State Department says 17% of all U.S. Deaths in Iraq from 2003-2011 were orchestrated by Qasem Soleimani. When they attack our embassy, are we supposed to just stand by and let the Iranian-backed militias invade our territory and possibly kill Americans?&#8221;
&#8220;No, look, there is no question about how evil this guy is. No one should shed a single tear for his death. But that’s not really the question here. The real question is what are we trying to accomplish here in this country, and where will this decision that this president made to escalate this, these tensions and this crisis and commit this act of war without congressional authorization?&#8221; Gabbard said. &#8220;It will lead us to an outcome that actually further undermines our national security and needlessly sends more of our troops into harm’s way.&#8221;
&#8220;So when you look at their influence in Iran, when you look — excuse me, in Syria, when you look at Iran’s influence in Lebanon, when you look at Iran’s influence in Iraq, when you look at their influence throughout the region and now their pursuit, covert and overt of a nuclear weapon, are you comfortable with us just pulling back and watching, sitting in the stands and saying pass the popcorn?&#8221; Fox News co-host Brian Kilmeade asked.
&#8220;No. I think we need to figure out why and how we’ve gotten to this point where Iran has a much greater level of influence and presence in Iraq and Syria,&#8221; Gabbard responded. &#8220;As you mentioned, it was because of our regime change wars in Iraq and Libya and Syria that we’ve seen these countries, Iraq and Syria especially turn more towards Iran for help and for assistance, strengthening their partnerships and allowing for Iran to gain far greater influence and presence in many different respects in these countries. Really the question that we need to ask ourselves now is, we have men and women in harm’s way today in these countries, and what purpose are they serving?&#8221;
WATCH:
<iframe title="Tulsi Gabbard slams Soleimani airstrike" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/p1cOUisJKoE?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Democratic Presidential Candidates Attend Public Service Union Forum In Las Vegas

Tulsi Gabbard: Killing Top Terrorist ‘Undermines Our National Security,’ Is A ‘Tit-For-Tat’

Qassem Soleimani

During a Saturday campaign stop in Hudson, New Hampshire, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) told a voter that the impeachment effort against President Trump will only “embolden” him.
During a question and answer session, a male voter stood up and, after noting that Gabbard didn’t “toe the party line” with her vote on impeachment, asked the congresswoman the following question:
<blockquote>If there was incontrovertible evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor, would you have voted “yes” on those articles of impeachment?</blockquote>
“Yeah,” Gabbard replied, before explaining to the man the issues she has with the impeachment effort against the president:
<blockquote>This is part of the problem, though, is that throughout this process, it was and continues to be extremely partisan, and this is something that the Founders warned against in the Federalist Papers &#8230; they feared that the process would result in a conclusion that was based on the strength of one party over another, rather than an objective assessment of innocence or guilt, and that such an outcome would only further divide our country.</blockquote>
Gabbard said that she voted “present” in order to “take a stand for our country.”
The congresswoman further stated that President Trump should be defeated “for his multiple wrong doings,” which is why she has proposed a “censure resolution” that charges the president with engaging in “unconstitutional” behavior like “dropping bombs in another country without congressional approval.”
She continued, noting her misgivings about the way in which the process might actually help the president:
<blockquote>I do not want to see Donald Trump further emboldened and strengthened as he will be, as the Senate will exonerate Trump, they will proclaim his innocence, and he&#8217;ll then take that message across the country, and unfortunately, we&#8217;re likely to see his support grow as a result of that.</blockquote>
The man posed a follow-up question, asking Gabbard if she doesn’t believe there is incontrovertible evidence in the Trump impeachment case, to which Gabbard replied:
<blockquote>I&#8217;m saying that the process was flawed. The entire process was flawed, which is why I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no. Trump has committed many acts of wrongdoing that I believe have made our country less safe and [that do] not serve the interests of the American people – it&#8217;s why I&#8217;m so committed to defeating him, and working to earn the support of Americans across the country, so that we can remove him from office in November of 2020.</blockquote>
Gabbard concluded by stating that the issues with the “process” prevented a “clear look” at what was or wasn’t done by the president.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3efrNQCXWk4" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Also on Saturday, the congresswoman articulated a similar point to <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/476146-gabbard-says-impeachment-will-only-embolden-trump">ABC</a>: “I think impeachment, unfortunately, will only further embolden Donald Trump, increase his support and the likelihood that he&#8217;ll have a better shot at getting elected while also seeing the likelihood that the House will lose a lot of seats to Republicans.”
On December 18, the House of Representatives <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-heaps-praise-on-tulsi-gabbard-for-voting-present-on-impeachment-she-knew-it-was-wrong">voted to impeach</a> President Trump. While nearly every Democrat voted in favor of the first and second articles of impeachment, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard was the only Democrat to vote “present.”
In a lengthy statement, Gabbard <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-heaps-praise-on-tulsi-gabbard-for-voting-present-on-impeachment-she-knew-it-was-wrong">explained</a> that she voted “present” because “removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities&#8230;”
President Trump later <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-heaps-praise-on-tulsi-gabbard-for-voting-present-on-impeachment-she-knew-it-was-wrong">praised</a> Gabbard for her decision, telling a crowd in Florida:
<blockquote>Then [Hillary Clinton] said Tulsi Gabbard is a weapon of Russia. And they lost all credibility because we know that Tulsi Gabbard – and I give her respect – she didn’t vote the other day. I give her a lot of respect. Because she knew it was wrong, she took a pass. But I don’t know [her], but I know one thing – she is not an agent of Russia.</blockquote>
Whether or not impeachment will “strengthen” the president remains to be seen, but polls indicate that his support is rock steady.
The average of ten “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-trump-says-impeachment-process-looks-very-good-for-him-politically">job approval</a>” polls prior to the launching of the impeachment inquiry on September 24 has President Trump at 44.7% approval. As of December 29, the <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html">RealClearPolitics</a> polling average has the president at 44.3% approval.
The president’s disapproval numbers have actually gone down, moving from an average of 52.6% in the ten polls leading up to the inquiry announcement to 52.2% as of December 29.
Even after months of negative mainstream media coverage, Trump has experienced a statistically insignificant 0.4% drop in approval and an equally insignificant 0.4% downtick in disapproval.

Tulsi Gabbard.

Gabbard Warns: Trump Will Be ‘Emboldened And Strengthened’ By Impeachment Effort

Impeachment

On Tuesday, the Democratic National Committee released a new ad promoting its &#8220;Democratic Unity Fund&#8221; that featured 10 presidential candidates all reciting the same message, but strangely enough, one candidate who has taken on her party by criticizing party darlings Hillary Clinton and Sen. Kamala Harris as well as refusing to vote for impeaching President Trump was not included.
That’s correct; as Joseph Wulfsohn noted for <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dnc-snubs-tulsi-gabbard-from-2020-unity-ad">Fox News</a>, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) was unceremoniously dumped from the list. Lest there be protests that Gabbard’s poll numbers have been low, let it be noted that one of the candidates reciting the pledge was former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, whose latest numbers in a Fox News poll languished at 0%.
The candidates include former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders, (I-VT), South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, (D-MA), former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, (D-MN)., tech businessman Andrew Yang, Sen. Cory Booker, (D-NJ)  billionaire Democratic donor Tom Steyer, and Patrick.
All of them stated, &#8220;I&#8217;m running to be your nominee, but no matter who ends up on that stage as our nominee in the convention, we need the whole Democratic Party to unite if we want to take back the White House and win seats all across the country and deliver a presidency consistent with our Democratic values. Unity is what this moment in history demands of us right now because the stakes have never been higher. As Democrats, we know there is so much more that unites us than divides us. And next year, we have the opportunity to make sure that our shared values are represented.&#8221;
Clinton had claimed Gabbard was being groomed by the Russians as a third-party candidate, telling <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-clinton-appears-to-claim-russians-grooming-tulsi-gabbard-to-run-as-third-party-candidate">The Daily Beast</a>. &#8220;I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.&#8221;
Gabbard <a href="https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1185289627936219136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1185289627936219136&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Feditorial.dailywire.com%2Fwp-admin%2Fpost.php%3Fpost%3D56674%26action%3Dedit">fired back on Twitter</a>, writing, &#8220;Great! Thank you @Hillary Clinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.&#8221;
Harris was on the receiving end of withering questions from Gabbard in a July presidential debate which resulted in Harris’ poll numbers plunging and never recovering.  Gabbard fired at Harris:
<blockquote>I want to bring the conversation back to the broken criminal justice system that is disproportionately negatively impacting black and brown people all across this country today. Now Senator Harris says she’s proud of her record as a prosecutor and that she’ll be a prosecutor president. But I’m deeply concerned about this record. There are too many examples to cite but she put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana. She blocked evidence — she blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so. She kept people in prison beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California.</blockquote>
Gabbard’s exclusion did not go unnoticed on social media:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
So Deval Patrick gets included by <a href="https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TulsiGabbard</a> does not? <a href="https://t.co/1iCAHCFmvf">https://t.co/1iCAHCFmvf</a>
&mdash; Saagar Enjeti (@esaagar) <a href="https://twitter.com/esaagar/status/1209188648270221312?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 23, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Democrats come together in “Unity” to exclude Tulsi: <a href="https://t.co/2mU21C3xxZ">https://t.co/2mU21C3xxZ</a>
&mdash; Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) <a href="https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1209210076977864705?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 23, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Strange, a certain woman of color is missing from this video <a href="https://t.co/WakJQ2pWUN">https://t.co/WakJQ2pWUN</a>
&mdash; Michael Tracey (@mtracey) <a href="https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1209175900421533696?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 23, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Democratic Presidential Candidates Participate In Debate In Atlanta, Georgia

DNC Promotes Unity In New Ad With 10 Presidential Candidates. Gabbard’s Not Invited.

On Monday, former Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, a Democrat, called on Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) to resign from Congress after she had refused to vote for the impeachment of President Trump.
Abercrombie snapped, “I feel very strongly the 2nd District of Hawaii must be fully represented,” according to the <a href="https://www.civilbeat.org/2019/12/former-hawaii-governor-calls-on-tulsi-gabbard-to-resign/">Honolulu Civil Beat</a>. That would force a special election to fill Gabbard’s seat, as <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/house/475777-former-hawaii-democratic-governor-calls-on-gabbard-to-resign">The Hill</a> noted.
The Civil Beat added, Abercrombie emphasized that Gabbard has already said she will not be seeking reelection for her congressional seat, which represents rural Oahu and the neighbor islands. He also noted her voting record, including missing votes on several appropriations bills following the impeachment.”
Ilihia Gionson, Gabbard’s Hawaii Island communications director, responded to Abercrombie, asserting, “Hawaii is Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard’s home and her heart. Her pursuit of the highest office in the land has not compromised her and her team’s commitment to serving the people of Hawaii in her fourth term in Congress.”
Gabbard’s office additionally cited her “major legislative wins” for her home district, such as “opportunities for defense contracting for Native Hawaiian companies” and “better reporting on Red Hill aquifer protection.”
Abercrombie has not been alone among Hawaii Democrats who have slammed Gabbard for her “present” vote when the House voted to impeach Trump; Sen. <a href="https://thehill.com/people/mazie-hirono">Mazie Hirono</a> blathered to <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/house/475545-gabbard-under-fire-for-present-vote-on-impeachment">The Hill</a>,  “She apparently can&#8217;t decide whether the president has shaken down the president of another country for his own political purposes. She hasn&#8217;t been able to decide whether that&#8217;s okay or not.”
After the House vote, as the <a href="https://www.staradvertiser.com/2019/12/18/breaking-news/tulsi-gabbard-releases-statement-on-voting-present-for-trump-impeachment/">Star Advertiser</a> reported, Gabbard explained:
<blockquote>After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no. I am standing in the center and have decided to vote Present. I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing. I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting president must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.</blockquote>
Gabbard had <a href="https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1207753618935308288">elaborated further</a> in a video, stating:
<blockquote>Here’s the deal. Politics should not be a zero-sum game, but tragically, that’s exactly what it has become, and it’s polluted the whole nature of our politics. The point of politics should not be about doing maximum damage to your opponents just to win, because all that’s happened, as has in the case of our current America, is that people get hurt and nothing gets done. My stance yesterday, my vote, was opting out of this zero-sum game mindset and back into one of negotiation and compromise. We are stuck right now in this terrible scenario where everyone is trying to exact maximum hurt from their opponent for a “win.”
My “present” vote was not passive; it was an active protest against the terrible fallout of this zero-sum mindset that the two opposing political parties have trapped America in. There’s no winning here. Everyone is losing. Our country is losing. If we, we, don’t break this stalemate we find ourselves in, America is done for. My vote and my campaign for president is about freeing our country from this damaging mindset so that we can work side by side to usher in a brighter future for all Americans.</blockquote>
&nbsp;

Iran Military

Former Hawaii Gov: Gabbard Should Resign From Congress After Refusing To Vote for Impeachment

On Saturday, President Trump spoke at a Turning Point USA conference in Florida where he heaped praise on Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) for her “present” vote on impeachment.
<blockquote>They knew a few days into the Russian witch hunt that it was nothing. It didn’t exist. Did you the see the other day? Crooked Hillary came out &#8230; she said that Jill Stein from the Green Party, she said Jill Stein was a Russian agent. Now, I don’t know Jill Stein, I’m sure she’s a fine woman, but I know she’s not a Russian agent.
Then she said Tulsi Gabbard is a weapon of Russia. And they lost all credibility because we know that Tulsi Gabbard – and I give her respect – she didn’t vote the other day. I give her a lot of respect. Because she knew it was wrong, she took a pass. But I don’t know [her], but I know one thing – she is not an agent of Russia.</blockquote>
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/c0GhxLcg_zE" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
On Wednesday, the House voted to impeach President Trump.
The vote fell mostly along party lines. 229 Democrats <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll695.xml">voted</a> in favor of Article I and 228 Democrats <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll696.xml">voted</a> in favor of Article II. 195 Republicans voted against both articles of impeachment (two Republicans didn’t vote). However, several Democrats voted with Republicans against impeachment.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard voted “present” for both articles. She was the only Democrat to do so.
In a statement released following her vote, Gabbard <a href="https://www.tulsi2020.com/press/2019-12-19-tulsi-gabbard-releases-statement-impeachment-president-trump?utm_source=email&amp;utm_medium=newsletter&amp;utm_campaign=impeachment_vote">explained</a> her thought process as it pertained to her “present” vote:
<blockquote>Throughout my life, whether through serving in the military or in Congress, I’ve always worked to do what is in the best interests of our country. Not what’s best for me politically or what’s best for my political party. I have always put our country first. One may not always agree with my decision, but everyone should know that I will always do what I believe to be right for the country that I love.
After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no.
I am standing in the center and have decided to vote Present. I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing.
I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country. When I cast my vote in support of the impeachment inquiry nearly three months ago, I said that in order to maintain the integrity of this solemn undertaking, it must not be a partisan endeavor. Tragically, that’s what it has been.
On the one side – The president’s defenders insist that he has done nothing wrong. They agree with the absurd proclamation that his conduct was “perfect.” They have abdicated their responsibility to exercise legitimate oversight, and instead blindly do the bidding of their party’s leader.
On the other side – The president’s opponents insist that if we do not impeach, our country will collapse into dictatorship. All but explicitly, they accuse him of treason. Such extreme rhetoric was never conducive to an impartial fact-finding process.</blockquote>
Gabbard went on to speak about how the Founders warned against partisan impeachment, citing Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. The congresswoman added that she has “introduced a censure resolution that will send a strong message to this president and future presidents that their abuses of power will not go unchecked, while leaving the question of removing Trump from office to the voters to decide.”
The censure resolution can be read <a href="https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-tulsi-gabbard-calls-house-censure-president-putting-personal-political-gain">here</a>.
Additionally, Gabbard posted a video to Twitter explaining her vote:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
My ‘present’ vote was an active protest against the zero-sum game the two opposing political sides have trapped America in. My vote and campaign is about freeing our country from this damaging mindset so we can work side-by-side to usher in a bright future for all <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/StandWithTulsi?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#StandWithTulsi</a> <a href="https://t.co/nmhEL5bi4Q">pic.twitter.com/nmhEL5bi4Q</a>
— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) <a href="https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1207753618935308288?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
President Trump has defended Gabbard before.
During an October interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Trump <a href="https://youtu.be/FdAF7Gn58kA">stated</a>: “Hillary Clinton said &#8230; Jill Stein is a Russian asset. Now I don’t know Jill Stein. I know her as an environmentalist, okay, and probably a good woman. The last thing she is is a Russian asset. I don’t know Tulsi Gabbard but I know one thing – she is not an asset of Russia. These people are sick. There’s something wrong with them.”

Trump clapping.

Trump Heaps Praise On Tulsi Gabbard For Voting ‘Present’ On Impeachment: ‘She Knew It Was Wrong’

On Thursday afternoon, former CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien ripped Rep. Tulsi Gabbard for refusing to vote for the impeachment of President Trump on Wednesday, tweeting that Gabbard is an “American Coward.”
Gabbard, as a member of the Hawaii National Guard, served in a field medical unit in a combat zone in Iraq from 2004 to 2005 and was deployed to Kuwait from 2008 to 2009.
Gabbard had simply voted “present” when the vote was taken. In the video to which O’Brien responded, she explained:
<blockquote>Here’s the deal. Politics should not be a zero-sum game, but tragically, that’s exactly what it has become, and it’s polluted the whole nature of our politics. The point of politics should not be about doing maximum damage to your opponents just to win, because all that’s happened, as has in the case of our current America, is that people get hurt and nothing gets done. My stance yesterday, my vote, was opting out of this zero-sum game mindset and back into one of negotiation and compromise. We are stuck right now in this terrible scenario where everyone is trying to exact maximum hurt from their opponent for a “win.”</blockquote>
She continued, “My ‘present’ vote was not passive; it was an active protest against the terrible fallout of this zero-sum mindset that the two opposing political parties have trapped America in. There’s no winning here. Everyone is losing. Our country is losing. If we, we, don’t break this stalemate we find ourselves in, America is done for. My vote and my campaign for president is about freeing our country from this damaging mindset so that we can work side by side to usher in a brighter future for all Americans.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
American Coward <a href="https://t.co/7RTJyKyqhO">https://t.co/7RTJyKyqhO</a>
&mdash; Soledad O&#39;Brien (@soledadobrien) <a href="https://twitter.com/soledadobrien/status/1207802388414898179?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-tulsi-gabbard-explains-why-she-couldnt-vote-yes-on-trump-impeachment-aoc-rips-her">The Daily Wire</a> noted that according to the <a href="https://www.staradvertiser.com/2019/12/18/breaking-news/tulsi-gabbard-releases-statement-on-voting-present-for-trump-impeachment/">Star Advertiser</a>, Gabbard said after the vote:
<blockquote>After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no. I am standing in the center and have decided to vote Present. I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing. I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting president must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.</blockquote>
In November, O’Brien slammed President Trump, as she told <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-soledad-obrien-became-cnn-and-the-mainstream-medias-most-outspoken-critic">The Daily Beast</a>, “What drives me more nutty than the president—who I think is obviously a terrible human being in a lot of ways—is the way in which the media does not know how to handle him. Quoting people who are saying lies is a really bad strategy. When President Trump says the moon is made of cheese, well, it’s not. &#8230; What drives me really crazy is to see all the mistakes the media makes around [the problem of], how do you report on somebody who’s a liar, who won’t hold press conferences in a place where you can ask real questions?”

Celebrities Visit BuzzFeed&#8217;s &#8220;AM To DM&#8221; &#8211; November 8, 2019

Gabbard Wouldn’t Vote For Impeachment. Former CNN Anchor Calls Her ‘American Coward.’

Soledad O'Brien

On Wednesday, 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) voted &#8220;present&#8221; on both articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. The Democrat was the only representative to avoid a &#8220;yes&#8221; or &#8220;no&#8221; vote by voting present.
&#8220;After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no,&#8221; Gabbard said in a statement following the vote, according to the <a href="https://www.staradvertiser.com/2019/12/18/breaking-news/tulsi-gabbard-releases-statement-on-voting-present-for-trump-impeachment/">Star Advertiser</a>.
“I am standing in the center and have decided to vote Present. I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing,&#8221; the candidate explained. &#8220;I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting president must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.&#8221;
Far-left freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) (AOC) took a shot at Gabbard for not taking a side, suggesting it was demonstrative of poor leadership from Gabbard.
<div>
&#8220;Today was very consequential. And to not take a stand one way or another in a day of such grave consequence to this country is quite difficult. We’re sent here to lead,” AOC said, according to <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mattberman/tulsi-gabbard-impeach-trump-present?bftwnews&amp;utm_term=4ldqpgc#4ldqpgc">BuzzFeed News</a>.
</div>
Gabbard, who voted in support of the impeachment inquiry, introduced a <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/766?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22censure+trump%22%5D%7D&amp;s=2&amp;r=1" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">resolution</a> to censure the president earlier this week, seemingly as some sort of compromise in lieu of formal impeachment.
“Donald Trump has violated public trust. Congress must be unequivocal in denouncing the president’s misconduct and stand up for the American people and our democracy,&#8221; Gabbard&#8217;s statement explained. &#8220;To this end, I have introduced a censure resolution that will send a strong message to this president and future presidents that their abuses of power will not go unchecked, while leaving the question of removing Trump from office to the voters to decide.&#8221;
“I am confident that the American people will decide to deliver a resounding rebuke of President Trump’s innumerable improprieties and abuses,&#8221; added the Democrat. &#8220;And they will express that judgment at the ballot box. That is the way real and lasting change has always occurred in this great country: through the forcefully expressed will of the people.&#8221;
The vote on both articles of impeachment, “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress,&#8221; was expectedly cast along party lines. While not a single Republican voted in support of either article, some Democrats defected from the largely party-line vote.
“On the first article of impeachment, ‘abuse of power,’ Democrats voted 228–2, Republicans voted 0–195, and the one independent member of Congress voted for impeachment,” <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-multiple-democrats-vote-against-impeachment-only-democrats-vote-for-it">The Daily Wire</a> reported. On “obstruction of Congress,” “Democrats voted 228–3, Republicans voted 0–195, and the one independent member of Congress voted for impeachment.”
President Trump held a rally in Battle Creek, Michigan during the impeachment voting.
“With today’s illegal, unconstitutional and partisan impeachment, House Democrats are declaring their deep hatred and disdain for American Voters,” the president said during the rally. “This lawless and partisan impeachment is a political suicide march for the Democrat Party!”
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
A house divided cannot stand. Sadly, our nation is terribly divided. My vote today is a vote for much needed reconciliation and hope that together we can heal our country to usher in a bright future for the American people, our country, and our nation. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Impeachment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Impeachment</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TulsiGabbard?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TulsiGabbard</a> <a href="https://t.co/BJddNuhkk7">pic.twitter.com/BJddNuhkk7</a>
&mdash; Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) <a href="https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1207547421745528833?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-trump-issues-perfect-response-following-impeachment-vote?itm_source=parsely-api">SEE IT: Trump Issues Perfect Response Following Impeachment Vote</a>

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard And Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

WATCH: Tulsi Gabbard Explains Why She Couldn’t Vote ‘Yes’ On Trump Impeachment. AOC Rips Her.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

U.S. House of Representatives

Further flaunting her anti-establishment street credibility, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) has now refused to participate in the next Democratic Party presidential debate even if she were to qualify for it.
“For a number of reasons, I have decided not to attend the December 19th ‘debate’ — regardless of whether or not there are qualifying polls,” Gabbard tweeted on Monday. “I instead choose to spend that precious time directly meeting with and hearing from the people of New Hampshire and South Carolina.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
For a number of reasons, I have decided not to attend the December 19th &quot;debate&quot; — regardless of whether or not there are qualifying polls. I instead choose to spend that precious time directly meeting with and hearing from the people of New Hampshire and South Carolina.
&mdash; Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) <a href="https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1204217776417603584?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 10, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As noted by The Hill, Gabbard previously <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/465157-gabbard-says-she-may-boycott-next-weeks-debate">pledged to boycott</a> the October presidential debate before backing down and participating in it anyway. At the time, she accused the Democratic National Committee (DNC) of &#8220;rigging&#8221; the 2020 race, a non-frivolous charge considering the DNC&#8217;s systemic undermining of the Bernie Sanders campaign in 2016. As a result of her anti-establishment rhetoric, progressives quickly denounced Gabbard as a Trumpian asset, at best — or a Russian stooge, at worst. Former First Lady Hillary Clinton <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/tulsi-gabbard-lights-up-hillary-clinton-for-suggesting-shes-a-russian-asset-the-queen-of-warmongers">even asserted</a> that Russia is grooming Gabbard for a third-party run.
“I think they have got their eye on someone who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She is the favorite of the Russians,” Clinton said. “They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.”
“That’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset. Yeah, she’s a Russian asset — I mean, totally,” she continued. “They know they can’t win without a third-party candidate. So I don’t know who it’s going to be, but I will guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most needed.”
Gabbard immediately took to Twitter to blast Clinton as “the queen of warmongers.”
“Great! Thank you [Hillary Clinton],” Gabbard said. “You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain.”
“From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why,” she continued. “Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.”
Tulsi Gabbard has also been credited with helping to tarnish Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) when she <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/12/03/trump-campaign-congratulates-tulsi-gabbard-after-kamala-harris-ends-race/2598211001/">publicly called out</a> the former prosecutor for allegedly being over-zealous.
“Sen. Harris says she’s proud of her record as a prosecutor and that she’ll be a prosecutor president. But I’m deeply concerned about this record,&#8221; Gabbard said. &#8220;She put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana. &#8230; She kept people in prison beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California.&#8221;
In another debate, Gabbard received blowback from Harris for regularly appearing on Fox News.
“It’s unfortunate that we have someone on this stage … who, during the Obama administration spent four years on Fox News criticizing President Obama,” <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/kamala-harris-rips-tulsi-gabbard-fox-news-assad-2019-11">Harris said</a>. “What we need on this stage, in November, is someone who has the ability to win.”

Tulsi Gabbard Refuses To Participate In Next Democratic Debate

The following is satirical.
Kamala Harris has stopped campaigning for president, which is apparently something she was doing before she decided to stop.
Harris said she could no longer raise the money she needed to finance her strategy of making absurd and intrusive policy proposals and then cackling in a thoroughly unpleasant manner. She said she was sure that strategy would have worked eventually, though she conceded the cackling might have alienated some easily frightened voters.
Harris blamed racism and sexism for her failure, saying many voters didn’t like black women, especially when they were also intolerable human beings.
Harris’ surrender came just hours after Congressman Joe Sestak and Montana Governor Steve Bullock both dropped out of the race when they realized they had never heard of themselves and hadn’t even been aware they were running.
Harris had recently described herself as a top-tier candidate who could not take her rival Tulsi Gabbard’s candidacy seriously. However, Gabbard reacted graciously to Harris’s announcement, saying, “I’m truly sorry that Kamala had to end her top-tier candidacy, which was so top-tier she couldn’t take seriously my candidacy, which will be continuing, while her top-tier candidacy comes to an end, and mine continues.”
Joe Biden also wished Harris well. In a press conference given in the girl’s room of the Richard Beymer Memorial Elementary School in Des Moines Iowa, Biden said, “Watching Kamala end her campaign, I could only think back to when little girls would stroke the hairs on my leg to watch the hairs change color. I loved it when they stroked my hairy legs and if anyone would like to do that again, you know where to find your old Uncle Joe.”
Biden was escorted off school grounds by local police after his eyeball exploded, leaving two people injured, while a third person suffered a serious bite from Biden’s teeth, which had escaped to a room down the hall.
The remaining Democrat candidates have vowed to continue their campaigns right up until the president’s re-election.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-trolls-kamala-harris-for-dropping-out-of-presidential-race">Trump Trolls Kamala Harris For Dropping Out Of Presidential Race</a>

Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris Suspends Campaign She Was Apparently Running [Satire]

Outsider 2020 Democratic presidential contender Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) lashed out at the Democratic National Committee late Friday, charging that the DNC was deliberately ignoring a recent Boston Globe/Suffolk University poll putting Gabbard at 6% &#8212; her highest showing in the presidential contest so far.
<a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/11/25/suffolk-globe-poll-finds-sanders-warren-buttigieg-biden-all-bunched/sxv6RW9OZ9KHnptwKY151K/story.html?event=event25">The Suffolk/Globe poll</a>, released November 25th, found Gabbard polling at 6% nationwide, a significant jump in position from other, earlier national polls, which put Gabbard between 2% and 3%, well out of both the first and second tiers of candidates. In the Suffolk/Globe poll, Gabbard competes directly with second-tier candidates like Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and polls just behind the four recognized front-runners: former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg, all of whom cleared double digits.
To appear on the DNC&#8217;s debate stage in December, candidates must show a fundraising base of at least 200,000 donors, and a significant showing (more than 1% support) in at least three &#8220;recognized&#8221; polls before the end of November. If the DNC counts the Suffolk/Globe poll, Gabbard makes the stage.
But the DNC doesn&#8217;t count the Suffolk/Globe poll.
In a statement released on Friday, Gabbard cried foul on that decision, accusing the DNC of deliberately ignoring the Suffolk/Globe poll even though it may be more reliable than other, recognized polls.
&#8220;Again, this is another example of the DNC being arbitrary and inconsistent. New Hampsire is the first in the nation presidential primary, but the DNC has not shown its voters the respect they deserve,&#8221; Gabbard said in an email to supporters. &#8220;The Boston Globe is the largest newspaper in New Hampshire. The pollster the Globe uses is recognized by the DNC for other media outlets, there is no reason the DNC should not recognize this Boston Globe poll, other than adherence to a subjective, non-transparent process where party elites try to dictate to the primary voters.&#8221;
The campaign went on to point out that Suffolk University is a recognized polling entity when paired with USA Today, though not when paired with the Boston Globe &#8212; that is because USA Today, and not the Boston Globe, is an official &#8220;media partner&#8221; for the DNC debates.
That, however, is the only evident reason that the DNC doesn&#8217;t count that specific Suffolk poll &#8212; and the rule does not appear hard and fast. The process for selecting which polls count is secretive, and the DNC refuses to comment on the matter to even major media sources.
Gabbard has done well for herself running against the &#8220;establshment&#8221; Democratic National Committee and its 2016 presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. Gabbard was a mostly unknown entity before the summer of 2019, when she attracted Clinton&#8217;s attention. Clinton accused Gabbard of being a &#8220;Russian plant&#8221; plotting to destroy Democrats&#8217; chances in 2020 on a podcast in October, kicking off a public feud that elevated Gabbard&#8217;s profile and attracted the attention of even conservative voters.
The DNC&#8217;s decision here seems to underline Gabbard&#8217;s accusations, made in the wake of the Clinton ordeal, that the DNC wants her as far away from the &#8220;mainstream&#8221; candidates as possible.

Tulsi Gabbard Campaign Charges DNC Deliberately Ignoring Poll Putting Her At Six Percent

As far-left Democrats routinely trash her for trying to appeal to moderate voters, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) said that the party is essentially &#8220;disrespecting and dismissing&#8221; a huge swath of America by rejecting Fox News.
“This is why, I’ll go on Fox News, MSNBC, CNN and I’m delivering the exact same message to people and we’re building and growing support in people who watch those three different channels,” Gabbard said in an appearance on Joe Rogan&#8217;s podcast. “You’re never going to be able to have a dialogue … win support from people who you treat like garbage, who you disrespect, who you call names, who you call deplorables. But how do you expect to lead as the president of every single American in this country when you’ve thrown half of them away?”
During her appearance at the last Democratic Party presidential debates, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) specifically knocked Tulsi Gabbard as some kind of traitor for making appearances on Fox News.
&#8220;It&#8217;s unfortunate that we have someone on this stage … who, during the Obama administration spent four years on Fox News criticizing President Obama,&#8221; <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/kamala-harris-rips-tulsi-gabbard-fox-news-assad-2019-11">Harris said</a>. &#8220;What we need on this stage, in November, is someone who has the ability to win.&#8221;
Joe Rogan expressed bafflement over the fact that leftists have such hate for Fox News viewers that they will not even appear on the channel to make their political pitch.
&#8220;What’s wrong with going on camera with someone you oppose? Someone you disagree with and having a dialogue about what you disagree with? That’s the weird thing about this cancel culture, this strange time we’re living in. You’re not even supposed to communicate with people about ideas that you disagree on,” Rogan said, as reported by <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/tulsi-gabbard-defends-appearing-fox-news-democrats-dismissing-half-america">Fox News</a>.
Though Gabbard has disagreements with Fox News host Tucker Carlson, she did appreciate they could see eye-to-eye on foreign policy on a platform that speaks to millions.
“On Tucker Carlson, I have a platform to be able to speak to millions of people across the country about the kind of leadership that I bring in the area of foreign policy,” responded Gabbard. “I have the opportunity to deliver that message directly to people’s living rooms.”
“I was attacked on the debate stage for going on Fox News. How do you think you’re going to lead this country, all Americans, if you’re completely, not only shutting out and not willing to talk to half the country that watches Fox News, but you’re in fact disrespecting and dismissing them just because they may disagree with you, or they watch a different news channel,” she continued. “I think that’s the bigger issue here.”
The Democratic Party&#8217;s hatred for Fox News runs so deep that the Democratic National Committee has refused to have the channel moderate a debate for the presidential primary, which followed Sen. Elizabeth Warren&#8217;s (D-MA) earlier pledge to blacklist the network. Even the far-left hosts on &#8220;The View&#8221; <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/view-slams-elizabeth-warren-not-going-fox-news-ryan-saavedra">expressed dismay</a> over the candidate&#8217;s unwillingness to make her case before the Fox News crowd.
“It may be a minority opinion, but I think that it’s being very dismissive of so many Americans for her not to go on Fox News,” co-host Sunny Hostin said. “I think if you want to be the president of the United States, for everyone, then you need to speak to everyone.”
“If you can’t face the Fox audience, you can’t face the U.S. It’s that simple,&#8221; chimed in Whoopi Goldberg.

Variety&#8217;s 3rd Annual Salute To Service

Tulsi Gabbard: Dems ‘Disrespecting And Dismissing’ Americans By Avoiding Fox News

Fox News

Media Bias

Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) criticized the Democratic National Committee&#8217;s (DNC) primary debate forum on Tuesday, putting forth that is a money-making operation that lacks substance.
&#8220;People are getting really turned off by it. They have alternatives and they&#8217;re not getting anything of value from the conversation that&#8217;s happening in these debates that are really like political reality TV,&#8221; Gabbard told host Joe Rogan during an appearance on his podcast. &#8220;They are completely set up for conflict and confrontation to drive up ratings so that they can make more money — the corporate media can make more money.&#8221;
&#8220;You&#8217;ve got 60 to 75 seconds to get your point across,&#8221; she added. &#8220;To talk about, hey here&#8217;s my position, here&#8217;s what I would do with North Korea, here&#8217;s what I would deal with immigration reform in 60 seconds or less.&#8221;
The Hawaii congresswoman noted that the steep decline in the number of Americans who were tuning in to watch the debates is evidence of a lack of interest on behalf of the American electorate. Accordingly, the first DNC primary debate in June was the most watched to-date, averaging more than 18 million viewers over the course of the two days. November&#8217;s debate, however, which was the most recent, was the least watched of the election cycle, with fewer than seven million viewers tuning in.
&#8220;You know, rather than it being this money-driven, ratings-driven venture — which the media is doing across the board, both in these debates and kind of what issues they&#8217;re choosing to cover — we should go back to the League of Women Voters who used to actually host presidential forums that would have real questions about real issues that people care about in a way that is not broken up by commercial breaks and advertisements so that the people can make money,&#8221; Gabbard said to Rogan.
Gabbard has been an outspoken critic of the DNC&#8217;s lack of transparency and arbitrary determination of which polls are deemed eligible for qualification purposes. Her campaign urged the DNC in September to reconsider their criteria after she failed to qualify and further slammed the organization for hindering conversations &#8220;between future leaders of this country.&#8221;
While the DNC declined to reconsider their benchmarks, Gabbard ultimately received an invitation for the following debates. However, she has still not met the threshold to qualify for December&#8217;s debate.
In order to nab a podium on the upcoming Los Angeles debate stage, presidential hopefuls must raise campaign donations from no fewer than 200,000 individual donors. In addition, they must also receive at least 4% of the vote in four general DNC-approved polls or 6% in two early state polls — such as those in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, or South Carolina.
Gabbard needs either one more qualifying nationwide poll or one more qualifying early state poll to meet the polling threshold, and she also needs fewer than 1,000 new donors, according to her <a href="https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1199053032933093377?s=20">social media</a> account.
As of publication, Gabbard sits at just under 2% cumulative support among Democratic primary voters, according to the <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">RealClear Politics</a> national polling average.

Presidential Candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Attends Los Angeles Veterans Day Service

Tulsi Gabbard Slams DNC Primary Debates As ‘Political Reality TV’

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) isn&#8217;t looking to make friends among the Democratic establishment and, it seems, on that point she&#8217;s succeeding.
Democrats are so concerned with Gabbard&#8217;s continued presence in the top tier of contenders for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination that they&#8217;ve now settled on leaving her politics aside and critiquing her choice of attire &#8212; namely, her signature tailored white pantsuit.
<a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/nyt-style-critic-attacks-tulsi-gabbards-stunning-white-pantsuits-as-cult-like-and-fringe">The Washington Examiner reports</a> that the New York Times style section, now without a weekly Sean Spicer dance to critique, has moved on to Gabbard&#8217;s white suit, calling it cultish and &#8220;fringe.&#8221;
Gabbard, style writer Vanessa Friedman says, is &#8220;using her white suits,&#8221; which Gabbard wears during Democratic debates, &#8220;to tap into another tradition, latent in the public memory: the mythical white knight, riding in to save us all from yet another ‘regime change war.'&#8221;
In Friedman&#8217;s mind, the suits call to mind &#8220;the white of avenging angels and flaming swords, of somewhat combative righteousness,&#8221; and the white robes worn by &#8216;cult leaders,&#8221; though Friedman doesn&#8217;t give any examples. The suit “has connotations of the fringe, rather than the center,&#8221; she says.
That&#8217;s a far cry from how the New York Times style section treated Hillary Clinton&#8217;s white Ralph Lauren pantsuit, which the doomed 2016 presidential contender donned during one of her final debates with then-Republican nominee Donald Trump. Then, the New York Times claimed that Clinton&#8217;s pure white outfit harkened back to the origins of the feminist movement, and was starting a trend that could &#8220;reach its apogee on Tuesday, Election Day,&#8221; as women donned their own white suits to vote.
&#8220;A grass-roots movement on social media has been urging women to #WearWhiteToVote in solidarity with the American suffragists,&#8221; the NYT gushed, &#8220;who adopted the color as one of their signatures and fought for what has now come (at least partly) to fruition: the first woman as a major party’s candidate for president.&#8221;
Further down in their November 7, 2016 review, the NYT called the suit similar to those worn by &#8220;supreme beings&#8221; in science fiction, and &#8220;something greater than merely a piece of clothing.&#8221;
&#8220;Though the discussion around white and the suffragists began in the summer when Mrs. Clinton <a class="css-1g7m0tk" title="" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/fashion/hillary-clinton-democratic-national-convention.html?module=inline">wore</a> an ivory Ralph Lauren pantsuit to accept her nomination at the Democratic National Convention, both movements really coalesced after her appearance in another white Ralph Lauren pantsuit — with a slightly raised collar and off-center buttons that sparked comparisons to Star Trek and supreme beings — in the third presidential debate in October. Since then the white suit, either as a whole or simply as a white garment, has come to symbolize something greater than merely a piece of clothing,&#8221; the NYT fawned.
The good news is, at least the NYT recognizes its dissonance. Friedman explains away the change of heart over pantsuits by suggesting that “clothes&#8230; are only as meaningful as the content that fills them.”
Gabbard, of course, represents a strong departure from the traditional Democratic Party platform, though not in the way most left-leaning Democrats would like. She&#8217;s anti-war, at least nominally pro-life, and intensely critical of the party establishment. She&#8217;s also prone to walking her competitors into epic self-owns (Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/11/21/kamala-harris-self-inflicted-wound-and-other-commentary/">is her latest victim</a>), and capitalizing on the criticism she receives from party stalwarts, like Clinton herself.
<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/21/tulsi-gabbard-dems-072672">Politico reported this week</a> that the Democratic Party has actually reached a &#8220;boiling point&#8221; with Gabbard, and party leaders are actively looking for a way to eject her from the slate.
Fortunately for Gabbard, every time that happens, her star rises a little higher.

New York Times Style Critic: Tulsi Gabbard Looks Like A Cult Leader In Her White Suits

Democrat presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard took a shot at her own party on Wednesday night during the Democratic presidential debate on MSNBC, a move that was instantly promoted by the Trump campaign.
&#8220;Our Democratic Party is unfortunately not the party that is of, by, and for the people,&#8221; Gabbard said in response to a question about her previous remark that failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton symbolized the rot inside the Democratic Party.
&#8220;It is a party that has been and continues to be influenced by the foreign policy establishment in Washington represented by Hillary Clinton and others&#8217; foreign policy, by the military industrial complex, and other greedy corporate interests,&#8221; Gabbard continued.
The Trump campaign tweeted out a clip of Gabbard&#8217;s remarks.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
💯&#8221;Our Democratic Party, unfortunately, is not the party that is of, by and for the people.&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DemDebate?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DemDebate</a> <a href="https://t.co/B8Lq8i1NrR">pic.twitter.com/B8Lq8i1NrR</a>
— Trump War Room (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@TrumpWarRoom) <a href="https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1197342010191036416?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 21, 2019</a></blockquote>
Gabbard continued, &#8220;I’m running for president to be the democratic nominee that rebuilds our Democratic Party, takes it out of their hands, and truly puts it in the hands of the people of this country.&#8221;
Gabbard said that she wanted to turn the Democrat Party into &#8220;a party that actually hears the voices who are struggling all across this country and puts it in the hands of veterans and fellow Americans who are calling for an end to this ongoing Bush, Clinton, Trump foreign policy doctrine.&#8221;

Tulsi Gabbard Hammers Democrat Party During Debate. Trump Campaign Promotes It.

Attorneys for Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) penned a letter to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday demanding that she retract her previous remarks suggesting that the Democratic presidential candidate is a &#8220;Russian asset&#8221; who is being &#8220;groom[ed]&#8221; to run as a third-party candidate.
&#8220;Your statement is defamatory, and we demand that you retract it immediately,&#8221; Gabbard&#8217;s <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gabbard-campaign-accuses-clinton-of-defamation-over-fabricated-russian-asset-claim-demands-retraction">lawyer wrote</a>, calling for Clinton to both verbally retract the comments and post her retraction to social media.
&#8220;In making the statement, you knew it was false. Congresswoman Gabbard is not a Russian asset and is not being groomed by Russia,” the letter continued. &#8220;Besides your statement, no law enforcement or intelligence agencies have claimed, much less presented any evidence, that Congresswoman Gabbard is a Russian asset. This fabricated story is so facially improbable that it is actionable as defamation.&#8221;
The letter comes less than a month after the twice-failed Democratic presidential candidate sat down with President Barack Obama&#8217;s former campaign manager, David Plouffe, during an appearance on his podcast &#8220;Campaign HQ.&#8221;
&#8220;I think they have got their eye on someone who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She is the favorite of the Russians,&#8221; Clinton said at the time. &#8220;They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.&#8221;
&#8220;That&#8217;s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she&#8217;s also a Russian asset. Yeah, she&#8217;s a Russian asset — I mean, totally,&#8221; Clinton added. &#8220;They know they can&#8217;t win without a third-party candidate. So I don&#8217;t know who it&#8217;s going to be, but I will guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most needed.&#8221;
While the former first lady refrained from naming the &#8220;Democratic primary&#8221; candidate to whom she was initially referring, Clinton&#8217;s spokesman Nick Merrill later confirmed that it was, in fact, Gabbard.
&#8220;If the nesting doll fits,&#8221; Merrill replied when asked directly about the congresswoman.
Clinton received widespread blowback for promulgating a conspiracy theory without any evidence to back up her contention. Gabbard subsequently fired back, calling Clinton &#8220;the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long.&#8221;
Gabbard, who is the first female combat veteran in America to launch a bid for the presidency, has been outspoken about the importance of the time that she has spent serving the United States as both a soldier and as a public servant.
In August, the Hawaii congresswoman took a two-week leave of absence from her presidential campaign in order to report for active duty with the Hawaiian Army National Guard and participate in a joint training exercise mission in Indonesia.
&#8220;[Gabbard is] a patriotic loyal American, a sitting four-term United States Congresswoman and a Major in the United States Army National Guard,&#8221; the letter continued, adding that &#8220;she is a loyal American who has taken an oath declaring her allegiance to the United States of America both as a soldier and as a member of Congress.&#8221;

Menu