Tulsi Gabbard describes why she is no longer a Democrat, but she doesn’t say what her new affiliation will be.
Watch the whole thing.
I’ve been expecting this since Biden won the Democrat’s nomination in 2020.
We cannot afford to walk down that dangerous path of government overstepping its boundaries into the most personal parts of our lives.
—Tulsi Gabbard
It looks as if Biden has taken the lead with 397 delegates, and Bernie is not far behind with 356. Fauxcahontas is in a distant third place with 48, but that still more than the 43 that Mini Mike was able to buy. The two dropouts, Mayor Pete and Klobuchar, have 26 and 7 respectively, and the least insane of the Democrats running, Tulsi Gabbard, has 1.
A side note about Sanders and Bloomberg: There’s an old line that says and honest politician is one who stays bought, meaning one who honors the “requests” of his significant “donors.” Bernie and Mini Mike seem to be pursuing what they hope is an honest electorate—one that will stay bought. The difference between the two is that Bernie is promising to use other peoples’ money while Mini Mike is also using quite a bit of his own.
Yep, everything is proceeding more or less as I have foreseen.
Folks, I have quite a bit of experience being a defendant in vexatious nuisance lawsuits alleging defamation (four LOLsuits each from Brett Kimberlin and Bill Schmalfeldt). Of course, I won all those suits. Seven were dismissed for various reasons. One went to trial, and my codefendants and I won when the judge stopped the trial after Kimberlin rested case because the plaintiff hadn’t shown that we had made any false statements about him and granted a directed verdict in our favor. I tend to have a bias in favor of defendants in defamation suits, but in this case … not so much.
IANAL, but my initial sense of Tulsi Gabbard’s suit against Hillary Clinton alleging defamation is that it’s interesting.
The complaint specifically quotes Clinton’s allegedly false and defamatory remarks, citing when and how they were published. As I understand it, the complaint claims that falsely stating that an Army National Guard officer is the asset of foreign power is defamatory per se because if that were true, the officer would be unfit for his or her professional duties as a soldier. Tulsi Gabbard is a major in the Hawaii National Guard. She’s also a member of the House Armed Services Committee, an assignment that requires access to classified defense information. Being a Russian asset should be similarly disqualifying in that professional role.
Congresswoman Gabbard’s case appears to be much stronger than anything her colleagues are presenting to the Senate. But being based on actual facts tends to make a case stronger. I don’t know how far her suit will go in court, but I’m ordering more popcorn.
She voted present on both of the impeachment articles in the House of Representatives today, One Democrat voted no. One other Democrat who is expected to change parties voted no.
UPDATE—Corrected the number of no votes by Democrats.
After reviewing the Democrats’ debate last night, it seems that Tulsi Gabbard is still the least insane of the remaining candidates.
I disagree with Rep. Gabbard on a great many issues, but at least she seems to have thought through most of her policies—and she’s willing to stand up to the Progressive mob when she disagrees with them.
UPDATE—Over at Instapundit Prof. Reynolds observes that “Trump’s okay with this, as it will divide the country between the crazy, and the non-crazy, in his favor.”
… isn’t on the debate stage tonight.
Tulsi Gabbard’s criticism of Kamala Harris’ record as a prosecutor during the “debate” last night was pointed and, it seems to me, effective. Rep. Gabbard’s own law enforcement background makes her comments all the more interesting to me.
As can be seen from the crossed pistols insignia on her uniform, Major Gabbard’s branch of service is the Military Police.