watched a Tulsi Gabbard town hall in New Hampshire over the weekend, on C-SPAN,
and was shocked, I must say, at the endless stream of clichés she strung
together, in what she imagined was a speech.
you enabled a computer to artificially create a speech by randomly stringing
together stock phrases from pre-existing speeches, you’d get the nonsense
Gabbard spouted. Useless, pointless junk speechifying. Content-wise, it was a
bust; creatively, even more so.
most disturbing part of her remarks, though, came in questions and answers.
Someone in the audience asked her this question: “You voted ‘Present’ for the
House impeachment. If you had had overwhelming evidence that Trump actually did
break the law, would you have voted to impeach?”
“Yes,” Gabbard said. She went on to explain that, in her mind, the evidence just isn’t there. That’s when I had to mute my T.V. I don’t mind Republicans (and I consider Gabbard a crypto-Republican) talking sensibly about things I disagree with, but it rankles me to hear someone lie with such impunity. Here is the fact: The evidence that Trump blackmailed or extorted or bribed Zelensky is over-fucking-whelming. Period, end of story. It would be nice, of course, if Trump permitted his greaseballs—Pompeo, Mulvaney, Giuliani, Pence et al.—to testify under oath, but even though he continues to cover up his crimes by muzzling them and ignoring lawful subpoenas, we still have a catalog of evidence that is more than enough to convict Trump of the two impeachment charges the House has crafted against him. More than enough, I say—so why is Tulsi Gabbard out there on the hustings every day, exonerating Trump?
begin to answer this, we have to revert to Hillary Clinton’s suggestion, many
months ago, that Gabbard is being groomed by Russia’s Putin. That charge was
pretty shocking when Hillary made it. Now, it’s not so shocking. Tulsi Gabbard,
for all her fine talk, is running interference for Trump—while she’s running
for the Democratic nomination for president! What the hell is going on here?
we don’t exactly know, and we may never; but if it walks like a duck…and
Gabbard is walking like a duck or, more precisely, like someone who’s
trying to sow confusion over our political process, and thus make Trump’s
impeachment ambiguous. From this we must draw certain inferences. She may say
she doesn’t favor Trump’s re-election, but she consistently undermines the
process by which we are attempting to prevent him from being re-elected.
isn’t sowing confusion the essence of how Russia interferes with our elections?
The fake Facebook and Twitter accounts—the lies issued in the name of truth—the
phony identities and spammy organizations—saying one thing and meaning the
exact opposite–that’s how Putin, the ex-KGB chief, rolls. (That’s how Trump
rolls, too.) Try this thought experiment: Putin wants to insert an operative
into the Democratic campaign. That person must be authentic enough to possess
credibility. Well, Gabbard’s already in the U.S. Congress, so she has
credibility. That person also must indulge in the usual liberal talking points:
healthcare for everyone, the vision of the Founding Fathers, limiting the power
of corporations. This is standard Democratic Party rhetoric; Gabbard espouses
just enough from the playbook to get by.
here’s Putin’s supreme stroke: amidst the usual Democratic platform points,
have the candidate pepper her remarks with statements that there’s not enough
evidence to convict Trump, and that indeed he should not have been impeached to
begin with. Have that candidate say these things, in various forms, over and
over and over, before every audience she addresses: working people from New
Hampshire, farmers from Iowa, union workers from Nevada, college students from
South Carolina. Have that candidate plant the seed of doubt in their minds: Maybe
Trump didn’t do it. Maybe…
Source : http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/steveheimoff/YKZT/~3/6fyuyXij8DY/