HomeArticleGabbard Says She’d Drop All Charges Against Assange And Snowden

Gabbard Says She’d Drop All Charges Against Assange And Snowden

In midst of an interesting and wide-ranging discussion on the Joe Rogan Experience, Democratic congresswoman and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard said that if elected president she would drop all charges against NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

“What would you do about Julian Assange? What would you do about Edward Snowden?” Rogan asked in the latter part of the episode.

“As far as dropping the charges?” Gabbard asked.

“If you’re president of the world right now, what do you do?”

“Yeah, dropping the charges,” Gabbard replied.

Rogan noted that Sweden’s preliminary investigation of rape allegations has just been re-opened, saying the US government can’t stop that, and Gabbard said as president she’d drop the US charges leveled against Assange by the Trump administration.

“Yeah,” Gabbard said when asked to clarify if she was also saying that she’d give Edward Snowden a presidential pardon, adding, “And I think we’ve got to address why he did things the way that he did them. And you hear the same thing from Chelsea Manning, how there is not an actual channel for whistleblowers like them to bring forward information that exposes egregious abuses of our constitutional rights and liberties. Period. There was not a channel for that to happen in a real way, and that’s why they ended up taking the path that they did, and suffering the consequences.”

This came at the end of a lengthy discussion about WikiLeaks and the dangerous legal precedent that the Trump administration is setting for press freedoms by prosecuting Assange, as well as the revelations about NSA surveillance and what can be done to roll back those unchecked surveillance powers.

“What happened with [Assange’s] arrest and all the stuff that just went down I think poses a great threat to our freedom of the press and to our freedom of speech,” Gabbard said. “We look at what happened under the previous administration, under Obama. You know, they were trying to find ways to go after Assange and WikiLeaks, but ultimately they chose not to seek to extradite him or charge him, because they recognized what a slippery slope that begins when you have a government in a position to levy criminal charges and consequences against someone who’s publishing information or saying things that the government doesn’t want you to say, and sharing information the government doesn’t want you to share. And so the fact that the Trump administration has chosen to ignore that fact, to ignore how important it is that we uphold our freedoms, freedom of the press and freedom of speech, and go after him, it has a very chilling effect on both journalists and publishers. And you can look to those in traditional media and also those in new media, and also every one of us as Americans. It was a kind of a warning call, saying Look what happened to this guy. It could happen to you. It could happen to any one of us.”

Gabbard discussed Mike Pompeo’s arbitrary designation of WikiLeaks as a hostile non-state intelligence service, the fact that James Clapper lied to Congress about NSA surveillance as Director of National Intelligence yet suffered no consequences and remains a respected TV pundit, and the opaque and unaccountable nature of FISA warrants.

Some other noteworthy parts of Gabbard’s JRE appearance for people who don’t have time to watch the whole thing, with hyperlinks to the times in the video:

  • Rogan gets Gabbard talking in depth about what Bashar al-Assad was actually like when she met him and what he said to her, which I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone bother to do before.
  • The two discuss Eisenhower’s famous speech warning of the dangers of the military-industrial complex, and actually pause their dialogue to watch a good portion of it. Gabbard points out that in the original draft of the speech, Eisenhower had intended to call it the “congressional-military-industrial complex”.
  • Good discussion on internet censorship and the dangers of allowing monopolistic Silicon Valley corporations to control public speech, then later discussing the possibility of breaking up these corporations or treating them as public utilities.
  • Rogan asks Gabbard what she thinks happens to US presidents that causes them to fail to enact their campaign promises and capitulate to the will of the warmongering establishment, and what as president she’ll do to avoid the same fate. All presidential candidates should have to answer this question.
  • Rogan asks Gabbard how she’ll stand against the billionaires for the American people without getting assassinated. All presidential candidates should have to answer this question as well.

I honestly think the entire American political system would be better off if the phoney debate stage format were completely abandoned and presidential candidates just talked one-on-one with Joe Rogan for two and a half hours instead. Cut through all the vapid posturing and the fake questions about nonsense nobody cares about and get them to go deep with a normal human being who smokes pot and curses and does sports commentary for cage fighting. Rogan asked Gabbard a bunch of questions that real people are interested in, in a format where she was encouraged to relax out of her standard politician’s posture and discuss significant ideas sincerely and spontaneously. It was a good discussion with an interesting political figure and I’m glad it’s already racked up hundreds of thousands of views.


Everyone has my unconditional permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitterthrowing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypalpurchasing some of my sweet merchandisebuying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Liked it? Take a second to support Caitlin Johnstone on Patreon!

Latest comments

  • Go get em Tulsi! She really nailed it when she said that the US’s regime change habits lead to things like 9/11.

    But not quite. She likely knows, as do a lot of ‘progressives’ (now that so much has been uncovered) that the middle eastern 9/11 attackers were the cover for the ‘crime’ that US government officials committed on 9/11. Is adulation for antiwar candidate Tulsi Gabbard an example of ‘critical thinking’? Is this adulation for a CFR member seeking to do a Bernie Sanders on troubled Democratic supporters reasonable? I doubt that she’s genuinely antiwar.

  • “I told you so,” said George Orwell from his grave…https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/ecuador-shares-assanges-legal-docs-1/

  • I believe her as much as I believed Orange Judas when he claimed during the campaign that he was a fan of Wikileaks.

  • I’m concerned by statements that say we will go after Al Qaeda , when we all know Al CIAda is a US invention , so what does that mean , more military interventions ?
    She dubbed herself a “hawk” on terrorism ? Who are the terrorists ?

    Gabbard doesn’t actually oppose military intervention, or the abusive tactics used to prosecute the “war on terror,” as long as they’re directed against those she identifies as Islamic extremists. She summarized her philosophy neatly in 2016, telling West Hawaii Today that “when it comes to the war against terrorists, I’m a hawk. When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I’m a dove.”

    Gabbard is a staunch supporter of the United States’ counter-ISIS campaign, but her view of the fight goes much further. During a visit to India in 2014, she told an interviewer that the United States had failed in its “very clear” mission to defeat “Islamic extremism”—the fight she said led her to enlist after the September 11 attacks—and that we needed “to focus all of our efforts and energy” and “root out this evil wherever it is.” When pressed on whether torture could be part of those efforts, Gabbard didn’t reject it, saying some believed it worked. Invoking the fantastical scenario of a ticking nuclear time bomb, Gabbard said that if she were president, she “would do everything in my power to keep the American people safe.” If there was a gap between Gabbard’s philosophy and the forever war, it was hard to spot.

    she told CNN that to defeat ISIS, the United States needed to abandon the “fantasy” of a “unified Iraq” and help divide the country into Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish areas. (Renad Mansour, an Iraq expert at Chatham House, told The Nation that “neither the US nor Iran nor the neighboring countries will entertain the idea of splitting up Iraq.”)

    Unsurprisingly, Gabbard’s brand of nationalism—which involves pulling back from the Middle East but allying with the region’s worst authoritarians and shutting the borders to refugees but not the Christian ones—caught the eye of Steve Bannon, who arranged a 2016 meeting with President-elect Trump. “He loves Tulsi Gabbard. Loves her,” a source familiar with Bannon’s thinking told the Hill at the time. “She would fit perfectly too [inside the administration].… She gets the foreign policy stuff, the Islamic terrorism stuff.”

    • I would say Kris Lane is a deceitful liar. Gabi running in the crowded 2018 Dem POTUS field is the only candidate to unequivocally come out against MIC regime change wars and in support of pardoning Assange and Snowden and stopping the Obama/Trump establishment war on journalism. Kris and others here are snakes preying on the ignorant to push the establishment narrative. Ignore these beasts of propaganda. Gabi has matured and is running on extremely unpopular ideas counter to those pushed by the MSM. There is only one reason to do that and that is true belief. She is probably the most ignored candidate on the Dem ticket because of her pro citizen anti-MIC agenda.

  • Like Obama and Trump, Gabbard claims she stands for a lot of things that can only be accomplished by calling on one million Americans to gather on the national mall, ARMED, to watch her back while she does it. Since she isn’t calling for that, she is a FRAUD, just like I knew Trump was a fraud when he didn’t do this after the Russia business started. You don’t ask for freedom and fair treatment, YOU TAKE IT. VOTING IS FOR FOOLS. VOTING = “TRUST THE PLAN”.

    • Kofi is a defeatist idiot, which given our current state of politics, is understandable. If you like her philosophy just put that shotgun under your chin and push that trigger with your toe. Gabi certainly is an uphill battle, but she is no groomed Obama-like establishment tool. But to make sure just follow the money. If you see all the corporate MIC $$$ flow to her as they did to the black face sellout “community organizer” scumbag Obama then you have a case against Tulsi. Until then shut your lying fucking mouth!!!

      • Glider, if the elite loot doesn’t flow to Gabbard, she disappears. Weight of money decides >90% of US sham elections. If the money flows, she has sold out. She could well be a new model Obama, prettier, but not too much as to incite envy, articulate, in the death-forces etc, and we will only know that she is the latest model of Trojan when she gets elected.

        • You hit the nail on the head friend.

  • Is Bernie Sanders an antiwar candidate? You decide for yourself:
    By Renee Parsons
    April 19, 2019 “Information Clearing House” – Fresh off what the MSM is celebrating as a surprise victory for a Bernie Town Hall on Fox News, lurking in the background is his inexplicable support over the years for basing the highly controversial F35 at the Burlington International Airport. We now know, thanks to a conscientious citizen who bothered to read the fine print, that those F35’s will be nuclear-capable and of immense explosive power.
    In September, as the fall colors begin to change in Vermont, City of Burlington residents may not be in the streets waving American flags as eighteen F35 Lightening II radar-evading stealth fighter jets land at the Burlington Airport. As part of a Pentagon plan to deploy 2,500 jets nationwide, the F35’s will join the 158th Fighter Wing, a unit of the Vermont Air National Guard, affectionately known as the Green Mountain Boys as its aging F-16 jets are replaced.
    While the seven year debate over the F35 has been an intense round of public hearings and debates and public meetings, at least one lawsuit, and three of the most affected communities all formally opposing the F35 and even a successful anti F35 voter referendum which was adopted by the public, the state’s elected political leadership chose to ignore the outcome.
    But it wasn’t until retired Air Force Col. Rosanne Greco was reading through a 68,000 heavily redacted Air Force document related to the lawsuit that she discovered vague references about the F35 carrying nuclear bombs.
    Researching further, Greco who has thirty years of intelligence experience with the highest security clearances, is a specialized expert in nuclear weapons and arms control and a member of the US START delegation, confirmed the stunning news that the F35 was designed from the outset and had always been intended to carry a nuclear payload as it was to become an integral part of the US nuclear strategy.
    Throughout all the furor, the Air Force never informed Vermont residents that the F35 was designed as a dual-capable plane; that is, able to deliver either a conventional weapon or a nuclear weapon or that its new guided nuclear bomb, the B61-12 was being specially designed to fit into the F35’s bay.
    As if that belated information were not reason enough for the entire State of Vermont to be explosively irate at being lied to by the Pentagon, the state’s elected political leadership has yet to feel the full wrath of a citizenry that has only just begun to realize the consequences of being consistently lied to by its favorite sons. During the entire seven year campaign, both Senators Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy refused to meet with citizens who opposed the F35. In a short, pithy joint statement in 2016, the state’s entire Congressional delegation echoed their support for the F35 being based in Vermont.
    And the B61 is one hell of a bomb – its range can be adjusted from .03 kilotons up to 50 kilotons. The bomb that killed 150,000 people in Hiroshima was a 15 kiloton bomb. Greco makes the point that the Green Mountain Boys could now directly initiate on their own ala Dr. Strangelove or participate in a nuclear war as ordered by the President. In addition, Vermont now becomes a central target in any potential conflagration since it is the delivery system that is the target. With no aircraft to carry them, bombs per se are not the target. The Burlington International Airport will now become Ground Zero.
    When Greco’s revelations regarding the jets nuclear capability became public, Sanders and Leahy were unwavering in their denials and refutations which have been in direct contradiction with Air Force and DOD statements in the public record.
    “Consequently the United States will maintain and enhance as necessary, the capability to forward-deploy nuclear bombers…around the world. We are committed to upgrading the DCA with the nuclear-capable F35 aircraft.”
    Department of Defense, 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, Chapter VII, “Current and Future US Nuclear Capabilities, page 54
    Further, the MIC boasts of a nuclear loaded F35 for its “..combination of accuracy and low-yield make the B61-12 the most usable nuclear bomb in America’s arsenal. This makes using nuclear weapons thinkable for the first time since the 1940s” as if that is a good thing! Further military assessments suggest “Yet the most dangerous nuclear bomb in American’s arsenal may be the new B61-12.” And that “What makes the B61-12 bomb the most dangerous nuclear weapon in American’s arsenal is it usability. “
    State political leaders have been so supportive that former Governor Peter Shumlin traveled to Eglin Air Force Base in Florida came away declaring that “Listening has been a real eye opener. It is surprising how quiet the F35 is.” Noise abatement is a major issue since the F35 is four times louder than the F16’s being replaced and required the destruction of 200 homes identified as being within the zone that exceeded acceptable decibel level. How nearby public school students or at the nearby college will be expected to learn and concentrate in an environment unfit for residential habitation remains to be seen.
    During a 2016 campaign debate in which F35 supporters cited the local Air Guard’s efforts after the 911 attack, Burlington Mayor Milo Weinberger, another politically elite F35 supporter responded that “They flew over an area already devastated by a terrorist action. I don’t believe they stopped a single thing from happening.” Without meaning to, his comments raise a valid question about why the Pentagon funds local Air National Guard unit other than as a glorified jobs program.
    In justifying his support in 2016, Sanders said it was not the plane but the jobs and economic advantage of the F35 that he supports. “In the real world, if the plane is built … and if the choice is if that goes to Vermont … South Carolina or Florida. What is your choice as a United States Senator?” he asked. “And that’s what the Vermont National Guard wants, and that means hundreds of jobs in my city. That’s it.”
    Sanders claim that the project will add 1,100 new jobs to the Airport is fraudulent, according to Greco who says that with departure of the F16s’, there will be a one for one swap with the previous F16 employees being trained on the F35s.
    The question is when did Bernie and the doddering Sen. Leahy, who apparently was the prime mover and shaker to bring the F35 to Vermont, discover that the F35 would be nuclear capable? Greco says that public records shows that after Vermont was initially explored and dismissed by the Air Force as being an unsuitable location with South Carolina being the preferred location, Leahy personally intervened to bring the F35 to Vermont.
    It is inconceivable that the Air Force would keep that level of pertinent information secret from two US Senators who had become its reliably pro- F35 allies while they opposed and deceived the best interests of their own constituents .
    Not just known for its foliage, cheese and maple syrup, Vermont is also host to an active aerospace industry which already supplies 2,000 jobs. The jet’s bay door and GAU-22 gun system will both be produced in Vermont. With the Air Force spending $84 million per jet from Lockheed Martin, the DOD will spend $100 Million for infrastructure improvement and a new training center at Burlington where they will share one runway with commercial air traffic.
    Basing more than a dozen F35’s in Burlington will bring a totally new generation of aircraft to Vermont as new high tech jets, not yet fully mature with all of its kinks and safety issues worked out, normally experience more accidents and ‘incidents’ in a shake down – and the F35 has had more than its share.
    The F35 was commissioned by the Pentagon in 1995 at a cost of $1.5 Trillion, becoming the most expensive weapon system in US history as well as providing significant technical challenges including a “catastrophic engine failure” with total damage estimated at $50 million, a “life threatening ejection seat malfunction” and a crash in South Carolina due to a faulty fuel tube. The new controversial bomber jet fighter planes will be located in a dense area surrounded by public schools, a college and residential neighborhoods.

  • If U.S. politics were sane, constructive, and for the people instead of for the war profiteers, Tulsi Gabbard and others like her would possibly be part of a cooperative multi-partisan non-deep-state government of the United States, as I mentioned elsewhere. For instance, it could be…
    – President:
    Tulsi Gabbard
    – Vice President:
    Rand Paul
    – National Security Advisor:
    Jimmy Carter
    – White House Chief of Staff:
    Ron Paul
    – White House Press Secretary:
    Glenn Greenwald
    – Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency:
    Jill Stein
    – Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration:
    Daniel Ellsberg
    – Ambassador of the U.S. to Russia:
    Stephen Cohen
    – Attorney General:
    Trey Gowdy
    – Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
    Michael Flynn
    – Director of National Intelligence:
    Edward Snowden
    – Director of the Central Intelligence Agency:
    Ray McGovern
    – Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency:
    Chelsea Manning
    – Director of the National Security Agency:
    William Binney
    – Secretary of Defense:
    Daniel Everette Hale
    – Secretary of Education:
    Noam Chomsky
    – Secretary of Health and Human Services:
    Bernie Sanders
    – Secretary of Housing and Urban Development:
    Donald Trump
    – Secretary of State:
    Paul Craig Roberts
    – Secretary of Transportation:
    Ralph Nader
    – Secretary of Veterans Affairs:
    Gerry Condon
    “I and thousands of my brothers and sisters-in-arms went to war in Iraq that was based on false intelligence and lies from our leaders.
    “I believe it is the duty of every American to make sure this never happens again.
    “We need to learn from Iraq and Libya — wars that were propagated as necessary to relieve human suffering, but actually increased human suffering many times over.”
    — Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, 4.9.17

    • Jimmy Carter?!?! I hope you are kidding. I can’t describe the man’s “accomplishments” any better than Gerald Celente:

  • When anyone speaks of how near we are moving towards our extinction, one way people discount their message is to assume they are fatalistic and offer no hope. Occasionally such a Cassandra is a fatalist, but often not. Often such a message is a warning to wake up to our very real and imminent danger, and do something to avert it.

  • Probably important to quote actual Bernie on this rather than “think” he shares Tulsi’s position. Not so sure that is accurate–has he ever explicitly decried these persecutions and incarcerations? Bernie is good on a lot of things but remains mum on many others.

  • Bernie/Tulsi is the way to go.

    The understanding was that if Bernie won the Democratic Nomination last time, he would have picked Tulsi as his VP.
    They agree on most, possibly all- issues.

    The fact that Bernie is in his late 70’s is often brought up as a problem. With Tulsi as VP- in 4/8 years she can take over as President. There goes the age problem, and there is our First Woman President -known and experienced as VP and ready.

    Tulsi is not well known yet. Bernie is. Bernie can actually Win.
    This is what needs to happen.

    Tulsi and Bernie are on the same Team. When Tulsi speaks out of Assange, I believe she is speaking for Bernie as well.

    • I would prefer Liz Warren/Tulsi Combo with Tulsi in the top spot. Tulsi gets our MIC problem in a way Bernie does not. Warren understands Wall Street and WS hates her for good reason. Together they would make a great combo and it would be hard for the system to assassinate both.
      Add to the fact that I believe Bernie has not commented on the Julian Assange issue and his credentials as a leader willing to take on the system fails to impress. At any rate the corrupt DNC system will likely hand us rigged MIC sleazeball Biden, at which point I will go Green.

      • Sanders’ plain collaboration in the Clinton candidacy sums him up. He was the Pied Piper who led the young and radical into the desert, then abandoned them without even the semblance of a fight, at the rigged Democratic Convention.

  • To Ish, Spanky, and whoever – Four things:
    Voting is totally rigged in the US. Voting will not change the deeply flawed system we live under – ever.

    Sleeping people cannot vote or do anything else intelligently, until they wake up.

    The damage we have done to this planet and all the lives on it is now so severe, that it will take a truly colossal effort to even start to partially repair it.

    We are out of time. We are screwed. We are in for a horrific collapse of our presence on Earth. The situation arising now will create such horrific conditions that all our dreams of gradually fixing everything will be ruthlessly destroyed.

    You might want read Cormac McCarthy’s novel The Road, or see the movie of that name to get a feel for what’s coming.

    • Well Mike K, if you believe that’s our inevitable fate, why not simply end it now? Nobody gets out of here alive anyway, right?
      I get that the electoral system, voting, is rigged… that’s what I’m trying to address. Moreover, Ish outlined a politically plausible way to address ecological degradation, if we can overcome the rigged electoral system in the first place.
      Point is, what have you got to lose by simply considering what I propose? If hell on earth, as McCarthy describes, is just down the road, why not try to at least postpone it? Maybe even mitigate it altogether? It’s not like there are bunch of promising alternatives knocking at our door.
      What you’re arguing is that since it appears all is lost, and the only proposal to stop it is not a slam-dunk sure thing, why should you even try? That’s a self-reinforcing prophecy because if you don’t try, the future you fear will certainly come to pass. Wake up!
      All of life is a chance Mike K, we get no guarantees — life is what you make of it.

      • Hi Spanky. Thanks for your feedback. I suppose you did not read my comment on the previous blog entry, where I pointed to a direction for us that might have some real hope. I have not said or thought that human near term extinction is a certainty. In fact I do not believe us humans are advanced enough to be certain of anything whatever. Also, I do not feel that suicide is a valid response to awareness of our extremely likely societal and ecological disaster, which is closing in on us far more quickly than the mass of uninformed humans realize. Suicide would be an expression of the very selfishness that is driving our nosedive towards extinction. I continue to hope we will find a way to make the deep changes in our hearts, minds, and behaviors that will give us our best chance to survive the global crisis which we have ignorantly created. Part of the search for real deep solutions that go to the deep causes of our problems within ourselves, and their transformation, involves discarding illusory fixes that are pitifully inadequate to the work that needs to be done.

        Remember, probability is not certainty, but it is very much a reality to be reckoned with.

  • I think you should study Tulsi Gabbard’s voting record before getting too excited about her.

    • I am not getting excited specifically for one good reason: She is a member of CFR.

      • The one argument I could make for that (based purely on speculation of course) is to be exposed to insider talk and policy recommendations. Information warfare is everything now, and that’s a way to be involved in it. I could be wrong but it would absolutely be a way to get access to information and influence. There’s without a doubt an information game here and she’s playing it, which does make some sense, even if the organization itself might be awful.

        • Joining the CFR is not a casual endeavor… You not only must want to join but, more importantly, they must want you as a member too. Membership is limited and very tightly controlled.
          Perhaps you don’t realize just what, exactly, the CFR is and does, nor whom comprises its membership and why.

          • Very well said “spanky” ! If I may clarify & add further as to what the CFR is … as a reply also to “CRUZ”.

            CFR is a very insidious, undemocratic institution promoting only the interests of the Ruling Elite in the United States of America and the World. It is considered by some some to be a “criminal organization” just like the CIA. The CIA is the enforcement hand of the CFR.
            CFR members are sworn to secrecy regarding goals and operations. But Admiral Chester Ward, a longtime CFR member, let slip that the goal of the group is, “to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States…Primarily, they want a world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government.”
            The CFR is one of the tools the corporate/banking elites utilize to achieve the NEW WORLD ORDER.
            Here’s what John McCloy said: (he was a member who had joined the CFR prior the U.S. entering WWII. Even before the war the CFR had a grand plan for the world as stated in McCloy’s biography The Chairman)
            “The Council was not particularly interested in propaganda, or publicity campaigns to counter widespread isolationist sentiment. That was a function for less elite organizations, some of which Council members would soon help to fund. The Council wanted to influence the War Department, not the American people. They wanted to engage in war-planning, and planning for a postwar PAX AMERICANA”
            (John McCloy served as Assistant Secretary of War during World War II )

            I can not speak for Tutsi, but If I was a true progressive wanting to truly change the world, I would have known that by joining this evil organization would seriously compromise my beliefs, soul and conscience.

            (CFR members: Both Clintons. Zgbniew Brzezinski. David Rockefeller. George Soros. Obama. Colin Powell. Madeline Albright. John McCain. Rupert Murdoch. David Patreus. Condoleeza Rice. Dan Rathers).
            Here is also a good primer on CFR: The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and The New World Order

    • I believe she addressed the concerns of her past voting record when under extreme pressure from her father. She has learned a lot, and is many times more sincere and open about it than any candidate I have ever known. The only thing I don’t understand is why Bernie can’t give it up and fully support her now.

      • Bernie has the experience and recognition that Tulsi does not.
        Last time, Tulsi was said to have been Bernie’s pick as VP.
        He would most likely pick her again this time, and in 4/8 years as VP she would take over as President.
        The people would know her then, and she would be experienced as VP.
        That is the way to get our First Woman President.

  • Although it is nice to have a lot of candidates running for the United States presidency; the tremendous obstacles in the way are not easy to overcome!! At this point my favorite candidate is Bill Weld; however Mr. Weld will not be able to challenge President Trump in any primary because the republican party refuses to have any primaries at all for president in 2020!!! As for the ” democratic party “; Ms Gabbard, Mr. Sanders, Ms Warren and the other ” not in the bag to the establishment ” candidates are going to be shunned by the corporate media!! If Donald Trump avoids criminal prosecution; the odds look good for him to win again!! It really pains me to write that, but I only have one vote; any no one pays ” any attention to little people ” like me anyway!!!

  • Tulsi is a person that follows a path of a true statesman…..not a politician……she showed us back during the 2016 election when she could see the corruption within the Democatic party, led by the corrupt Debbie Wasserman Schultz….and left them to campaign for Bernie….Tulsi is seeking what i think we all want…PEACE…..”imagine all the people……”

  • Some months ago I decided to vote for Tulsi Gabbard for president. I was almost shunned by my erstwhile democratic friends, and my wife. If Tulsi is not on the ballot I will write her name in.

    • Why were you shunned?

  • I have requested her to go to the Venezuelan Embassy in D.C.. Sat. March 18th Noon. No matter what. Thank you Rep..

leave a comment