Summary
Republican senators are privately pushing to review Tulsi Gabbard’s FBI file amid concerns about her alignment with Russian interests following her nomination as Trump’s director of national intelligence.
Gabbard’s past support for Edward Snowden, who leaked U.S. state secrets, has drawn particular scrutiny, as has her history of echoing Russian talking points on Ukraine and Syria.
While GOP senators are publicly deferring to Trump’s pick, some, including Sens. Mike Rounds and Susan Collins, emphasize the importance of full background checks and hearings to address potential security risks.
If you thank the person for telling the world that the bank is crooked, why can’t you then be responsible for ensuring that the bank stops being crooked?
Because your boss will never be sure if you can be trusted if you happen to think the next breach is also justified.
If tulsi thinks the breach was justified because the internal whistle-blowing processes at the NSA were not functioning correctly, then there is no trust issue.
She can ensure better processes exist.
If the intelligence apparatus is performing unconstitutional actions then a breach is justified.
None off that changes the fact that when you support an intelligence breach, even if that particular breach was justified, you are signaling to your superiors that you may well allow the next breach, even if it isn’t justified.
There’s a reason vigilantism is illegal. Sure, sometimes the result might be justified, but the method has no accountability. Especially given her shady history with Russia, there’s no guarantee that the next breach she supports will be another justified cause. It might just jeopardize the safety of intelligence agents.
This is your opinion. Not fact.
Tulsi has moved into the seat of accountability. The sheriff can’t be a vigilante.
Clinton has been in more shady Russian deals than Tulsi. Her accusations are pure projection.
The alternative is equally your opinion, and not fact. Which, again, doesn’t change the fact that if you demonstrate that your motives are uncertain and can only be speculated with personal opinion, you are a questionable candidate at best.
Yes, but if the sheriff supports a vigilante, they’re an unreliable sheriff.
Proceeds to give an opinion
The sheriff wants a lawful process to exist, not vigilantism
“We have got to address why Snowden did things the way that he did them,” she said. “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.”
It is not an opinion to say that if your motives are uncertain with regards to established procedure, then you are not reliable to ensure established procedure. Whether or not you think the unreliability is justified, you’re still unreliable.
And what a sheriff wants, in addition to being ultimately unknowable because we aren’t psychic, is less relevant to their candidacy than their expressed positions. If you support one vigilante, there is reasonable suspicion you’ll support another. Wanting a lawful process does not negate the fact that you supported an unlawful (even if ultimately justified) process.
You fuck one goat, and you’re marked as a goatfucker. Doesn’t matter how many walls and docks you build, and it doesn’t matter how sexy the goat was.
In Snowden and Manning’s cases it is clear established procedure is inadequate. There is no uncertainty.
Or you can (attempt to) change the system so that vigilantism is not required.
Tulsi didn’t fuck a goat. She was arguing that no-one should be getting fucked.