Gabbard responds to Clinton: "She knows she can't control me"

[Lexy]

This article, Gabbard responds to Clinton: "She knows she can't control me", originally appeared on CBSNews.com

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who is running for the Democratic nomination, fired back Friday after Hillary Clinton suggested the Russians are "grooming" a candidate for a third-party run to disrupt the 2020 election. In an interview with CBSN on Friday night, Gabbard said Clinton "knows she can't control me."

"This is a message to every veteran in this country who has put their life on the line to serve our country, to every single American who believes strongly that we must end this long-standing foreign policy of being the world's police and ending these regime-change wars, which is really the legacy of Hillary Clinton, then we are traitors to the nation that we love," said Gabbard, who is a veteran.

https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton- ... 07555.html

[jas]

I wish she had a chance.

[Lemons]

I wish she had a chance.

That’s why I don’t pay attention too early on. I’ll be disappointed on who doesn’t make it. Plus sometimes someone looks good and end up not what you thought they were.

[jas]

I wish she had a chance.

That’s why I don’t pay attention too early on. I’ll be disappointed on who doesn’t make it. Plus sometimes someone looks good and end up not what you thought they were.

Yep

[Deleted User 203]

She's right and that is one thing that Clinton craves and loves...power.

[Lemons]

She's right and that is one thing that Clinton craves and loves...power.

So does Gabbard or she wouldn’t be running for the most powerful office in the country. Clinton is also right that Russia is not done with interfering with our elections. It’s too easy and for Russia it didn’t cost a lot of money and they showed the world what they are capable of.

[Deleted User 203]

She's right and that is one thing that Clinton craves and loves...power.

So does Gabbard or she wouldn’t be running for the most powerful office in the country. Clinton is also right that Russia is not done with interfering with our elections. It’s too easy and for Russia it didn’t cost a lot of money and they showed the world what they are capable of.

Clinton stated that both Gabbard along with Jill Stein were possibly being groomed as Russian agents. She's actually named names in her implications so no, it's not that simple with Clinton and her allegations.

It seldom is with her.

There's power and then there's power of which Clinton felt she was robbed of what SHE has seen as rightfully hers and she'll say anything vengeful to manipulate both the media and those stragglers who still appreciate her point of view...be that point of view the truth or not.

Gabbard didn't lie in what she said about/to Clinton in response.

Clinton is unhinged and off the rails.

[Lemons]

She's right and that is one thing that Clinton craves and loves...power.

So does Gabbard or she wouldn’t be running for the most powerful office in the country. Clinton is also right that Russia is not done with interfering with our elections. It’s too easy and for Russia it didn’t cost a lot of money and they showed the world what they are capable of.

Clinton stated that both Gabbard along with Jill Stein were possibly being groomed as Russian agents. She's actually named names in her implications so no, it's not that simple with Clinton and her allegations.

It seldom is with her.

There's power and then there's power of which Clinton felt she was robbed of what SHE has seen as rightfully hers and she'll say anything vengeful to manipulate both the media and those stragglers who still appreciate her point of view...be that point of view the truth or not.

Gabbard didn't lie in what she said about/to Clinton in response.

Clinton is unhinged and off the rails.

I’m just talking about reports about what Russia is up to. I don’t know know what Clinton “felt” or Gabbard. And the article or interview reported what she said. I’m not sure how that is manipulating the media. She didn’t lie. She said what she thought Russia was up to.

This isn’t new. There’s been plenty of articles about white nationalists, David Duke and Russia supporting Gabbard going way back. I think when Hillary is mentioned it triggers conservatives so it wouldn’t matter what she said.

It must suck to have these type of undesirables publicly supporting you and I don’t know why they picked this candidate.

[Deleted User 203]

So does Gabbard or she wouldn’t be running for the most powerful office in the country. Clinton is also right that Russia is not done with interfering with our elections. It’s too easy and for Russia it didn’t cost a lot of money and they showed the world what they are capable of.

Clinton stated that both Gabbard along with Jill Stein were possibly being groomed as Russian agents. She's actually named names in her implications so no, it's not that simple with Clinton and her allegations.

It seldom is with her.

There's power and then there's power of which Clinton felt she was robbed of what SHE has seen as rightfully hers and she'll say anything vengeful to manipulate both the media and those stragglers who still appreciate her point of view...be that point of view the truth or not.

Gabbard didn't lie in what she said about/to Clinton in response.

Clinton is unhinged and off the rails.

I’m just talking about reports about what Russia is up to. I don’t know know what Clinton “felt” or Gabbard. And the article or interview reported what she said. I’m not sure how that is manipulating the media. She didn’t lie. She said what she thought Russia was up to.

This isn’t new. There’s been plenty of articles about white nationalists, David Duke and Russia supporting Gabbard going way back. I think when Hillary is mentioned it triggers conservatives so it wouldn’t matter what she said.

It must suck to have these type of undesirables publicly supporting you and I don’t know why they picked this candidate.

Clinton has notoriously been manipulative and continues to be. Her thoughts on what Russian was up to is not innocent yammerings. She knows PRECISELY what ground work she was attempting to lay. It's backfired, however, on her.

The word "trigger(s)" is so beyond overused. This isn't about "triggering." It's about paying attention and knowing a political figure's motives and BS.

Gabbard hasn't denounced Duke supporting her but then again, should she? Has she publicly thanked him or any of the rest? I haven't seen that.

There will be supporters for any candidate that perhaps the candidate will find undesirable but much to voters frustrations, the candidate is not under any obligation to say something akin to "Hey...you! You suck! Don't support me."

[Lemons]

Clinton stated that both Gabbard along with Jill Stein were possibly being groomed as Russian agents. She's actually named names in her implications so no, it's not that simple with Clinton and her allegations.

It seldom is with her.

There's power and then there's power of which Clinton felt she was robbed of what SHE has seen as rightfully hers and she'll say anything vengeful to manipulate both the media and those stragglers who still appreciate her point of view...be that point of view the truth or not.

Gabbard didn't lie in what she said about/to Clinton in response.

Clinton is unhinged and off the rails.

I’m just talking about reports about what Russia is up to. I don’t know know what Clinton “felt” or Gabbard. And the article or interview reported what she said. I’m not sure how that is manipulating the media. She didn’t lie. She said what she thought Russia was up to.

This isn’t new. There’s been plenty of articles about white nationalists, David Duke and Russia supporting Gabbard going way back. I think when Hillary is mentioned it triggers conservatives so it wouldn’t matter what she said.

It must suck to have these type of undesirables publicly supporting you and I don’t know why they picked this candidate.

Clinton has notoriously been manipulative and continues to be. Her thoughts on what Russian was up to is not innocent yammerings. She knows PRECISELY what ground work she was attempting to lay. It's backfired, however, on her.

The word "trigger(s)" is so beyond overused. This isn't about "triggering." It's about paying attention and knowing a political figure's motives and BS.

Gabbard hasn't denounced Duke supporting her but then again, should she? Has she publicly thanked him or any of the rest? I haven't seen that.

There will be supporters for any candidate that perhaps the candidate will find undesirable but much to voters frustrations, the candidate is not under any obligation to say something akin to "Hey...you! You suck! Don't support me."

If the Russians think they can manipulate our elections by promoting Gabbard, they will promote Gabbard. There has already been verification that the Russians have been promoting Gabbard as far back as the beginning of the year. They might move on to someone else if Gabbard doesn’t start getting more support.