“She put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana.”

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/02/11/kamala-harris-marijuana-radio-int-orig-vstop-bdk.cnn

with Russia. This was after months of minimizing the importance of the investigation.

Earlier, she'd come back from a private visit with Assad, saying that she believed him that he hadn't used chemical weapons on his own people.

She is also the favorite Democratic candidate of Steve Bannon .

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/307106-bannon-set-up-trump-gabbard-meeting

Bannon, who hates the entrenched two-party system, has long admired Gabbard. She’s an Iraq War veteran with an independent streak. Bannon, a navy veteran, was drawn to her when she began publicly excoriating the Obama administration over its plan to defeat ISIS.

“He loves Tulsi Gabbard. Loves her,” a second source familiar with Bannon’s thinking told The Hill. “Wants to work with her on everything.”

“She would fit perfectly too [inside the administration],” the source added. “She gets the foreign policy stuff, the Islamic terrorism stuff.”

Bannon appreciates Gabbard’s willingness to publicly criticize President Obama for refusing to name the enemy, “radical Islamic terrorism.”

reality doesn't line up with agenda.

plenty evidence on his sorry ass. He's on his way out,there is too much pressure being brought to bear. Indictments on his family will come after the subpoenas.

that Mueller said in his report and his testimony that he found "no evidence of a conspiracy."

He said he hadn't found enough evidence to prove a conspiracy -- meaning, not enough evidence to prove it in court beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a very different thing.

The first part of the report is FULL of evidence of collusion -- just not enough evidence of a specific conspiracy to prove it in court.

But Tulsi wouldn't have known that -- because she spoke out in March, after Barr's letter. She didn't bother to read Mueller's actual report before opining that we should "move on."

He said that collusion wasn't a legal term -- that they only looked for a conspiracy, and they didn't find ENOUGH evidence to establish it -- ie., prove it in court.

But Part 1 was full of evidence of collusion -- which you would know if you bothered to read it.

https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/guide-to-the-mueller-reports-findings-on-collusion/

I. Summary of Major Findings

The redacted Mueller Report documents a series of activities that show strong evidence of collusion. Or, more precisely, it provides significant evidence that Trump Campaign associates coordinated with, cooperated with, encouraged, or gave support to the Russia/WikiLeaks election interference activities. The Report documents the following actions (each of which is analyzed in detail in Part II):

1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin.

2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails.

3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.

SNIP

No one got charged with "conspiracy" because they didn't find ENOUGH evidence to prove it in court.

You haven't provided a single link to support your claim that there was NO evidence of conspiracy. Please show me WHEN Mueller said collusion is the same as conspiracy, and that there was NO evidence of conspiracy.

The link I provided was to an article in Just Security by Ryan Goodman.


Ryan Goodman
Ryan Goodman
Co-Editor-in-Chief

Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) is founding co-editor-in-chief of Just Security. He is the Anne and Joel Ehrenkranz Professor of Law at New York University School of Law. He served as Special Counsel to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense (2015-16).

Ryan is also a Professor of Politics and Professor of Sociology at NYU. He was the inaugural Rita E. Hauser Professor of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law at Harvard Law School. He received a J.D. from Yale Law School, a Ph.D. from Yale University, and a B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin. He is a member of the Department of State’s Advisory Committee on International Law, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a member of the US Naval War College’s Board of Advisers for International Law Studies, and a member of the Board of Editors of the American Journal of International Law.

Mueller explicitly differentiated between "collusion" and criminal conspiracy, and a lack of direct evidence doesn't mean a whole lot if Trump successfuly obstructed justice.

"Tulsi Gabbard Cheered For Brutal Attack on Kamala"

Give me a break. The crowd's immediate response was welcome to my ears. I guess the next step in the media narrative is to dismiss the positive crowd reaction towards Rep. Gabbard as the work of Russia.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/307106-bannon-set-up-trump-gabbard-meeting

Bannon, who hates the entrenched two-party system, has long admired Gabbard. She’s an Iraq War veteran with an independent streak. Bannon, a navy veteran, was drawn to her when she began publicly excoriating the Obama administration over its plan to defeat ISIS.

“He loves Tulsi Gabbard. Loves her,” a second source familiar with Bannon’s thinking told The Hill. “Wants to work with her on everything.”

“She would fit perfectly too [inside the administration],” the source added. “She gets the foreign policy stuff, the Islamic terrorism stuff.”

Bannon appreciates Gabbard’s willingness to publicly criticize President Obama for refusing to name the enemy, “radical Islamic terrorism.”

someone endorsed by Bannon or not. Wasn't Trump endorsed by Bannon? Isn't he the one that our nominee will go up against and is expected to beat in a debate? Seriously.

The 1500 marijuana cases referred to all the pot cases prosecuted by all the prosecutors in the state while Kamala was Attorney General. It wasn't part of her job to approve all the prosecutions in the state.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/jul/31/fact-checking-democratic-debate-detroit-night-two/

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii on Sen. Kamala Harris’ time as a prosecutor: Harris "put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana."

This claim about Harris putting "over 1,500 people in jail" for pot violations is cited in a February article by the Free Beacon, a conservative online news website. The article says "at least 1,560 people were sent to state prisons for marijuana-related offenses between 2011 and 2016," when Harris was California attorney general. It says the data comes from reports from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

PolitiFact could not immediately access that data during the debate. But we do know that as attorney general, Harris would not have personally prosecuted marijuana cases. Those cases would have been handled by lower-level state attorneys.

if you are in a position of leadership.

The cheering was not uniform; it was coming from the left rear of the Orchestra. There was no reaction from the DNC section.

Which indicates what?

I wonder if Gabbard is playing for a position in the Biden administration? She did bring up Kamala's previous attack on Biden before launching her own.

I guess only Harris gets to make attacks and no one is allowed to answer back.