MAJOR: VIDEO Trump’s Exoneration Prevented CIVIL WAR, says Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard


HONOLULU – Mar 29, 2019 @ 23:02 – The specter of Civil War has just been raised by a leading American politician. Just hours ago, U.S Democratic Party presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard stated that Trump’s exoneration in the Mueller investigation has probably prevented a civil war. This speaks strongly about the times Americans live in, what many commentators are expressing as “surreal”. Across social media, tweets and comments were observed expressing support for her statement, while a decade ago such a statement may have been considered shocking, relative to the pace and tempo of what was considered mainstream candidate discourse less than a decade ago.

Tulsi on Mueller Report: Put Aside Partisan Interests & Move Forward

At the same time, the entire Russiagate hysteria and the mainstream national discourse has been quite surreal itself. The allegation that Trump was in fact some Manchurian Candidate of the Russians has been put forward by mainstream television infotainment hosts, as well as mainstream print journalism connected to the Atlantic Council – all who have a broad-but-shrinking reach on legacy media networks.

While such a campaign in itself constitutes ‘Fake News’, because the corporations behind the mainstream media, which include the military-industrial-complex, oppose Trump and support the neo-conservative Democratic Party, these conspiracy theories have become not only common and mainstream, but in fact have become the mandated views required to maintain basic employment and use of social media, for those living in the major cities.

These are hallmarks of what critics have labeled a ‘new totalitarianism’ which is allegedly being promoted by many republicans, but also, as it is believed by many,  the right, center, and left wings of the Democratic Party.

- Advertisement -

It is therefore unusual that Gabbard has, with very few exceptions, stood out. Her statements about a potential ‘Civil War’ breaking out in the U.S, come during a time when another U.S Presidential candidate, Obama appointee and self-described ‘Entrepreneur’ Andrew Yang, has positioned a part of his campaign upon the understanding that many Americans are ‘prepping’, i.e. preparing for an Armageddon-like scenario involving total social collapse. He explains, in his words,  that many Americans are having these thoughts, are under great emotional and financial stress, which he believes leads Americans to make rash decisions in their personal and political lives, and, according to Yang, lowers the IQ by a whole order of magnitude. Gabbard, for her part, stated:

 “I strongly supported Mueller being allowed to complete his investigation into the allegations that President Trump  had colluded with Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016 elections. Now I’m glad that Mueller was able to do so and has submitted his findings. The American people need to be allowed to see Mueller’s report.

But now that Mueller has reported that his investigation revealed NO SUCH COLLUSION, we ALL need to put aside our partisan interests, and RECOGNIZE that finding that the President of the United States DID NOT CONSPIRE WITH RUSSIA to INTERFERE with our elections is a GOOD THING for our country.

Because if the President HAD BEEN INDICTED for conspiring with Russia to interfere with and affect the outcome of our elections, it would have precipitated a TERRIBLE CRISIS, that could have LED TO CIVIL WAR. So we should all be relieved, that President Trump was not found to have colluded with the Russians. Now we must move beyond this divisive issue, and take action to protect the integrity of our elections….’

She goes on to use this opportunity moreover to propose bringing back paper ballots, something that grassroots activists of both parties have expressed support for, given the alleged history of abuse of computerized systems. While these are not subject to being hacked, as they are not connected to the internet, the Clinton campaign apparently manipulated public misunderstandings over how electronic ballots work. These electronic computer-based systems, while not vulnerable to remote hacking, are easily manipulated on-site by precinct workers and the programmers of the machines.

Democrats complained that the electronic machines contributed to their loss of the elections in 2000 and 2004, while Bernie Sanders supporters alleged that such electronic manipulation was used by Clinton in the primaries, noting major irregularities between polling support and the primary results.



Subscribe to our newsletter
Sign up here to get the latest news, updates and special offers delivered directly to your inbox.