>and I'm no Tulsi stan. She is a hard one to predict and gets
>things right like 60% of the time. In some ways she is more
>anti-establishment than progressive. I just saw her being
>piled on in here and completely dismissed when she has more
>good in her than a lot of politicians. She is willing to tell
>it like it is about Hillary and Kamala and the war machine and
>Assange etc which is not nothing and does take courage.
>

She is willing to tell it like it is with Hillary and Kamala, but all the Project Veritas disinfo story gets from her is, "sorry for not vetting it" ? That's weak when it comes to telling it like it is.

>FWIW she has apologized to Ilhan about the Veritas thing.
>There's no excuse for her doing some questionable things or
>associating with questiionable people. She has proposed a
>host of progressive bills such as Securing America’s
>elections act, Fairness in media act, Off Fossil Fuels Act,
>Move To Amend Bill (constitutional amendment to get money out
>of politics), Stop arming/financing terrorist act, No more
>presidential wars act, UBI, Decriminalization of all drugs
>https://twitter.com/nikoCSFB/status/1310921015887884288?s=20
>BTW that tweet is from Tulsi's biggest fan on Twitter Niko
>House who happens to be black if that means anything.
>


You call this an apology

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1313584934267756544

@AOC @ilhanmn
The issue is not about any of us. It's about voter harvesting. Ilhan, I apologize for referencing the PV story as an example without thoroughly vetting it. Now will you support HR8285 to get rid of voter harvesting which undermines our democracy? If not, why not?


Will her bill help or hurt given this ?

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/dirty-tricks-9-falsehoods-could-undermine-2020-election?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7srQgOOi7AIVma_ICh303gfVEAAYASAAEgKCGPD_BwE&ms=gad_myth%20of%20voter%20fraud_437214061573_8626214133_100999439945

In addition, Arizona and Montana have enacted laws to sharply restrict third-party assistance to absentee voters in recent years. In January 2020, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Arizona’s restriction, holding that it had a discriminatory effect on American Indian, Hispanic, and African American voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act and that it was passed for a discriminatory purpose, in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment. (This decision has been stayed pending Supreme Court review.)

According to the to the court, minority voters were more likely than other voters to rely on assistance casting their absentee ballots, for a variety of reasons including issues with transportation and mail service.