Tulsi Fails The Impeachment Test

No, I'm not going to write about the impeachment vote. What's important to me is that a current candidate for president failed to vote "yea" or "nay". This matters. If you want to hold the executive office, emphasis on "executive" as in "execute" you must be able to make yea or nay decisions. Even if Tulsi thought that the entire show was bad and she didn't want to lend support to either side, IF she was president facing a similarly "tasteless" decision, she would *have* to make a decision. This was the time to show the potential voters that she can and will make decisions (right or wrong) and stick with them.

Also, if one is on a jury, particularly in a criminal case, and you have reasonable doubts about the case being made about the defendant, you are supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant. That's a "nay" vote. Impeachment is a political process that is based on alleged criminal conduct. If a jurist has a reasonable doubt about the underlying alleged criminal conduct there is only one option. Hence Tulsi, like Kamala, Booker and others failed important tests for holding government power: Failing to uphold the innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Booker and Harris showed their non-qualifications during the Kavanaugh Show, once again, assuming the guilt of the accused and stating that the accused needed to "prove his innocence" though nothing under US jurisprudence requires any such thing. If they could not hold to the rules that govern the government while Senators (or Congresspersons) then they cannot be trusted with the power of the executive.