Tulsi Gabbard avoids the landmines

Tulsi Gabbard has been roundly described for weeks as the Trump cabinet nominee with the most narrow path to approval, with multiple media sources suggesting that she does not have the Republican votes to win should she even get out of the Senate Intelligence Committee. But if that is the case, it wasn’t on display in her performance before the committee today — not in her presentation, her chosen backers, nor in the lines of questioning from Republican members.

It has been widely suggested that two senators, Todd Young of Indiana and Susan Collins of Maine, could potentially break with Trump by siding against Gabbard in the behind-the-scenes vote on her nomination. But neither senator’s lines of questioning seemed aggressive or unfair, and the general tone of Republicans on the committee — even facing someone who began her testimony with a blistering denunciation of intel failures of the past — seemed one of clarifying stances more than intentionally undermining. The support offered at the hearing’s opening from former chair Richard Burr and fellow veteran senator Joni Ernst is a very positive sign for Gabbard as well. If those respected senators’ endorsements leads her to getting a positive vote from Collins, the author of the original DNI statute, it effectively means she could win a floor vote even without J.D. Vance’s tie break.

For Senate Democrats, most questions focused on the now ancient history of Edward Snowden, whose leaks a dozen years ago revealed so much about how the intelligence community was skirting rules to spy on Americans. A resolution introduced by Gabbard during her tenure in the House, which called for effectively pardoning or commuting the sentence of Snowden, was stuck in the craw of many Senators — as was Gabbard’s notable refusal to brand Snowden a traitor, even as she repeatedly insisted he broke the law and steps need to be taken to prevent future Snowden-like leaks. Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado became particularly impassioned as he shouted about this, to the point where he sparked cries from a baby in the hearing room, while Maine’s Angus King suggested the mere presence of five pages of redacted material should’ve been enough to convince Gabbard not to introduce the bill.

What was somewhat jarring about the hearing was that the questioners seemed far more on edge than the questioned. Gabbard was unflappable and thoroughly prepared, sticking to her lines and adding context to questions raised about her past positions. None of the material recycled through a receptive media in recent weeks really got airtime. And Gabbard’s résumé, repeatedly acknowledged by the members, is a shield against many of the smears on her character repeated by staff outside the hearing room. 

If Democrats or intel-friendly Republicans were hoping to trip Tulsi Gabbard up, they failed today. That doesn’t mean her nomination is certain to go through — but it should quiet some of the concern on Capitol Hill that she’s trailing far behind where she needs to be.