Tulsi Gabbard

Tulsi Gabbard Votes 'Present' on Trump Impeachment, Slams 'Purely Partisan Process'

"I come before you to make a stand for the center," said Gabbard in a statement.

|

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii), a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, voted "present" on the two articles of impeachment against President Trump on Wednesday. This made her one of the only Democrats to effectively cast a no vote on charging the president with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Rep. Jeff Van Drew (D–N.J.) voted no on impeachment, but is expected to switch parties.*

Gabbard is the first-ever representative to vote "present" during an impeachment inquiry, according to The Daily Beast.

In a statement, Gabbard said that Trump is guilty of wrongdoing, but that she could not endorse a "purely partisan process."

"When I cast my vote in support of the impeachment inquiry nearly three months ago, I said that in order to maintain the integrity of this solemn undertaking, it must not become a partisan endeavor," said Gabbard. "Tragically, that's what it has been."

Gabbard characterized her actions as a "stand for the center"—a center that neither excuses Trump's wrongdoing, nor supports his ousting mere months before a presidential election.

Regardless of whether you agree with Gabbard's stance, it's quite refreshing to see a politician who is willing to go against her own party. The same goes for Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.), who left the Republican Party and voted for Trump's impeachment because he puts his limited government principles before partisanship. In these incredibly tribal times, such independent thinking is incredibly rare. Most members of Congress seem obligated to either defend Trump at all costs—no matter how contemptible his behavior—or advocate his immediate removal from office by any means necessary.

CORRECTION: Two other Democrats cast dissenting votes. Rep. Collin Peterson (D–Minn.) voted no on both articles of impeachment, and Rep. Jared Golden (D–Maine) voted no on one of them.

Advertisement

NEXT: Fifth Circuit Sends Obamacare Severability Issue Back to Square One—But Not Quite

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. She can’t bring herself to utter tne n-word: “nay.”

    1. More than likely trying to play both sides of the aisle and the middle. She is running for President remember. She hopes to get undecided in the middle people and more liberal Republicans, without pissing of her Democratic supporters. I think she realizes a yea vote or nay vote would stop half of those voters for voting for her. So she played it safe with “present”. Foolish, as that won’t work at all.

      1. He, if my vote wasn’t already decided this year, I’d vote for her. I don’t like Democrat policy, but fuck I’d vote for someone willing to call shit shit.

        1. That’s because you’re an emotional retard which explains why you fall for a bag of shit like Trump.

          1. Fail.

          2. On point, concise, clear. What’s not to like about Pod-Challenged’s comments.

      2. Won’t work at all? It sure moved her up in my book!

        “Present” made headlines that a yes or no wouldn’t. It aligns her with the millions who say never mind about this impeachment nonsense, get on with some real business.

        Had she voted “no”, some other Democrat in Congress might’ve shared the stage with her. “Present” is brilliant, and elevates my estimation of her.

        1. She moved up in your book. But you still aren’t voting for a Democrat?

      3. She can also justify a ‘present’ vote because she’s willing to call him out on a debate stage and offer an alternative via ballot, something most Dems would regard as looking too much like ‘a job.’

      4. Rep. Gabbard isn’t “running” for president.

        She is limping, or crawling. Not for long, though.

        1. That’s what everyone said about Trump 4 years ago. Remember people being upset that this “joke” candidate was being granted time on the debate stage?

          The question is whether if she gets the votes, the Democratic party would let her win. Say what you will about Trump, his experience showed that the Republican primary was real. All of the party leaders despised him, but they didn’t cheat.

        2. “She is limping, or crawling. Not for long, though.”

          LOL, the Reverand is so bitterly partisan. Gabbard is probably too much of a Right wing extremist for him.

          1. Too much of a woman for him, at any rate.

          2. Or just not enough of a socialist/communist.

        3. Ridiculous. It was a brilliant move. She is young. In fact, a little too young. But 4 years or even 8 years from now, she will be a top candidate.
          For either party.

      5. she saw how well voting present worked for obama.

    2. Had President Trump not been elected, we would never have known just how evil and corrupt the Democrats in Congress really are!

      Thank God for President Trump!

      America First!

    3. #PresidentPresent

      1. You don’t “make a stand” by voting “Present”.

  2. And she’s hot.

    1. Doing nothing is almost always the best government option

      1. The government solves problems by DOING SOMETHING. ANYTHING. If you ask “how will it work”, you are part of the problem.
        The Prohibition Amendment and Volstead Act ended the scourge of Demon Rum.
        The Marihuana Tax Act ended the scourge of Reefer Madness.
        Forcing the comic book industry to adopt The Code ended the scourge of Juvenile Delinquency.
        Burning Lady Chatterley’s Lover in Boston ended the scourge of Smut (and restored the virginity of Bostonians).
        AND look at the frequency of school shootings before and after the 1990 Gun Free School Zone Act.

        Saying “the government doing NOTHING is best” will be noted as anti-government extremism. Once Democrats are in control of all houses of government – White, Senate, Representative, Supreme Court – the Scourge of Alt-Rightism will PURGED as Elisabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez fly forth on the backs of their dragons like Stormborn Dragonlady frying all who refuse to bend the knee.

    2. Reason is sweating over it’s choice here:

      A. Orange Man Bad

      B. Tulsi good.

    3. “And she’s hot.”

      An incel 7, maybe?

      1. You would know, gecko.

      2. “Incel” is the proggy version of “Cuck”.

        1. Ha!
          It really is

    4. Yeah, and if you vote for her, you have a shot at her! LOL NOT!

  3. President Trump will really get on Robbys nerves the next 5 years.

  4. Maybe American hero Robert Mueller can investigate Gabbard’s possible links to Putin.

    #GabbardRussia

  5. I can’t believe anyone running for president would vote “present” on an impeachment vote. Mind boggling.

    1. Would like the same treatment in the future.

    2. Safest choice. The senate trial will be as brutal for the DNC, as the media trial was for the GOP.

      1. I wouldn’t call it safe. Voting “present” on anything is really just a bitch-ass move; it shows you’re afraid of coming down on what will be the “wrong side” down the line, when the vote might be used to crucify you. Amash did that on the 2011 bill that cancelled Planned Parenthood’s funding, and Obama did that shit all the time.

        Her voting “present” indicates that she’s expecting to get primaried next year, and she’s trying to play both sides of the fence. It’s not going to work and she’ll likely lose her seat now.

        1. When you’re a Dem, it takes more guts to vote “Present”, not less. And it’s the right vote — Trump clearly broke some rules, but if you can’t convince a single Republican to vote to impeach him, you’re making a federal case out of nothing.

          1. Broke some rules? Which ones? Not saying “please” and “thank you?” Didn’t use his turn signal?

            I don’t think the man broke any laws, at least not by the evidence presented by the Democrats. On the other hand, I think I see where you’re coming from. Bill Clinton did in fact and deed lie under oath. Perjury is a felony. On the other hand, no one has ever explained what his sexual liaison with a willing intern had to do with the Whitewater investigation anyway. So impeachment yes, to avoid the precedent of ignoring presidential law breaking, but conviction no, because it was a question they had no business asking.

          2. But real guts is still a no vote.

    3. How about someone that thought there was a case there to be made but Schiff and Nadler didn’t make it.

      1. The problem with the impeachment was not process, it was what they started out with. Trump’s request that Ukraine look into the Bidens’ self-dealing was itself self-interested, but there was obviously a basis for an investigation (far more than what we had for a 3-year “Russiagate” investigation by the way). Joe Biden is not off limits because he is a candidate. He bragged in public that he forced Ukraine to fire a prosecutor. That prosecutor was investigating a Ukraine oligarch whose business was paying Biden’s son $88,000 a month, an amount suggestive of protection money. The fired prosecutor claims he was forced out over concern about an investigation that could hurt Biden–others say the prosecutor was only investigating the oligarch and not his company. At a minimum, Biden had a conflict of interest and should never have had any responsibility in Ukraine (or it should have ceased when his son became involved), but it may have been even worse. Will all of that ever be investigated, or is it all swept away by the Orange Man Bad narrative?

        1. Very well written.
          I agree with every word you said.
          Biden is on tape demanding a quid pro quo from Ukraine.
          Trump asking Ukraine to investigate this possible crime seems reasonable and in our national interest.

        2. What I don’t get is how asking Ukraine to investigate Americans for corruption in Ukraine is “cheating” in the US presidential election. At worst it gives American voters more information about one of the candidates, so they can make a more informed choice. It’s similar to the Russians hacking into evidence that Clinton was crooked or whatever last time — American voters should thank them, not penalize the people who encouraged the truth telling.

          1. Apparently according to some, when you’re running for office you’re automatically immune from investigation.

            1. But only if you’re a Democrat. If you are a Republican and someone heard that someone else thinks you did something bad, that “witness” is sufficient evidence to disqualify you…

    4. Yeah, it’s almost like BOTH parties have very narrow ranges of acceptable positions on issues, or something. I’ll bet your soma tastes better since we did away with all that nasty compromising, new ideas that don’t involve spending/bureaucracy, and people changing views on issues.

    5. “I can’t believe anyone running for president would vote “present”

      How about her reason for doing so, because it was a partisan exercise, for the center, for spending more time with her family and other lamo excuses. I suspect she is hiding her real reasons.

  6. Now, if Gabbard wanted Democrats to vote for her for the Democratic nomination for president, she would have voted for impeachment. However, if she was running to replace Pence as Trump’s vice president, voting “present” is exactly what she’d do.

    1. ^THIS^

      (I don’t expect VP but a cabinet level position in a 2nd term is not out of the question)

      1. Sec of Defense? That would be fantastic.

        1. Nah, Veterans Affairs has been her issue, and she could probably get confirmed.

          But a lot of GOP Senators aren’t going to confirm such a confirmed non-interventionist at defense.

          1. She called Trump “Saudi Arabia’s bitch” and said “Trump was supporting Al-Qaeda. She all but impeached Trump already.

            1. Someone should ask her if the process she engaged in to reach the conclusion that Trump was providing material support to Al-Qaeda was a “fair process”.

            2. T loves talk like that.

    2. I think she wants independents to vote for her in the primaries and to answer for her in polls, making her look more electable. Which she would be. Still won’t beat Trump in 2020, but sets her up as the front runner for 2024.

      1. No, I think it’s more likely that her political career is done after this. She doesn’t have broad appeal, the funding/PR machine of billionaire Democrats and the MSM/Hollywood mass media complex hates her guts, and her non-interventionism makes her persona non grata among most of the political class.

        Like a lot of Dems, she got a little too high on the idea that just getting the nomination meant an automatic win and decided to take a shot. It’s possible that the Hawaii Dems will lay off her, but I doubt it.

    3. Actually, no. This makes her stand out from the pack.
      When we get to the primaries, we may see her do shockingly well or astonishingly bad. It depends greatly on what the “silent majority” actually want.

      This message, “Trump isn’t good, but this is getting ridiculous”, seems to resonate with a lot of people, especially middle America that feels forced to defend Trump. At least if we have a Gabbard v Trump election, I think we will actually get some talk about issues instead of just name-calling.

      1. Except there’s no silent majority of centrist Democrats. They’re a vanishing breed.

        1. There’s no silent majority of centrist Republicans either. They’re a vanishing breed, drummed out of the party as RINOS. Now they are just Democrats.

      2. It ain’t just “middle America” that feels forced to defend Trump.

      3. The Usual Suspects -which includes the Socialist Democrats & the squad this time around- have already derided her as a Russian tool. I doubt she’ll make much headway against the rabid activists.

        Hey, remember when Democrats laughed at Romney for his concern about Russia? Good times, good times…

        1. http://www.zerohedge.com/political/former-nsa-tech-chief-says-mueller-report-was-based-cia-fabricated-evidence

          Obama was a bad, and wildly corrupt, president.
          One of the worst.
          But Russia ain’t the boogeyman the Global Socialists want you to believe it is

  7. I’m not really understanding this:

    “…who left the Republican Party and voted for Trump’s impeachment because he puts his limited government principles before partisanship.”

    Voting for impeachment is supporting limited government? Some explain, please.

    1. Well, if everyone gets tossed out of office……….

    2. Seriously, I believe replacing egomaniac-narcissist-power-pig Trump with Pence would be a BIG step towards limited government. I admit to not being an expert on Pence, but Pence has more sense! Sensible pepples is Pencible pepples! Pence is a better choice right now than ANY of the”D” candidates!

      But also seriously, I also support Gabbard in this symbolic stance of hers. Out of straight tribalistic party loyalty, 99.9% of Republican Senators will vote in support of Trump, even if, between now and then, in the broad light of day, with the TV cameras rolling, Trump shoots Hillary dead on 5th Avenue. So this impeachment is a waste of time… Other than, it distracts Government Almighty away from its usual habits of getting bigger and stealing our money and freedoms!

      1. I’m afraid Pence might pull the GOP nationally back into their traditionalist mode that winds up hurting them in the long run. Trump at least doesn’t project an air onto the Republicans of wanting to stick it to the pot smokers, Moslems, fags, etc. I’d like to see more evidence Pence breaks that mold and also isn’t into keeping the Russians and Chinese as forever enemies of the USA rather than of each other.

        I don’t think there’s anyone powerful enough right now to become president and rein in spending significantly. Congress has been straining hard against fiscal restraints as is; about all anyone can do for a while is keep the rate of increase to not much more than it’s been lately.

      2. “I admit to not being an expert”
        Truer words were hardly ever spoken, Mikey.

        1. Spread your opinion on this far and wide! A book based on your opinion on this could become a galaxy-wide best-seller! Do you have an agent yet?

      3. Pence would be 100 times worse than Trump. Which is why we knew the impeachment was all for show all along.

      4. Or distract us away from their doing it right this minute, as usual. As looters go, the Hawaiian is unexceptional. But for her to knock aside the slightly more repellent crowd that has been hogging the stage so far would at least feel like some sort of relief from the more disgusting aspects of the communist half of the kleptocracy.

  8. Just remember, starting (and/or continuing) wars that Congress never approved is totally legit and unworthy of impeachment.

    Looking into the previous administration’s actions that have a very clear and obvious appearance of a conflict of interest on the other hand, why that’s an assault on democracy.

    1. The AUMF (covers both Iraq & Afghanistan) was passed by Congress and deemed a valid equivalent to a declaration of war in the courts. Did you have Libya in mind?

      Looking at (allegedly) illegal actions of, well, anyone is a conflict of interest? Biden runs for office and becomes untouchable? In that case a registered Republican police detective has a conflict of interest investigating a Democratic Party candidate for local office.

      Now if Trump were (say) responsible for judging Biden’s guilt or innocence, that would be a conflict of interest.

  9. Amash just voted to impeach a president for asking a foreign government to investigate blatant corruption. The man is an idiot. When I see Reason praising him, all it does is make me think the editors at Reason are just a stupid as Amash is.

    1. Yeah, didn’t Amash already come out for impeachment over the Mueller Report?

      When you are way out in front of Nancy Pelosi it’s not a very good look. But I guess it’s not a bad thing to get some publicity before getting turned out of his last elective office. Might come in handy as he loses a string of offices as a sacrificial Liberation over the next decade.

      1. It’s surely going to help sell the book he’s going to write once he’s unemployed.

        1. Some news station may hire him to provide “balance”.

    2. The bloggers here or whoever’s boss of them seemed to have decided a few years ago that Amash was on their side, and since then have ignored all evidence to the contrary.

    3. reason staff are mostly propagandists.

      They are stupid and evil. Their bread and butter are lies.

      1. Somebody fetch the girl-bullier a buthurt form!

    4. “Amash just voted to impeach a president for asking a foreign government to investigate blatant corruption.”

      China or Ukraine?

  10. Also remember that the 3 Democrats who voted no on the second article (plus whoever changed their vote) did so because they were bowing to pressure.

    The Democrats voting to remove Trump did so in principled defense of our democracy and the constitution and babies.

    The republicans voting against impeachment did so out of pure partisan politics.

    It is known.

    1. OBL has competition!!

  11. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii), a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, voted “present” on the two articles of impeachment against President Trump on Wednesday. This made her virtually the only the Democrat to effectively vote against sending the president’s removal to the Senate. Rep. Jeff Van Drew (D–NJ) voted no on impeachment, but is expected to switch parties.

    Collin Peterson also voted no on both articles calling impeachment a “mistake” and predicting that the Senate would make short work of an acquital.

    1. Yeah, there’s a reason that Reason didn’t list all the D’s that defected, and didn’t call a man who started the proceedings as an independent an independent. It might make the whole thing look like a purely partisan affair if all the republicans voted against it and the Democrats couldn’t even convince their own party that what they were doing is right.

  12. So this makes her just crazy enough to run 3rd party just as Putin intended.

    1. “So this makes her just crazy enough to run 3rd party just as Putin intended.”

      Try posting before you’re drunk, shitbag.

      1. “Try posting before you’re drunk”

        In Tony’s case, that’s bad advice. He’s so disconnected from reality that blind drunk could only be an improvement.

    2. t. Tony “Tail-Gunner Joe” McCarthy.

      1. There may be “205 (or 57 or 81) known Communists” in Congress but Tulsi isn’t one of them.

  13. Trump has done 1000x as much for limited government as Justin Amash.

    1. Amash is limiting his future participation in government, there’s that.

      1. We can hope!

    2. +100000

    3. True, if you’re an impotent mystic.

      1. What has Amash done for libertarianism, Hank?

  14. Donald Trump’s presidency is going better than any presidency, ever

    1. +1000

  15. “The same goes for Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.)”

    Oh Robbie, you don’t have to do this even if the jacket says you do.

  16. Pure pussy move.

  17. Google pay 350$ reliably my last pay check was $45000 working 9 hours out of consistently on the web. My increasingly youthful kinfolk mate has been averaging 19k all through continuous months and he works around 24 hours reliably. I can’t trust in howdirect it was once I attempted it out.This is my essential concern.for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot ……… Click open the site

  18. #TulsiCoward is trending on Twitter. I wonder which campaign is behind it.

    1. Either Liawatha or SloJo. Only Trump can make these nicknames stick.

    2. honestly, with the way the Dems tear apart any dissent, I’d say it took more balls to vote no/present than to say yes. Not that the Dems will ever admit that

    3. I think it’s the panties-in-a-wad squad, on behalf of Crazy Bernie.

  19. I am piyasidayan offering this Christmas big offers and discounts on my quality dating services. click us to booking now fast on – https://bit.ly/2LU1pXO

  20. While the process has been made to look partisan and Rep. Gabbard played that as a excuse for not voting, I don’t think that is really the case. The Democrats stuck to a script that President Trump engaged in unethical and obstructive behavior. The Republicans seemed to cover everything but the President’s innocence. They compared Trump to Christ, attacked Hunter Biden, Rep. Schiff, and the process but never really refuted the charges. The vote was along party lines, but the partisanship was only Republicans. I think Tulsi needs a better explanation.

    1. Everything you stated is retarded liberal talking points.

      1. You could have just stopped before “liberal talking points.”

    2. The Dems switched up their reasoning every other week. Try again you third rate bot.

    3. The vote was along party lines, but the partisanship was only Republicans.

      I see the talking points have been distributed. Remember how Team Blue conducted the “investigation” in a fair and open manner, allowing Team Red equal say and ability to call/question witnesses so as to keep the process bipartisan? Me neither because it didn’t happen.

    4. “refuted the charges” – How is it the GOPs job to refute charges? Shouldn’t the Dems actually provide evidence, not just unsubstantiated hearsay?

      1. There was plenty of evidence that President Trump was engaged in an abuse of power. A number of fact witnesses as well as the time line that coincided with facts. As for the obstruction charges the fact are simple, the President pleaded the Fifth by not allowing his staff to testify. The Republicans are not obligated to provide a defense and they did not. They simple attacked people and process.

        1. Where in the Constitution does it say that foreign policy is to be set by a bunch of dumb fuck bureaucrats?

          1. “Where in the Constitution does it say that foreign policy is to be set by a bunch of dumb fuck bureaucrats?”

            You missed that penumbra?

            1. They’re penalcrats

              Robert’s has his schtick

      2. Democrats said it was a political affair, so now the US Senate and Americans voters get a say in this political affair.

        Trump will be reelected,the GOP will gain more seats in the US Senate, and the GOP will gain House seats in Election 2020 or Census 2020.

  21. Regardless of whether you agree with Gabbard’s stance, it’s quite refreshing to see a politician who is willing to go against her own party. The same goes for Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.), who left the Republican Party and voted for Trump’s impeachment because he puts his limited government principles before partisanship.

    But not Jeff Van Drew for some reason…..

    Tulsi took no stance.
    Justin did what his Democrat masters told him to do.

    And that was ‘courageous’.

    But the guy who told his party to screw itself DURING this farce, well let’s just ignore that.

    1. Amash even voted 100% on all amendments including amendments or riders that merely called out the partisan process by reprimanding Schiff. But Amash is totes dreamy.

      1. Goes to show that him getting pissed because he couldn’t get his way caused him to lose his mind and destroy years of a decent Congressional voting record of “Nay”.

    2. “Justin did what his Democrat masters told him to do.”

      He did more than that. He betrayed Libertarianism. Thanks to Justin, the libertarian moment will never come.

      1. Libertarian blue balls? Who knew?

  22. Congrats to her for opting out on the charade. I wonder if she will rise to the top after the democrats complete their meltdown here. Could be Gabbard vs Haley in 2024.

    1. This is the second debate she’s won by not participating.

  23. How could we know that this process was completely partisan without Tulsi’s courageous non-stance?

    Ask yourself what the Democrats would do if a Democrat had done it. Ask yourself what the Republicans would do if a Democrat had done it.

    Then realize that you already know.

    Because that’s what Joe Biden’s little video is all about. Democrat DID do this. Just a few years ago.

    And no one batted an eye.

    Because not only was there no crime–what was done is NORMAL DIPLOMACY.

    That’s what Trump was impeached over. Normal diplomacy done while Trump.

    1. “Because not only was there no crime–what was done is NORMAL DIPLOMACY.”

      The only similar case is Nixon in 1968 where as a candidate he ‘secretly’ met with South Vietnam and asked them to stall on Johnson’s peace initiatives, promising them better terms when he came to power.

      The difference is Trump is the president and used government money in a failed attempt to further his personal ambitions.

      Two criminal acts in 50 years hardly constitutes NORMAL DIPLOMACY.

  24. The vote to impeach Trump by the representatives of the American people was by the largest margin to ever vote for a presidential impeachment. That’s context you should take note of.

    1. With the exception of 3 votes wasn’t it also along party lines?

      If that is true then the margin is moot.

      1. The Republicans generally lost the swing districts in 2018 so it’s not surprising the Republicans left standing would be more beholden to the hard right.

    2. Poor pod doesn’t know that Clinton’s impeachment trial was 50-50 in the US Senate. Tie broken by Al “Global Warming” Gore.

      1. Not to support Pod, but Clinton’s perjury charge was defeated with 55 “not guilty” votes and 45 “guilty” votes. On the obstruction-of-justice article, the chamber was evenly split, 50-50.

  25. Imagine we lived in a parallel universe where the Senate would vote to remove the president before the end of his first term. But then he wins reflection. What then?

    1. That’s nothing. Dead people have been elected.

      1. Dead people tend to be better than living politicians at not fucking everything up

        1. Well, I do believe the example cited above was a Donk …

    2. then he could get elected to a third term and serve 11 years

  26. running to replace Pence as Trump’s vice president, voting “present” is exactly what she’d do.

    I want her at DOD or DOS.

  27. I wish she had a chance at making it. I would seriously consider voting for her. At this point, she seems like the only adult in the room.

  28. Call Girls in Chennai, Enjoy with a high profile escort service for female escort lovers in Chennai Available for Enjoyment, 24×7 Call Girls with real photos.

    http://www.chennai-escort.com

  29. If she pulls an Arlen Specter and votes “not proved” as a verdict, I’ll never…..no, still would.

  30. Remember guys, when she says “present” she means “no”

  31. Nice Article ,keep it up ,It is very helpful.Travel Captions |

  32. Good for her.

  33. Except there’s no silent majority of centrist Republicans. They’re only a vanishing breed, drummed out of the party as RINOS.

    Selfie captions

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.