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

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

[–] • 1 pt

I'm not at all impressed with her handling of this issue. Tulsi has said and done some things I can applaud, and there are things I question about her, and things I disagree with her on. This is one of the things that gives me a negative impression of her, and calls her character into question.

This is what her vote was about:

Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

She has stated that she believes Trump to be guilty, yet that he should not be held accountable, or even brought to trial. This is not the decision of someone acting on principle. If she does not believe Trump to be threat to the constitution and national security, and that his conduct does not warrant a trial, she should make that clear and vote no. She should not belittle her office by using it to play games and make insincere attacks on rivals of her party. I don't care about her personal feelings about Trump. She can despise him. She can criticize his behavior as she sees fit, she can call his actions reprehensible and explain why. She is entitled to disagree with her fellow Americans who support Trump. But when it comes to executing her duties in an official capacity, she has responsibilities. Is Trump a threat to the Constitution and national security? is a trial warranted by his actions? It is an abuse of power to assert through an official act of government that someone has committed criminal offenses, without taking them to trial to ensure the legitimacy of the accusations.

If she does believe what she said, that's even worse. Whatever she really thinks, she has stated that she will not defend the constitution if it means getting her hands dirty. She will look the other way when it's inconvenient to oppose crimes and threats to our nation. She will not defend the people of this country against corruption and stand up for principle when it's too unpopular.

I'm not at all impressed with her handling of this issue. Tulsi has said and done some things I can applaud, and there are things I question about her, and things I disagree with her on. This is one of the things that gives me a negative impression of her, and calls her character into question. This is what her vote was about: >Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. She has stated that she believes Trump to be guilty, yet that he should not be held accountable, or even brought to trial. This is not the decision of someone acting on principle. If she does not believe Trump to be threat to the constitution and national security, and that his conduct does not warrant a trial, she should make that clear and vote no. She should not belittle her office by using it to play games and make insincere attacks on rivals of her party. I don't care about her personal feelings about Trump. She can despise him. She can criticize his behavior as she sees fit, she can call his actions reprehensible and explain why. She is entitled to disagree with her fellow Americans who support Trump. But when it comes to executing her duties in an official capacity, she has responsibilities. Is Trump a threat to the Constitution and national security? is a trial warranted by his actions? It is an abuse of power to assert through an official act of government that someone has committed criminal offenses, without taking them to trial to ensure the legitimacy of the accusations. If she does believe what she said, that's even worse. Whatever she really thinks, she has stated that she will not defend the constitution if it means getting her hands dirty. She will look the other way when it's inconvenient to oppose crimes and threats to our nation. She will not defend the people of this country against corruption and stand up for principle when it's too unpopular.

link