It is understandable that of the four people who did not vote along party lines, Gabbard is the one who is most noticeable. She is a presidential candidate. She is the person who resigned her spot in the DNC and supported Bernie Sanders in 2016. She is the person who scolded Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg in the debates.
What is not understandable is how all the self-taught legal scholars on social media who have decided from her vote that she is a Russian asset never refer to her explanations. They only emphasize her vote, and they equate "present" to her not being interested. I have heard many reasons for the criticism, but none of them address the issues she says are at stake in the vote.
Some of these social media justice warriors have even openly said they hope the good people of Hawaii vote her out of office. That makes it noticeable that their knowledge of process is matched by their political awareness. She isn't running to be a representative in 2020; she is running to be president. It also shows just what great political strategists they would be by preferring to have a Republican replace her.
The people who are attacking Tulsi Gabbard over her vote seem to be people who decided long ago that Trump needed to be impeached. As society has polarized over "hot-button" issues, Tulsi Gabbard has been consistent in her messages that we made these messes together and we can solve them together.
She was against proceeding with impeachment after the Mueller report was released. "See," you may say, "she's a traitor to the party!" I would disagree. I would contend that she is an advocate for the people. Besides, she was correct.
The Mueller report was an investigation into Russian interference into the 2016 elections. The abuse of power charge in the impeachment proceedings is for withholding funds earmarked for Ukraine unless Ukraine agreed to investigate Biden's son. The Mueller report looked primarily at meetings between Trump campaign officials and known Russian assets for the purpose of interfering in the election. The article of impeachment centers around a phone call made fairly recently in which a quid pro quo was demanded in which aid was the quid.
I don't want to be a Democratic party killjoy, but that sounds a lot like getting investigated for illegal actions while serving on the board of a non-profit and getting impeached for lying about getting a blow job. Since I despise passive-aggressiveness, I don't want to act like people whose actions I consider unethical. I don't like Trump, but this was a fishing trip. They found some things they could move forward with, but they did not find Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Gabbard issued a statement explaining her position on the matter after the Mueller report. In part, she said, "Now we must stand together and move beyond this divisive issue that has taken up enough of the national conversation." She also used the statement to announce that she had submitted the Securing America's Election Act, part of which would require ballots to be cast on paper so election results can be scrutinized.
When the time came for a vote on the impeachment hearings in October, Gabbard seemed to reverse her position by voting in favor of them. This was huge in the eyes of the Democratic pole of the social media magnet, but it certainly repelled her from some of the support she had been garnering from conservatives. No one seemed to notice that she had not changed her mind on whether or not there had been Russian interference in the election. She said it was to get to the facts about some information through a process that the American people needed. She said as part of her statement, "the vote today was a vote for more transparency as this inquiry continues."
So, while she continued to publicly state her concern that this issue is really about a divided nation, she had fallen back into the good graces of those who are ready to lynch Trump as soon as it is legal and out of favor with the people who think it's okay for Trump to be corrupt because he's destroying America for free. She never wavered from her original positions. Only public opinion about her has wavered. That wavering of public opinion is because the public, for the most part, is less concerned about means than they are ends. Those who want Trump out don't want to wait until the next election. They don't care that she isn't wavering, and they also don't care that she has been both right and correct all along.
Apparently, in their excitement to count her in on impeachment, they didn't hear her say that her biggest concern about the impeachment process is that it would be conducted in partisan fashion to find anything rather than to investigate the president for a crime worthy of removal from office. When the hearings concluded, she said she believed that they had found evidence of abuse of power, but that she did not believe they met a standard that would warrant removal from office.
She was not in favor of acquitting the president of abuses she believes were uncovered. For that reason, she could not vote against the articles of impeachment. She also did not believe that the crimes rose to the level that would warrant impeachment, like helping the Russians interfere in the 2016 election, so she could not vote for the articles of impeachment. She voted "present," and explained her vote.
As is usual, people don't want to listen to her explanation. All they care about are the ends, which are partisan. People are comparing her vote of "present" to neutrality, despite that she has never been neutral on the topic of impeachment. She has remained steadfastly opposed to impeachment for partisan reasons. She hasn't wavered; only public opinion has wavered - again.
The tallies of the vote are further evidence of Tulsi Gabbard being both right and correct, again. No Republicans voted for impeachment. Two Democrats voted against it. Both Democrats who voted against it did so for political reasons, and not because they believed Trump was not guilty of the charges in the articles of impeachment. That is about as partisan as it can get.
If it moves forward, it will go to the Senate where 67 senators will need to find Trump guilty of the charges for him to be removed. They were unable to convince one Republican representative to vote to bring the charges, and now it will need 19 converts from the Republican party to meet the higher standards that trials have over hearings, or else Trump survives the process to finish his term.
That proves she is correct.
To combat that, the Democrats are considering not forwarding the articles of impeachment to the Senate where Mitch McConnell has already said the trial will not be conducted fairly. Nancy Pelosi has, for the time, stalled forwarding the articles. She can, if she desires, not ever forward them and continue to have hearings held until the 2020 election just to have them held over the president's head. Many of the part-time political strategists whose desire for ends warrant any means are applauding this approach and endorsing this strategy in social media land.
I guess they don't see that both that plan and Tulsi Gabbard's plan call for the 2020 election to determine whether or not Trump remains president. Perhaps they just don't care because this at least puts some burs under his butt. I challenge anyone to a debate on whether or not this is a partisan strategy with me claiming that it is.
Gabbard has cited forefathers who considered that impeachment could be abused for political reasons and, therefore, limited it to only be used when high crimes are committed. The high crimes that were investigated by Robert Mueller are not the crimes on which the abuse of power charge is based, and it is not even close to the same caliber of charges. If the strategy changes from one of removal to one of harassment, then the integrity of the impeachment is further weakened.
That proves she is right.
Some of the people in the party who are progressive have also criticized her vote. Even Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez issued a statement that implied that Gabbard had not taken a stand on the issue. Ocasio-Cortez, of course, was part of the overwhelming number of Democrats who voted in favor of impeaching the president. "We are sent here to lead," was her conclusion.
The party was united with members from both the establishment and progressive wings agreeing to impeach Trump. Tulsi did to the party again this year what she did to it in 2016 when she resigned her position on the national committee: she dared to defy them when they all voted for a united front. That progressives and establishment representatives from the Democrats agreed on the issue, and Republicans of all ilk disagreed, this was clearly a partisan issue.
That was what Tulsi Gabbard had publicly stated was her biggest concern when she voted to proceed with the hearings. She was not neutral. She was disappointed in her party, and she was also disappointed with the Republican party.
The Democrats from both wings of the party are not divided on this issue. They have brought charges for crimes that they say Trump committed. Tulsi agrees with them. The divide is not in the party.
The divide is in the nation. One side has Trump's grave already dug and is merely awaiting his corpse to be delivered through whatever means are necessary. The other side is ready to raise him from being essentially a cult leader to becoming a king.
Tulsi Gabbard's vote of "present" was not neutrality. It was her protest to the partisanship of the proceedings without voting that Trump is not guilty of abusing his power.
She explains that for anyone interested in light instead of shadows!
