AOC echoes chorus of angry libs over Gabbard’s lone ‘present’ vote: ‘We were sent here to lead’

Late Wednesday evening, Democrat presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard became one of only three House Democrats to not vote “yes” on impeaching President Donald Trump.

(Photo by ALEX EDELMAN/AFP via Getty Images)

But instead of voting against the impeachment like Reps. Collin Peterson and soon-to-be-Republican Jeff Van Drew, Gabbard voted “present.”

In a video statement posted to Twitter after the vote, she explained why.


“Throughout my life, whether through serving in the military or in Congress, I’ve always worked to do what is in the best interests of our country, not what’s best for me politically or what’s best for my political party,” she said.

“I have always put our country first. One may not always agree with my decision, but everyone should know that I will always do what I believe to be right for the country that I love.”

And after reviewing the Democrats’ “woefully inadequate” case against Trump, as famed legal scholar Jonathan Turley put it earlier this month, she concluded that voting either “yes” or “no” on impeachment would be a disservice to her constituents.

“I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing,” she said.

I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.”

The impeachment vote itself was highly partisan, with zero Republicans joining Democrats to vote against the president — but two Democrats, Peterson and Van Drew, joining Republicans to vote with them.

In fact, one Republican didn’t just vote “No” — he voted “Hell No!”

Granted, Gabbard disagrees with the president’s assertion that his controversial call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was “perfect” and doesn’t support Republicans’ “blind” willingness to accept this narrative.

But, she cautioned, the imperfection of Trump’s call didn’t warrant such “extreme” rhetoric and actions from her colleagues.

The president’s opponents insist that if we do not impeach, our country will collapse into dictatorship,” she said. “All but explicitly, they accuse him of treason. Such extreme rhetoric was never conducive to an impartial fact-finding process.

Indeed. It’s conducive only to rank partisanship — the very sort of rank partisanship, she added, that the Founding Fathers had warned about.

“In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton warned against any impeachment that would merely ‘connect itself with the pre-existing factions’ and ‘enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other,'” she explained.

“In such cases, he said, ‘there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.'”

And so given how her colleagues have subverted a constitutional process to advance their own clear-cut agenda, she felt it prudent that, one, she vote “present” on impeachment, and two, she attempts to counter impeachment with something more sensible.

“To this end, I have introduced a censure resolution that will send a strong message to this president and future presidents that their abuses of power will not go unchecked while leaving the question of removing Trump from office to the voters to decide,” she said.

That she did:

“A house divided cannot stand. And today we are divided,” her statement concluded. “Fragmentation and polarity are ripping our country apart. This breaks my heart, and breaks the hearts of all patriotic Americans, whether we are Democrats, Republicans, or Independents.”

“So today, I come before you to make a stand for the center, to appeal to all of you to bridge our differences and stand up for the American people.”

Alas, it appears her efforts failed.

In response to her “present vote,” numerous far-left activists and allegedly objective, non-biased media “analysts” and “correspondents” rushed to impugn her character, accuse her of being Russian President Vladimir Putin’s paid stooge and more.

Look (*Language warning):

Joining the critics was fellow House Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

“Today was very consequential. And to not take a stand one way or another in a day of such grave consequence to this country is quite difficult. We’re sent here to lead,” she reportedly said.

Sure, and here is video footage of Democrats “leading” …:


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
Vivek Saxena


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

PLEASE JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and great conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-input your email address for this. The public will not see it and we do not share it.

Latest Articles