Image 01 Image 03

Tulsi Gabbard: Voters Should Decide President Trump’s Political Fate, Not Congress (Updated)

Tulsi Gabbard: Voters Should Decide President Trump’s Political Fate, Not Congress (Updated)

“Most people reading through that transcript are not going to find that extremely compelling cause to throw out a president that won an election in 2016,” Gabbard said Wednesday.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is back and she’s got a lot to say.

Though the Hawaii Congresswoman didn’t qualify for the September Democratic presidential debate, she found out this week that her polling and campaign fundraising numbers for the month were good enough to put her back on the debate stage in October for the fourth round:

Gabbard got 2 percent support in a New Hampshire poll conducted by Monmouth University and released on Tuesday. The Hawaii congresswoman had previously gotten 2 percent in three other DNC-approved polls, and her campaign said she already racked up more than the 130,000 donors she needed to make the debate stage.

Gabbard will join Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, Tom Steyer, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Andrew Yang onstage in October.

In spite of the good news for her campaign, Gabbard hasn’t had much time to celebrate. There’s been a lot going on in DC this week in case you haven’t noticed, and she’s been busy giving interviews explaining why she’s against impeaching President Trump in spite of the fact that many of her Democratic Congressional colleagues have taken the opposite view.

In an interview she did with Fox News on Tuesday before the Trump/Zelensky call transcript came out, Gabbard told “Fox and Friends” co-host Brian Kilmeade that impeachment would be “terribly divisive for the country:”

Gabbard, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination in a crowded field, said on “Fox & Friends” that she has been consistent in saying that victory in the 2020 election, not impeachment, is the way for Democrats to make sure Trump leaves office.

“I believe that impeachment at this juncture would be terribly divisive for the country at a time when we are already extremely divided. The hyperpartisanship is one of the main things driving our country apart,” she told host Brian Kilmeade.

She went on to say that she was running for president because she believes “it is important to defeat Donald Trump,” but she thinks “it’s the American people who need to make their voices heard making that decision,” not Congress.

Watch her Fox News interview below:

Even the release of the phone call transcript didn’t change her mind. She told the HillTV Wednesday she didn’t find it “compelling” enough to rise to the level of warranting impeachment (transcribed):

HillTV: Has your mind changed on the issue of impeachment after that transcript has come out?

Rep. Gabbard: It hasn’t. I think when you step outside of the bubble here in Washington and you get to where most folks in the country are, look I’m not a lawyer but I think most people reading through that transcript are not going to find that extremely compelling cause to throw out a president that won an election in 2016.

And instead what I think most people will see is, ‘hey, this is another move by Democrats to get rid of Donald Trump’, further deepening the already hyperpartisan divides that we have in this country, and that’s really where I’m coming from.

Like most Democrats in the House, Gabbard doesn’t like Trump and wants him out of office. However, she’s not too far gone to understand that her party attempting to use impeachment as a tool to oust Trump is not the way the 2020 election should be decided:

Look, Donald Trump is corrupt — he is unfit to serve our country as president. He is unqualified to serve our country as commander-in-chief, I’m running for president to defeat him. I just think it’s so important for our country to be able to move forward to bridge these divides that it be the American people that make this decision.


Something Gabbard doesn’t mention, but which is nevertheless relevant to the discussion, is that polling on impeachment varies, with some showing most people are against it while others show the American people are divided:

Voters are split on whether House Democrats should immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump, according to a new American Barometer poll.

The survey, conducted by Hill.TV and the HarrisX polling company, found that 40 percent of registered voters polled said House Democrats should begin impeachment proceedings, while 41 percent said Democrats in the chamber should not begin the process.

Quinnipiac University polling, on the other hand, shows most voters do not want Trump impeached:

While more than half of voters disapprove of his job performance, only 37 percent of voters say that President Trump should be impeached and removed from office, while 57 percent say no, he should not be impeached.

Republicans were at 95% against impeachment and 4% for, but the Democrats have interesting numbers. 73% were in favor but 21% were against, indicating Democratic voters are not as united as people might think they are. 58% of independents polled did not favor impeachment.

It’s those types of numbers that have to be most concerning to the Democrats in those toss-up Congressional districts who have not yet gone on record with where they stand on impeachment. Not only that, but keep in mind that just because a majority of Democrats in the House support an impeachment inquiry, not all of those who have gone on record have indicated they support impeachment itself.

For those in purple districts, saying they support an inquiry is a way of them having the best of both worlds at this stage in the game: Showing Democratic voters in their districts that they care enough to investigate the allegations, but also showing Republican and independent voters in their districts that they haven’t leapfrogged automatically to impeachment.

A lot can happen between now and October 15th, which is when the next Democratic debate will take place. All candidates outside of Gabbard have either said they’re in favor of an impeachment inquiry or have outright called for Trump to be impeached as soon as possible.

It will be interesting to see Gabbard defend her position at the debate, especially if Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) attempts to get back at her for what happened at the one in July.


Rep. Gabbard reversed course on Friday afternoon, and issued a statement explaining why she was announcing her support for an impeachment inquiry:

“Up to this point, I have been opposed to pursuing impeachment because it will further divide our already badly divided country.

“However, after looking carefully at the transcript of the conversation with Ukraine’s President, the whistleblower complaint, the Inspector General memo, and President Trump’s comments about the issue, unfortunately, I believe that if we do not proceed with the inquiry, it will set a very dangerous precedent. Future presidents, as well as anyone in positions of power in the government, will conclude that they can abuse their position for personal gain, without fear of accountability or consequences.


“So it is unfortunate, but necessary, that I speak in support of the inquiry into the President’s alleged abuse of power in relation to his interactions with Ukraine’s leaders. This inquiry must be swift, thorough, and narrowly-focused. It cannot be turned into a long, protracted partisan circus that will further divide our country and undermine our democracy.”

It’s important to remember that in spite of her initial opposition to considering impeachment, Gabbard had said earlier in the week Congress still needed to do its oversight job reviewing all the evidence/documents. So even then she was supportive of an investigation. However, her position has now, ahem, evolved to being on board with Congress actually moving forward with a formal impeachment inquiry.

Weird. Wonder who got to her.

— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Look, Donald Trump is corrupt — he is unfit to serve our country as president.

Sounds like she doesn’t really believe that the voters should decide who’s fit for the office, else she wouldn’t wallow in propagandistic swill of this sort.

It does, however, set her apart from the miasma of D’rat candidate wannabees—they’re all joining in the magic incantation of “Impeach” and she is not. She certainly needs something to differentiate her, and maybe this is it.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to tom_swift. | September 27, 2019 at 11:34 am

    Gabbard is as Big a Liar as Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren her heros.

    The DEMS are running ex-military Leftist-Radicals as moderates, to SCAM We the People.

    heyjoojoo in reply to tom_swift. | September 27, 2019 at 1:31 pm

    this is why I keep telling people to stop falling in love this woman. She has a D next to her name for a reason. She ultimately does not share my political views.

    Democrat Tulsi Gabbard changes mind; now supports impeachment inquiry in a change of course

    USA TODAY Published 1:43 p.m. ET Sept. 27, 2019 — Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, has changed course on her opinion of the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump. Up until Friday, Gabbard was one of the few House Democrats to oppose her caucus’ move to begin a formal impeachment inquiry…

    In a statement, Gabbard said that she has changed her mind after reviewing the latest developments in the Ukraine story…

    “Unfortunately, I believe that if we do not proceed with the inquiry, it will set a very dangerous precedent,” Gabbard said Friday. “Future presidents, as well as anyone in positions of power in the government, will conclude that they can abuse their position for personal gain, without fear of accountability or consequences.” . . .

      Halcyon Daze in reply to FlatFoot. | September 27, 2019 at 6:05 pm

      Someone has leaned on her pretty hard.

      tom_swift in reply to FlatFoot. | September 27, 2019 at 7:35 pm

      “Unfortunately, I believe that if we do not proceed with the inquiry, it will set a very dangerous precedent”

      Only if the impeachment is successful. When it fails, the opposite precedent will be set, just like Presidential perjury now officially being OK, as determined by Billy Jeff’s impeachment.

The pre-selected globalist candidate who has been sheltered from having to participate in the clown shows and pander to the lunatic base is about to burst forth from the shadows as the candidate who took on the crazies in the Dem establishment and won. Except she is the globalist candidate.

The lunatics of the Dem base have now been sufficiently fleeced of their support for the crazies and now Gabby will ride in as the voice of sanity.

Oh and look, she will likely be “given” a 50 million dollar war chest by Google, who conveniently also sheltered her until her upcoming splash debut.

You can now expect the flurry of trolls to come forth to sing her praises.

I gotta give the Dems credit. They play this game sooooo much better than the GOP. I hope Trump is ready for this.

    artichoke in reply to elle. | September 27, 2019 at 4:34 pm

    You see it the same as I do, except I thought the Fox interview was a clueless blunder, not knowing who her bosses were at a time of confusion and dislocation.

    I think Biden is done, and they had really planned to run Biden until the Ukraine stuff came out. Warren now expects to be anointed and has no history of being a team player, so I expect she’d fight hard against anointing Gabbard. Also Sanders still has personal ambitions.

    I’d be interested in your views on these observations.

It’s been reported that every House Democrat went on record officially for impeachment earlier this week by voting in favor of the impeachment inquisition resolution. Did she or didn’t she? I trust Gabbard about as much as I trust Romney. Let’s not get carried away here. Is it that easy to lead us by the nose?

Best qualification she has is her looks. Probably the toughest one of the bunch to go against Trump. She is pretty unstable in her political positions, but they will blow that off. Media will make sure you do not see that.

    artichoke in reply to MarkSmith. | September 28, 2019 at 4:50 pm

    Tall female, offwhite, attractive, served in military. She doesn’t know anything and still tends to walk all questions back to her military service and we’ve got to bring the troops home. Certainly no leadership experience on the world stage like Trump has had really his whole life.

    Other world leaders would eat her for lunch, but she probably just wants to go along with them anyway.

It’s amazing to me how this woman, whose policies are completely insane, consistently sounds more reasonable than candidates whose campaigns actually have a prayer of getting the nomination.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to irv. | September 27, 2019 at 11:38 am

    She’s just hiding her real beliefs, and hasn’t been grilled in the public area – yet.

    healthguyfsu in reply to irv. | September 27, 2019 at 2:52 pm

    see my comment below…the comment above me is spot on.

    Don’t trust a politician out of the Hawaii cabal. This is nothing but a chess move.

    irv in reply to irv. | September 27, 2019 at 7:13 pm

    And now I see a report that she’s changed her mind. So much for the “consistency” bit.

    Still, there are times when this woman seems almost like she has a brain in her head. It’s weird!

      artichoke in reply to irv. | September 28, 2019 at 4:53 pm

      She was ordered back into line. Every other Dem knew that was no moment to step out of line. Gabbard was so proud she decided to be an independent voice.

      I was like that too, but it ended by my early 20’s. But I wasn’t a hot female with especially guys looking to support her in everything she says.

“Look, Donald Trump is corrupt — he is unfit to serve our country as president.”

Corrupt? Prove it.
Unfit? The economy, defense, security and reputation of this nation say otherwise.

The effort to cancel him has been in progress for 12 trimesters since inauguration and longer since declaration. While they haven’t found a plausible politically congruent construct (e.g. “=”) yet, he’s been labeled and judged a burden, and they persist and hope on a forward-looking basis to deem him nonviable.

So, what were her opinions of the last great hope of a president? Was she not alive while Obama was president? Does/did she have an opinion on Cruella de Clinton? It’ll be Warren’s turn in Tulsi’s sights at the next “debate” since she already disemboweled Harris and Biden in about to implode and withdraw from the race for health and family reasons.

    I don’t think she’s got the latitude to do that any more. She may have been tasked to take out Harris because she was deemed unelectable and had eligibility issues. She seemed friendly to Biden.

    Now Biden is probably out with the Ukraine thing, so the Dems have to anoint someone else. It won’t be Gabbard esp. not after she came out against the impeachment they were all pushing. It could be Warren, after all who else have they got?

    I was thinking they could try a Gabbard – O’Rourke ticket, two photogenic lefties, and O’Rourke is pretty smart too, but Gabbard ruined that for herself. I don’t honestly think she’s very bright.

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to artichoke. | September 27, 2019 at 6:46 pm

      The DEMS Surprise “Dark Horse” will be……
      HILLARY fresh back from Hell!

      “As Biden falters, Hillary attacks Trump and positions herself to enter presidential race – By Thomas Lifson, September 27, 2019

      “Her choice of the word “tornado” is a poker tell — resonant for those old enough to remember how her former business partner Jim McDougal served as her fall guy for the Whitewater affair, a real estate development scheme that failed amid crime and scandal. McDougal died in prison at the age of 58, convicted of fraud by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr after the collapse of Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan in Arkansas, the lender he ran that financed the Whitewater real estate scam that the Clintons hoped would earn them their first fortune. Before his death, McDougal ruefully observed about his and his wife Susan’s imprisonment, as well as the other people whose futures were sacrificed while the Clintons remained above the law:

      “I think the Clintons are really sort of like tornadoes moving through people’s lives,” he once said. “I’m just one of the people left in the wake of their passing by.”

      Biden probably doesn’t realize that he is being set up as a fall guy just like McDougal. The prima facie corruption of his totally unqualified son receiving six hundred grand a year from a Ukrainian oligarch while Biden was the point man on Ukraine for Barack Obama will be the shiny object for the counter-attack on the current Democrat impeachment frenzy. Meanwhile, the larger picture of Ukrainian corruption’s role on the 2016 election will fall by the wayside:…”

      Read more:
      Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

        I think she’ll try, but according to Trump’s record of the discussion with Zelezny, he also brought up general issues of Crowdstrike and the server, which would likely lead back to Hillary too. After all they worked together in the last election.

        Hillary often goes public when she’s angry or threatened. I think the opening to Ukraine (which the Dems haven’t shown any way to obstruct) threatens her too. Perhaps she had been staying prepared in case Biden faltered for some other reason.

        It’s hard to believe the Dems could find a way to close off the Ukraine story with precision, to take out Biden while leaving Hillary untouched.

ugottabekiddinme | September 27, 2019 at 12:21 pm

What a hypocrite. Gabbard voted with all the other Dems in the House to defeat the very resolution to disapprove Pelosi’s move for ai faux impeachment wthout a full House vote.

Reminds me of Groucho: “Those are my principles. You don’t like’em? I got others.”

The Botox leader of the House stated that impeachment hearings will be deliberate, meaning drawn out. Needing 60 votes in the Senate, means the President will not be removed. The process will be used as a campaign tool to elect Dems/Progs. Fundraising will also be a priority.

    Dr S in reply to Romey. | September 28, 2019 at 3:17 pm

    2/3 supermajority in senate = 67 votes for presidential removal.

    artichoke in reply to Romey. | September 28, 2019 at 5:16 pm

    The plan must be to drag it thru the election or vote articles shortly before the election, so the next Senate would try them, and hope to pick up some Senate seats and get 51, then they can set the rules for the “trial” to their advantage.

she just flipped flopped her decision regarding an inquiry, just joining the herd, she lost her courage and those looking for an alternate candidate in the left

    healthguyfsu in reply to buck61. | September 27, 2019 at 2:51 pm

    She never flip flopped.

    She made an appearance that sounds bipartisan on Fox news to try and garner more support from the middle then walked it back in an avenue that was more likely to be heard by other Democrats.

    Obama pulled the EXACT SAME TACTICS in his preliminary days of running for POTUS (For example, he sounded quite bipartisan on O’Reilly during the waning W years). This is an old trick in the playbook at this point and more people need to see through it.

      artichoke in reply to healthguyfsu. | September 27, 2019 at 4:16 pm

      Aren’t the statements logically contradictory? First “don’t impeach” then “impeach”. Granted told to different audiences. But I suspect the main thing is that she heard from the party authorities that her political career, and maybe she herself, would be six feet under if she didn’t get back in line.

      Can’t have a Dem trying to be a hero at the expense of all the senior party heirarchy!

        Milhouse in reply to artichoke. | September 29, 2019 at 8:14 am

        No, they’re not contradictory. Her latest statement says that she’s still against impeachment, but there has to be an inquiry lest future presidents think they can get away with anything. But she says the inquiry should be quick and narrow, focused only on this one allegation and nothing else.

Well I see that brave Tulsi Gabbard lasted about a day but is back walking the Dem party line, spouting impeachment. Just another puppet with her own style.

Looks like she need to add a yellow streak to match that vanity grey streak she has in her hair…. Moderate my ass. A Dumocrat is a Dumocrat is a Dumocrat. They’ll all fall in line with the leadership of that failed party.

All we need to know about Gabbard is her political affiliation. She’ll destroy our way of life no less than any crazy democrat, only she’ll do it slower.

There will probably be an impeachment. The Senate may actually find him guilty. It’s full of swamp creatures cucks and crooks.

That doesn’t change the fact that Americans are sick of the swamp and want real change. The swamp should recognize that Trump is as much of a centrist they will find who is not bought and paid for. They should cooperate, they’ll get everything they want just slower.