Author Topic: Impeachment Hearings  (Read 40291 times)

MaddogLutheran

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3289
  • It's my fantasy football avatar...
    • View Profile
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #420 on: December 19, 2019, 03:10:43 PM »
For what it's worth, I am troubled -- deeply troubled -- by what the president did on that phone call.  I think it is unseemly, I think it lowers our standing in the world, and I think it makes him look foolish.  I wish he hadn't done it.  I hope he never does it again.

The fact that I don't think we should impeach presidents for being stupid doesn't mean I like this one.  Bill Clinton committed the actual crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice.  Literally nobody seriously disputes that.  We didn't remove him because he committed them to try to cover up an affair with a low-level staffer, and this was before Democrats weaponized #MeToo and back when abusing your unpaid interns for sexual favors was considered just your own personal, private business and not some plot on the intersectionality grid that could be exploited to harm other people while making yourself look like a hero.  We know this because every Democrat at the time said so, and because Republicans did not even think of the affair itself as Clinton abusing his intern, but rather they thought his infidelity to his wife was sufficient to sway the country against him.  In other words, they tried to impeach him because he lied about adultery, not because he abused his office to get oral sex from a 22-23 year old intern.

But that was then, and this is now.  That was not impeachable, and Republicans were punished for impeaching him.  Now, in the #MeToo era, that would be horrible (if only we could go back and do the right thing *wipes tear*), but this is much, much worse.  This abuse of office, this asking Ukraine to look into an actual scandal which Democrats do not in any way want anyone to look into, absent any express quid pro quo, absent the Ukranian president feeling pressured, absent any of that, THIS is the Worst Thing Ever (TM).

No.  Just no.  It's bad.  It makes the president look bad.  He's a clown.  But he's an elected clown, and if you want to use this to change that, there is an election less than a year from now.  Instead, Democrats are using it as the most baseless grounds for impeachment, and they are going to pay the price for it.

Because if you can count on Democrats doing anything ever in this country, it's snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
If I were going to post anything today, I would have written almost exactly this and your preceding response to Pastor Austin.  Thanks for saving me the bother.  Though I fully expect Pastor Austin to be bothered by your dredging up the past again.  The feigned indignation at comparing current events to the recent past, pretending they have no relevance, is beyond tedious.

Sterling Spatz
« Last Edit: December 19, 2019, 03:17:30 PM by MaddogLutheran »
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10939
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #421 on: December 19, 2019, 03:16:15 PM »
Pastor Culler:
Despite their best attempts the Dems have been unable to show that anything Trump has done (no matter how unseemly) is actually against the law.
Me:
But remember, the reminder for the 10th time, that you do not need to break statutory law in order to be impeached.
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. First call in Dubuque. Former LWF and LCA staff.  Attending online worship at the National Cathedral, or a local church (Occasionally)

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10915
    • View Profile
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #422 on: December 19, 2019, 03:31:55 PM »
Somehow this exchange ended up on the abortion thread.
Pastor Fienen:
asing their control in Congress after the 2016 election. They were entitled and Trump, uncouth loudmouth that he is horned into their territory and upset their plans.
Me:
And subsequently was found to have violated his oath of office.

The Senate has not ruled on that and as in the case of the impeachment of Bill Clinton it is the Senate who makes that determination, as you so ably reminded us:


Pastor Engebretson writes:
For the moment, if we allow that the accusations against Trump amount to "high crimes and misdemeanors," then why, in the end, was Bill Clinton not removed from office?
I comment:
Duh! Because the senate did not vote to do so.
Furthermore, all charges are not of equal weight. Personal sexual misconduct is different from bringing a foreign government into our political electoral system.

Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 40393
  • ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν ὃτι αὐτὸς πρῶτος ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς
    • View Profile
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #423 on: December 19, 2019, 03:41:24 PM »

Because she doesn't want a trial in the Senate, to wit.....

Quote
Of course Biden and Bloomberg would not be affected by a trial. They would be completely free to campaign without the distraction of duties in Washington.  One wonders what Democratic strategist's are thinking at this point.

Biden would be drastically affected.  He might even be a witness.  Certainly his son will be.


She wants an actual, fair trial - one where witnesses who she couldn't get to testify will testify either to support the president's innocence or confirm what most witnesses so far strongly suspect.


(If only we had tapes of private conversations of the president and key advisors.)

One could debate whether the process was entirely "fair" in the House, given its political one-sidedness there.

That said, would you support having the Biden's testify under oath about their involvement in Ukraine?


Yes, as well as the president's advisors.


While not completely true, there was a meme that indicated that everyone who testified that the president misused his power did so under oath. Those who state that he did not were talking to reporters.
Brian Stoffregen
“In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.” ― Albert Einstein

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10915
    • View Profile
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #424 on: December 19, 2019, 03:54:02 PM »
From the Abortion Thread:
Pastor Fienen:
asing their control in Congress after the 2016 election. They were entitled and Trump, uncouth loudmouth that he is horned into their territory and upset their plans.
Me:
And subsequently was found to have violated his oath of office.

The Senate has not ruled on that and as in the case of the impeachment of Bill Clinton it is the Senate who makes that determination, as you so ably reminded us:


I'm pretty sure that the House has impeached the president for violating his oath of office. The Senate will decide if he should be removed from his office.

An impeachment is like an indictment, it is an accusation of wrong doing. Whether or not the specified wrong doing was actually committed by the person charged is left for others, in this case the Senate, to determine. I was responding specifically to what Pr. Austin said: "And was subsequently found to have violated his oath of office." More accurately, he was accused of having violated his oath of office. The finding of whether or not the charge has merit to be acted upon (in this case removal from office) is for the Senate to do.

« Last Edit: December 19, 2019, 03:59:54 PM by Dan Fienen »
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Pr. Terry Culler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1996
    • View Profile
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #425 on: December 19, 2019, 07:47:26 PM »
Pastor Culler:
Despite their best attempts the Dems have been unable to show that anything Trump has done (no matter how unseemly) is actually against the law.
Me:
But remember, the reminder for the 10th time, that you do not need to break statutory law in order to be impeached.

That may or may not be true per the Constitution which speaks of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.  Bill Clinton actually did commit a crime and while he wasn't removed from office he lost his license to practice law because of his actions.  But if a president can be impeached for being an idiot or unlikeable, so can a president be impeached for being too much an advocate of the policies of the Democratic party.  If I were a liberal today I would be praying that the Senate dispatch this monstrosity quickly so the next Democrat president doesn't have to spend his or her whole term looking over the shoulder. 
Goodnewsforabadworld.wordpress.com

J.L. Precup

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
    • View Profile
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #426 on: December 19, 2019, 10:47:13 PM »
Christianity Today has a rather clear take on the impeachment

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html

A small excerpt:

"But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.

The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused." 
--Mark Galli is editor in chief of Christianity Today
Keep watch, dear Lord, with those who work, or watch, or weep this night, and give your angels charge over those who sleep. Tend the sick, Lord Christ; give rest to the weary, bless the dying, soothe the suffering, pity the afflicted, shield the joyous; and all for your love's sake. Amen.

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10939
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #427 on: December 19, 2019, 11:07:25 PM »
Gotta watch out for Christianity Today. One of those progressive, liberal rags, right?  ::) 
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. First call in Dubuque. Former LWF and LCA staff.  Attending online worship at the National Cathedral, or a local church (Occasionally)

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 6537
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #428 on: December 20, 2019, 08:09:05 AM »
Pastor Culler:
Despite their best attempts the Dems have been unable to show that anything Trump has done (no matter how unseemly) is actually against the law.
Me:
But remember, the reminder for the 10th time, that you do not need to break statutory law in order to be impeached.

Indeed.  You apparently need not do much at all to be impeached.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

Linda

  • Guest
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #429 on: December 20, 2019, 08:34:13 AM »
From Rev. Franklin Graham:

My Response to Christianity Today’s Call for President Donald Trump’s removal from office:

Christianity Today released an editorial stating that President Trump should be removed from office—and they invoked my father’s name (I suppose to try to bring legitimacy to their statements), so I feel it is important for me to respond. Yes, my father Billy Graham founded Christianity Today; but no, he would not agree with their opinion piece. In fact, he would be very disappointed. I have not previously shared who my father voted for in the past election, but because of this article, I feel it is necessary to share it now. My father knew Donald Trump, he believed in Donald Trump, and he voted for Donald Trump. He believed that Donald J. Trump was the man for this hour in history for our nation.

For Christianity Today to side with the Democrat Party in a totally partisan attack on the President of the United States is unfathomable. Christianity Today failed to acknowledge that not one single Republican voted with the Democrats to impeach the President. I know a number of Republicans in Congress, and many of them are strong Christians. If the President were guilty of what the Democrats claimed, these Republicans would have joined with the Democrats to impeach him. But the Democrats were not even unanimous—two voted against impeachment and one voted present. This impeachment was politically motivated, 100% partisan. Why would Christianity Today choose to take the side of the Democrat left whose only goal is to discredit and smear the name of a sitting president? They want readers to believe the Democrat leadership rather than believe the President of the United States.

Look at all the President has accomplished in a very short time. The economy of our nation is the strongest it has been in 50 years, ISIS & the caliphate have been defeated, and the President has renegotiated trade deals to benefit all Americans. The list of accomplishments is long, but for me as a Christian, the fact that he is the most pro-life president in modern history is extremely important—and Christianity Today wants us to ignore that, to say it doesn’t count? The President has been a staunch defender of religious freedom at home and around the world—and Christianity Today wants us to ignore that? Also the President has appointed conservative judges in record number—and Christianity today wants us to ignore that? Christianity Today feels he should be removed from office because of false accusations that the President emphatically denies.

Christianity Today said it’s time to call a spade a spade. The spade is this—Christianity Today has been used by the left for their political agenda. It’s obvious that Christianity Today has moved to the left and is representing the elitist liberal wing of evangelicalism.

Is President Trump guilty of sin? Of course he is, as were all past presidents and as each one of us are, including myself. Therefore, let’s pray for the President as he continues to lead the affairs of our nation.


Linda
« Last Edit: December 20, 2019, 08:38:40 AM by Linda »

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10939
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #430 on: December 20, 2019, 09:06:25 AM »
Dr. Graham, the elder, in his last autobiography, apologized for his "closeness" to American presidents and said he was naïve and misguided about his relationship with them. He never endorsed politicians, nor did he endorse party politics. I was at a dinner table with him and Jerry Falwell back in the days of the moral majority and Dr. Graham was extremely critical of Falwell's foray into the political arena.
I think he would not approve of his son's slavish support of this (or any) president.
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. First call in Dubuque. Former LWF and LCA staff.  Attending online worship at the National Cathedral, or a local church (Occasionally)

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 6537
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #431 on: December 20, 2019, 09:11:45 AM »
Dr. Graham, the elder, in his last autobiography, apologized for his "closeness" to American presidents and said he was naïve and misguided about his relationship with them. He never endorsed politicians, nor did he endorse party politics. I was at a dinner table with him and Jerry Falwell back in the days of the moral majority and Dr. Graham was extremely critical of Falwell's foray into the political arena.
I think he would not approve of his son's slavish support of this (or any) president.

First, I honestly think a huge problem with our political discourse is we let others do our thinking for us, and we quote mine for things that support our already pre-existent views instead of trying to form those views honestly.  That is true whether we are quoting Christianity Today to "prove" a point or Franklin Graham.

But second, if we're going to quote those sources uncritically and pretend they hold some moral superiority to the independently derived views of others, let me suggest I will take the word of Billy Graham's son over a random liberal on the internet as to what he did and believed.  Suggesting Franklin Graham is lying about his dead father is an arrogance that only you could muster.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10939
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #432 on: December 20, 2019, 09:24:08 AM »
Well, Mr. Garner, you can conveniently dismiss me as a "random liberal" if you wish; but it was a momentous night, some fascinating conversation and my after-dinner notes still exist. Or we could check with a couple of other reporters - Chicago Tribune, LA Times, and two or three others, I think - who were at that table and see how they remember the Graham-Falwell conversation.
Or go to Dr. Graham's "Just As I Am" autobiography. I no longer have a copy or I could give you the pages to read.
I don't suggest that the younger graham is lying about his father. I do firmly believe using that unknown and unprovable fact politically would not be pleasing to his father.
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. First call in Dubuque. Former LWF and LCA staff.  Attending online worship at the National Cathedral, or a local church (Occasionally)

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 14687
    • View Profile
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #433 on: December 20, 2019, 09:28:03 AM »
Christianity Today has a rather clear take on the impeachment

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html

A small excerpt:

"But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.

The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused." 
--Mark Galli is editor in chief of Christianity Today
This article illustrates the wider political problem we have. By describing the Democrats’ talking points as purely factual and unambiguous, the authors leave no possible explanation for the opinions and motives of half the nation, at least not one that is at all plausible, much less charitable. No wonder people who accept articles like this at face value are so apoplectic much of the time. In their minds, almost half of the House and more than half of the Senate, plus about half the populace, are either too stupid to see what is unambiguous or else just comfortable with dangerous criminality.

You might say that criticism cuts both ways, but in this case it doesn’t. I can oppose impeachment on the grounds that it is all politics as usual. It is all about the parties jockeying for power like they always do. Not pretty, to be sure, but understandable. I don’t have to accuse half the nation of being stupid or evil to explain things in this way. And if it is all just jockeying for power (which it is) then I oppose impeachment for two reasons. Most obviously, because I want my side to win the jockeying game, but also because it is too great an escalation of that game. The precedent does far more harm than any possible harm caused by Trump’s phone call (worst case scenario: some other country does a needless investigation). So impeachment is an understandable but reckless political act. Impeachment escalates a shouting match into a fistfight. Not impeaching leaves it at the level of an ugly shouting match where it belongs.

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 6537
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #434 on: December 20, 2019, 09:36:02 AM »
Well, Mr. Garner, you can conveniently dismiss me as a "random liberal" if you wish; but it was a momentous night, some fascinating conversation and my after-dinner notes still exist. Or we could check with a couple of other reporters - Chicago Tribune, LA Times, and two or three others, I think - who were at that table and see how they remember the Graham-Falwell conversation.
Or go to Dr. Graham's "Just As I Am" autobiography. I no longer have a copy or I could give you the pages to read.
I don't suggest that the younger graham is lying about his father. I do firmly believe using that unknown and unprovable fact politically would not be pleasing to his father.

You're so right.  Franklin Graham was just his son.

I mean, you had DINNER with him!  And read a book too!
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).