Author Topic: Impeachment Hearings  (Read 123890 times)

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13579
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #900 on: February 05, 2020, 06:43:20 PM »
Romney  :)  :)  :)
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Back home from Sioux City after three days and a pleasant reunion of the East High School class of - can you believe it! - 1959.

J. Thomas Shelley

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4000
    • View Profile
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #901 on: February 05, 2020, 06:59:48 PM »
Romney  :)  :)  :)

Romney revealed himself as a classic Mugwump.

Vote in favor of Article 1
Vote against Article 2

He can forever claim to have been in favor of conviction before he was against it....
Greek Orthodox-Ecumenical Patriarchate

Baptized, Confirmed, and Ordained United Methodist.
Served as a Lutheran Pastor October 31, 1989 - October 31, 2014.
Charter member of the first chapter of the Society of the Holy Trinity.

Chrismated Antiochian Orthodox, eve of Mary of Egypt Sunday, A.D. 2015

MaddogLutheran

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3490
  • It's my fantasy football avatar...
    • View Profile
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #902 on: February 05, 2020, 08:11:22 PM »
The whole matter will not go away, Pastor Cottingham, despite your wish.

Moveon.org
...amirite? Ironic that today they are beating the drums for this failed impeachment even harder. ::)

All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

MaddogLutheran

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3490
  • It's my fantasy football avatar...
    • View Profile
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #903 on: February 05, 2020, 08:16:02 PM »
Romney  :)  :)  :)
Yeah, can you believe the guy lacked the integrity to vote for BOTH impeachment articles, unlike all the Democrats?  Certainly not someone to be celebrated.  After all, in 2012 the guy named the nation which interfered with our 2016 election as our number one geopolitical enemy, contra his debate opponent who mocked him for it.  For whom exactly did you cast your presidential ballot in 2012? I know which one I voted for.  :o
« Last Edit: February 05, 2020, 10:00:29 PM by MaddogLutheran »
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

D. Engebretson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
    • View Profile
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #904 on: February 05, 2020, 09:30:22 PM »
One might call the Republicans cowards, and that is putting the worst construction on it, assuming they did not act with any integrity.  Whether one agrees with them or not, one might see their action as one of genuine conviction that whatever the president was accused of doing it simply did not justify removing him from office. But some will not be willing to assume a higher motive. Cowardice is the only acceptable conclusion.   

I think that Pelosi's act of publicly tearing up Trump's State of the Union speech speaks volumes of where the decorum of the Democrats has gone.  If we are reduced to such childish stunts, then why should we accord her any more respect than she is unwilling to accord the President of the United States?
 
Pastor Don Engebretson
St. Peter Lutheran Church of Polar (Antigo) WI

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12583
    • View Profile
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #905 on: February 05, 2020, 10:04:52 PM »

When Pres. Clinton was impeached it was given to the Senate to judge whether what he was accused and found to have done warranted removal from office. This they did, acquitting him. It should be noted that they did not determine that he was innocent. Eventually he was disbarred for his actions. Just that he had not done something for which he should be removed from office. It was up to the Senate and no one else to make that determination. It was also up to the Senate and no one else to determine how they would make that determination.


Once again the question, remove or not to remove, was given to the Senate and they have rendered their judgment. It does not necessarily say that Pres. Trump did nothing wrong, even though Trump may claim that. As several Republican Senators said, Pres. Trump's actions were wrong but did not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors specified by the Constitution. Much as it was widely accepted after the Clinton impeachment that Pres. Clinton had even broken the law, but his wrong doing, in the judgment of the Senate, did not rise to the level of a removeable offense.


Politicians and partisans will, as politicians and partisans wont, spin this to mean what they want it to mean. Trump will claim exoneration, Democrats will claim that the Republicans were cowards and did not fulfill their duty to do what the Democrats wanted. Business as usual. In my opinion, the whole case was botched from the beginning by the Democrats.


The House did not do all that they could have to make their case. They could have subpoenaed the witnesses that they wanted the Senate to subpoena, and gone to court to enforce their subpoenas. The excuse that they did not have enough time to do so falls in the face of the weeks of delay from the passage of the articles of impeachment and their delivery to the Senate while the House Democrats tried to exert control over the Senate process. The House procedure was a thoroughly partisan effort, they were the majority and could control it. They then claimed to want the Senate procedure to be totally fair, impartial, and nonpartisan - and run according to the Democratic minority's wishes. Actually the House majority Democrats wanted to control the Senate process. Wasn't going to happen.


The House managers who presented their case presented it as a case backed by overwhelming evidence which nevertheless needed the Senate to finish up for them. Which was it. They oversold their case and then complained when the Senate took them at their word that they had presented a complete case, and then voted it down.


Could the Democrats have made a better case if they had taken the time and effort? Perhaps, but we will never know. The case went to the Senate, and now the public, according to what the Democrats did. Having run a partisan investigation and hearings, it would be hypocritical for them to demand that their partisan opponents now do the work that they should have done against a president of their party. If it was purely justice that the Democrats were after they should have run truly fair and nonpartisan hearings. They did not. Those who live by partisan politics often die by it too.

This may not have been the best way to run the government, but it was the way that the Constitution laid it out.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2020, 10:25:28 PM by Dan Fienen »
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

James J Eivan

  • Guest

Keith Falk

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1649
    • View Profile
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #907 on: February 05, 2020, 11:08:33 PM »
One might call the Republicans cowards, and that is putting the worst construction on it, assuming they did not act with any integrity.  Whether one agrees with them or not, one might see their action as one of genuine conviction that whatever the president was accused of doing it simply did not justify removing him from office. But some will not be willing to assume a higher motive. Cowardice is the only acceptable conclusion.   

I think that Pelosi's act of publicly tearing up Trump's State of the Union speech speaks volumes of where the decorum of the Democrats has gone.  If we are reduced to such childish stunts, then why should we accord her any more respect than she is unwilling to accord the President of the United States?


I read a mini-Twitter thread about this, and I think it was very insightful.  In essence, it argues that Speaker Pelosi (and, perhaps, by extension, the Democratic Party) is learning from President Trump.  Theatrics and distraction work.  She changed the narrative from the content of President Trump's State of the Union address to her actions of protest.  Whatever one may think of her lack of decorum, it shifted attention where she wanted it to go... sounds awfully familiar.
Rev. Keith Falk, STS

D. Engebretson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
    • View Profile
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #908 on: February 05, 2020, 11:49:01 PM »
One might call the Republicans cowards, and that is putting the worst construction on it, assuming they did not act with any integrity.  Whether one agrees with them or not, one might see their action as one of genuine conviction that whatever the president was accused of doing it simply did not justify removing him from office. But some will not be willing to assume a higher motive. Cowardice is the only acceptable conclusion.   

I think that Pelosi's act of publicly tearing up Trump's State of the Union speech speaks volumes of where the decorum of the Democrats has gone.  If we are reduced to such childish stunts, then why should we accord her any more respect than she is unwilling to accord the President of the United States?


I read a mini-Twitter thread about this, and I think it was very insightful.  In essence, it argues that Speaker Pelosi (and, perhaps, by extension, the Democratic Party) is learning from President Trump.  Theatrics and distraction work.  She changed the narrative from the content of President Trump's State of the Union address to her actions of protest.  Whatever one may think of her lack of decorum, it shifted attention where she wanted it to go... sounds awfully familiar.

This may be correct.  But if this is now the future, our political discourse (or lack thereof) is in free-fall and in time will resemble little more than poorly produced reality TV. 
Pastor Don Engebretson
St. Peter Lutheran Church of Polar (Antigo) WI

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13579
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #909 on: February 06, 2020, 12:20:10 AM »
Did you guys not notice how he refused to shake her hand at the beginning of the whole event?
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Back home from Sioux City after three days and a pleasant reunion of the East High School class of - can you believe it! - 1959.

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13579
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #910 on: February 06, 2020, 12:24:21 AM »
And in my not so humble opinion the presidential medal of freedom has been forever dishonored and devalued because he bestowed it on Rush Limbaugh, One of the meanest, nastiest, vicious voices ever to be heard on the radio.
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Back home from Sioux City after three days and a pleasant reunion of the East High School class of - can you believe it! - 1959.

RDPreus

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1187
    • View Profile
    • Christ For Us
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #911 on: February 06, 2020, 12:35:29 AM »
Trump didn't refuse to shake her hand.  He didn't see it. 

RDPreus

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1187
    • View Profile
    • Christ For Us
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #912 on: February 06, 2020, 12:36:28 AM »
Rush Limbaugh is neither mean, nasty, nor vicious.  He is very funny!

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13579
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #913 on: February 06, 2020, 04:35:31 AM »
Pastor Preus writes:
Rush Limbaugh is neither mean, nasty, nor vicious.  He is very funny!

I comment:
I actually listened to him for several years. I thought he would fade away after he no longer had the Clintons to hate. or when he was caught using his housekeeper to get extra opioid pills. Or when his personal life did not match his on-air righteousness.
No, he is not funny. Some folks here have asked that this humble correspondent be banned from this modest forum for whimsical musings nowhere near as mean-spirited as  Limbaugh’s denunciations of specific women, politicians, journalists, and anyone he considered “liberal.” He has spread hatred and division, and shown intentional disregard for honesty and truth.
The late Don Imus was funny. And he lost his radio show and advertisers for a few remarks considerably less offensive than Limbaugh’s years-long nasty ranting.
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Back home from Sioux City after three days and a pleasant reunion of the East High School class of - can you believe it! - 1959.

Jeremy Loesch

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2236
    • View Profile
Re: Impeachment Hearings
« Reply #914 on: February 06, 2020, 06:49:32 AM »
Trump didn't shake Pence's hand either. Maybe he's a germaphobe?

I have seen similar sentiments to what Keith Falk wrote. I may not like Pelosi but she's no dope. She's an experienced politician. (And yes, that wasn't a compliment.) It was a good speech- school choice, pro-constitution, pro-life...  What wasn't to like? When Trump sticks to the teleprompter, he's not a horrible speaker.

And maybe that's part of his appeal? I don't think anyone expects lofty, soaring rhetoric or oratorical flourishes. He speaks like a quasi-regular guy. You can understand him. He wasn't using the speech to get into the history books. He probably overused words and phrases like "best", "greatest", and "best in history" and those are debatable points, but as I listened (was putting a 2yo to sleep at the time) I thought, "Maybe not the best but it sure beats the alternative." It was a good speech. And his comments on life issues certainly were the best ever in a State of the Union address.

Jeremy
A Lutheran pastor growing into all sorts of things.