Now here's a surprise - Vlad Putin backs Trump on Impeachment. What a shock. Wondering if maybe we'll see Vlad on the stage with Trump at future campaign rallies?
Why are you liberals running away from the original thread? You should own it, from inaguration day to the present its been the top priority for your party to Impeach Trump. So much so the party has not focused on much else. At least the USMCA deal was finally done so your party can defend itself from a total failure of leadership argument.
Why are you liberals running away from the original thread? You should own it, from inaguration day to the present its been the top priority for your party to Impeach Trump. So much so the party has not focused on much else. At least the USMCA deal was finally done so your party can defend itself from a total failure of leadership argument.
Ok Comrade.
Your support of the lying treasonous "president" has been noted. You must be very proud of him.
Why are you liberals
You're in the wrong thread. I started this one for a discussion of impeachment w/o the use of blanket taunts & ignorant rhetoric on other topics. Run back to the other one where you belong, troll. Your vocabulary is limited to 3 words - liberals, dems & liberal dems (guess that's only 2 words) & you wield them like the insults they aren't. Move along, troll.
[Edited on 12/20/2019 by cyclone88]
"During that sham trial, Pontius Pilate afforded more rights to Jesus than Democrats afforded this president in this process.”
And the leading evangelical magazine Christianity Today founded by the late Rev. Billy Graham called on Thursday for impeachment AND REMOVAL of Trump & urged evangelicals to withdraw their support.
"That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments. We believe the impeachment hearings have made it absolutely clear, in a way the Mueller investigation did not, that President Trump has abused his authority for personal gain and betrayed his constitutional oath. The impeachment hearings have illuminated the president's moral deficiencies for all to see."
"To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump's immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency."
The publication of the editorial caused the magazine's site to crash due to traffic in what's been described as a "watershed" moment.
Why are you liberals running away from the original thread? You should own it, from inaguration day to the present its been the top priority for your party to Impeach Trump. So much so the party has not focused on much else. At least the USMCA deal was finally done so your party can defend itself from a total failure of leadership argument.
Ok Comrade.
Your support of the lying treasonous "president" has been noted. You must be very proud of him.
Notice how goob always points fingers at the libs or Dems while never responding to questions when confronted about Trump's actions. I'm curious if goob supports Trump's Helsinki moment when Trump sided with Putin over our intel agencies. There are countless other examples - several of which I've asked goob about but never received an answer.
"Remember who you are and whom you serve." This is a huge lash back. Huge.
That plus the MI pushback re the egregious comments he made about the late Rep. Dingell made it not a good day for DJT. And DJT REPEATED the comment elsewhere. Lindsey Graham is telling him it's not a joke; it's not funny.
Why are you liberals
You're in the wrong thread. I started this one for a discussion of impeachment w/o the use of blanket taunts & ignorant rhetoric on other topics. Run back to the other one where you belong, troll. Your vocabulary is limited to 3 words - liberals, dems & liberal dems (guess that's only 2 words) & you wield them like the insults they aren't. Move along, troll.
[Edited on 12/20/2019 by cyclone88]
You forgot "Fake News." So I guess he knows four words.....That's actually pretty good for the typical Russian bot.
@cyclone - What was timeline on the Christianity Today call for removal of Trump, was that published before or after the House vote? Trying to get some idea as to how much Republicans are willing to double down on their Trump bluff. I think we are going to start seeing some of them snap out of their Soviet mind control comas here pretty soon.[Edited on 12/20/2019 by BrerRabbit]
It was published yesterday so I assume during business hours before the vote in the evening. I think I read the website crash was during the afternoon when media heard about it. Trump has been tweeting that it's a "liberal rag" all day today. He's freaked.
Trump didn't hesitate to show his true colors. Amazing how fast he turns on people when they try to pull their tongues out of his butt. This is getting interesting.
Here's the link to the editorial:
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html
One of his tweets today: "The fact is, no President has ever done what I have done for Evangelicals, or religion itself!"
He's done more for religion than any other president. Think about that one...
"During that sham trial, Pontius Pilate afforded more rights to Jesus than Democrats afforded this president in this process.”
And the leading evangelical magazine Christianity Today founded by the late Rev. Billy Graham called on Thursday for impeachment AND REMOVAL of Trump & urged evangelicals to withdraw their support.
"That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments. We believe the impeachment hearings have made it absolutely clear, in a way the Mueller investigation did not, that President Trump has abused his authority for personal gain and betrayed his constitutional oath. The impeachment hearings have illuminated the president's moral deficiencies for all to see."
"To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump's immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency."
The publication of the editorial caused the magazine's site to crash due to traffic in what's been described as a "watershed" moment.
Yet the Falwells & Grahams pf the evangelical world along with 90 some pct evangelicals are still in the fold. They got there SC judges so nothing else that Trump says or does matters to them even though he has and acts nothing like them and has nothing in common. It is hypocritical symbiotic relationship and fails in the tests of their religious principles. Religion = politics. There is no separation.
Yet the Falwells & Grahams pf the evangelical world along with 90 some pct evangelicals are still in the fold. They got there SC judges so nothing else that Trump says or does matters to them even though he has and acts nothing like them and has nothing in common. It is hypocritical symbiotic relationship and fails in the tests of their religious principles. Religion = politics. There is no separation.
On NPR today, there was a discussion that now that pro-life SCOTUS judges have been appointed, the Evangelicals don't need DJT. More importantly, younger evangelicals don't support him, particularly re climate change/environment, immigration & its treatment of families, and hostility towards the poor & homeless & have changed party affiliation.
Several of the Graham children (adults in their 60s now) have histories of infidelity, domestic abuse (oldest daughter arrested in FL for assaulting both her husband & boyfriend while drunk), & drug/alcohol addiction so their opinions don't carry as much weight as their father's w/in that community. Falwell Jr wasn't mentioned.
Democrats are highly concerned the American people will interfere with the next election.
The author of the Christianity Today article, Mark Galli, was interviewed on NPR yesterday and had some interesting things to say about Trump....Here's a link if anyone wishes to listen to a relatively short, 7 minute interview:
[Edited on 12/21/2019 by Chain]
The author of the Christianity Today article, Mark Galli, was interviewed on NPR yesterday and had some interesting things to say about Trump....Here's a link
Thanks for the link. When asked why now? & why did evangelicals support such an immoral man in the 1st place? the answer was he was anti-abortion. Sole reason. Now that the anti-abortion SCOTUS appointments have been made, they don't need him.
I don't think the article is going to change any minds. The mind-changer is Trump's illogical responses. He tweets things like the pro-impeachment editorial would prefer a "radical liberal, non-believer" to be president when his successor should he be removed from office would be Pence - hardly radical, liberal, or a non-believer.
Here's what I don't understand
How can a true Conservative support someone who:
on a public stage, on TV said he believed Putin over the FBI, CIA, and NSA. It was on TV
(remember, Mueller said "if I could exonerate him I would, but I can't)
Said "there were good people on both sides", which includes guys wearing swastikas and white hoods
Doesn't believe in freedom of the press ex "the press is the enemy of the people"
doesn't believe in separation of powers
doesn't believe in the constitution example -ex "phony emoluments clause" Article 1, section 9
disrespects all who disagree with him - most recently Dingell looking up from hell, even called out by Graham
behaves as if he wants to be a monarch with absolute power and president for life (he has talked about > 2 terms). He talks as if he thinks he is above the law. The framers of the Constitution did not want a monarch, they wanted checks and balances.
I understand people who disagree with Democrats, "liberals", etc. I can't understand how someone that believes in the constitution can support Trump
[Edited on 12/21/2019 by stormyrider]
The author of the Christianity Today article, Mark Galli, was interviewed on NPR yesterday and had some interesting things to say about Trump....Here's a link
Thanks for the link. When asked why now? & why did evangelicals support such an immoral man in the 1st place? the answer was he was anti-abortion. Sole reason. Now that the anti-abortion SCOTUS appointments have been made, they don't need him.
I don't think the article is going to change any minds. The mind-changer is Trump's illogical responses. He tweets things like the pro-impeachment editorial would prefer a "radical liberal, non-believer" to be president when his successor should he be removed from office would be Pence - hardly radical, liberal, or a non-believer.
You're welcome for the link.....I agree with your thoughts about the article as I don't think it brings to light anything we didn't already know. Truth is the anti women's health crowd hitched their wagon to the treasonous Trump knowing full well they made a deal with the devil.
The only revelation in this is finally someone is speaking out in the open what they've been saying behind closed doors since Trump's inauguration.
I can't understand how someone that believes in the constitution can support Trump
I've asked that question re GOP leaders & gotten the anti-abortion SCOTUS appointments & they don't want to lose their seats. Well, reason #1 is gone; there are now 2 GOP-selected justices on SCOTUS. As for #2, I don't see how having a trial w/witnesses (as McConnell insisted on for Clinton but not Trump) and not announcing the verdict in advance of even getting the Articles of Impeachment is a bad thing. Removing Trump from office gives us Pence. I don't see why the GOP thinks that's so terrible. He's far from my 1st choice, but he has at least a bare bones knowledge of the constitution & isn't a raging bull.
I can't understand how someone that believes in the constitution can support Trump
I've asked that question re GOP leaders & gotten the anti-abortion SCOTUS appointments & they don't want to lose their seats. Well, reason #1 is gone; there are now 2 GOP-selected justices on SCOTUS. As for #2, I don't see how having a trial w/witnesses (as McConnell insisted on for Clinton but not Trump) and not announcing the verdict in advance of even getting the Articles of Impeachment is a bad thing. Removing Trump from office gives us Pence. I don't see why the GOP thinks that's so terrible. He's far from my 1st choice, but he has at least a bare bones knowledge of the constitution & isn't a raging bull.
I've wondered about the Pence idea as well. I chalk their reluctance to remove Trump for Pence to knowing that Trump is far more popular among the base and that they still need that very base to ensure reelection of congressional seats in both the House and Senate.
Trump knows this too and that is why he holds these very corny rallies every few days. Not to impress the opposition per say, but to remind the Republican establishment that their future lies with him and not some other potential Republican president.
The evangelicals rally around Trump. Justice would be served if their kids grew up to emulate Trump & take on his value system.
The New York Times
Evangelical Leaders Close Ranks With Trump After Scathing Editorial
https://www.yahoo.com/news/evangelical-leaders-close-ranks-trump-150745454.html
I wondered how long the Evangelical community could continue their support. Had to make for some interesting holiday family dinners with those who still support him and those who came to their senses and realized they elected Caligula.
Between the CT editorial and the idiotic blaspheming comparison of the impeachment to the trial of Jesus Christ by Rep. Loudermilk I think those of faith who have any conscience whatsoever have realized they elected a maroon.
Interesting email Chucky Schumer is flashing about in his latest press conference....
Interesting email Schumer is flashing
I'm taking the last holiday of the year, but thought Sen. Patrick Leahy (D)'s op ed today crystallized exactly why Schumer's 99 colleagues should think hard about their position re the trial. They take an oath - separate & apart from their oath of office - "to do IMPARTIAL JUSTICE according to the constitution & laws" during a trial. McConnell & Graham publicly announced their partiality before Trump was even impeached. Are they announcing they intend to perjure themselves? Trump vacillates between saying the trial is a sham & he wants a full trial to exonerate himself.
Nothing's going to happen over the Christmas recess (at least we're spared last year's sight of Trump sitting alone eating fast food having shut down the government & leaving certain types of employees unpaid) beyond the senators perhaps listening to some open-minded constituents. Or not.
What the Senate Does Now Will Cast a Long Shadow
When the Senate ultimately convenes to consider whether to remove the president from office, for just the third time in its history, it will convene not as a legislative body, but as a court of impeachment. And it will not just be President Trump on trial. The Senate — and indeed, truth itself — will stand trial.
Senators serve as a unique combination of judge and juror during an impeachment trial. Sworn in by the chief justice of the United States, senators take a special oath to do “impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.” This is an oath I have taken several times. First elected to the Senate in 1974, in the wake of Watergate, I have served on six impeachment trials since then — five judges and one president. I take this oath extraordinarily seriously. And it’s one I fear the Senate is on the verge of abandoning.
Senator Lindsey Graham has admitted that he’s “not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.” The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, vowing a quick acquittal, boasted that he is “not an impartial juror” and pledged that “there will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this.”
This is tantamount to a criminal defendant being allowed to set the rules for his own trial, while the judge and jury promise him a quick acquittal. That is a far cry from the “impartial justice” required by our oaths and the Constitution.
Given this, I understand why the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, did not rush to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate before the holiday recess. A sham trial is in no one’s interest. A choreographed acquittal exonerates no one, serves only to deepen rifts within the country and eviscerates the Senate’s constitutional role. That is why the advice I shared with my fellow senators last week was to go home for the holidays, take a deep breath, and come back and conduct the trial as the Senate should — and as the Constitution requires.
How the Senate conducts the trial will be up to 51 senators, not simply one or two. While the chief justice presides, the duration and scope of the trial, including whether to call witnesses or compel document production, will be decided by a simple majority of the Senate. It is my hope that those decisions will be agreed to by all senators.
For example, although the House impeachment of President Bill Clinton was marked by deep partisan acrimony, the Senate came together, 100 to 0, to approve a resolution outlining trial procedures. I said then that we had “to preserve the Senate and give the country a sense of credibility.” Asked at the time by this newspaper about grumblings from the White House, I made it clear that it is not the Senate’s role to defend either the president or the House.
There was a sense then, shared even by Senator McConnell, who first came to the Senate in 1985, that the Senate itself was on trial. That is even truer today.
The House has accumulated significant evidence that Mr. Trump used his office, and leveraged congressionally appropriated foreign security assistance, for his personal political benefit by attempting to coerce Ukraine, a foreign ally facing Russian aggression, to announce an investigation into a domestic political rival.
The trial is the president’s opportunity to present a full-throated defense. There are many documents that could shed additional light on the president’s actions and several witnesses who have yet to testify. If exculpatory, I would expect the White House to welcome the production of the documents and urge the participation of the witnesses. They include the acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, who publicly acknowledged that aid to Ukraine was tied to the prospect of investigations; the former national security adviser John Bolton, who described the president’s advisers’ attempts to compel Ukraine to intervene in our domestic affairs as “a drug deal,” and the senior White House budget official, Michael Duffey, who — we learned over the weekend — quietly ordered the Pentagon to freeze aid to Ukraine roughly 90 minutes after Mr. Trump asked the Ukrainian president for a “favor” on July 25th.
But so far, the president has directed these and other witnesses not to cooperate, and key documents have been withheld. That should change when the Senate holds a trial. During the Clinton trial, Senate Republicans passed a second resolution to call specific witnesses — even though those witnesses had previously testified extensively. Today, Mr. Trump is blocking critical witnesses from testifying at all.
The Senate should reject such stonewalling. It should not be complicit in a cover-up. We deserve to have the full story.
Nor should the Senate be complicit in promoting fact-free distractions and distortions. The president and some of his defenders have embraced objectively false and misleading defenses in the face of the House’s substantial evidence, including promoting a baseless theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. Even the president’s own national security advisers dismissed this theory as “completely debunked” and “a fictional narrative” that was “propagated by Russian security services.” The longer we permit cynically derived conspiracy theories to be equated with actual facts — with the truth — the more perilous the state of our republic.
How the Senate handles the coming trial will shape both the presidency and our constitutional system of checks and balances for decades, long after Mr. Trump leaves office. Will the Senate allow the president to abuse his public office to pursue wholly personal gains? Will the Senate permit the coercion of foreign governments to interfere in our domestic elections? Will the Senate enable the unprecedented, wholesale disregard of lawful congressional subpoenas to cover up the truth? Will the Senate make this the new norm?
I would not suggest to any senator that his or her oath requires at this time a specific verdict. Whether allegations are proven at trial is an entirely separate matter. But I strongly believe that our oath requires that all senators behave impartially and support a fair trial, one that places the pursuit of truth above fealty to this or any other president.
After vigorous debate, the framers included the power of impeachment in the Constitution for a reason. Presidents are not kings. Nor are they above the law. They can be removed for high crimes or misdemeanors, which means, according to Alexander Hamilton, an “abuse or violation of some public trust.”
The Senate has a job to do. And it’s not to rig the trial in favor of — or against — President Trump. Our job is to follow the facts and abide by the Constitution. An acquittal based on anything less would hardly be an acquittal at all.
Thanks for sharing this editorial, cyclone.....
I mentioned a few weeks ago that another perhaps just as important figure in a Senate impeachment trial will be Chief Justice John Roberts. What he does in this process will be crucial for the future and reputation of the as yet less mentioned and discussed third branch of government, the Supreme Court.
As I understand it, and I could be wrong on this, he can compel witness testimony and demand evidence be presented even if the Senate votes not to. Maybe you can clarify this cyclone as you're an attorney?
Assassination is certainly a way to get the Senate's focus off his impeachment & onto moving us toward war WITHOUT bothering to inform Congress (except for his Senatorial guests at Mar-a-Lago during the holidays). Were it not so serious, it would be laughable that he's thrown another tantrum to prove he's smarter than Pelosi by an unlawful assassination that 2 administrations (Republican & Democratric) considered at length (one during an actual war) & refused to do due to the enormity of the risks of retaliation through the middle east, the world, and Americans everywhere. AND he's saying he did it because of intelligence he received from the same agencies he's declared worthless, incompetent, and corrupt. How does a person reconcile that bit of illogic?
He persists in acting unilaterally w/defiance that he answers to anyone. His tweet that his "Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!” In other words, he's going to do what he wants & tweet afterwards as "notice" if anyone in Congress wants to read about our current foreign policy.
His complete disregard for ANY executive accountability to the legislature is yet another indicator that the man isn't fit for office & has abused his power of office. Doubtful that the as-yet-to-be-delivered impeachment articles can be amended to included this latest evidence but the HR decided to confine its charges to the Ukraine deal.
He's a hellbound train.
He's a hellbound train.
Yessir and we are on it. He just started a war all by himself. Flat out gangster mode - drive by shooting on enemy turf.
Illegal bullsh*t. This isn't just about impeachment. He wants to f*ck it all up so bad it can't be fixed. We are marked now.
This is all on the Redhats. .
[Edited on 1/6/2020 by BrerRabbit]
Trouble ahead, lady in red
This isn't just about impeachment. He wants to f*ck it all up so bad it can't be fixed. We are marked now.
This is all on the Redhats. .
I respectfully disagree about the motivation, Mr. Rabbit. It is ALL about a distraction from impeachment & he made it so big & so illegal & so destructive that he's got McConnell & Graham talking about not even negotiating rules for impeachment & some clown vowing to request a dismissal. It's SOP for him in business - implode a building rather than lose it in foreclosure.
I agree that it IS on the Redhats now to finally see him for the madman he is. There is no government if a cowardly legislature allows him to violate laws re their notification of certain acts, violate international laws re targets & sites, & cover it up w/pronouncements the Pentagon has made for almost 20 years - yes, Soulamani was the kingpin in the Middle East & there have been opportunities before to take him out but at a cost no administration wanted to risk. It's absurd for an Exec to announce that his required notice to any other branch of government will be done after the fact via twitter. Of course, Redhats will see him as a Man of Action Who Dared To Do What No Prez Before Him Would for some unfathomable reason. It's also on the Senate for not expelling Comrade McConnell for abetting this dangerous idiot.
None of this will stop impeachment process which was expected to result in his remaining in office. Perhaps, with this latest stunt, some senators won't be so quick to keep him. One can only hope.
I respectfully disagree about the motivation, Mr. Rabbit. It is ALL about a distraction from impeachment
Let me try to rephrase my vague reply. I agree it is all about impeachment, and I was upping the ante to they are trying to create chaos and bring down American Democracy altogether.
Ask any Redhat if they would like to see their boy a fascist Putin-style president for life, and prune off a couple branches of govt. I have suggested this here several times, never once disagreed with or told hey rabbit that is over the top. Redhats are flat out fascists.
I agree it is all about impeachment, and I was upping the ante to they are trying to create chaos and bring down American Democracy altogether. Ask any Redhat if they would like to see their boy a fascist Putin-style president for life, and prune off a couple branches of govt. I have suggested this here several times, never once disagreed with or told hey rabbit that is over the top.
Got it. Trump, however, isn't a long-term strategic thinker & most certainly doesn't want to be CEO of the US for life. IMO, were it not for legal proceedings awaiting his departure from office, he'd have resigned long ago so he wouldn't have to constantly be told what he can't do. The news that there are other branches was a shock to his system.
As for his disciples, the news that a large portion of Americans don't understand how government works or even the meaning of the terms democracy v. fascism has finally reached SCOTUS. In his year-end report on the judiciary, CJ Roberts decried the lack of basic civic knowledge & enumerated all the judicial initiatives that exist to combat that. He stopped short of dissing the education system. It's taken the ignorance of Trump & Co to be an "AHA moment" for leadership to realize that Americans can't be trusted to protect democracy & the constitution if they don't know what it is. I don't disagree that there are some undercurrents of revolution, but neither side wants to disrupt their comfortable lives.
