Christianity Today Op Ed

[rogue06]

The Reformation took a bad situation and made it worse.

[Teallaura]

The Founding Fathers were leery of tyranny - from ANY source. They didn't want the Exec abusing his power - or Congress abusing its power. But what they REALLY didn't want was one branch gaining superiority to another. A wayward president the union could survive, but an out of control branch would signal its doom.

The wording doesn't lend to the idea that they were really worried about abuse of power nearly so much as the usurpation of power. They were more concerned that Congress would try to control the Exec with the power of impeachment than that the Exec might abuse his power.

In other words, last week their nightmare came true.

[Charles]

You appear to have misremembered your words.

Nope

Whomever you are referring to, it is manifestly not Trump and Graham.

Wrong. First i refer to Graham then to Trump and then I refer to the two of them as they. Cannot be too hard to understand.

The Op-Ed in question is partisan. Objectively, the Democrats' impeachment articles are a sham. Someone who understands the Constitution and the impeachment articles in question could not honestly disagree with me.

My advice would be to make us wiser on this instead of making false statements about my posts.

[simplicio]

Can we all just take a breath and enjoy the level of insanity that has overtaken Trump supporters for them to be calling Christianity Today a "far left magazine".

Eh, all you atheist leftists are just sore that you were wrong on the second coming, the perousia. And that you all missed it. And the leftist rag Christianity Today has succumbed to TDS:

https://www.christiantoday.com/artic...-it/133084.htm

And the parallels are unfolding before our very eyes, the Dems are taking the role of the enemies of Jesus with their sham trial which is the impeachment.

The only part missing is the reference to deicide, but we do have Trump as the innocent victim, the spotless lamb going to the sacrifice.

Note the date on the CT article. (August) Also, do a google search on comparing Jesus and Trump.

[Juvenal]

Can we all just take a breath and enjoy the level of insanity that has overtaken Trump supporters for them to be calling Christianity Today a "far left magazine".

Supporting the evil empire is the new conservative.

[Juvenal]

Eh, all you atheist leftists are just sore that you were wrong on the second coming, the perousia. And that you all missed it. And the leftist rag Christianity Today has succumbed to TDS:

https://www.christiantoday.com/artic...-it/133084.htm

And the parallels are unfolding before our very eyes, the Dems are taking the role of the enemies of Jesus with their sham trial which is the impeachment.

The only part missing is the reference to deicide, but we do have Trump as the innocent victim, the spotless lamb going to the sacrifice.

Note the date on the CT article. (August) Also, do a google search on comparing Jesus and Trump.

[little_monkey]

And the House didn't bother to request certiorari...

It's a legitimate criticism. But having gone through two and half years of the Mueller inquiry, they didn't want to go that road again. So it's a risk they took, and they have to live with the fallout.

[little_monkey]

Which contradicts the plain language of the Constitution which explicitly reserves impeachment as a remedy for "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors".

I doubt very much you leveled the same criticism at Graham in 1998. More likely, you were applauding him then. Also, it's the general consensus that it's up to congress to define what is "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors", why Graham took that position in 1998.

[oxmixmudd]

The Founding Fathers were leery of tyranny - from ANY source. They didn't want the Exec abusing his power - or Congress abusing its power. But what they REALLY didn't want was one branch gaining superiority to another. A wayward president the union could survive, but an out of control branch would signal its doom.

The wording doesn't lend to the idea that they were really worried about abuse of power nearly so much as the usurpation of power. They were more concerned that Congress would try to control the Exec with the power of impeachment than that the Exec might abuse his power.

In other words, last week their nightmare came true.

Taking one aspect out of context and misapplying it does not a historian make. they were concerned about both. But your take on the issue is bizarre. The argument is whether or not Trump abused his power in Ukraine. If he did, then it is the RESPONSIBILITY of Congress to impeach him, and the GOP in the senate is complicit in the Presidents abuse of power.

There is nothing that can the congressional side that can legitimately shift the 'blame' to them. They are simply acting as the constitution requires them to act given the severity of Trump's actions.

However, If it can be shown the evidence for the charge is somehow based on faulty evidence, then he could be acquitted.

How do we do that. We hear from ALL the people that would know what Trump was doing and why. If their knowedge acquits him, then lets hear it. And thus let us let the process unfold as it should.

But the president is doing everything he can to keep them from telling what they know. THAT is where the evil is here. And the senators that will not allow them to be called to testify are abusing their power along with Trump.

We need to hear all the evidence so that the matter can be settled and there can be no real argument from either side as to whether Trump did or did not abuse his power and try to coerce Ukraine.

All the evidence we have says he did. And if there is anything else to be said that can change where that evidence points, it needs to be heard so the process can work as intended.


And no matter how many theoretical scenarios can be devised in creative imaginations to leave open some possibility for the contrary - he overwhelmingly likely to guilty as charged and the only thing additional testimony will do is add to the surety of his guilt. And that is why he doesn't want them called, why Barr and others are siding with him on his attempts to keep them from being called, and that is why they - in their loyalty to Trump over the constitution - have complied with his command rather than their duty to our country.

The best interest of the country to know the truth. But it is not in Trumps best interests. And so - again - Trump and those with him put personal gain above what is best for the country.

[little_monkey]

It's pretty pathetic when Trump, one of the most corrupt person on the planet, is the savior of "religion itself."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-...rom-communists

[oxmixmudd]

It's pretty pathetic when Trump, one of the most corrupt person on the planet, is the savior of "religion itself."

"The fact is, no President has ever done what I have done for Evangelicals, or religion itself!"

Indeed. He has corrupted them in ways I in my naivete once believed impossible.

[Mountain Man]

Source: Franklin Graham

https://www.facebook.com/FranklinGra...7071?__tn__=-R

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Dr. James Dobson

https://www.facebook.com/DrJamesDobs...1735?__tn__=-R

© Copyright Original Source

[Watermelon]

The Founding Fathers were leery of tyranny - from ANY source. They didn't want the Exec abusing his power - or Congress abusing its power. But what they REALLY didn't want was one branch gaining superiority to another. A wayward president the union could survive, but an out of control branch would signal its doom.

The wording doesn't lend to the idea that they were really worried about abuse of power nearly so much as the usurpation of power. They were more concerned that Congress would try to control the Exec with the power of impeachment than that the Exec might abuse his power.

In other words, last week their nightmare came true.

[Teallaura]

You misunderstand - they feared tyranny from ANY source. The many checks and balances are to prevent any branch from becoming tyrannical. Because men aren't perfected, removal is a necessary evil. Because the power to remove is a temptation to usurp, impeachment was intended to be limited. The strong indication of the wording is that it was intended to be limited to criminal actions, not subjective standards.

In this case the House has clearly abused its power.

[oxmixmudd]

Source: Franklin Graham

https://www.facebook.com/FranklinGra...7071?__tn__=-R

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Dr. James Dobson

https://www.facebook.com/DrJamesDobs...1735?__tn__=-R

© Copyright Original Source

That is just ignorant, as if he's not even paid attention. This is not about a phone call people dont like. It is about the president coercing a foreign nation to interfere in our election process.

It is inexcusable for him to characterize it so trivially, and for you to post such a comment as having merit.