Christianity Today Op Ed

[Cow Poke]

Sure, the post in question is post 220, you responded in post 222 with no mention of the words eternal or temporal, and then your claim you had responded with those words is post 224. That's it.

Jim, instead of digging in and demanding I didn't say what I said, wouldn't it have been wiser to simply ask for me to show that I said it? Why so combative?

Jim, lemme try this another way....

I view major challenges in two different veins --- temporal and eternal.
When making difficult decisions, I weigh the impact on both the temporal and eternal.

Trump is temporal. He is finite. He will be out of office in a year, 5 at the most, and dead not long after that.
Whatever "damage" he does, or has done, or can do - is temporal.

What he has done with regards to abortion, supreme court, Israel..... those are far closer to eternal, particularly the abortion issue.
His impact on religious liberty will be around for quite some time --- that affects me FAR more than a Russia/Ukraine squabble.
His impact on SCOTUS may have stopped a whole bunch of demonic things for decades to come.
His impact Israel will be long lasting, and directly related to Kingdom work.

Obama had his own international screw-ups, and a series of presidents the last couple decades have had us in Afghanistan, apparently on a bunch of lies.
Biden had his whole thing with Ukraine and his own son on... well, you'll probably argue that one...

Eternal vs temporal, Jim.

And here is what started this....

I gave you my response to this, Ox, and, if I'm not mistaken, you chose not to respond.

It had to do with the eternal vs the temporal.

My apologies if you responded and I missed it - we tend to have a lot of drive-by foolishness posts scattered throughout.

[Juvenal]

There is no post by you that is a direct response to that post which addresses eternal vs temporal

I have no idea what this is about, but if this in reference to a reference to a reference to a previous post ... I heartily approve.

[Juvenal]

And here is what started this....

No one likes the guy who tells everyone how the magician does his magic, ya know.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, instead of digging in and demanding I didn't say what I said, wouldn't it have been wiser to simply ask for me to show that I said it? Why so combative?

And here is what started this....

You're kidding, right? that quote is from a completely different thread, and almost 9 days ago, and in a different context.

And a post with a single question mark IS asking you to explain your reference.

[oxmixmudd]

Meanwhile his son, Franklin Graham, has pointed out that Billy was a supporter of Trump's and voted for him in 2016.

That really means very little in this context. We have no way of knowing if Billy Grsham would have seen the evidence as conclusive that Trump abused his power.

[little_monkey]

Well. It has been awhile since Clinton was President. So we are past any schism like that. The CT editorial seemed confused. He had not spoken of real evidence so his point remained pure opinion. If he separates on that basis, that is a bit typical.
Jim, until someone can provide some evidence of a crime or even an impeachable offense, then the conversation here cannot proceed very well. All we had from the Dems was to find out what public opinion was and then to try to bring in witnesses who have no first hand testimony ... but only opinions. Even then, they contradicted themselves. If this is what you rely on, don't be part of a jury where there is an overly aggressive prosecutor. The Dems asked for a knife from Trump to stab him -- he is not obligated to become a victim of partisan politics.

This gets tiring when there is no agreement on basic facts needed to impeach someone.

As I posted to you a while ago (post#150, which you never answered), the reason there isn't an ironclad case is because Trump ordered the people working with him who would have first-hand information NOT to testify, and freezing all documents. You can't make the case there isn't sufficient evidence while the very person being investigated has the power to obstruct that investigation, and you ignoring that fact. Your argument just falls apart.

[JimL]

You are so excited that a crime may have been committed that you will glean on to hearsay to hang Trump. If the Dems couldn't make a case without begging the Senate to have more witnesses, then the Dems obviously couldn't make a case. The logic is pretty simple here. The Dems have no more excuses for promoting this any further.

so what testimony and evidence can you point to that was convincing?

What part of the impeachment clause was violated? Is the unfulfilled whims of the House sufficient to impeach a President?

Okay, the evidence has been gone over and over, but I'll give you something that has not been talked about a lot concerning Trumps illegal behavior in the Ukraine scheme. The withholding of the 400 mil. in aid was itself an illegal act and the Trump administration knew it was illegal when they were doing it. They then went about to cover up what they were doing, hiding the documents in the secure server and ordering those involved to keep quiet about it..

The impoundment act, enacted in the 70's makes it illegal to withhold monies appropriated by Congress unless you notify congress and have a good reason for doing it, and even then it can only be held up for 45 days. Trump did none of that, because he knew it wouldn't pass the muster in congress, so he hid what he was up to, hiding the documents in the secure server. That's what the whistleblower complaint was all about.

So he covered up what he knew was an illegal action in witholding the appropriated aid in order to hide the reason behind that cover-up, which was to extort Ukraine to dig up dirt, or more to the point, to manurfacture dirt,on a political rival.

But again, it doesn't even matter what his phoney excuse is for why he was withholding the aid, the withholding of the aid was itself illegal, a violation of the Impoundment act. And they knew it!

[Cow Poke]

You're kidding, right? that quote is from a completely different thread, and almost 9 days ago, and in a different context.

I never said it was recent, OR in this thread - and I asked politely if perhaps you had missed it. And the fact that you don't remember me saying anything about temporal and eternal clued me in that perhaps you missed it, which is why I politely asked.

And a post with a single question mark IS asking you to explain your reference.

And you still haven't responded.

I'll go back to letting you rant, Jim.

[Mountain Man]

As I posted to you a while ago (post#150, which you never answered), the reason there isn't an ironclad case is because Trump ordered the people working with him who would have first-hand information NOT to testify, and freezing all documents. You can't make the case there isn't sufficient evidence while the very person being investigated has the power to obstruct that investigation, and you ignoring that fact. Your argument just falls apart.

The reason the impeachment inquiry committee couldn't breach the executive privilege firewall surrounding the Trump administration is because they couldn't show probable cause. Unlike the Nixon impeachment inquiry where there was an actual crime with direct evidence tying the president to it, Democrats today can't point to any specific crime being investigated. They just have a vague notion that Trump maybe did something they don't like, and they attempted a blatant fishing expedition to try and build a case, and when the Trump administration pushed back, they dropped the matter because a loss in court would have been devastating to their narrative, and they claimed they didn't really need the testimony anyway and pushed ahead with impeachment despite the utter lack of supporting evidence.

[little_monkey]

The reason the impeachment inquiry committee couldn't breach the executive privilege firewall surrounding the Trump administration is because they couldn't show probable cause. Unlike the Nixon impeachment inquiry where there was an actual crime with direct evidence tying the president to it, Democrats today can't point to any specific crime being investigated. They just have a vague notion that Trump maybe did something they don't like, and they attempted a blatant fishing expedition to try and build a case, and when the Trump administration pushed back, they dropped the matter because a loss in court would have been devastating to their narrative, and they claimed they didn't really need the testimony anyway and pushed ahead with impeachment despite the utter lack of supporting evidence.

Indeed unlike the Nixon case which HAD tapes implicating directly Nixon, there aren't any tapes in this case. The crime is there, and contrary to your suggestion, there is a cause, but there is no direct evidence, the main reason as I pointed out, is Trump obstructing successfully the inquiry. But that puts article 2, obstruction of Congress, in the legitimate category. As to the first article, that is harder to make a case, why Pelosi is playing a hard hand to get a Senate trial WITH witnesses, as the Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton and others could very well provide the missing link. Now, I'm not sure that Pelosi will win on this point if McConnell sticks to his positions, but there is Trump who so far wants eagerly a trial with witnesses. Will McConnell convince Trump to not pursue that line as everybody involved in this case knows Trump is guilty and those witnesses can only put him in deeper water? Time will tell.

[Mountain Man]

Indeed unlike the Nixon case which HAD tapes implicating directly Nixon, there aren't any tapes in this case. The crime is there, and contrary to your suggestion, there is a cause, but there is no direct evidence, the main reason as I pointed out, is Trump obstructing successfully the inquiry. But that puts article 2, obstruction of Congress, in the legitimate category. As to the first article, that is harder to make a case, why Pelosi is playing a hard hand to get a Senate trial WITH witnesses, as the Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton and others could very well provide the missing link. Now, I'm not sure that Pelosi will win on this point if McConnell sticks to his positions, but there is Trump who so far wants eagerly a trial with witnesses. Will McConnell convince Trump to not pursue that line as everybody involved in this case knows Trump is guilty and those witnesses can only put him in deeper water? Time will tell.

In Nixon's case, there was the break-in which started the ball rolling. Then firsthand witnesses testified that they were personally bribed by Nixon to keep their mouths shut, and that's what got Nixon in trouble. In Trump's case, there is no crime to be investigated, and the only firsthand witness to testify said that Trump didn't do what he was accused of. If this was a civil case, and you went into a judge's chamber to ask for a search warrant based on that, the judge would laugh you out of his office and tell you to stop wasting his time.

[rogue06]

No one likes the guy who tells everyone how the magician does his magic, ya know.

Which explains why the special Magic's Biggest Secrets Finally Revealed ended up with 17 sequels.

[little_monkey]

In Nixon's case, there was the break-in which started the ball rolling. Then firsthand witnesses testified that they were personally bribed by Nixon to keep their mouths shut, and that's what got Nixon in trouble. In Trump's case, there is no crime to be investigated, and the only firsthand witness to testify said that Trump didn't do what he was accused of. If this was a civil case, and you went into a judge's chamber to ask for a search warrant based on that, the judge would laugh you out of his office and tell you to stop wasting his time.

For you to know what a judge would do in this case is quite of a stretch. Anyway, as Lindsay Graham famously said in 1998, you don't need to commit a crime to be impeached. And as to the CT article claims, he needs to be removed just on the grounds of his unethical behavior. Have a nice life...

[rogue06]

The reason the impeachment inquiry committee couldn't breach the executive privilege firewall surrounding the Trump administration is because they couldn't show probable cause.

Actually, it's more of the case that they didn't have any desire to. If they did they would have taken the time honored measure of seeking help from the courts. But they refused to do that using the now exposed falsehood that they couldn't wait because Trump is such an existential threat that needed to be removed immediately if not sooner^[1]. They even dropped a subpoena when the person subpoenaed (Charles Kupperman) asked the courts for direction despite having repeatedly claimed that his testimony was essential and issuing various threats if he didn't testify.



1. Pelosi's decision to stall the process by refusing to send the articles to the Senate but instead choosing to sit on them indefinitely irrefutably exposed that as nothing more than yet another bald-face lie in a long series of them.

[Cow Poke]

In Nixon's case, there was the break-in which started the ball rolling.,,,.

...like an ACTUAL CRIME!