Christianity Today Op Ed

[Juvenal]

...like an ACTUAL CRIME!

Not sure why y'all keep going there, but impeachment isn't about stopping crime, it's about stopping acts harmful to the United States. In this case, actions against free and fair elections here, and promoting Russian interests against our own around the world.

Preventing malign foreign interests in the executive is all over the Federalist papers. It's why the impeachment clause was included.

Jussayin'.

[Teallaura]

No, it doesn't. Even Chuck Schumer has admitted as much with his calls for more testimony and discovery in the interest of uncovering all the facts. If the evidence is "overwhelming", like Democrats and their ilk keep insisting, then why the need for more evidence?

Because it's so overwhelming that you can't take it all in so we need even MORE overwhelming evidence!

Rationality, however, not so much...

[Teallaura]

No, it doesn't. Even Chuck Schumer has admitted as much with his calls for more testimony and discovery in the interest of uncovering all the facts. If the evidence is "overwhelming", like Democrats and their ilk keep insisting, then why the need for more evidence?

Once you prove your case, stop proving. Piling on more stuff runs the risk of losing the jury in the weeds. If there's really a mountain of admissible evidence then you don't need more.

[Teallaura]

Hey, trump is even succeeding in driving a wedge between christians now. Interesting how the wealthy low life frauds like Falwell Jr and Franlin Graham are the ones supporting Trump.

CT has had issues with its work for years. They try for nondenominational and somehow end up with Christianity Super Lite.

This one isn't on Trump. CT is for the Christmas/Easter Christians who think they are being spiritual.

[Teallaura]

No, it was an op-ed that revealed a schism within the christian community that has been ongoing for some time. Some, specifically christian clergy, believe that they should look the other way and support an immoral reprobate to lead the nation in order that he give them conservative judges, a quid pro quo with the devil so to speak, and some believe that perspective sends the wrong message to the flock as well as to those outside looking in. It's not just one bad editorial, many preachers have been speaking out about this for some time now, they just don't get the noteriety that a CT op-ed gets.

[Teallaura]

The evidence is overwhelming, but overwhelming is not enough to prevent you, i.e those of you that just refuse to accept it, from making excuses in your own mind. That's why the Dems want the witnesses and documents that Trump denied to the congressional inquiry, not because the evidence is not already sufficient, but so that you too would have no more excuses, no more choice other than to admit to yourself that Trump is guilty.
That I think too is why you guys on the other side don't want to hear from those witnesses, don't want to see those documents, because you fear that they will reveal what you don't want to accept. There is no other logical reason that you would be arguing against all the available evidence be allowed.

At any rate, each one of those documents and each one of those witnesses being subpoened for testimony will be voted on at the trial. That's going to be a difficult vote for republicans because, maybe not you, or Tea, or CP et al, but many of their constituents actually want to know the facts, the truth, and don't want a mock trial, or cover-up.

So overwhelming that you need more of it? Seriously, you keep arguing contradictory points.

[Teallaura]

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.

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

[Teallaura]

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!

While I totally disagree this is one of the best argued posts you've done in weeks. I'll let Mike address the meat but I did want to compliment you on a job well done. And I mean it sincerely.

[seer]

Not sure why y'all keep going there, but impeachment isn't about stopping crime, it's about stopping acts harmful to the United States. In this case, actions against free and fair elections here, and promoting Russian interests against our own around the world.

Preventing malign foreign interests in the executive is all over the Federalist papers. It's why the impeachment clause was included.

Jussayin'.

You mean like hiring a foreign national who used Russian sources to create a dossier that was then used to get a FISA warrant to surveil the opposing candidate?

[Cow Poke]

Not sure why y'all keep going there, but impeachment isn't about stopping crime....

Yes, it's a very fluid process...

[Cow Poke]

CT has had issues..l.

...12 a year since 1956!

[Teallaura]

...12 a year since 1956!

[seanD]

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!

Then how does this not make what Obama/Biden CLEARLY did (as per his public admission) not a criminal act?

[Mountain Man]

Anyway, as Lindsay Graham famously said in 1998, you don't need to commit a crime to be impeached.

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

[Mountain Man]

Not sure why y'all keep going there, but impeachment isn't about stopping crime, it's about stopping acts harmful to the United States. In this case, actions against free and fair elections here, and promoting Russian interests against our own around the world.

Preventing malign foreign interests in the executive is all over the Federalist papers. It's why the impeachment clause was included.

Jussayin'.

So what you're saying is that it's not about stopping crime, it's about stopping crime.