RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
US Politics
- Thread starter RabzonKhan
- Start date
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Trump’s intervention on behalf of Gallagher and two other criminals has seriously undermined Military’s chain of command and justice. His actions send a very dangerous message to other criminals that is okay to commit war crimes, all you have to do is appear at the Fox News.
It is so pathetic that war criminals are awarded, and a patriot has to go.
Opinions
Richard Spencer: I was fired as Navy secretary. Here’s what I’ve learned because of it.
By Richard Spencer
November 27, 2019
Richard Spencer is the former secretary of the Navy.
The case of Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who was charged with multiple war crimes before being convicted of a single lesser charge earlier this year, was troubling enough before things became even more troubling over the past few weeks. The trail of events that led to me being fired as secretary of the Navy is marked with lessons for me and for the nation.
It is highly irregular for a secretary to become deeply involved in most personnel matters. Normally, military justice works best when senior leadership stays far away. A system that prevents command influence is what separates our armed forces from others. Our system of military justice has helped build the world’s most powerful navy; good leaders get promoted, bad ones get moved out, and criminals are punished.
In combat zones, the stakes are even higher. We train our forces to be both disciplined and lethal. We strive to use proportional force, protect civilians and treat detainees fairly. Ethical conduct is what sets our military apart. I have believed that every day since joining the Marine Corps in 1976.
We are effective overseas not because we have the best equipment but because we are professionals. Our troops are held to the highest standards. We expect those who lead our forces to exercise excellent judgment. The soldiers and sailors they lead must be able to count on that.
Earlier this year, Gallagher was formally charged with more than a dozen criminal acts, including premeditated murder, which occurred during his eighth deployment overseas. He was tried in a military court in San Diego and acquitted in July of all charges, except one count of wrongfully posing for photographs with the body of a dead Islamic State fighter. The jury sentenced him to four months, the maximum possible; because he had served that amount of time waiting for trial, he was released.
President Trump involved himself in the case almost from the start. Before the trial began, in March, I received two calls from the president asking me to lift Gallagher’s confinement in a Navy brig; I pushed back twice, because the presiding judge, acting on information about the accused’s conduct, had decided that confinement was important. Eventually, the president ordered me to have him transferred to the equivalent of an enlisted barracks. I came to believe that Trump’s interest in the case stemmed partly from the way the defendant’s lawyers and others had worked to keep it front and center in the media.
After the verdict was delivered, the Navy’s normal process wasn’t finished. Gallagher had voluntarily submitted his request to retire. In his case, there were three questions: Would he be permitted to retire at the rank of chief, which is also known as an E-7? (The jury had said he should be busted to an E-6, a demotion.) The second was: Should he be allowed to leave the service with an “honorable” or “general under honorable” discharge? And a third: Should he be able to keep his Trident pin, the medal all SEALs wear and treasure as members of an elite force?
On Nov. 14, partly because the president had already contacted me twice, I sent him a note asking him not to get involved in these questions. The next day, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone called me and said the president would remain involved. Shortly thereafter, I received a second call from Cipollone, who said the president would order me to restore Gallagher to the rank of chief.
This was a shocking and unprecedented intervention in a low-level review. It was also a reminder that the president has very little understanding of what it means to be in the military, to fight ethically or to be governed by a uniform set of rules and practices.
Given my desire to resolve a festering issue, I tried to find a way that would prevent the president from further involvement while trying all avenues to get Gallagher’s file in front of a peer-review board. Why? The Naval Special Warfare community owns the Trident pin, not the secretary of the Navy, not the defense secretary, not even the president. If the review board concluded that Gallagher deserved to keep it, so be it.
I also began to work without personally consulting Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper on every step. That was, I see in retrospect, a mistake for which I am solely responsible.
On Nov. 19, I briefed Esper’s chief of staff concerning my plan. I briefed acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney that evening.
The next day, the Navy established a review board to decide the status of Gallagher’s Trident pin. According to long-standing procedure, a group of four senior enlisted SEALs would rule on the question. This was critical: It would be Gallagher’s peers managing their own community. The senior enlisted ranks in our services are the foundation of good order and discipline.
But the question was quickly made moot: On Nov. 21, the president tweeted that Gallagher would be allowed to keep his pin — Trump’s third intervention in the case. I recognized that the tweet revealed the president’s intent. But I did not believe it to be an official order, chiefly because every action taken by the president in the case so far had either been a verbal or written command.
The rest is history. We must now move on and learn from what has transpired. The public should know that we have extensive screening procedures in place to assess the health and well-being of our forces. But we must keep fine-tuning those procedures to prevent a case such as this one from happening again.
More importantly, Americans need to know that 99.9 percent of our uniformed members always have, always are and always will make the right decision. Our allies need to know that we remain a force for good, and to please bear with us as we move through this moment in time. Source
It is so pathetic that war criminals are awarded, and a patriot has to go.
Opinions
Richard Spencer: I was fired as Navy secretary. Here’s what I’ve learned because of it.
By Richard Spencer
November 27, 2019
Richard Spencer is the former secretary of the Navy.
The case of Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who was charged with multiple war crimes before being convicted of a single lesser charge earlier this year, was troubling enough before things became even more troubling over the past few weeks. The trail of events that led to me being fired as secretary of the Navy is marked with lessons for me and for the nation.
It is highly irregular for a secretary to become deeply involved in most personnel matters. Normally, military justice works best when senior leadership stays far away. A system that prevents command influence is what separates our armed forces from others. Our system of military justice has helped build the world’s most powerful navy; good leaders get promoted, bad ones get moved out, and criminals are punished.
In combat zones, the stakes are even higher. We train our forces to be both disciplined and lethal. We strive to use proportional force, protect civilians and treat detainees fairly. Ethical conduct is what sets our military apart. I have believed that every day since joining the Marine Corps in 1976.
We are effective overseas not because we have the best equipment but because we are professionals. Our troops are held to the highest standards. We expect those who lead our forces to exercise excellent judgment. The soldiers and sailors they lead must be able to count on that.
Earlier this year, Gallagher was formally charged with more than a dozen criminal acts, including premeditated murder, which occurred during his eighth deployment overseas. He was tried in a military court in San Diego and acquitted in July of all charges, except one count of wrongfully posing for photographs with the body of a dead Islamic State fighter. The jury sentenced him to four months, the maximum possible; because he had served that amount of time waiting for trial, he was released.
President Trump involved himself in the case almost from the start. Before the trial began, in March, I received two calls from the president asking me to lift Gallagher’s confinement in a Navy brig; I pushed back twice, because the presiding judge, acting on information about the accused’s conduct, had decided that confinement was important. Eventually, the president ordered me to have him transferred to the equivalent of an enlisted barracks. I came to believe that Trump’s interest in the case stemmed partly from the way the defendant’s lawyers and others had worked to keep it front and center in the media.
After the verdict was delivered, the Navy’s normal process wasn’t finished. Gallagher had voluntarily submitted his request to retire. In his case, there were three questions: Would he be permitted to retire at the rank of chief, which is also known as an E-7? (The jury had said he should be busted to an E-6, a demotion.) The second was: Should he be allowed to leave the service with an “honorable” or “general under honorable” discharge? And a third: Should he be able to keep his Trident pin, the medal all SEALs wear and treasure as members of an elite force?
On Nov. 14, partly because the president had already contacted me twice, I sent him a note asking him not to get involved in these questions. The next day, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone called me and said the president would remain involved. Shortly thereafter, I received a second call from Cipollone, who said the president would order me to restore Gallagher to the rank of chief.
This was a shocking and unprecedented intervention in a low-level review. It was also a reminder that the president has very little understanding of what it means to be in the military, to fight ethically or to be governed by a uniform set of rules and practices.
Given my desire to resolve a festering issue, I tried to find a way that would prevent the president from further involvement while trying all avenues to get Gallagher’s file in front of a peer-review board. Why? The Naval Special Warfare community owns the Trident pin, not the secretary of the Navy, not the defense secretary, not even the president. If the review board concluded that Gallagher deserved to keep it, so be it.
I also began to work without personally consulting Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper on every step. That was, I see in retrospect, a mistake for which I am solely responsible.
On Nov. 19, I briefed Esper’s chief of staff concerning my plan. I briefed acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney that evening.
The next day, the Navy established a review board to decide the status of Gallagher’s Trident pin. According to long-standing procedure, a group of four senior enlisted SEALs would rule on the question. This was critical: It would be Gallagher’s peers managing their own community. The senior enlisted ranks in our services are the foundation of good order and discipline.
But the question was quickly made moot: On Nov. 21, the president tweeted that Gallagher would be allowed to keep his pin — Trump’s third intervention in the case. I recognized that the tweet revealed the president’s intent. But I did not believe it to be an official order, chiefly because every action taken by the president in the case so far had either been a verbal or written command.
The rest is history. We must now move on and learn from what has transpired. The public should know that we have extensive screening procedures in place to assess the health and well-being of our forces. But we must keep fine-tuning those procedures to prevent a case such as this one from happening again.
More importantly, Americans need to know that 99.9 percent of our uniformed members always have, always are and always will make the right decision. Our allies need to know that we remain a force for good, and to please bear with us as we move through this moment in time. Source
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Explainer: How does impeachment of a U.S. president work?
By Jan Wolfe 12/2/2019
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold its first impeachment hearing on Dec. 4, starting a new phase of the inquiry that could lead to formal charges against President Donald Trump within weeks.
The following explains the basics of impeachment, what happens next, and why Trump is unlikely to be removed from office.
WHY IMPEACHMENT?
The founders of the United States feared presidents abusing their powers, so they included in the Constitution a process for removing one from office.
The president, under the Constitution, can be removed from office for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
High crimes and misdemeanors has historically encompassed corruption and abuses of the public trust, as opposed to just indictable violations of criminal statutes.
Former President Gerald Ford, while in Congress, famously said: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."
No president has ever been removed as a direct result of impeachment. One, Richard Nixon, resigned before he could be removed. Two, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, were impeached by the House but not convicted by the Senate.
HOW DOES IT WORK?
Impeachment begins in the House, the lower chamber, which debates and votes on whether to bring charges against the president via approval of an impeachment resolution, or "articles of impeachment," by a simple majority of the body's members.
The Constitution gives House leaders wide latitude in deciding how to conduct impeachment proceedings, legal experts said.
The House Intelligence Committee has conducted an investigation into whether Trump abused his power to pressure Ukraine to launch investigations that would benefit him politically, holding weeks of closed-door testimony and televised hearings. The panel is expected to release a formal evidence report shortly after lawmakers return to Congress on Dec. 3 from their Thanksgiving recess.
The Judiciary panel will use the report to consider formal charges that could form the basis of a full House impeachment vote by the end of December.
If the House approves articles of impeachment, a trial is then held in the Senate. House members act as the prosecutors; the senators as jurors; the chief justice of the Supreme Court presides. Historically, the president has been allowed to have defense lawyers call witnesses and request documents.
CAN THE SENATE REFUSE TO HOLD A TRIAL?
There is debate about whether the Constitution requires a Senate trial. But Senate rules currently in effect require a trial, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has publicly stated that he will allow one to proceed.
Republicans could seek to amend those rules, but such a move is politically risky and considered unlikely, legal experts said.
WHAT ABOUT OPENING A TRIAL AND QUICKLY ENDING IT?
The Senate rules allow members to file, before the conclusion of the trial, motions to dismiss the charges against the president. If such a motion passes by a simple majority the impeachment proceedings effectively end.
Clinton's Senate impeachment trial, which did not end in a conviction, lasted five weeks. Halfway through the proceedings, a Democratic senator introduced a motion to dismiss, which was voted down.
WHAT'S THE PARTY BREAKDOWN IN CONGRESS?
The House comprises 431 members, 233 of whom are Democrats. As a result, the Democrats could impeach Trump with no Republican support.
In 1998, when Republicans had a House majority, the chamber voted largely along party lines to impeach Clinton, a Democrat.
The Senate now has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and two independents who usually vote with the Democrats. Conviction and removal of a president would require a two-thirds majority. So, for Trump to be removed from office via impeachment, in the case of all 100 senators voting, at least 20 Republicans and all the Democrats and independents would have to vote against him.
WHO BECOMES PRESIDENT IF TRUMP IS REMOVED?
In the unlikely event the Senate convicted Trump, Vice President Mike Pence would become president for the remainder of Trump's term, which ends on Jan. 20, 2021.
(Reporting by Jan Wolfe, editing by Ross Colvin and Nick Zieminski) Source
By Jan Wolfe 12/2/2019
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold its first impeachment hearing on Dec. 4, starting a new phase of the inquiry that could lead to formal charges against President Donald Trump within weeks.
The following explains the basics of impeachment, what happens next, and why Trump is unlikely to be removed from office.
WHY IMPEACHMENT?
The founders of the United States feared presidents abusing their powers, so they included in the Constitution a process for removing one from office.
The president, under the Constitution, can be removed from office for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
High crimes and misdemeanors has historically encompassed corruption and abuses of the public trust, as opposed to just indictable violations of criminal statutes.
Former President Gerald Ford, while in Congress, famously said: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."
No president has ever been removed as a direct result of impeachment. One, Richard Nixon, resigned before he could be removed. Two, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, were impeached by the House but not convicted by the Senate.
HOW DOES IT WORK?
Impeachment begins in the House, the lower chamber, which debates and votes on whether to bring charges against the president via approval of an impeachment resolution, or "articles of impeachment," by a simple majority of the body's members.
The Constitution gives House leaders wide latitude in deciding how to conduct impeachment proceedings, legal experts said.
The House Intelligence Committee has conducted an investigation into whether Trump abused his power to pressure Ukraine to launch investigations that would benefit him politically, holding weeks of closed-door testimony and televised hearings. The panel is expected to release a formal evidence report shortly after lawmakers return to Congress on Dec. 3 from their Thanksgiving recess.
The Judiciary panel will use the report to consider formal charges that could form the basis of a full House impeachment vote by the end of December.
If the House approves articles of impeachment, a trial is then held in the Senate. House members act as the prosecutors; the senators as jurors; the chief justice of the Supreme Court presides. Historically, the president has been allowed to have defense lawyers call witnesses and request documents.
CAN THE SENATE REFUSE TO HOLD A TRIAL?
There is debate about whether the Constitution requires a Senate trial. But Senate rules currently in effect require a trial, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has publicly stated that he will allow one to proceed.
Republicans could seek to amend those rules, but such a move is politically risky and considered unlikely, legal experts said.
WHAT ABOUT OPENING A TRIAL AND QUICKLY ENDING IT?
The Senate rules allow members to file, before the conclusion of the trial, motions to dismiss the charges against the president. If such a motion passes by a simple majority the impeachment proceedings effectively end.
Clinton's Senate impeachment trial, which did not end in a conviction, lasted five weeks. Halfway through the proceedings, a Democratic senator introduced a motion to dismiss, which was voted down.
WHAT'S THE PARTY BREAKDOWN IN CONGRESS?
The House comprises 431 members, 233 of whom are Democrats. As a result, the Democrats could impeach Trump with no Republican support.
In 1998, when Republicans had a House majority, the chamber voted largely along party lines to impeach Clinton, a Democrat.
The Senate now has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and two independents who usually vote with the Democrats. Conviction and removal of a president would require a two-thirds majority. So, for Trump to be removed from office via impeachment, in the case of all 100 senators voting, at least 20 Republicans and all the Democrats and independents would have to vote against him.
WHO BECOMES PRESIDENT IF TRUMP IS REMOVED?
In the unlikely event the Senate convicted Trump, Vice President Mike Pence would become president for the remainder of Trump's term, which ends on Jan. 20, 2021.
(Reporting by Jan Wolfe, editing by Ross Colvin and Nick Zieminski) Source
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
NATO leaders were having a good time at the Buckingham Palace making fun of Trump. No one mentions his name, but they seem to be discussing his BS press conference from earlier in the day.
Can you blame them.
World leaders and Princess Anne filmed apparently 'mocking' Trump
A video filmed at a reception held at Buckingham Palace on the first day of the NATO conference appears to show prime ministers Justin Trudeau of Canada, Boris Johnson of the UK, Mark Rutte of the Netherlands, President Emmanuel Macron of France and Princess Anne, the Princess Royal, laughing about Donald Trump's press conference.
"
Can you blame them.
World leaders and Princess Anne filmed apparently 'mocking' Trump
A video filmed at a reception held at Buckingham Palace on the first day of the NATO conference appears to show prime ministers Justin Trudeau of Canada, Boris Johnson of the UK, Mark Rutte of the Netherlands, President Emmanuel Macron of France and Princess Anne, the Princess Royal, laughing about Donald Trump's press conference.
"
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Phase 2 of Trump's impeachment:
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Phase 3 of Impeachment hearing:
House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Inquiry Evidence Hearing
House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Inquiry Evidence Hearing
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Nancy Pelosi, flanked by other high-ranking Democrats, said they were upholding their solemn oath to defend the US Constitution announced two articles of impeachment (Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress) against Trump, declaring he "betrayed the nation" as they pushed toward historic proceedings.
Trump deserves it he left them with no other option.
Trump deserves it he left them with no other option.
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
The Democrat led House Judiciary Committee today (12/13/2019) voted on two articles of impeachment against Trump. They adopted both articles, alleging obstruction of Congress and abuse of power with 23 – 17 votes. Now the impeachment heads to full house vote, which is expected next week after that historic vote impeachment trial will finally moves to Republican-controlled Senate.
THIS IS THE THIRD IMPEACHMENT I'VE WORKED ON. IT'S BY FAR THE MOST SERIOUS | OPINION
ZOE LOFGREN , U.S. REPRESENTATIVE OF CALIFORNIA
ON 12/13/19
I find myself in a unique position. I'm the only member of Congress who has participated in the Judiciary Committee for all three modern impeachment proceedings. This is not something I planned on. It is not something I'm happy about. Impeachment is a grave and solemn matter. It's a stress test for our democracy.
Sadly, President Donald Trump's actions have damaged our national security, undermined the integrity of the next election and violated his oath of office. His actions have brought impeachment back to the forefront of the national conversation and have made me think long and hard about the other two presidential cases that I worked on.
In 1974, during the Nixon impeachment, I was on the staff of my predecessor Congressman Don Edwards, who was on the House Judiciary Committee. I was a law student at the time; I came back to Washington, D.C., to work on a bankruptcy bill, and I got pulled into the vortex that was impeachment. I was assigned to write one of the Articles of Impeachment (on the Cambodia bombing, as requested by Representative John Conyers, that didn't pass out of committee). I had the profound opportunity to have a bird's-eye view of the proceedings.
I'll never forget the impact on Representative Chuck Wiggins—one of the most vigorous defenders of President Richard Nixon—when he confronted the fact that Nixon had lied to him. And I'll never forget when my boss at the time explained impeachment to his colleagues by saying how "[our founders] recognized the frightening power that the president has, that we give the president, and the grave danger to the republic should he abuse it."
Edwards correctly specified that the grave danger must be "to the republic," since he understood that a presidential offense is only impeachable if it upsets the constitutional order and threatens the republic itself.
Nixon abused presidential powers to improperly influence the election, he covered up his actions using the FBI and the CIA, and, thereafter, he rightfully resigned the presidency. In the case of Trump, not only has he similarly abused his power to improperly put his thumb on the scale of the election, he used a foreign power to do it. George Washington would likely be astonished by that behavior, since he forewarned us "against the insidious wiles of foreign influence."
In the case of President Bill Clinton in 1998, there was no foreign interference, no election meddling and no attempt to subvert our Constitution. I was a member of the Judiciary Committee at the time of the Clinton proceedings, and it was clear to me that the president's marital dishonesty would not destroy our constitutional form of government. Lying about sex is not an abuse of presidential power (though, maybe, husband power), and, certainly, Trump may have done the same thing Clinton was accused of when it comes to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. But that has no more to do with the abuse of presidential power than it did in Clinton's case.
Back in the 1990s, I urged my Republican colleagues not to damage the American people's faith in our democracy and undo an election simply because they disapproved of Clinton and his lies about an affair. He abused the trust of his wife; he didn't abuse his presidential power. Unfortunately, they didn't listen, and that, in part, helped create the atmosphere for the antics, untruths and an emboldened president wielding unchecked power that subverts the Constitution we're seeing today. It's important to remember: Impeachment is not about punishing the president; it is about protecting the American people from constitutional violations so extreme they threaten the country's future.
The facts in front of us now are clear: They show Trump made official acts—millions in life-saving military aid for an active war zone and a coveted White House meeting showing support against Russia—conditional on political favors for himself in the 2020 election. Trump continues to solicit foreign interference in our election for his personal political gain. He's not contrite. He hasn't promised to stop. Instead, he continues his improper abuse of presidential power. We're left with no choice but to proceed with impeachment, the constitutional remedy for the most serious of offenses that threaten our democracy.
Never before in our country's history has a president simply refused to provide all documents to Congress or to order that no one in the executive branch testify. His obstruction of Congress is unprecedented—and claims of absolute immunity or the assertion of complete privilege go against our Constitution. If allowed to stand, it would fundamentally change the balance of power between our three branches of government. It would prevent Congress from conducting needed oversight of this president or any other in the future.
In the past few weeks, I've received many questions about how this impeachment process compares with the two I experienced before. Answer: Unfortunately, this case is far worse. But there's a different question I've been asking myself: What would my reaction be if these allegations and this set of facts were against the president of my own party? And I can say with certainty that if a Democratic president did what Trump very clearly appears to have done, I would be over at the White House saying, "You should resign."
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren is a U.S. representative of California's 19th District and a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee. Source
THIS IS THE THIRD IMPEACHMENT I'VE WORKED ON. IT'S BY FAR THE MOST SERIOUS | OPINION
ZOE LOFGREN , U.S. REPRESENTATIVE OF CALIFORNIA
ON 12/13/19
I find myself in a unique position. I'm the only member of Congress who has participated in the Judiciary Committee for all three modern impeachment proceedings. This is not something I planned on. It is not something I'm happy about. Impeachment is a grave and solemn matter. It's a stress test for our democracy.
Sadly, President Donald Trump's actions have damaged our national security, undermined the integrity of the next election and violated his oath of office. His actions have brought impeachment back to the forefront of the national conversation and have made me think long and hard about the other two presidential cases that I worked on.
In 1974, during the Nixon impeachment, I was on the staff of my predecessor Congressman Don Edwards, who was on the House Judiciary Committee. I was a law student at the time; I came back to Washington, D.C., to work on a bankruptcy bill, and I got pulled into the vortex that was impeachment. I was assigned to write one of the Articles of Impeachment (on the Cambodia bombing, as requested by Representative John Conyers, that didn't pass out of committee). I had the profound opportunity to have a bird's-eye view of the proceedings.
I'll never forget the impact on Representative Chuck Wiggins—one of the most vigorous defenders of President Richard Nixon—when he confronted the fact that Nixon had lied to him. And I'll never forget when my boss at the time explained impeachment to his colleagues by saying how "[our founders] recognized the frightening power that the president has, that we give the president, and the grave danger to the republic should he abuse it."
Edwards correctly specified that the grave danger must be "to the republic," since he understood that a presidential offense is only impeachable if it upsets the constitutional order and threatens the republic itself.
Nixon abused presidential powers to improperly influence the election, he covered up his actions using the FBI and the CIA, and, thereafter, he rightfully resigned the presidency. In the case of Trump, not only has he similarly abused his power to improperly put his thumb on the scale of the election, he used a foreign power to do it. George Washington would likely be astonished by that behavior, since he forewarned us "against the insidious wiles of foreign influence."
In the case of President Bill Clinton in 1998, there was no foreign interference, no election meddling and no attempt to subvert our Constitution. I was a member of the Judiciary Committee at the time of the Clinton proceedings, and it was clear to me that the president's marital dishonesty would not destroy our constitutional form of government. Lying about sex is not an abuse of presidential power (though, maybe, husband power), and, certainly, Trump may have done the same thing Clinton was accused of when it comes to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. But that has no more to do with the abuse of presidential power than it did in Clinton's case.
Back in the 1990s, I urged my Republican colleagues not to damage the American people's faith in our democracy and undo an election simply because they disapproved of Clinton and his lies about an affair. He abused the trust of his wife; he didn't abuse his presidential power. Unfortunately, they didn't listen, and that, in part, helped create the atmosphere for the antics, untruths and an emboldened president wielding unchecked power that subverts the Constitution we're seeing today. It's important to remember: Impeachment is not about punishing the president; it is about protecting the American people from constitutional violations so extreme they threaten the country's future.
The facts in front of us now are clear: They show Trump made official acts—millions in life-saving military aid for an active war zone and a coveted White House meeting showing support against Russia—conditional on political favors for himself in the 2020 election. Trump continues to solicit foreign interference in our election for his personal political gain. He's not contrite. He hasn't promised to stop. Instead, he continues his improper abuse of presidential power. We're left with no choice but to proceed with impeachment, the constitutional remedy for the most serious of offenses that threaten our democracy.
Never before in our country's history has a president simply refused to provide all documents to Congress or to order that no one in the executive branch testify. His obstruction of Congress is unprecedented—and claims of absolute immunity or the assertion of complete privilege go against our Constitution. If allowed to stand, it would fundamentally change the balance of power between our three branches of government. It would prevent Congress from conducting needed oversight of this president or any other in the future.
In the past few weeks, I've received many questions about how this impeachment process compares with the two I experienced before. Answer: Unfortunately, this case is far worse. But there's a different question I've been asking myself: What would my reaction be if these allegations and this set of facts were against the president of my own party? And I can say with certainty that if a Democratic president did what Trump very clearly appears to have done, I would be over at the White House saying, "You should resign."
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren is a U.S. representative of California's 19th District and a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee. Source
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Today is a historic day. The House of Representatives will vote to impeach a president for only the third time in history.
More than 700 scholars sign letter urging House to impeach Trump
Felicia Sonmez, The Washington Post
A group of more than 700 historians, legal scholars and others published an open letter Monday urging the House of Representatives to impeach President Donald Trump, denouncing his conduct as "a clear and present danger to the Constitution."
The letter's release comes two days before the House is expected to vote on two articles of impeachment.
"President Trump's lawless obstruction of the House of Representatives, which is rightly seeking documents and witness testimony in pursuit of its constitutionally-mandated oversight role, has demonstrated brazen contempt for representative government," the scholars write in the letter, which was published online by the nonprofit advocacy group Protect Democracy.
"So have his attempts to justify that obstruction on the grounds that the executive enjoys absolute immunity, a fictitious doctrine that, if tolerated, would turn the president into an elected monarch above the law," they add.
Protect Democracy also released a letter earlier this month from more than 500 law professors asserting that Trump had committed "impeachable conduct."
Among the notable signatories of the latest letter are award-winning filmmaker Ken Burns, biographer Robert Caro and historians Ron Chernow, Jon Meacham and Douglas Brinkley.
In the letter, the scholars criticize Trump's "numerous and flagrant abuses of power" and state that his actions "urgently and justly require his impeachment."
"As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, impeachment was designed to deal with 'the misconduct of public men' which involves 'the abuse or violation of some public trust,' " they wrote.
"Collectively, the President's offenses, including his dereliction in protecting the integrity of the 2020 election from Russian disinformation and renewed interference, arouse once again the Framers' most profound fears that powerful members of government would become, in Hamilton's words, 'the mercenary instruments of foreign corruption,' " they add. "It is our considered judgment that if President Trump's misconduct does not rise to the level of impeachment, then virtually nothing does." Source
'What is Trump hiding?': Republican billboard aims at Trump's impeachment defiance
The Republicans for the Rule of Law debuted an impeachment-based digital billboard in Times Square asking “What is (President Donald) Trump hiding?”
The billboard comes as the entire House is expected to hold a vote on the two articles of impeachment towards the president —abuse of power and obstruction of Congress charges.
The ad takes direct aim at the latter charge, featuring current and former Trump administration officials who were involved in the Ukraine scandal and yet did not comply with congressional subpoenas to testify.
Sporting duct tape over their mouths on the billboard include Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former national security adviser John Bolton, acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney.
The president is displayed as hushing these individuals on the billboard.
The Trump administration has directed aides and agencies to defy subpoenas for documents and testimony, although some officials still testified. The defiance is what led to the accusation of obstruction of Congress. Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said Trump's refusal to cooperate with any congressional subpoena was worse than any president in history, including Nixon. Read more
More than 700 scholars sign letter urging House to impeach Trump
Felicia Sonmez, The Washington Post
A group of more than 700 historians, legal scholars and others published an open letter Monday urging the House of Representatives to impeach President Donald Trump, denouncing his conduct as "a clear and present danger to the Constitution."
The letter's release comes two days before the House is expected to vote on two articles of impeachment.
"President Trump's lawless obstruction of the House of Representatives, which is rightly seeking documents and witness testimony in pursuit of its constitutionally-mandated oversight role, has demonstrated brazen contempt for representative government," the scholars write in the letter, which was published online by the nonprofit advocacy group Protect Democracy.
"So have his attempts to justify that obstruction on the grounds that the executive enjoys absolute immunity, a fictitious doctrine that, if tolerated, would turn the president into an elected monarch above the law," they add.
Protect Democracy also released a letter earlier this month from more than 500 law professors asserting that Trump had committed "impeachable conduct."
Among the notable signatories of the latest letter are award-winning filmmaker Ken Burns, biographer Robert Caro and historians Ron Chernow, Jon Meacham and Douglas Brinkley.
In the letter, the scholars criticize Trump's "numerous and flagrant abuses of power" and state that his actions "urgently and justly require his impeachment."
"As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, impeachment was designed to deal with 'the misconduct of public men' which involves 'the abuse or violation of some public trust,' " they wrote.
"Collectively, the President's offenses, including his dereliction in protecting the integrity of the 2020 election from Russian disinformation and renewed interference, arouse once again the Framers' most profound fears that powerful members of government would become, in Hamilton's words, 'the mercenary instruments of foreign corruption,' " they add. "It is our considered judgment that if President Trump's misconduct does not rise to the level of impeachment, then virtually nothing does." Source
'What is Trump hiding?': Republican billboard aims at Trump's impeachment defiance
The Republicans for the Rule of Law debuted an impeachment-based digital billboard in Times Square asking “What is (President Donald) Trump hiding?”
The billboard comes as the entire House is expected to hold a vote on the two articles of impeachment towards the president —abuse of power and obstruction of Congress charges.
The ad takes direct aim at the latter charge, featuring current and former Trump administration officials who were involved in the Ukraine scandal and yet did not comply with congressional subpoenas to testify.
Sporting duct tape over their mouths on the billboard include Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former national security adviser John Bolton, acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney.
The president is displayed as hushing these individuals on the billboard.
The Trump administration has directed aides and agencies to defy subpoenas for documents and testimony, although some officials still testified. The defiance is what led to the accusation of obstruction of Congress. Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said Trump's refusal to cooperate with any congressional subpoena was worse than any president in history, including Nixon. Read more
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Democracy at Work.
Last edited:
pkuser2k12
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
- Messages
- 6,460
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Trump was Impeached! Good for the country. 
Key Moments: The Day the House Impeached Trump
The historic votes charged the president with “high crimes and misdemeanors” in connection with a Ukraine pressure campaign. Mr. Trump became the third sitting president in history to be impeached.
By Michael D. Shear and Peter Baker
The House has impeached Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, sending the case to the Senate for trial.
The House of Representatives on Wednesday impeached President Trump, charging him with “high crimes and misdemeanors” and making him the third president in history to face removal by the Senate.
The votes on two articles of impeachment — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — fell largely along party lines, after about eight hours of contentious debate that underscored the deep divisions in the country and among its representatives.
All but two Democrats supported the article on abuse of power, which accused Mr. Trump of using the power of his office to pressure Ukraine’s government to announce investigations that could discredit his political rivals. The vote was 230 to 197.
A third Democrat, Representative Jared Golden of Maine, joined with Republicans in opposing the obstruction of Congress charge. The vote was 229 to 198.
No Republicans voted in favor of either article of impeachment. Representative Justin Amash, Independent of Michigan, voted for both articles.
Representative Tulsi Gabbard, Democrat of Hawaii, who is running for president, voted “present” on both articles of impeachment. She said in a statement that she could not “in good conscience” vote either yes or no.
“I am standing in the center and have decided to vote present. I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing,” she said.
She added, “I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting president must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.”
A historic trial in the Senate is expected to begin early next year, giving senators the final say on whether to acquit the 45th president or convict and remove him from office. Acquittal in the Republican-controlled chamber is likely. Read more
Key Moments: The Day the House Impeached Trump
The historic votes charged the president with “high crimes and misdemeanors” in connection with a Ukraine pressure campaign. Mr. Trump became the third sitting president in history to be impeached.
By Michael D. Shear and Peter Baker
The House has impeached Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, sending the case to the Senate for trial.
The House of Representatives on Wednesday impeached President Trump, charging him with “high crimes and misdemeanors” and making him the third president in history to face removal by the Senate.
The votes on two articles of impeachment — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — fell largely along party lines, after about eight hours of contentious debate that underscored the deep divisions in the country and among its representatives.
All but two Democrats supported the article on abuse of power, which accused Mr. Trump of using the power of his office to pressure Ukraine’s government to announce investigations that could discredit his political rivals. The vote was 230 to 197.
A third Democrat, Representative Jared Golden of Maine, joined with Republicans in opposing the obstruction of Congress charge. The vote was 229 to 198.
No Republicans voted in favor of either article of impeachment. Representative Justin Amash, Independent of Michigan, voted for both articles.
Representative Tulsi Gabbard, Democrat of Hawaii, who is running for president, voted “present” on both articles of impeachment. She said in a statement that she could not “in good conscience” vote either yes or no.
“I am standing in the center and have decided to vote present. I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing,” she said.
She added, “I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting president must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.”
A historic trial in the Senate is expected to begin early next year, giving senators the final say on whether to acquit the 45th president or convict and remove him from office. Acquittal in the Republican-controlled chamber is likely. Read more
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Children Speak Out About Donald Trump
We've heard a lot from a lot of people about this election so far. We've heard from pundits, surrogates, experts and anchors, but we haven't yet heard from kids. So we went out on the street to ask children to give us their thoughts on our next President, Donald Trump.
We Ask Kids How Trump is Doing
It has been almost a year since the inauguration of Donald Trump and his positive approval rating is at 37% among adults. Jimmy wanted to see what kids thought of his first year in office so we stopped some on the street and asked them how they think he is doing.
We Ask Kids How Trump is Doing
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Opinions
Jeff Flake: The president is on trial. So are my Senate Republican colleagues.
Jeff Flake. (Laura Segall/The Washington Post)
By Jeff Flake
Dec. 20, 2019 at 2:40 p.m. PST
Jeff Flake, a Republican, represented Arizona in the U.S. Senate from 2013 to 2019. He is a resident fellow at Harvard University and a contributor to CBS News.
To my former Senate Republican colleagues,
I don’t envy you.
It might not be fair, but none of the successes, achievements and triumphs you’ve had in public office — whatever bills you’ve passed, hearings you’ve chaired, constituents you have had the privilege of helping — will matter more than your actions in the coming months.
President Trump is on trial. But in a very real sense, so are you. And so is the political party to which we belong.
As we approach the time when you do your constitutional duty and weigh the evidence arrayed against the president, I urge you to remember who we are when we are at our best. And I ask you to remember yourself at your most idealistic.
We are conservatives. The political impulses that compelled us all to enter public life were defined by sturdy pillars anchored deep in the American story. Chief among these is a realistic view of power and of human nature, and a corresponding and healthy mistrust of concentrated and impervious executive power. Mindful of the base human instincts that we all possess, the founders of our constitutional system designed its very architecture to curb excesses of power.
Those curbs are especially important when the power is wielded by a president who denies reality itself and calls his behavior not what it is, but “perfect.”
Personally, I have never met anyone whose behavior can be described as perfect, but so often has the president repeated this obvious untruth that it has become a form of dogma in our party. And sure enough, as dogma demands, there are members of our party denying objective reality by repeating the line that “the president did nothing wrong.” My colleagues, the danger of an untruthful president is compounded when an equal branch follows that president off the cliff, into the abyss of unreality and untruth.
Call it the founders’ blind spot: They simply could not have envisioned the Article I branch abetting and enabling such dangerous behavior in the Article II branch. And when we are complicit, we cede our constitutional responsibilities, we forever redefine the relationship between Congress and the White House, and we set the most dangerous of precedents.
My simple test for all of us: What if President Barack Obama had engaged in precisely the same behavior? I know the answer to that question with certainty, and so do you. You would have understood with striking clarity the threat it posed, and you would have known exactly what to do.
Regarding the articles of impeachment, you could reasonably conclude that the president’s actions warrant his removal. You might also determine that the president’s actions do not rise to the constitutional standard required for removal. There is no small amount of moral hazard with each option, but both positions can be defended.
But what is indefensible is echoing House Republicans who say that the president has not done anything wrong. He has.
The willingness of House Republicans to bend to the president’s will by attempting to shift blame with the promotion of bizarre and debunked conspiracy theories has been an appalling spectacle. It will have long-term ramifications for the country and the party, to say nothing of individual reputations.
Nearly all of you condemned the president’s behavior during the 2016 campaign. Nearly all of you refused to campaign with him. You knew then that doing so would be wrong — would be a stain on your reputation and the standing of the Republican Party, and would do lasting damage to the conservative cause.
Ask yourself today: Has the president changed his behavior? Has he grown in office? Has the mantle of the presidency altered his conduct? The answer is obvious. In fact, if the president’s political rally in Michigan on Wednesday is any measure, his language has only become more vulgar, his performance cruder, his behavior more boorish and unstable.
Next, ask yourself: If the president’s conduct hasn’t changed, has mine? Before President Trump came on the scene, would I have stood at a rally and cheered while supporters shouted “lock her up” or “send them back”? Would I have laughed along while the president demeaned and ridiculed my colleagues? Would I have ever thought to warm up the crowd for the president by saying of the House speaker: “It must suck to be that dumb”?
As I said above, I don’t envy you. You’re on a big stage now. Please don’t accept an alternate reality that would have us believe in things that obviously are not true, in the service of executive behavior that we never would have encouraged and a theory of executive power that we have always found abhorrent.
If there ever was a time to put country over party, it is now. And by putting country over party, you might just save the Grand Old Party before it’s too late.
Jeff Flake: The president is on trial. So are my Senate Republican colleagues.
By Jeff Flake
Dec. 20, 2019 at 2:40 p.m. PST
Jeff Flake, a Republican, represented Arizona in the U.S. Senate from 2013 to 2019. He is a resident fellow at Harvard University and a contributor to CBS News.
To my former Senate Republican colleagues,
I don’t envy you.
It might not be fair, but none of the successes, achievements and triumphs you’ve had in public office — whatever bills you’ve passed, hearings you’ve chaired, constituents you have had the privilege of helping — will matter more than your actions in the coming months.
President Trump is on trial. But in a very real sense, so are you. And so is the political party to which we belong.
As we approach the time when you do your constitutional duty and weigh the evidence arrayed against the president, I urge you to remember who we are when we are at our best. And I ask you to remember yourself at your most idealistic.
We are conservatives. The political impulses that compelled us all to enter public life were defined by sturdy pillars anchored deep in the American story. Chief among these is a realistic view of power and of human nature, and a corresponding and healthy mistrust of concentrated and impervious executive power. Mindful of the base human instincts that we all possess, the founders of our constitutional system designed its very architecture to curb excesses of power.
Those curbs are especially important when the power is wielded by a president who denies reality itself and calls his behavior not what it is, but “perfect.”
Personally, I have never met anyone whose behavior can be described as perfect, but so often has the president repeated this obvious untruth that it has become a form of dogma in our party. And sure enough, as dogma demands, there are members of our party denying objective reality by repeating the line that “the president did nothing wrong.” My colleagues, the danger of an untruthful president is compounded when an equal branch follows that president off the cliff, into the abyss of unreality and untruth.
Call it the founders’ blind spot: They simply could not have envisioned the Article I branch abetting and enabling such dangerous behavior in the Article II branch. And when we are complicit, we cede our constitutional responsibilities, we forever redefine the relationship between Congress and the White House, and we set the most dangerous of precedents.
My simple test for all of us: What if President Barack Obama had engaged in precisely the same behavior? I know the answer to that question with certainty, and so do you. You would have understood with striking clarity the threat it posed, and you would have known exactly what to do.
Regarding the articles of impeachment, you could reasonably conclude that the president’s actions warrant his removal. You might also determine that the president’s actions do not rise to the constitutional standard required for removal. There is no small amount of moral hazard with each option, but both positions can be defended.
But what is indefensible is echoing House Republicans who say that the president has not done anything wrong. He has.
The willingness of House Republicans to bend to the president’s will by attempting to shift blame with the promotion of bizarre and debunked conspiracy theories has been an appalling spectacle. It will have long-term ramifications for the country and the party, to say nothing of individual reputations.
Nearly all of you condemned the president’s behavior during the 2016 campaign. Nearly all of you refused to campaign with him. You knew then that doing so would be wrong — would be a stain on your reputation and the standing of the Republican Party, and would do lasting damage to the conservative cause.
Ask yourself today: Has the president changed his behavior? Has he grown in office? Has the mantle of the presidency altered his conduct? The answer is obvious. In fact, if the president’s political rally in Michigan on Wednesday is any measure, his language has only become more vulgar, his performance cruder, his behavior more boorish and unstable.
Next, ask yourself: If the president’s conduct hasn’t changed, has mine? Before President Trump came on the scene, would I have stood at a rally and cheered while supporters shouted “lock her up” or “send them back”? Would I have laughed along while the president demeaned and ridiculed my colleagues? Would I have ever thought to warm up the crowd for the president by saying of the House speaker: “It must suck to be that dumb”?
As I said above, I don’t envy you. You’re on a big stage now. Please don’t accept an alternate reality that would have us believe in things that obviously are not true, in the service of executive behavior that we never would have encouraged and a theory of executive power that we have always found abhorrent.
If there ever was a time to put country over party, it is now. And by putting country over party, you might just save the Grand Old Party before it’s too late.
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Thank goodness, at last, a prominent Evangelical publication says Trump should be impeached and removed from the office. White Evangelical are Trump’s strongest supporters, almost 81 percent voted for him in 2016. Every bit helps.
EDITORIAL
Trump Should Be Removed from Office
It’s time to say what we said 20 years ago when a president’s character was revealed for what it was.
MARK GALLI DECEMBER 19, 2019
In our founding documents, Billy Graham explains that Christianity Today will help evangelical Christians interpret the news in a manner that reflects their faith. The impeachment of Donald Trump is a significant event in the story of our republic. It requires comment.
The typical CT approach is to stay above the fray and allow Christians with different political convictions to make their arguments in the public square, to encourage all to pursue justice according to their convictions and treat their political opposition as charitably as possible. We want CT to be a place that welcomes Christians from across the political spectrum, and reminds everyone that politics is not the end and purpose of our being. We take pride in the fact, for instance, that politics does not dominate our homepage.
That said, we do feel it necessary from time to time to make our own opinions on political matters clear—always, as Graham encouraged us, doing so with both conviction and love. We love and pray for our president, as we love and pray for leaders (as well as ordinary citizens) on both sides of the political aisle.
Let’s grant this to the president: The Democrats have had it out for him from day one, and therefore nearly everything they do is under a cloud of partisan suspicion. This has led many to suspect not only motives but facts in these recent impeachment hearings. And, no, Mr. Trump did not have a serious opportunity to offer his side of the story in the House hearings on impeachment.
But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.
The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.
Trump’s evangelical supporters have pointed to his Supreme Court nominees, his defense of religious liberty, and his stewardship of the economy, among other things, as achievements that justify their support of the president. 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. This damages the institution of the presidency, damages the reputation of our country, and damages both the spirit and the future of our people. None of the president’s positives can balance the moral and political danger we face under a leader of such grossly immoral character.
This concern for the character of our national leader is not new in CT. In 1998, we wrote this:
The President's failure to tell the truth—even when cornered—rips at the fabric of the nation. This is not a private affair. For above all, social intercourse is built on a presumption of trust: trust that the milk your grocer sells you is wholesome and pure; trust that the money you put in your bank can be taken out of the bank; trust that your babysitter, firefighters, clergy, and ambulance drivers will all do their best. And while politicians are notorious for breaking campaign promises, while in office they have a fundamental obligation to uphold our trust in them and to live by the law.
And this:
Unsavory dealings and immoral acts by the President and those close to him have rendered this administration morally unable to lead.
Unfortunately, the words that we applied to Mr. Clinton 20 years ago apply almost perfectly to our current president. Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments.
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. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come? Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?
We have reserved judgment on Mr. Trump for years now. Some have criticized us for our reserve. But when it comes to condemning the behavior of another, patient charity must come first. So we have done our best to give evangelical Trump supporters their due, to try to understand their point of view, to see the prudential nature of so many political decisions they have made regarding Mr. Trump. To use an old cliché, it’s time to call a spade a spade, to say that no matter how many hands we win in this political poker game, we are playing with a stacked deck of gross immorality and ethical incompetence. And just when we think it’s time to push all our chips to the center of the table, that’s when the whole game will come crashing down. It will crash down on the reputation of evangelical religion and on the world’s understanding of the gospel. And it will come crashing down on a nation of men and women whose welfare is also our concern. Source
EDITORIAL
Trump Should Be Removed from Office
It’s time to say what we said 20 years ago when a president’s character was revealed for what it was.
MARK GALLI DECEMBER 19, 2019
In our founding documents, Billy Graham explains that Christianity Today will help evangelical Christians interpret the news in a manner that reflects their faith. The impeachment of Donald Trump is a significant event in the story of our republic. It requires comment.
The typical CT approach is to stay above the fray and allow Christians with different political convictions to make their arguments in the public square, to encourage all to pursue justice according to their convictions and treat their political opposition as charitably as possible. We want CT to be a place that welcomes Christians from across the political spectrum, and reminds everyone that politics is not the end and purpose of our being. We take pride in the fact, for instance, that politics does not dominate our homepage.
That said, we do feel it necessary from time to time to make our own opinions on political matters clear—always, as Graham encouraged us, doing so with both conviction and love. We love and pray for our president, as we love and pray for leaders (as well as ordinary citizens) on both sides of the political aisle.
Let’s grant this to the president: The Democrats have had it out for him from day one, and therefore nearly everything they do is under a cloud of partisan suspicion. This has led many to suspect not only motives but facts in these recent impeachment hearings. And, no, Mr. Trump did not have a serious opportunity to offer his side of the story in the House hearings on impeachment.
But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.
The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.
Trump’s evangelical supporters have pointed to his Supreme Court nominees, his defense of religious liberty, and his stewardship of the economy, among other things, as achievements that justify their support of the president. 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. This damages the institution of the presidency, damages the reputation of our country, and damages both the spirit and the future of our people. None of the president’s positives can balance the moral and political danger we face under a leader of such grossly immoral character.
This concern for the character of our national leader is not new in CT. In 1998, we wrote this:
The President's failure to tell the truth—even when cornered—rips at the fabric of the nation. This is not a private affair. For above all, social intercourse is built on a presumption of trust: trust that the milk your grocer sells you is wholesome and pure; trust that the money you put in your bank can be taken out of the bank; trust that your babysitter, firefighters, clergy, and ambulance drivers will all do their best. And while politicians are notorious for breaking campaign promises, while in office they have a fundamental obligation to uphold our trust in them and to live by the law.
And this:
Unsavory dealings and immoral acts by the President and those close to him have rendered this administration morally unable to lead.
Unfortunately, the words that we applied to Mr. Clinton 20 years ago apply almost perfectly to our current president. Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments.
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. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come? Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?
We have reserved judgment on Mr. Trump for years now. Some have criticized us for our reserve. But when it comes to condemning the behavior of another, patient charity must come first. So we have done our best to give evangelical Trump supporters their due, to try to understand their point of view, to see the prudential nature of so many political decisions they have made regarding Mr. Trump. To use an old cliché, it’s time to call a spade a spade, to say that no matter how many hands we win in this political poker game, we are playing with a stacked deck of gross immorality and ethical incompetence. And just when we think it’s time to push all our chips to the center of the table, that’s when the whole game will come crashing down. It will crash down on the reputation of evangelical religion and on the world’s understanding of the gospel. And it will come crashing down on a nation of men and women whose welfare is also our concern. Source
