The Evangelical Universalist Forum

How To Live Under An Unqualified President by John Piper

Practices Christian Living
#3665

In their report, the House Democrats confirmed that the quid pro quo linked to the July 25 call, which they failed to prove because it is not illegal to ask for conditions for U.S. aid under the law, was a hook needed to expand articles of impeachment wherever they wanted, saying:

At the center of this investigation is the memorandum prepared following President Trump’s July 25, 2019, phone call with Ukraine’s President … Our investigation determined that this telephone call was neither the start nor the end of President Trump’s efforts to bend U.S. foreign policy for his personal gain.

…

The investigation revealed the nature and extent of the President’s misconduct, notwithstanding an unprecedented campaign of obstruction by the President and his Administration to prevent the Committees from obtaining documentary evidence and testimony. A dozen witnesses followed President Trump’s orders, defying voluntary requests and lawful subpoenas, and refusing to testify. … [And] refused to produce a single document in response to our subpoenas. …There remain unanswered questions, and our investigation must continue, even as we transmit our report to the Judiciary Committee.

The Democrats’ report appears to concede there is not enough evidence for impeachment based on quid pro quo on July 25 alone, now claiming the crime evolved. - Edwin Mora

#3666

What was wrong was delaying the funds that Congress approved to Ukraine. If a Pres can withhold funds that Congress appropriated then why have a Congress? This delay was short and minor and i’m not suggesting any reason for it either way but i suspect this delay was going a bit beyond Presidential powers so although minor , i still see it as wrong.

1 Like
#3667

Did he withhold it? I m.ean, they did not provide him any dirt, and they still got their aid.
In any case, even if it was inappropriate, it’s not impeachable. And if he did something inappropriate, which I still don’t see, it’s nothing that hasn’t been done by everyone in that office at one time or another.

If they weren’t so obviously frothing at the mouth to impeach our President, just because they lost, I’d give them a pass.
Anyway, onward and upward. Thanks Steve.

#3668

Yes he withheld it 5 weeks and yes they did get the aid and yes many undoubtedly have done worse and not a peep was uttered by anyone in other cases.

1 Like
#3669

OTOH, just to play the devil’s advocate: there is a good case to make that DT was only following the treaty, from back when Biden was in office. This process of looking into corruption was a matter even back then, and DT was playing by the rules agreed to in the treaty. Now some here believe they can read his mind as to what his ‘real’ intentions were, but the facts be the facts - he broke no law, was following the terms of the treaty, and did nothing inappropriate.
Biden did the inappropriate thing, but of course the left just dances around it - they have bigger game, which is undoing the election of the President of the United States.
Quote -
It was passed when Joe Biden was a member of the U.S. Senate and then signed by then-President Bill Clinton.**

A comprehensive treaty agreement that allows cooperation between both the United States and Ukraine in the investigation and prosecution of crimes.

It appears President Trump was following the law to the letter when it comes to unearthing the long-standing corruption that has swirled in Ukraine and allegedly involves powerful Democrats like Joe Biden and others. - end quote

Just saying - this appears to be just as reasonable as thinking the Pres was just strong-arming to dig dirt. He doesn’t need dirt on Biden - it’s all out there in the public realm, or being brought out further.

#3670

Extra, extra - hot off the BBC presses. :crazy_face:

#3671

I’m not aware of any treaty so if DT was in fact following the procedures of this treaty I will change my opinion! BTW what does OTOH mean?

#3672

On The Other Hand :slight_smile:

#3673

“law experts” indeed & of course if they had the opportunity the Repubs can bring in their own “law experts” to give their opposite opinions.

#3674

Which hand?? Never mind

#3675

He is still innocent. No case has been made other than mind-reading, imputing motives and hearsay by the Dems.
Legal experts - and really, have you seen the background info on these people? - Trump haters from way back -and how are they ‘witnesses’? To what?
THEIR opinion is going to help take away our elected Prez? I need another cookie. The impeachment circus is making me fat.

#3676

I can’t resist this. :crazy_face:

image
image1500×841 350 KB

#3677

There are a few who do interpret Trump this way. But his less pure appeal for many is that he does not play bound by the same status quo conventions that hypocritic politicians usually posture about.

I find it especially refreshing that he is not afraid to do things many have touted as inappropriate, and that with precious little guile, he is usually quite transparent about what he’s really thinking.

#3678

Yes, and that in and of it self should be a groundwork to at least say ‘here is the president we have, let’s make the most of it’ but obviously this will never happen.

1 Like
#3679

One of the Dems “experts” said she walked on the other side of the street to avoid the Trump Hotel.

#3680

I don’t know if anyone was able to watch Tucker this evening, but it was a good show.

#3681

Professor Pamela Karlan, of Stanford University, was a very poor expert witness in today’s hearing. In addition to having to apologize for a remark she made about Trump’s 13-year-old son, she made the following amazing statement.

“When the President said ‘do us a favor,’ he was using the royal we there. It wasn’t a favor for the United States. He should have said do me a favor because only kings say ‘us’ when they mean ‘me,’” she said.

What a wild and biased conclusion to jump to! Does she really think there was no other much more logical reason for Trump to have used “us” instead of “me” in that statement?

Does she really think that only kings say “us” when they mean “me”? Only kings???

This is what happens when one spends one’s life interacting with only like-minded people and have nobody with contrary ideas around to correct one’s careless deductions.

I suggest she start posting here–plenty of smart, dissenting voices to deal with.

4 Likes
#3682

Amen, what pathetic things to say. It’s like a double shot in the foot.

#3683

No but i’m a Tucker fan as well as Ben Shapiro

#3684

Get Keto friendly cookies