Does any have less respect for Jay Sekulow and etc now for being a mouthpiece for Trump

[LadyKay]

2 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Do I think Trump has done some questionable things? Yes.  Do these things rise to the severity of impeachment? No.

Well that is what the impeachment trial is for.   For more knowledgeable minds then mine to determine  if it is or not. But if you are asking me. I think it is. 

[LadyKay]

On 1/21/2020 at 9:22 AM, Amigo42 said:

Does any have less respect or a lesser view of people like Jay Sekulow, Sarah Sanders, etc. for how they appear to be a mouthpiece for Trump?  I know that Sekulow loves the Lord and has done a lot for Him, and I believe the same about Sanders.  However, both of them have unknowingly or used plausible deniability to essentially lie for Trump or at least repeat his lies.  How can a Christian be a mouthpiece for a proven liar and moral degenerate such as Trump?  I know Sarah Sander had to have known she lied multiple times.  At the least she repeated lies that I'm sure she knew full well they were.  Maybe she reasoned in herself that it's Trump who is lying and not her.  

My apology to the OP for not sticking to the topic of this thread. I myself can not explain how a Christian can be a mouthpiece for a proven liar. Except maybe they just can't see or don't want to see the truth. Even Christians lose their way sometimes. I know at times I have. But Jesus always found me and brought me back. 

[JoeMo]

2 hours ago, LadyKay said:

The "leftist"label applies to anybody who disagrees or anyone who does not praise Trump.  Even myself. 

IMHO, a leftist (or liberal) is someone more liberal than I am, and a rightist (or conservative) is someone who is more conservative than I am.  I am the only perfectly politically balanced person I know! (I'm joking, of course.)

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, LadyKay said:

Well that is what the impeachment trial is for.   For more knowledgeable minds then mine to determine  if it is or not. But if you are asking me. I think it is. 

Thank you for your direct honesty.  I honestly appreciate that.  For the record, so far I don't think it rises to that level.  That being said, my mind is open.  Sen. Garcia did a very good job in her presentation.

[Omegaman 3.0]

8 hours ago, JoeMo said:

In the sense that there was no crime, you are correct!  However, impeachment of a president is for"high crimes and misdemeanors".  If he's being tried for alleged "high crimes and misdemeanors, it sounds like a criminal trial to me (although I have yet to hear of any crime).

Do I think Trump has done some questionable things? Yes.  Do these things rise to the severity of impeachment? No.

 I wish it was possible to impeach Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler.

 

In the interest of fairness to those who are on the "impeach Trump" side of this, and in the interest in not skewing the actual situation:

While I have responded in the thread and appealed to the idea that innocent until proven guilty is a good standard, it has also been pointed out, that this is not a criminal trial, which is of course true. What I want to clarify however, is that the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" can be easily misunderstood.

We recognize these terms, with modern ears, where we think misdemeanors are "minor crimes", lower than felonies, but greater than infractions. Now, in terms of the constitution, I am an originalist, that is to say that I think we do best to consider what the framers of the constitution had in mind or intended, and not do what much of the left does, which considers the constitution to be a "living document" to be reinterpreted to mean what our current needs or desires require, so that we do not need to change the constitution in the legally prescribed way.

To the framers of the constitution, "high crimes and misdemeanors" was a term they were familiar with from British law, and they held the same understanding of the term that the Brits had. In a nutshell, high crimes can mean things like an high official violating his oaths, and misdemeanors were just but behavior, things of evil, etc. Benjamin Franklin opined that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the a political executive "rendered himself obnoxious," and that the Constitution ought to supply "regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused."

When President Clinton was impeached back in 1999, he was impeached on counts of perjury and obstruction of justice. His defenders liked to try to convince us that it was all about sex. However, unlike Trump (so far as I know at this point in time at about noon on Jan 23. 2020), Bill Clinton was impeached on actual crimes. Indeed there was "bad behavior" (his immoral behavior with a White House intern). I think that in terms of the intention of the constitution, Bill could have been impeached for taking advantage of the intern, and committing adultery. Yes, that is "just about sex" if that is all that we think is wrong, but his impeachment was over actual crimes, and that I feel is something worth impeachment.

So what am I saying? I am saying that yes, if President Trump is guilty of bad behavior during his term as president, then yes, he can be impeached under the constitution. Can be yes, IF the behavior is during his presidency. The president's opponents were already speaking of impeaching him, within one or two days of his inauguration at the outside. Clearly the early calls for impeachment had nothing to do with his behavior while in office. Was/is Trump the ideal person for the office of the Presidency? Certainly not! Were we offered a better candidate who could actually win the office? Probably not!

Based on what I perceive to be a successful presidency with improvements in our country, many due to his effective leadership, I certainly do not want to toss him out while he is doing a good job. Of course, those who do not like appointments of conservative court justices, or who want an inefficient and costly single payer medical insurance scheme, etc. won't think he is doing a good job. We all have our opinions, but our opinions are not a reason to impeach a president or not to do so.

Now what we are seeing in this impeachment, is disturbing to me. The Democrats are doing something creative here. They understand that is is possible to convict a president on the basis of evil behavior. That is of course, a theoretical possibility, though the probability of getting a conviction in the Senate is very, very, remote. They understand that. Since that is the case, this is not about anything other that attempting to achieve a political advantage by injuring the reputation of a sitting and effective president (from another party). The Democrats seem to think that they cannot win the Presidency by offering a candidate with good ideas, experience, a track record of effective policies, etc.,  so they seek to overturn a legitimate election, by other means.

So what are they doing in this impeachment? Now they are suggesting in the trial, that evil is evil, because they say so it is. As one commentator recently said, they are essentially saying, that putting pineapple on pizza, is an evil abomination, and any President who would do that, needs to be removed from office. Therein lies a large danger. When we start defining evil based on feelings or preferences instead of actual legislated (and difficult to change on a whim) offenses, then every president can be impeached. That is where this could be headed if this becomes an acceptable precedent.

To JoeMo: By the way, while extremely unlikely, it is possible to impeach Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler. If the same standards were to be applied to them as they are applying to president Trump, they would be!

[JoeMo]

Thank you, Omega Man. I very much appreciate your narrative.

[Guest K9Buck]

5 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

 

 The Democrats seem to think that they cannot win the Presidency by offering a candidate with good ideas, experience, a track record of effective policies, etc.,  so they seek to overturn a legitimate election, by other means.

When we start defining evil based on feelings or preferences instead of actual legislated (and difficult to change on a whim) offenses, then every president can be impeached. 

The Democrats certainly do NOT have a candidate that can beat Trump.  I actually believe, however, that their motive might be to cover up crime and corruption committed by elite Democrats as well as their goons in places like the DOJ, FBI, CIA, IRS, etc.  The Durham report could be extremely damning for the Democrats.  

Like all leftists, the Democratic Party is essentially a totalitarian movement.  The Democratic Party looks at China with great envy.  They would love for the U.S. to effectively be a one-party oligarchy ruled by them.  And they intend to get it by hook or by crook.  

Frankly, if somehow Trump was removed from office, I fear that many American patriots would feel compelled to take up arms and begin eliminating prominent Democrats as well as so-called conservatives like Mitt Romney.

[Guest K9Buck]

On 1/22/2020 at 7:17 AM, LadyKay said:

The same is said about anyone who speaks out against Trump. 

That's not accurate.  There are legitimate criticisms of Trump that can be discussed and then there are smear jobs.  

[Guest K9Buck]

On 1/22/2020 at 7:21 AM, LadyKay said:

So the defense is "well everyone else is doing it." Sounds like something my kid would say to try get out of being punished.

I support prosecuting those that break the law, regardless of political affiliation.  However, I can't help but note the staggering hypocrisy on the left in how they supported perhaps the most criminal and corrupt candidate EVER nominated by a major party, Hillary Clinton.  Hillary committed well over 100 felonies with each of the classified documents that passed through her private, secret server that, by the way, she set up to avoid oversight by the American people.  The corrupt Obama DOJ made sure that Hillary skated and MILLIONS of Democrats voted for her.  You or I would have been sent to prison.  In any event, Hillary had to skate because Obama himself, as the Inspector General reported, KNEW about Hillary's server and obviously didn't put a stop to it.  This was after he promised to have the "most transparent administration" in American history.  On the contrary, his was the most corrupt in American history.  

[JohnD]

19 hours ago, LadyKay said:

Hmmm.....I do not recall that I said that anywhere in my many post. Are you sure your reading my post right?   Seems a strange thing for me to say. 

When did I say that? Trump isn't being accused of squeezing the charmin. It is a bit more serious then that.  

You apparently are at a defensive impasse if this is what you resort to (or is the best that you've got).

Adieu.