Christianity Today: Evangelicals Have Had Enough of Trump

[The emperor has no clothes]

I don’t pretend to know what Christianity is. So, I will ask. Do Christians consider Trump has been treated worse than Jesus was ?

Are you serious?  I don't mean to insult, but that is THE DUMBEST thing I have ever seen you post.

I took no insult. Yes, it was a serious question. A congressman (I don't remember his name) stated such. He portrays himself as a Christian. I wondered how other Christians felt about it. (I'm sorry you thought it was a dumb question)

[MAD6Gun]

I don’t pretend to know what Christianity is. So, I will ask. Do Christians consider Trump has been treated worse than Jesus was ?

Are you serious?  I don't mean to insult, but that is THE DUMBEST thing I have ever seen you post.

I took no insult. Yes, it was a serious question. A congressman (I don't remember his name) stated such. He portrays himself as a Christian. I wondered how other Christians felt about it. (I'm sorry you thought it was a dumb question)

 It was Rep Loudermilk of GA and he stated....

 " When Jesus was falsely accused of treason,Pontius Pilate gave Jesus the opportunity to face his accusers. During that sham trial,Pontius Pilate afforded more rights to Jesus then the Democrats afforded this president in this process".
 
 I agree, in this case his quote is right on.

 If your going to use a quote to make a dumb comment, do us a favor and at least get it right.

  

[The emperor has no clothes]

I don’t pretend to know what Christianity is. So, I will ask. Do Christians consider Trump has been treated worse than Jesus was ?

Are you serious?  I don't mean to insult, but that is THE DUMBEST thing I have ever seen you post.

I took no insult. Yes, it was a serious question. A congressman (I don't remember his name) stated such. He portrays himself as a Christian. I wondered how other Christians felt about it. (I'm sorry you thought it was a dumb question)

 It was Rep Loudermilk of GA and he stated....

 " When Jesus was falsely accused of treason,Pontius Palate gave Jesus the opportunity to face his accusers. During that sham trial,Pontius Palate afforded more rights to Jesus then the Democrats afforded this president in this process".
 
 I agree, in this case his quote is right on.

 If your going to use a quote to make a dumb comment, do us a favor and at least get it right.

  

I'm sure you do agree   I did not quote anybody. (if you are going to quote, it's Pontius Pilate)


Just so you know, the impeachment phase was the investigation. The trial phase will be in the Senate. 

[Alberta Patriot]

I don’t pretend to know what Christianity is. So, I will ask. Do Christians consider Trump has been treated worse than Jesus was ?

Are you serious?  I don't mean to insult, but that is THE DUMBEST thing I have ever seen you post.

I took no insult. Yes, it was a serious question. A congressman (I don't remember his name) stated such. He portrays himself as a Christian. I wondered how other Christians felt about it. (I'm sorry you thought it was a dumb question)

 It was Rep Loudermilk of GA and he stated....

 " When Jesus was falsely accused of treason,Pontius Palate gave Jesus the opportunity to face his accusers. During that sham trial,Pontius Palate afforded more rights to Jesus then the Democrats afforded this president in this process".
 
 I agree, in this case his quote is right on.

 If your going to use a quote to make a dumb comment, do us a favor and at least get it right.

  

I'm sure you do agree   I did not quote anybody. (if you are going to quote, it's Pontius Pilate)


Just so you know, the impeachment phase was the investigation. The trial phase will be in the Senate.  

Do you actually think"Phase 1" was an investigation?
Please remind us how many "Witnesses" actually came with first hand knowledge of the Zelensky/Trump conversation. Remind us how many people witnessed Biden threaten withdrawal of 1 billion in military aid funds to Ukraine if the investigation of Barisma was not stopped. That double standard I mentioned in my previous comment was directed at crooked people in DC who consider Bribery to be Swamp Business as Usual. And while you're at it please describe what your definition of Due Process is because I didn't witness that part being duly exercised in the Phase 1 "Investigation"

[The emperor has no clothes]

I don’t pretend to know what Christianity is. So, I will ask. Do Christians consider Trump has been treated worse than Jesus was ?

Are you serious?  I don't mean to insult, but that is THE DUMBEST thing I have ever seen you post.

I took no insult. Yes, it was a serious question. A congressman (I don't remember his name) stated such. He portrays himself as a Christian. I wondered how other Christians felt about it. (I'm sorry you thought it was a dumb question)

 It was Rep Loudermilk of GA and he stated....

 " When Jesus was falsely accused of treason,Pontius Palate gave Jesus the opportunity to face his accusers. During that sham trial,Pontius Palate afforded more rights to Jesus then the Democrats afforded this president in this process".
 
 I agree, in this case his quote is right on.

 If your going to use a quote to make a dumb comment, do us a favor and at least get it right.

  

I'm sure you do agree   I did not quote anybody. (if you are going to quote, it's Pontius Pilate)


Just so you know, the impeachment phase was the investigation. The trial phase will be in the Senate.  

Do you actually think"Phase 1" was an investigation?
Please remind us how many "Witnesses" actually came with first hand knowledge of the Zelensky/Trump conversation. Remind us how many people witnessed Biden threaten withdrawal of 1 billion in military aid funds to Ukraine if the investigation of Barisma was not stopped. That double standard I mentioned in my previous comment was directed at crooked people in DC who consider Bribery to be Swamp Business as Usual. And while you're at it please describe what your definition of Due Process is because I didn't witness that part duly exercised in the Phase 1 'Investigation"

https://andrewgoodman.org/news-list/about-impeachment/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIrvLN6c_F5gIVCdbACh2LdQVsEAAYAiAAEgJQCvD_BwE

[GARY G]

Say what you will. Trump is going to be re elected. Yes, some liberal heads will explode. And there will be more crying. He’s not perfect. Who is?  He is still the man for the job.

You got that right  Chris

[Alberta Patriot]

I don’t pretend to know what Christianity is. So, I will ask. Do Christians consider Trump has been treated worse than Jesus was ?

Are you serious?  I don't mean to insult, but that is THE DUMBEST thing I have ever seen you post.

I took no insult. Yes, it was a serious question. A congressman (I don't remember his name) stated such. He portrays himself as a Christian. I wondered how other Christians felt about it. (I'm sorry you thought it was a dumb question)

 It was Rep Loudermilk of GA and he stated....

 " When Jesus was falsely accused of treason,Pontius Palate gave Jesus the opportunity to face his accusers. During that sham trial,Pontius Palate afforded more rights to Jesus then the Democrats afforded this president in this process".
 
 I agree, in this case his quote is right on.

 If your going to use a quote to make a dumb comment, do us a favor and at least get it right.

  

I'm sure you do agree   I did not quote anybody. (if you are going to quote, it's Pontius Pilate)


Just so you know, the impeachment phase was the investigation. The trial phase will be in the Senate.  

Do you actually think"Phase 1" was an investigation?
Please remind us how many "Witnesses" actually came with first hand knowledge of the Zelensky/Trump conversation. Remind us how many people witnessed Biden threaten withdrawal of 1 billion in military aid funds to Ukraine if the investigation of Barisma was not stopped. That double standard I mentioned in my previous comment was directed at crooked people in DC who consider Bribery to be Swamp Business as Usual. And while you're at it please describe what your definition of Due Process is because I didn't witness that part duly exercised in the Phase 1 'Investigation"

https://andrewgoodman.org/news-list/about-impeachment/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIrvLN6c_F5gIVCdbACh2LdQVsEAAYAiAAEgJQCvD_BwE

Your answer is a civics lesson....K, apparently Due Process is not on your radar, it sure wasn't  on the Nadler, Pelosi or Schiff show.

[MAD6Gun]

I don’t pretend to know what Christianity is. So, I will ask. Do Christians consider Trump has been treated worse than Jesus was ?

Are you serious?  I don't mean to insult, but that is THE DUMBEST thing I have ever seen you post.

I took no insult. Yes, it was a serious question. A congressman (I don't remember his name) stated such. He portrays himself as a Christian. I wondered how other Christians felt about it. (I'm sorry you thought it was a dumb question)

 It was Rep Loudermilk of GA and he stated....

 " When Jesus was falsely accused of treason,Pontius Palate gave Jesus the opportunity to face his accusers. During that sham trial,Pontius Palate afforded more rights to Jesus then the Democrats afforded this president in this process".
 
 I agree, in this case his quote is right on.

 If your going to use a quote to make a dumb comment, do us a favor and at least get it right.

  

I'm sure you do agree   I did not quote anybody. (if you are going to quote, it's Pontius Pilate)


Just so you know, the impeachment phase was the investigation. The trial phase will be in the Senate. 

 I misspelled one word. There I fixed it. You f@#king happy now .

 Just so you know. The president isn't impeached because Pelosi refuses to send it to the Senate. Noah Feldman ,the constitutional law lawyer the left picked says so. Don't believe me?  Look it up..

[phideux]

I guess Christianity Today was fine with a Muslim Apologist for president.

[crow]

Buddha was not a Buddhist, Muhammad was not a Muslim, Jesus was not a Christian.  They were teachers.  Their religion was love.

[f6john]

Buddha was not a Buddhist, Muhammad was not a Muslim, Jesus was not a Christian.  They were teachers.  Their religion was love.

Buddha was a man, Mohammed was a man, Jesus was fully man and fully God, a big difference from the first two. I think I took your point about religions but only one of the above died and then arose on the third day and walked among men. Ethnically speaking, Jesus is a Jew.

[Robert]

Buddha was not a Buddhist, Muhammad was not a Muslim, Jesus was not a Christian.  They were teachers.  Their religion was love.

Buddha was a man, Mohammed was a man, Jesus was fully man and fully God, a big difference from the first two. I think I took your point about religions but only one of the above died and then arose on the third day and walked among men. Ethnically speaking, Jesus is a Jew.

 

But Christians are Jewish. 

[shortleg]

Being beaten, made to carry a cross thru the streets, spat upon, seems no comparison to me. But  like I say, I am certainly no expert on the subject of the Bible.

I believe the original comment was regarding Pontius Pilate's treatment of the Christ during the trial, not the crucifiction.  Nonetheless it was a meaningless comparison.

What ever happened to separation of church and state?   ...

    As you all can see the least said sometimes is the most effective.

For what it's worth, Christianity Today is not a church and doesn't actually speak for evangelicals as a whole.

[F6Dave]

I've noticed it's difficult for many 'tolerant and prayerful' Democrats to reel in their hatred of Trump, even for a moment.  For any who can I have a serious question.  Which of your candidates would you like to see elected president next year?  A follow up would be, what do you like about him or her (or it)?

[The emperor has no clothes]

Your answer is a civics lesson....K, apparently Due Process is not on your radar, it sure wasn't  on the Nadler, Pelosi or Schiff show.

I don’t know the specifics of Canadian law (though I suspect it’s similar) When police, FBI, Grand Juries, etc. investigate whether a crime was committed, they don’t afford “due process” to the subject. Once they are charged, then they are allowed “due process”. The impeachment process is similar, once it goes to the Senate he will be afforded “due process”. For the record though, they did allow him to put forth any evidence that would clear him. He elected to not respond.

[Robert]

Winning never gets old


Supreme Court Ends Pelosi’s Reign Of Terror With Landmark Decision On Impeachment

Supreme Court Ends Pelosi’s Reign Of Terror With Landmark Decision On ImpeachmentWhich is exactly what the Supreme Court just decided in a crushing blow to the Dems. They agreed and in doing so basically destroyed one the Dems charges – obstruction.

Trump can’t obstruct until he runs out of appeals and court actions and not one day before.

So out goes one article of impeachment leaving only abuse of power. But as Ukraine is corrupt and Presidents routinely hold up aid for various reasons but mainly corruption, the Dems need to go back to the drawing board or drop impeachment all together.

At least according to noted legal scholar Alan Dershowitz.

Nancy Pelosi just got spanked by the Supreme Court in a new impeachment ruling. Pelosi has rushed the impeachment proceedings for political reasons, not legal.

She knows impeachment is a loser so she is trying to rush it so the Dems can be done with it by the end of January 2020.

Pelosi hopes that in the following months the Dems can repair the damage they are doing with impeachment by hoping the American voters will forget it in time for the 2020 election.

It is political cowardice and the GOP has called her out for rushing. Jonathon Turley ripped Pelosi and the Dems for not bothering to subpoena witnesses and records and go through the courts to get them.

There is nothing more serious than an impeachment so Pelosi should follow the law and allow Trump due process to fight.

Which is exactly what the Supreme Court just decided in a crushing blow to the Dems. They agreed and in doing so basically destroyed one the Dems charges – obstruction.

Trump can’t obstruct until he runs out of appeals and court actions and not one day before.

So out goes one article of impeachment leaving only abuse of power. But as Ukraine is corrupt and Presidents routinely hold up aid for various reasons but mainly corruption, the Dems need to go back to the drawing board or drop impeachment all together.

At least according to noted legal scholar Alan Dershowitz.

Alan wrote: “The decision by the Supreme Court to review the lower court rulings involving congressional and prosecution subpoenas directed toward President Trump undercuts the second article of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee along a party line vote last week.

That second article of impeachment charges President Trump with obstruction of Congress for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas in the absence of a final court order. In so charging him, the House Judiciary Committee has arrogated to itself the power to decide the validity of its subpoenas, as well as the power to determine whether claims of executive privilege must be recognized, both powers that properly belong with the judicial branch of our government, not the legislative branch. The full House of Representatives will do likewise, if it votes to approve the articles, as is expected to occur on Wednesday.

President Trump has asserted that the executive branch, of which he is the head, need not comply with congressional subpoenas requiring the production of privileged material, unless there is a final court order compelling such production. He has argued, appropriately, that the judicial branch is the ultimate arbiter of conflicts between the legislative and executive branches. Thus, the Supreme Court decision to review these three cases, in which lower courts ruled against President Trump, provides support for his constitutional arguments in the inquiry.”

Alan goes on with a devastating argument:

“If the high court were eventually to rule against the claims by President Trump, the very fact that the justices decided to hear them, in effect, supports his constitutional contention that he had the right to challenge congressional subpoenas in court, or to demand that those issuing the subpoenas seek to enforce them through the courts.

It undercuts the contention by House Democrats that President Trump committed an impeachable offense by insisting on a court order before sending possibly privileged material to Congress. Even before the justices granted review of these cases, the two articles of impeachment had no basis in the Constitution. They were a reflection of the comparative voting power of the two parties, precisely what one of the founders, Alexander Hamilton, warned would be the “greatest danger” of an impeachment.

Savago and meat the
Supreme court just gave you why there is no obstruction.

[Savago]

Do you actually think"Phase 1" was an investigation?
Please remind us how many "Witnesses" actually came with first hand knowledge of the Zelensky/Trump conversation.

Answering the question: Lt Colonel Alexander Vindman.

Other people with first hand knowledge (Pompeo, Mulvaney, etc) simply ignored the subpoenas to testify to an impeachment investigation. Under Mr. Trump orders.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I've noticed it's difficult for many 'tolerant and prayerful' Democrats to reel in their hatred of Trump, even for a moment.  For any who can I have a serious question.  Which of your candidates would you like to see elected president next year?  A follow up would be, what do you like about him or her (or it)?

I am neither a Democrat, all that tolerant, or all that especially prayerful. But at the risk of giving them the kiss of death as has been the case for my picks in elections past, Amy Klobuchar. (For many reasons)

[f6john]

Do you actually think"Phase 1" was an investigation?
Please remind us how many "Witnesses" actually came with first hand knowledge of the Zelensky/Trump conversation.

Answering the question: Lt Colonel Alexander Vindman.

Other people with first hand knowledge (Pompeo, Mulvaney, etc) simply ignored the subpoenas to testify to an impeachment investigation. Under Mr. Trump orders.

The funny thing about Vindman, all he could have heard was released in the transcript of the call so his “testimony” was worthless except for the Democrats to have someone to put out there to exploit the situation.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Do you actually think"Phase 1" was an investigation?
Please remind us how many "Witnesses" actually came with first hand knowledge of the Zelensky/Trump conversation.

Answering the question: Lt Colonel Alexander Vindman.

Other people with first hand knowledge (Pompeo, Mulvaney, etc) simply ignored the subpoenas to testify to an impeachment investigation. Under Mr. Trump orders.

The funny thing about Vindman, all he could have heard was released in the transcript of the call so his “testimony” was worthless except for the Democrats to have someone to put out there to exploit the situation.

I hear many people talk about the “transcript”. It was not. It was a memorandum of the call. It is what was said to the best of their memory. They even stated such :

CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation.· (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty "Officers and-NSC policy staff assigned t_o listen.and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A numper of factors can affect 'the accuracy of the reco�d, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation.
The word "inaudible" is used to indifate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear.

[f6john]

Do you actually think"Phase 1" was an investigation?
Please remind us how many "Witnesses" actually came with first hand knowledge of the Zelensky/Trump conversation.

Answering the question: Lt Colonel Alexander Vindman.

Other people with first hand knowledge (Pompeo, Mulvaney, etc) simply ignored the subpoenas to testify to an impeachment investigation. Under Mr. Trump orders.

The funny thing about Vindman, all he could have heard was released in the transcript of the call so his “testimony” was worthless except for the Democrats to have someone to put out there to exploit the situation.

I hear many people talk about the “transcript”. It was not. It was a memorandum of the call. It is what was said to the best of their memory. They even stated such :

CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation.· (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty "Officers and-NSC policy staff assigned t_o listen.and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A numper of factors can affect 'the accuracy of the reco�d, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation.
The word "inaudible" is used to indifate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear.

So what did Vindman testify to that was different from the memorandum? The deal is people hear and perceive what they want to and generally agrees with their preconceived notions about a particular event or conversation. You see it happen on this site all the time.

[Jess from VA]

Yeah, I guess all the Christians are going to be voting for mayor Buttplug now. 

[Savago]

So what did Vindman testify to that was different from the memorandum?

Quite a few things... Didn't you watch his testimony?
 

E.g. "I was concerned by the call, what I heard was improper, and I reported my concerns to Mr. Eisenberg. It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent.
It was also clear that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play.
 This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing bipartisan support, undermine U.S. national security, and advance Russia’s strategic objectives in the region."

But yeah, I bet 'Faux News 'has another take on the subject.

[98valk]

So what did Vindman testify to that was different from the memorandum?

Quite a few things... Didn't you watch his testimony?
 

E.g. "I was concerned by the call, what I heard was improper, and I reported my concerns to Mr. Eisenberg. It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent.
It was also clear that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play.
 This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing bipartisan support, undermine U.S. national security, and advance Russia’s strategic objectives in the region."

But yeah, I bet 'Faux News 'has another take on the subject.

1). Your President Trump never "demanded" anything. read the transcript/memo.   please provide where he did.
2). Biden and son are not political opponents. Biden is not official anything, except running for a position.
3). You President Trump is required by law/treaty to ask what he did. Did you want him the break the law?   There is an actual treaty between the U.S. and Ukraine which obligates the leaders of both countries to cooperate fully and together on investigations of corruption, particularly criminal matters and corruption that involves both the United States and the Ukraine. The phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskiy, and it’s content, were not only legal, but the discussion and requests are actually mandated.

Joe Biden was a Senator when the Treaty Between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters was written, and the President who signed this treaty with Ukraine was none other than William Jefferson Clinton!
According to the Treaty Between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters passed by Joe Biden and signed by President Clinton at Kiev on July 22, 1998, the conversion was actually mandated.

[baldo]

Everyone here can be a shade tree attorney (except the real ones) and have all kinds of crazy theories and suppositions how they think this thing should go.

At the end of the day.......

HE HAS BEEN IMPEACHED.

HE WILL ALWAYS BE IMPEACHED.

 

[scooperhsd]

NO HE HASN'T - The House has voted to Impeach him, but until the articles are delivered to the Senate - he remains unimpeached.

[Gavin_Sons]

Everyone here can be a shade tree attorney (except the real ones) and have all kinds of crazy theories and suppositions how they think this thing should go.

At the end of the day.......

HE HAS BEEN IMPEACHED.

HE WILL ALWAYS BE IMPEACHED.

 

Not until Pelosi sends the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Then the Senate will throw it out which nullifies his first term and is now eligible for 2 more terms. Good job Democrats, instead of 4 years of Trump you guaranteed 12 years.

[Oss]

I think this is all a power play by Pelosi to get the Senate to play ball on some of the bills being stalled in the Senate,

She had to know going in that the Senate would not find for her way
and that rank and file democrats like me are sick of the swamp and will remember in 2020 who did what

And now that SCOTUS has spanked out half of the bogus charges on their face she has even less to go on.

We should be grateful that the trade deal got thru, now if the wall funding and the replacement tunnel for Superstorm damaged NJ/NY tunnel under the hudson river get funded and backed by POTUS before it collapses (that would paralyze freight for decades if it is allowed to go down  a H U G E problem for our security and economy) and work of the people get done we can get back to talking about riding

Pelosi is as safe in Calif. as a tick and chigger on a hound living in the back yard in the Ozarks.  Only the Lord can call her to hell to answer and I have no idea what or when that will happen. Just can hope....

[The emperor has no clothes]

I think this is all a power play by Pelosi to get the Senate to play ball on some of the bills being stalled in the Senate,

She had to know going in that the Senate would not find for her way
and that rank and file democrats like me are sick of the swamp and will remember in 2020 who did what

And now that SCOTUS has spanked out half of the bogus charges on their face she has even less to go on.

We should be grateful that the trade deal got thru, now if the wall funding and the replacement tunnel for Superstorm damaged NJ/NY tunnel under the hudson river get funded and backed by POTUS before it collapses (that would paralyze freight for decades if it is allowed to go down  a H U G E problem for our security and economy) and work of the people get done we can get back to talking about riding

Pelosi is as safe in Calif. as a tick and chigger on a hound living in the back yard in the Ozarks.  Only the Lord can call her to hell to answer and I have no idea what or when that will happen. Just can hope....

Or it could be that she just desires a fair, impartial trial with documents and witnesses.  (I don’t wish for any of my political opponents to end up in Hell)

[Oss]

Then she should have done a better job of making sure her so called witnesses were not L Y I N G and had actual PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE  BEFORE starting her charade 25 months ago (her words not mine)
She admits the strategy all along was impeach, she knows the Russia poop was bogus and we all know now Obama was behind the bogus wiretap orders.

Oss

Any politician who has been caught on you tube saying cut off his head and other such can go to hell.  Remember if I may paraphrase, the bible says if your enemy wants to kill you get up early and kill her.

Why you do not wish for the House, the DOJ/AG/or anyone to indict or prosecute anyone from the last administration, when you are NOT a Democrat is beyond me/  Cash to Iran?  Sitting VP threatening a nation that we have a treaty obligation with if they do not stop investigating theft and corruption? Guns to Mexico drug lords?   Obama having IRS target Republicans and Tea Party?  As POTUS Trump has an ongoing duty and obligation to call on our treaty partners to investigate irregularities, shame on anyone who would challenge the right of a chief executive to do so.

[f6john]

So what did Vindman testify to that was different from the memorandum?

Quite a few things... Didn't you watch his testimony?
 

E.g. "I was concerned by the call, what I heard was improper, and I reported my concerns to Mr. Eisenberg. It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent.
It was also clear that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play.
 This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing bipartisan support, undermine U.S. national security, and advance Russia’s strategic objectives in the region."

But yeah, I bet 'Faux News 'has another take on the subject.

Funny you should ask that! Yes I did watch, I’m retired and good or bad I stayed glued to the tube during the hearings. I had two tv’s going, one upstairs and one downstairs so I wouldn’t miss anything depending on where I was. If what you and Vindman was true it would have resulted in more narrowly defined and specific charges in the impeachment. As it stands Trump was impeached only because the Democrats have had a hardon for him since the election and a 3 year hardon would have to be very painful.

[Serk]

The undeniable fact is that 2/3 of the presidents who have ever been impeached were impeached for embarrassing Hillary Clinton.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Then she should have done a better job of making sure her so called witnesses were not L Y I N G and had actual PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE  BEFORE starting her charade 25 months ago (her words not mine)
She admits the strategy all along was impeach, she knows the Russia poop was bogus and we all know now Obama was behind the bogus wiretap orders.

Oss

Any politician who has been caught on you tube saying cut off his head and other such can go to hell.  Remember if I may paraphrase, the bible says if your enemy wants to kill you get up early and kill her.

Why you do not wish for the House, the DOJ/AG/or anyone to indict or prosecute anyone from the last administration, when you are NOT a Democrat is beyond me/  Cash to Iran?  Sitting VP threatening a nation that we have a treaty obligation with if they do not stop investigating theft and corruption? Guns to Mexico drug lords?   Obama having IRS target Republicans and Tea Party?  As POTUS Trump has an ongoing duty and obligation to call on our treaty partners to investigate irregularities, shame on anyone who would challenge the right of a chief executive to do so.

Have you forgotten the 2 years of Benghazi hearings, the hearings on the guns to Mexico already ? If there was something there to prosecute, I’m sure the Republicans who were in charge would have done so. If you wish to have a hearing or prosecution on the Bidens, I suggest the Republican Senate or DOJ could do it.

[Moonshot_1]

"Or it could be that she just desires a fair, impartial trial with documents and witnesses.  coolsmiley (I don’t wish for any of my political opponents to end up in Hell)"

Well ask yourself, how much exculpatory was presented by the House Democrats? There is quite a bit. Such evidence was not presented. If fairness and impartiality was the goal by the House Democrats they failed miserably. ANY reasonable person watching this circus, which started even before Trump was nominated with calls for impeachment soon after his announced candidacy, can only, and objectively conclude this whole process is a sham. Of the worse kind.

I don't wish for my political opponents to end up in Hell. But I can't help it if they end up there and the Democrats seem to be making reservations.

[scooperhsd]

Everyone here can be a shade tree attorney (except the real ones) and have all kinds of crazy theories and suppositions how they think this thing should go.

At the end of the day.......

HE HAS BEEN IMPEACHED.

HE WILL ALWAYS BE IMPEACHED.

 

Not until Pelosi sends the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Then the Senate will throw it out which nullifies his first term and is now eligible for 2 more terms. Good job Democrats, instead of 4 years of Trump you guaranteed 12 years.

Negative on the 3 terms  theory. The  22nd Amendment limits to 2 Terms, or one term if the President held office for more than 2 years of the previous President.


Now - just for illustration, what COULD happen
Trump leaves office of President for any reason. Current Vice President Mike Pence would then finish Trump's current term. Since Trump HAS served more than 2 years of his term, Pence is still eligible to be elected to and serve TWO FULL 4 Year terms as well as finishing out Trump's term - making his time as president potentially 1 day short of 10 years. Every day that Trump serves reduces Pence's maximum time he could be President.

If Trump and Pence are reelected in the 2020 electection, the clock starts over. For the first 2 years of this 2nd term, If Trump leaves office (for any reason), Pence could only be elected to ONE 4 year term of his own (since he would have served more than 2 years of Trumps 2nd term). AFTER the 2 years pass, and Trump leaves office, Pence again would be able to serve up to 2 years of Trump's term, and be elected to TWO 4 year terms of his own.

[baldo]

Everyone here can be a shade tree attorney (except the real ones) and have all kinds of crazy theories and suppositions how they think this thing should go.

At the end of the day.......

HE HAS BEEN IMPEACHED.

HE WILL ALWAYS BE IMPEACHED.

 

Not until Pelosi sends the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Then the Senate will throw it out which nullifies his first term and is now eligible for 2 more terms. Good job Democrats, instead of 4 years of Trump you guaranteed 12 years.

LOLOL.......Ummmmmmm....no.

https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+2+more+terms&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS811US811&oq=trump+2+more+terms&aqs=chrome..69i57.6600j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Take your pick.


This is one of the craziest things I've ever heard.

Personally, I think she should hold them for 293 days.....two words...Merrick Garland

[Moonshot_1]

Everyone here can be a shade tree attorney (except the real ones) and have all kinds of crazy theories and suppositions how they think this thing should go.

At the end of the day.......

HE HAS BEEN IMPEACHED.

HE WILL ALWAYS BE IMPEACHED.

 

Not until Pelosi sends the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Then the Senate will throw it out which nullifies his first term and is now eligible for 2 more terms. Good job Democrats, instead of 4 years of Trump you guaranteed 12 years.

LOLOL.......Ummmmmmm....no.

https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+2+more+terms&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS811US811&oq=trump+2+more+terms&aqs=chrome..69i57.6600j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Take your pick.


This is one of the craziest things I've ever heard.

Personally, I think she should hold them for 293 days.....two words...Merrick Garland

And this shows the twisted politics of the left. You want to punish the Executive branch for the follies of a  previous Congressional session. Why? What cursed purpose does it serve the people?

[Gavin_Sons]

Everyone here can be a shade tree attorney (except the real ones) and have all kinds of crazy theories and suppositions how they think this thing should go.

At the end of the day.......

HE HAS BEEN IMPEACHED.

HE WILL ALWAYS BE IMPEACHED.

 

Not until Pelosi sends the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Then the Senate will throw it out which nullifies his first term and is now eligible for 2 more terms. Good job Democrats, instead of 4 years of Trump you guaranteed 12 years.

LOLOL.......Ummmmmmm....no.

https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+2+more+terms&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS811US811&oq=trump+2+more+terms&aqs=chrome..69i57.6600j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Take your pick.


This is one of the craziest things I've ever heard.

Personally, I think she should hold them for 293 days.....two words...Merrick Garland

Why not? The house impeached a president for no reason at all. I'm sure 4 extra years wont be that bad for you Anti Americans.

[f6john]

Everyone here can be a shade tree attorney (except the real ones) and have all kinds of crazy theories and suppositions how they think this thing should go.

At the end of the day.......

HE HAS BEEN IMPEACHED.

HE WILL ALWAYS BE IMPEACHED.

 

Yes he has. Now what? Nothing that will be positive for the country on either side of the aisle. The actions of the Democrats in handling the process and the FBI’s handling of their investigation will long be remembered and probably used against them at some point. Trumps election has been positive in that it has exposed how far the deep state will go to exercise their power and change the outcome of an election. Trump is raising enormous amounts of campaign money with every swing the Democrats take. When he wins his second term we will have Nancy and her minions to thank.

[Rams]

I think it's funny that anyone really takes that editorial seriously, one guy's opinion, he/she most surely does not speak for the entire group.   I assure you, I know a bunch of Democrats that griped about President Obama, very few took them seriously.   

Rams