Rand Paul and other Trump defenders are lying to you about the sixth amendment
“The scope and reach of the Sixth Amendment has been extensively litigated, and it most assuredly does not apply to the House’s impeachment inquiry.” - David French
- 3 views
and misstatements, and not mention the massive paranoia and exaggeration on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, LA Times, et al, then please have the courage to admit you are a never Trumper and be done with it.
The whistleblower is not some heroic figure fighting to save future generations of Americans from the evil scourge of Trumpism. He (we know who he is) Who Is Not To Be Named is a partisan hack who at minimum worked with Schiff and other Democrats, and likely a few ex-CIA officials, to drop this on the public. All the while attempting to use the whistleblower law to shield his identity. Legitimate whistleblowers do not file carefully crafted K street legal complaints, nor do they collude with House Intelligence committee chair staff for the timing of their complaint.
“I heard a guy say that he heard a guy say on a phone in a restaurant that…” accepted as evidence?
Why are Christians so angry about politics?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]Why are Christians so angry about politics?
In my opinion, it’s because most American Christians have not fully understood what it means to have their true citizenship in heaven, and they willingly attribute the power and authority that belong to Jesus Christ to America and its government instead. Americans tend to think that Jesus’ power and influence should be funneled through the American government rather than the church. If we changed this perspective, we would be significantly less tied to never-ending political wranglings.
[Mark_Smith]and misstatements, and not mention the massive paranoia and exaggeration on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, LA Times, et al, then please have the courage to admit you are a never Trumper and be done with it.
None of this is in an any way relevant, if you’re on the side of truth. The saddest thing in all of this is everyone thinking they have to side with a political party or perspective rather than siding with truth—and Christians doing this in particular. Christians should know better. It’s all very disheartening.
Those interested in truth focus on questions like:
- Does the US House of Reps have the legal authority (Constitution + its own rules) to do what it’s doing?
- Does the House have the legal authority (Constitution + its own rules) to do it the way it’s doing it?
- What are the facts of the case as far as Trump’s conduct is concerned?
- Were his actions legal and/or ethical?
That’s it. Media error is irrelevant. Republican vs. Democrat is irrelevant. Left vs. Right is irrelevant. Obama, Hillary, et al. are irrelevant. “Never trumper” or not, is irrelevant (as for that, I openly claimed that label in 2016, defined what I meant by it, and have never seen anything to change my mind about it in the slightest…. nor is that likely.)
Thoughtful people know that what label people slap on you (or what label you claim) doesn’t have any bearing on whether you’re telling the truth or not. Truth claims have to be evaluated on their merits, not on their source. … unless one is more devoted to one’s tribe than to truth, of course. In that case, by all means, decide what’s true based solely on the group a source belongs to or champions. (If you’re a Trump defender these days, that means changing your views on various truth claims every other day! But hey, if that’s the ship you want to go down in, it’s a free country.) I’ve never been a “truth by club membership” guy my entire life. It’s incompatible with my faith.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
It’s technically correct that the 6th Amendment does not strictly apply to these proceedings, but French certainly knows that real justice depends on things like cross examination as well. So Schiff can technically be “legal” about the proceedings, but miss the entire point of justice. It is my prayer that the electorate will—as they arguably did with the Kavanaugh proceedings where Dianne Feinstein did Mike Nifong one better in doing things like withholding and distorting evidence—see this and conclude “when Democrats get power, this is what they will do to you.”, and vote accordingly.
This has a lot to do with the actual evidence. What we have so far is that the evidence of quid pro quo rests on hearsay testimony of people who made an educated guess about what the President wanted, and we have a horrendous breach of confidentiality (calling the President from a restaurant in Ukraine on a tappable phone) by one of the key witnesses.
And along those lines, I’m not persuaded that even if the President did hold the military aid hostage to an investigation of Biden, that that would qualify for impeachment. Ugly fact here is that real evidence, not hearsay, suggests very strongly that the Obama administration not only gave Biden’s family a multimillion dollar payoff through Burisma and the Chinese, but also used the Ukrainians to create and sustain the Mueller investigation. Given that, I really don’t think Trump is wrong to say “folks, we gotta investigate this.”
Worth noting as well; the Obama administration withheld military aid altogether from Ukraine, as if they could defend themselves with blankets. In my view, this is a classic Democratic “SQUIRREL!” exercise.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
And along those lines, I’m not persuaded that even if the President did hold the military aid hostage to an investigation of Biden, that that would qualify for impeachment. Ugly fact here is that real evidence, not hearsay, suggests very strongly that the Obama administration not only gave Biden’s family a multimillion dollar payoff through Burisma and the Chinese, but also used the Ukrainians to create and sustain the Mueller investigation. Given that, I really don’t think Trump is wrong to say “folks, we gotta investigate this.”
On the first bit of that, I agree. The way the system is supposed to work is that the popularly elected House does what it believes ought to be done. The Senate then renders its verdict and “sentence.” I’m for letting that process run its course as it should. Does the Ukraine quid pro quo in itself warrant impeachment? I’m not sure it does, but I’m definitely in favor of Congressional examination of this kind of Presidential behavior.
What the Obamas did is an entirely different question, though it does have some relevance as context. Was Trump trying to avoid corruption or was he trying to defeat a political rival? This is the central question. The latter is clearly unethical. The former is, at best, a good intention very improperly executed.
Context: speaking of context, though, the particular case occurs in the context of an administration that is a public disgrace every day of the week (all I need to say about that is Twitter), despite a handful of very good (random…) policy decisions. (Broken clocks—right twice a day). So, though the Ukraine question is what’s on the table (in this case, the floor) it’s a question surrounded by heaps of unleaderly (and often unfit) conduct that makes defensibility of any questionable action much harder.
The day Trump was elected I started praying for something better, and that continues to be my prayer.
On the plus side, if it can be called a plus…. the whole business has exposed just how superficial and self serving much (most?) of the conservative movement has become. It’s only a plus because it was there and thoughtful conservatives didn’t know it was there—to that degree. And now we know. Knowing is good, though the reality of the situation is very bad for the country.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Ken S]In my opinion, it’s because most American Christians have not fully understood what it means to have their true citizenship in heaven, and they willingly attribute the power and authority that belong to Jesus Christ to America and its government instead. Americans tend to think that Jesus’ power and influence should be funneled through the American government rather than the church. If we changed this perspective, we would be significantly less tied to never-ending political wranglings.
Respectfully, I feel this is an over simplification. Should Christians understand and live as belonging to Christ and not to a given government? Yes, absolutely! Is America our savior and where we will spend eternity? No, definitely not.
But, I don’t feel that means Christians should be entirely passive either. Jesus didn’t say to render only to God and forget entirely what may be due to Caesar. True, Jesus’ comment was a specific answer to a question about taxes, but I think you can make an argument that comment also includes reasonable proactive involvement in government. Joseph and Daniel are just two examples of godly men deeply involved in government. I feel Christ’s command for Christians to be “salt and light” does/can include being involved in politics. Not that all Christians are called to that specific mission, but all Christians are called to be salt and light.
Also, as an American citizen, I have the right to speak and call into question corruption, hypocrisy, unethical & illegal activities by our government (no matter the party) and hold them accountable. Between that and being salt and light, I feel this has its importance because it goes to providing for my children’s future, caring for others, standing up for righteousness, and respecting those who have gone before us, many of which have fallen in battle for our American values and way of life.
I acknowledge you may be addressing specifically the anger by some/many Christians and are not saying Christians should not be concerned at all with their government. To that point, I agree that Christians can be involved and speak out, but without doing it in an angry manner.
Aaron,
Will you acknowledge that a vote for Trump as a vote against Hillary or other Democratic candidate (who most likley supports abortion, trillion dollar health care for all including illegals, open borders, anti-Christian laws and policies, pro-LGBTQ policies at the expense of Christians) … .
is NOT the same as thinking Trump is The Chosen One and are blind to his many faults?
Will you acknowledge that?
One thing that comes to mind here is that in diplomacy, you are rarely if ever going to get conclusive proof that a party did something for the sole reason of political gain. Diplomats thrive on this ambiguity because they’re trying to preserve the peace—when you get clarity from diplomats, you very often are delivering a declaration of war. (like the old proverb says, diplomacy is the art of telling someone to go to Hell in such a way that he will look forward to the trip)
In this case, the mere reality of Biden’s corruption ought to take this off the table for that reason. He and his son don’t get a pass simply because Dad was running for office.
I also don’t see the Trump era as a capitulation of the right to realpolitik or “the ends justify the means.” I rather view it as an admission that if the left isn’t going to follow the rules, the right isn’t going to bow down anymore and take whatever abuse they dish out anymore.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[mmartin]Respectfully, I feel this is an over simplification. Should Christians understand and live as belonging to Christ and not to a given government? Yes, absolutely! Is America our savior and where we will spend eternity? No, definitely not.
But, I don’t feel that means Christians should be entirely passive either. Jesus didn’t say to render only to God and forget entirely what may be due to Caesar. True, Jesus’ comment was a specific answer to a question about taxes, but I think you can make an argument that comment also includes reasonable proactive involvement in government. Joseph and Daniel are just two examples of godly men deeply involved in government. I feel Christ’s command for Christians to be “salt and light” does/can include being involved in politics. Not that all Christians are called to that specific mission, but all Christians are called to be salt and light.
Also, as an American citizen, I have the right to speak and call into question corruption, hypocrisy, unethical & illegal activities by our government (no matter the party) and hold them accountable. Between that and being salt and light, I feel this has its importance because it goes to providing for my children’s future, caring for others, standing up for righteousness, and respecting those who have gone before us, many of which have fallen in battle for our American values and way of life.
I acknowledge you may be addressing specifically the anger by some/many Christians and are not saying Christians should not be concerned at all with their government. To that point, I agree that Christians can be involved and speak out, but without doing it in an angry manner.
Just wanted to point out that both Daniel and Joseph who you cite were heavily involved in politics because they were kidnapped and forced to be so. I do believe they honored God in their respective positions though.
[mmartin]Aaron,
Will you acknowledge that a vote for Trump as a vote against Hillary or other Democratic candidate (who most likley supports abortion, trillion dollar health care for all including illegals, open borders, anti-Christian laws and policies, pro-LGBTQ policies at the expense of Christians) … .
is NOT the same as thinking Trump is The Chosen One and are blind to his many faults?
Will you acknowledge that?
There are two questions here. On the second one: I have long acknowledged that many voted for Trump believing that it was the least objectionable option, and they aren’t Trump defenders. I can respect that, though I disagree with the ethical analysis, which is the first question. Lots of previous threads on that, though it gets lost in the, um, yelling. :-)
I do not believe the ethics of a vote can be reduced to an automatic either-or between two opponents who have the potential to win. To say it another way, I don’t believe the ethical factors are exhausted when we’ve only looked at the outcome of the vote. An act can be wrong independently of its outcomes, and that has to be factored in. Also, outcomes beyond the election itself have to factored in.
I believe when these two additional sets of factors are understood it, at the very least, makes a vote for such a man highly questionable. I myself could not do it in good conscience, so I didn’t.
… and never will. Hence, “never trumper” applies to me in that sense.
I don’t expect a candidate to be perfect, or to be Christian, but there is a minimum character threshold I can’t go below. Trump is not just below it, he is yards below it, and not just on one or two criteria of good character. On nearly all of them.
On the ‘should we care about politics at all?’ question
This is a very large topic… has to do with how one views the Christian’s relationship with the created order and with civilization. I don’t hold the view that citizenship in heaven makes our citizenship here below void or of no importance. In a sense, we are “just passing through” this life, but in another very important sense, we are stewards of every opportunity for good this life affords. So God’s glory is not served only by our dying and going to heaven, or only by making disciples, or only by worshiping Him with His people. He has intentions for how we interact with His world, how we bring Him glory by demonstrating His creative likeness by working, by solving problems, by giving, by blessing people, by making the world a better place.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron wrote:
I don’t expect a candidate to be perfect, or to be Christian, but there is a minimum character threshold I can’t go below. Trump is not just below it, he is yards below it, and not just on one or two criteria of good character. On nearly all of them.
First, thank you, Aaron. This is a good articulation of my position. Secondly, I once asked this question in an article - for those who claim to hold their nose while voting for a man like Trump, is there a minimum character threshold that would prevent you from voting from someone? If so, what is it?
I’ve never received nor heard an answer. I’m still curious, though.
[John E.]…for those who claim to hold their nose while voting for a man like Trump, is there a minimum character threshold that would prevent you from voting from someone? If so, what is it?
In my opinion, this question comes from the (unusual) luxury we have had in this country where Christian ethics have previously had some measure of effect on the greater culture. We are moving farther and farther from this. America is already a post-Christian society, and is quickly moving toward being an anti-Christian society.
Why do my previous sentences matter, at least to me? I believe that more and more our candidates are going to be those who have absolutely no regard for God or his precepts. They’ll be like Pharaoh, Cyrus, or the Caesars that Paul ministered under. So the way I see it, unless there is no discernable difference between the candidates that can actually be elected, in which case, I won’t vote, and since I believe that we still should have a “salt and light effect on society around us, I’ll always vote for one I perceive to be a lesser evil, no matter how bad the one I vote for may be. I voted for Trump knowing he was wicked just as his opponent was (though in different ways), but my conscience was comfortable with my choice, knowing I’d voted for less evil to be accomplished in our country, and the way I see it, less evil is always better than more evil.
Dave Barnhart
Discussion