Christianity Today's Mark Galli: Trump Should Be Removed from Office
“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.” - CT
“He just got impeached. He’ll be impeached forever. No matter what the Senate does. He’s impeached forever because he violated our Constitution,” she said.
“If I did nothing else, he saw the power of the gavel there,” Pelosi told the AP. “And it wasn’t me, it was all of our members making their own decision.”
https://www.voanews.com/usa/pelosi-power-gavel-means-trump-impeached-fo…
I remember back in 1998, the Republicans saying the same thing about Clinton. It seems as if Pelosi wanted to return the favor. I agree with Tyler that he probably did it (which to me is an unethical abuse of power), but it wasn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt and even so, does this unethical abuse of power warrant removal of office? Or would it have been better to use censure power in this instance?
By the way, the comments, disagreements, and critique of the CT article are much more thoughtful here on Sharper Iron than in the Facebook world, where many Christians now think that CT is a progressively liberal “Christian” magazine because of the responses from Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell Jr, and etc…
Here is a thoughtful response to Galli’s article:
https://www.christianpost.com/voice/why-i-still-stand-by-45-president-t…
Galli wrote:
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.
This paragraph will likely resonate with evangelicals who are willing or unwitting heirs to the civil religion of Christian Americana that President Eisenhower, Billy Graham and later the political movement known as the Religious Right spent decades imprinting on our conservative religious identity.
Robert Jones, in his book The End of White Christian America (which I reviewed here), argued that this cultural moment has passed us by. I don’t believe younger evangelicals are beholden to Christian Americana in the same way their parents were (or, are!). Galli’s prophesy of doom and loss of cultural cachet is touching and quaint; as if conservative Christians have any cultural cachet left to dispense! It’s also a remarkably America-centric call to arms. For many evangelicals (or, as Olson likes to say, post-fundamentalist evangelicals), I suspect politics is not the idol it is to the older generation. Russell Moore’s book Onward captured this shift in mindset quite well. I somehow suspect Galli doesn’t understand that.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I believe President Trump likely did what Democrats accuse him of doing. I believe he’s capable of it, and I suspect he did it. The problem is that they haven’t proven it.
In my opinion, the problem is there is nothing wrong with what he did.
He asked a foreign leader to investigate corruption in his country. I see nothing wrong with that. Even if there was a quid pro quo, I see nothing wrong with telling a foreign leader that if he won’t investigate corruption we will reduce aide.
If he asked them to INVENT corruption charges, yeah that would be wrong. Even if there was no reason for him to be suspicious and he asked for investigation into a potential rival, you could find fault, but only if you’re biased.
To Trump asking Ukraine to investigate corruption, I think proper response is THANK YOU.
[Dan Miller]I believe President Trump likely did what Democrats accuse him of doing. I believe he’s capable of it, and I suspect he did it. The problem is that they haven’t proven it.
In my opinion, the problem is there is nothing wrong with what he did.
He asked a foreign leader to investigate corruption in his country. I see nothing wrong with that. Even if there was a quid pro quo, I see nothing wrong with telling a foreign leader that if he won’t investigate corruption we will reduce aide.
If he asked them to INVENT corruption charges, yeah that would be wrong. Even if there was no reason for him to be suspicious and he asked for investigation into a potential rival, you could find fault, but only if you’re biased.
To Trump asking Ukraine to investigate corruption, I think proper response is THANK YOU.
Amen, brother.
[Aaron Blumer]Can’t say it better than David French already has.
Actually,virtually anyone can say it better than David French. When it comes to Trump, French is rabidly irrational.
A good friend of mine is Louis Hensler, who graduated from BJU a few years after I did and who overlapped with me at the University of Chicago Law School. After a judicial clerkship with a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit (Atlanta) and a stint at one of the country’s largest law firms, he has been for a number of years now a professor at Regent University Law School in Virginia. During the Republican primaries and well after Trump was elected, he was a Never Trumper. Here are his recent thoughts on reconsidering that position (much better reasoned than Mark Galli/CT’s and infinitely better reasoned than anything from David French):
https://henslerisms.blogspot.com/2019/10/confessions-of-erstwhile-never…
If Obama had been the one who Republican’s found had told Ukraine to start an investigation into Romney, or McCain, or Trump, or Ted Cruz, or whoever, because their son was working for Barisma (sp?), or else the blankets and MREs he sent would be withheld despite the Russian onslaught against them, no Democrat would dream of thinking Obama had done something wrong. Yes, Republicans would clamor for it, but no Democrat would go along with it. And there is where the problem lies. There is not agreement across party lines that this “incident” involved an abuse of power or a crime.
In the case of Nixon, it became clear Nixon had done something fundamentally wrong. in the case of Clinton, there was a clear record of his crime.
Not so here. And that is why this incident is a sad comedy of errors on the part of the Democrats for taking it too far.
[TylerR]Yet, the author of the CT piece says:
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.
I have seen the same thing quoted above. That is definitely one way to look at it, but I think most people forget how the mind of Trump works. He didn’t even view what he was doing was bad. He definitely didn’t hide it and was clear about it. Many people were on the phone when he said it, he gave the transcripts that indicated it, and truth be told, he even campaigned on this. He views this less about a political opponent and more at attacking something he thinks is wrong by someone who he doesn’t agree with. His problem is that he can’t let it go. I would say it is probably worded this way.
“The president of the United States used his political power to ask a favor from a foreign leader on behalf of himself and his base of supporters to investigate something that himself and his supporters felt was corruption”. I don’t think he attempted, I think he did it, and he felt that he was fulfilling a campaign promise of seeking to root out corruption, and especially his campaign promise around Biden’s son and felt that since he was elected he had a mandate.
This was really not some kind of back door dealing. He felt he had a mandate to do this. Right or wrong, I think people miss this fact. They view Trump through their eyes instead of through his eyes. I think this guy has some serious, serious flaws in his life, I just struggle to see that what he did was breaking the law.
Regarding the differences between 1998 and today, again, let’s remember that Bubba was charged with multiple counts of perjury and obstruction of justice, and there was someone genuinely harmed until it was exposed—Paula Jones, who was sexually harassed by Clinton. Really, the closest analogy for this impeachment is the one of Andrew Johnson, where Congress passed a Constitutionally dubious law called the “Tenure of Office Act”, whereby Congress was trying to infringe on the President’s right to choose his own advisors, and then impeached him for (among other things) removing the Secretary of War. If you read the history, the parallels are uncanny between the Johnson case and Trump cases.
And again, I’m personally unclear on why—except for partisan politics—one would decide that it’s wrong for a President to ask for help investigating why the former VP’s son has always gotten jobs for which he’s completely unqualified. Folks, that’s precisely how Tammany Hall and the Chicago machine worked.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
For the record, I am not a fan of calling Presidents silly names in normal conversation. Satirical songs are one thing, but I am not a fan of Bubba, Billy Boy, BJ Clinton, W, Barry, or any of the Obama nicknames. They were our president. Call them their proper name.
Mark, I appreciate your sentiment, but that train left the station two centuries ago or more. Just ask Old Hickory, Honest Abe, Jimmuh, “Tricky Dicky”, “Dubya”, “high tax Harry”, “little Jemmy”, or most of the other men who’ve held the office.
I can draw the line at obscene or clearly slanderous nicknames, but some of how we under the character of our leaders is through the more humorous ones. For example, “Le Grand Orange” for the current guy. Moreover, as we get to know the very real flawed character of many of our Presidents, we’re supposed to insulate them from nicknames….why? Besides, Clinton carefully cultivated the “Bubba” image to appeal to Southern voters. The man was crying all the way to the Oval Office over that one.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Discussion