Franklin Graham on impeachment: ‘Our country could begin to unravel’

"Graham, a staunch Trump supporter, said the impeachment inquiry about Trump’s interactions with the leader of Ukraine was a political move by a party that refuses to accept Trump’s election victory three years ago." - RNS

873 reads

There are 22 Comments

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

It's a bit late to get concerned about unraveling. Should have been asking "Will a man of such poor character unravel the country?" back in 2015 and 2016.

mmartin's picture

. . . . as opposed to asking "Will a woman of such poor character unravel the country?"

GregH's picture

I could deal with Christians saying something like "Look, Trump is a horrific person. He lies constantly, he is dishonest, he abuses his power, he uses the Presidency for personal gain. He does not deserve to be President; he in fact deserves impeachment. I will not defend him. BUT, in spite of that, I have to vote for him because the other option is worse."

What I can't deal with are these Christians like Graham who defend him and in the process become liars and crooked too. It is mindnumbing that Christians have stooped to this.

Bert Perry's picture

Worth noting is that the "whistleblower" complaint that got all of this started was not written by a CIA employee.  It was, rather, written by a Democratic Party lawyer with the full knowledge of a number of people in the Party, and brings to mind a couple of questions:

1.  Why are we so worried about an obvious setup which is contradicted by the transcript of the call?

2.  Given that the allegations are likely at least very sensitive, if not confidential, information, precisely who interacted with this before it was released?

I am no fan of Franklin Graham, and understand fully concerns about the moral state of the President, but unless the State Department was intentionally falsifying the transcript (and Mike Pompeo is blatantly violating the USMA honor code he promised to keep), what we've got here is a political "hit" led by the same people leading the impeachment inquiry, one that exposes the "hitters" (Schiff, Pelosi, etc..) as liars.  It's also one where those involved have some very real questions about their pledge to keep confidential discussions confidential.  

The logical conclusion of this matter is that a number of people need to lose their jobs--but Donald Trump does not appear to be among them in this case.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Motives again...  I don't doubt it's politically driven. Let's make that a given and move on to more important questions like what did the President do and is that/should that be allowed?

(There is so much energy going into irrelevancy in this whole thing... if we could somehow harness the red-herring energy in all this, we could power North American industry for a couple years on it.)

. . . . as opposed to asking "Will a woman of such poor character ...

Everybody was asking that. Also a given. When we were looking at nominees, the question that wasn't properly thought through was, "What if we nominate someone who's just as bad, only in different ways, and what will it do to the soul and integrity of the party if we bet everything on someone who is so profoundly inappropriate, just to 'win'?" Guys like Franklin Graham helped that nomination happen.

mmartin's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Worth noting is that the "whistleblower" complaint that got all of this started was not written by a CIA employee.  It was, rather, written by a Democratic Party lawyer with the full knowledge of a number of people in the Party, and brings to mind a couple of questions:

1.  Why are we so worried about an obvious setup which is contradicted by the transcript of the call?

2.  Given that the allegations are likely at least very sensitive, if not confidential, information, precisely who interacted with this before it was released?

I am no fan of Franklin Graham, and understand fully concerns about the moral state of the President, but unless the State Department was intentionally falsifying the transcript (and Mike Pompeo is blatantly violating the USMA honor code he promised to keep), what we've got here is a political "hit" led by the same people leading the impeachment inquiry, one that exposes the "hitters" (Schiff, Pelosi, etc..) as liars.  It's also one where those involved have some very real questions about their pledge to keep confidential discussions confidential.  

The logical conclusion of this matter is that a number of people need to lose their jobs--but Donald Trump does not appear to be among them in this case.

Agreed!  What the Democrats are doing is creating a non-crisis crisis and throwing enough manufactured dirt around, hoping enough of it sticks to influence the American public to vote Trump out of office.  After the Russia investigation fiasco and the repeatedly exposed as completely fake Kavanaugh "allegations," how can we trust the Democrats & media on this next issue???

But sure, let's keep saying Trump is THE liar and immoral (insert other list of vices here) while failing to acknowledge the bigger picture.

Larry's picture

Moderator

It's a bit late to get concerned about unraveling. Should have been asking "Will a man of such poor character unravel the country?" back in 2015 and 2016.

You mean back when VP Biden was using foreign aid to coerce a foreign government to do something? You mean back when the Executive Branch was using the power of federal government in the FBI and CIA to investigate a political opponent? You mean back when a political party was asking for and accepting foreign intervention in the electoral process against a political opponent?  You mean back when the federal government knew that a foreign government was trying to interfere in the election and didn't tell the parties involved and take steps to stop it but instead tried to entrap them? You mean back when the federal government was using documents it knew were questionable at best and likely completely false in order to pursue a political opponent?

Joel Shaffer's picture

Because of Trump using his executive power in such a shady way, I think it is appropriate to look into impeachment (I'm not saying that Trump should be impeached, but what he did was shady, although no more shady than what Biden and his cronies did).  My feeling is that Trump frequently pushes the limits of his executive power, which then leads to overreactions of the liberal left, creating a victimhood culture for the Republicans that Trump and his supporters embrace when they are constantly attacked by the left, which raises tons of money for them. Victimization is a brilliant strategy to galvanize your base and raise funds and now the Republicans (through Trump) are doing it too.  If Trump is whining and complaining about always being investigated, then he needs to stop pushing his executive powers beyond the constitutional limit. I am getting sick of each President that we've had in the past 30 years (Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, and now Trump) making the executive branch more and more powerful than the other branches. What's more, is that whoever follows Trump (most likely in 2024 and most likely a progressive liberal) will go even further with their executive power. Do you remember in the last Presidential debate, Senator Harris promised to use her executive powers to ban guns and etc....? That's even more scary. Checks and balances are essential for our government to function well.

Also, which party will show enough integrity to stop the blame cycle of "the previous President abused power and got away with it so that gives me the right to do so too." I don't care what the situation is and what happened. "The Ends Do Not Justify the Means."  

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Very helpful piece at NR on the impeachment process 

There are two layers: constitutional requirements and self-imposed rules by the House and Senate.

Technically, impeachment has occurred when the House brings a formal charge against the Pres. Then it goes to the Senate to bring the matter to some kind of close.

Constitutionally, the Senate has a lot of flexibility on what it does with the House's impeachment. But under it's current self-imposed rules, it has to have a"trial" and do it promptly.

As they say, read the whole thing.

....

On Joel's comment, one thing I find comforting is that if a future leftist Pres tries to ban guns by executive order, there will be lawsuits, and the Supremes can declare the EO unconstitutional (or possibly even a circuit court could do it). Also, if Congress had a mind to, it could pass legislation contradicting the EO. So..., it's not as easy to defeat the checks and balances as it may sometimes seem. 

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

You mean back when VP Biden was using foreign aid to coerce a foreign government to do something? ...

No, I'm pretty sure Graham was not in favor of lots of things that went on during the Obama administration. Not in any way relevant to what he should have done about Trump in 2016.

... but that's really pretty obvious, isn't it?

Bert Perry's picture

....than even executive overreach is bureaucratic overreach, IMO.  There is a tremendous amount of leeway given to bureaucrats to "codify" laws, and that power leads to a tremendous amount of "extension" of the law to areas the writers would not have contemplated.  And when people push back at extending code far beyond what the law's writers would have ever imagined, then the bureaucrats start quietly or loudly sabotaging the effort.  A lot of what we read in the papers is precisely that, really.  In this case, it's the intelligence community inspector general quietly (a) removing the need for firsthand knowledge and (b) changing the reports in response to the complaint against Trump.  In doing so, they, again, shared a lot of fairly sensitive information with Democratic Party staffers.  

Not that presidential overreach is a small deal, but it's nothing compared to bureaucratic/swamp inertia.  And regarding Presidential overreach, one good thing about Trump is that in many areas, he's actually kicked things back to Congress.  Not that he doesn't overreach, but IMO it's nowhere near the problem it was from 2009 to 2016.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Just a few years ago, Ted Cruz was asked why not impeach Obama.... (Bulwark)

Cruz’s response: “It’s a good question.” The only reason not to impeach Obama, he said, was purely tactical: Not enough votes in the Senate. A few months later, Cruz sat down for an interview with Newsmax and was asked about impeaching Obama again. He ducked and swerved. He said that Obama’s “lawless” behavior was “deeply dangerous.” But he wouldn’t say, No. This is stupid. You don’t impeach presidents just because you dislike them.

Cruz now on impeaching Trump:

Two weeks into the first revelations of Trump’s actions regarding Ukraine, Cruz is comfortable declaring that the House impeachment inquiry is merely an attempt “to find any reason under the sun to impeach the president and undo the results of the last election.”

This is happening all over on the right. Very interesting.

Mark_Smith's picture

You know what concerns me? All this examination into Ted Cruz quotes and accusations that unless you are against Trump you have compromised yourself, but little comment and concern about the outrageous accusations from practically every Democrat party leader! Shoot, they've managed to make Pelosi sound almost reasonable. No comment from the never Trump crowd though...

Edit: To put it another way, my support of Trump is not in a vacuum. In 2016 I supported a few others until Trump was left. Then the choice was him or Hillary Clinton. Now, you have the same kind of stark choice. You either support Trump or you bow to the absurd, over the top, elitist, deep state, good ole boy club, stuff the establishment crown in Washington DC is slinging at him. Then you add in the shocking overt socialism of most of the Democratic presidential field, and whew... You can't stand on the fence and complain about "your team." You go to war with the army you have.

Mark_Smith's picture

GregH wrote:

What I can't deal with are these Christians like Graham who defend him and in the process become liars and crooked too. It is mindnumbing that Christians have stooped to this.

GregH. see, I reject the claim that Trump is a liar and crooked. Is he perfect? No. Is he more honest than most politicians? Yes.

mmartin's picture

Mark_Smith wrote:

You know what concerns me? All this examination into Ted Cruz quotes and accusations that unless you are against Trump you have compromised yourself, but little comment and concern about the outrageous accusations from practically every Democrat party leader! Shoot, they've managed to make Pelosi sound almost reasonable. No comment from the never Trump crowd though...

Edit: To put it another way, my support of Trump is not in a vacuum. In 2016 I supported a few others until Trump was left. Then the choice was him or Hillary Clinton. Now, you have the same kind of stark choice. You either support Trump or you bow to the absurd, over the top, elitist, deep state, good ole boy club, stuff the establishment crown in Washington DC is slinging at him. Then you add in the shocking overt socialism of most of the Democratic presidential field, and whew... You can't stand on the fence and complain about "your team." You go to war with the army you have.

Agreed 100%! 

Someone posted above something to the effect that they felt the pro-Trump crowd would be more credible if they weren't so fan-boy over him, while ignoring his clear & obvious flaws.  Those flaws do make it a challenge for many Christians to support him personally.  That is true.  I do acknowledge that fact.  I cringe too often at much of his behavior.

But, I also think the never-Trump crowd, including some on this thread, would have more credible arguments if they acknowledged as much about the gargantuan & appalling flaws of the Democrats as much as they rail against Trump.

GregH's picture

Mark_Smith wrote:

 

GregH wrote:

 

What I can't deal with are these Christians like Graham who defend him and in the process become liars and crooked too. It is mindnumbing that Christians have stooped to this.

 

 

GregH. see, I reject the claim that Trump is a liar and crooked. Is he perfect? No. Is he more honest than most politicians? Yes.

OK...

Larry's picture

Moderator

No, I'm pretty sure Graham was not in favor of lots of things that went on during the Obama administration. Not in any way relevant to what he should have done about Trump in 2016.

... but that's really pretty obvious, isn't it?

I think you are missing the point again. It's not about whether Trump is right or wrong, good or bad. It's not about Graham. It's about the hypocrisy of pretending that Trump is alone in this. You talk about being able to see the damage in 2015 and 2016, and I am merely pointing out that we did see it. It was plain and obvious in many ways, but a lot of people didn't care, including those who are the most vocal about it now.

This kind of stuff has long gone on and in 2015 and 16 (the dates you mention), it was on clear display. I can't see any reasonable argument that it is worse now than before. Sure it's more public because of Trump on Twitter and because of the media who makes a big deal of out everything Trump related. But you think Obama didn't lie? Or Bush? Or Clinton? They are politicians. Of course they lie. You think they didn't speak badly of their political opponents? Clinton and Bush were probably better, but Obama was pretty acidic at times. In many respects, I think Obama was worse because it was veiled behind a smarmy kind of decentspeak. Even now, there are people who prefer Obama to Trump. Such a desire is not because of policy or truthtelling on the part of Obama. It is because of perception of presentation. 

I am tired of people complaining about "whataboutism" as if it is wrong to point out hypocrisy. 

Joel Shaffer's picture

Mark_Smith wrote:

 

GregH wrote:

 

What I can't deal with are these Christians like Graham who defend him and in the process become liars and crooked too. It is mindnumbing that Christians have stooped to this.

 

 

GregH. see, I reject the claim that Trump is a liar and crooked. Is he perfect? No. Is he more honest than most politicians? Yes.

Mark, 

I would say that Trump is more of a pathological liar.  It doesn't matter if there is video evidence to prove him wrong, he knows his loyal supporters will defend him no matter what lie he says.   The crazy thing is that he lies about the little things that are so obviously not true.  Take for example his Trump rally where his supporters chanted "send her back" about Ilhan Omar, Trump lies that he stopped it "by speaking really quickly."  Not at all true!  Video evidence shows that there was a pause of 13 seconds before he jumped backed in.  In a speech that's a long time.  Or that the American Dollar is the strongest its ever been in the history of our country. False again.  The mid-eighties, 1999-2003, and even the very tail end of Obama Presidency into Trump's early presidency, the dollar was stronger. Or that Democrats "want virtual immunity for illegal aliens who have created horrible crimes and murder."  Just about every Democrat in high office favors policies at the federal, state and local uniformly deny any protections to illegal immigrants who have committed violent crimes or lesser offenses such as burglary.  Now if you want to make the argument that Democratic policies may increase the chances that illegal immigrants will commit violence?  That's another issue to discuss, but even Cato Institute studies on immigration has shown that not to be the case.  Do Democrats lie and twist the truth about Trump all the time? Absolutely!  But lets not pretend that Trump has some moral high ground when it comes to honesty.     

 

 

Are you comfortable with Trump lying

Mark_Smith's picture

Joel Shaffer wrote:

 

Are you comfortable with Trump lying

I don't think he is, at least not any more than a political leader normally does.

And what I mean by his honesty is he is telling you flat out what he is doing. Obama, for example (and for the record, I think most politicians do this), tells you you can keep your doctor, your health costs will drop, etc... all while knowing that is not the case, nor is it his intent, or his plan.

mmartin's picture

Not sure about Trump's claim about the strength of the dollar, but today a report was released saying unemployment is the lowest in 50 years.  As far as presidential claims can go, that is something Trump can truthfully claim.

I agree that Trump is a liar.  But, I also agree that I don't think he lies any more or less than your average politician.  And, when you consider again the (cough) truthfulness the Democrats and lefty media dumped on the American public about the Russia investigation and "We Believe Her" accusations against Kavanaugh, I fail again to see why so many people continue to rip Trump on this point.  This entire impeachment garbage being pushed by Pelosi is based on lies.  (Of course, he makes himself an easy target, but the point still stands.)

Bert Perry's picture

To be perfectly accurate, the dollar was strongest before 1913, when it was clearly linked to the value of gold and the Federal Reserve did not yet exist to obscure (and eventually eliminate, with FDR and Nixon's help), that connection.  It was about 24-25 times stronger than today, depending on how you count inflation.  Today's "dollar never stronger" estimates simply measure it against other fiat currencies, which is kinda like taking a micrometer to Jell-O.  You can do it, but wash and oil the micrometer afterwards, and I'll treat your measurements with all the deference they deserve. 

To the point of Trump vs. the truth, it's worth noting that as far as I can tell, the big difference isn't that Trump lies that much more than anyone else.  I remember angrily turning off the radio during both the Bush and Obama administrations quite often because the speakers (both in the White House and from the Capitol on both sides of the aisle) were spouting off nonsense, to put it politely.  The difference between Trump and others is that others learned to lie so much more artfully, so that it wasn't as immediately obvious they were lying.

To that point, again, witness the Democrats rallying around Schiff, who was caught falsifying evidence in a public speech recently.  Pelosi basically said it was "truthy".  Note that neither one seems very worried that they induced a fair number of people with security clearances to violate their oaths, and that they likely introduced classified information to a number of people not authorized to see it.  Yes, that violates the oaths these Congress-critters swore.  

But Trump is the liar we need to be worried about while Pelosi, Schiff, and their minions mount a soft putsch?  I'm not getting it.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

josh p's picture

As a never Trumper, I would say that one reason that I get so annoyed by Trump is that he is supposed to be better. We all know the Democrats lie like a rug but you would hope that the “conservative” candidate would be better. I realized years ago that this was not at all the case but it still should be.