Pro-Trump preachers on message against impeachment probe

“Evangelicals understand that the effort to impeach President Trump is really an effort to impeach our own deeply-held faith values, and we’re not going to allow that to happen,” Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, said Nov. 1 on Fox Business. “That’s why you’re getting such pushback to impeachment from his evangelical base.” - BNG

7825 reads

There are 66 Comments

TylerR's picture


Whatever news source you use, if it's reputable they'll provide links to source documents. For example, when acting Ambassador William Taylor provided his recent damning testimony, the NYT provided a link to the transcript of his remarks. I skimmed the article, but read the remarks very carefully. 

Take the news source with whatever size a grain of salt is appropriate (with the NYT, with the exception of the opinion columns, it's solid reporting), but read the source documents when available. President Trump is fond of asking people to "read the transcript." Well, I read it the day it came out. I believe it's imprudent, but morally ambiguous. Some say it's incomplete. We'll see. In my opinion the transcript, when coupled with Ambassador Taylor's testimony, is certainly damning.

My point is that you should go to the source documents, whenever possible. They'll help you cut through the partisan hackery and make your own decisions.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Dan Miller's picture

I see nothing damning even if there was an explicit quid pro quo. It is important for our country to clean up corruption. So letting another country know that they must assist in that is important. And if they refused, sure, not helping them would be fine. 

Bottom line is, if you don't like Trump - or his policies - then "he's guilty" and let's make up a charge. 

TylerR's picture


That is certainly one way to look at the evidence. There is a real question in my mind about whether the President's actions actually qualify as impeachable offenses. Again, my point is to rely on source documents to make the best informed conclusions you can about controversial issues - whatever those conclusions might be. 

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Mark_Smith's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:

Yes, it's very simple if you select the criteria for evaluation that make your chosen one look best and then use those criteria alone to evaluate everyone in the field (and also assume that you have to support someone in that field). But this irrationally narrow selectivity is what has brought the GOP to its current low point. It will continue to pull it lower until more leaders recover their backbones and start calling spades spades... in other words, until they come to realize that they're not even doing pragmatism very well anymore! Even reasonably well-executed pragmatism would yield better results than the current incoherent mess that is the GOP and just about all of "conservative" talk radio and TV.


I must be confused. Who else is going to be President in 2020 other than Trump or one of the Democrat choices? My decisions are based on that cold, hard, pure, true, factual reality. Call that narrow if you like. It is 100% real.

G. N. Barkman's picture

The Democrats and Liberal Media are touting the impeachment proceedings as if certain Trump will be successfully impeached.  They say that when the general public understands what Democrats already know, popular support will convince the Senate to vote for removal.

And yet, they treat the 2020 election as if its certain Trump will run.  Michael Bloomberg is considering running because he doesn't see a Democrat who can beat Trump.  Not only does nearly everyone expect Trump to run, but are apparently unconvinced that the drawn out drama of the impeachment will weaken Trump sufficiently to make him easily beatable.  Well, which is it?  Is there really substantial and convincing evidence to remove him, or is this all a dog and pony show?  If impeachment is necessary because of the gravity of Trump's high crimes, why do they act as if they cannot succeed?  Its enough to make one suspect they know they do not have the goods.  Are we really surprised that many view this as a charade?  Democrats are doing this for the good of our country.  Really?

G. N. Barkman

Bert Perry's picture this farce is that--really per Tyler's comments--that norms of good investigation are not being followed.  Schiff has been running things like a grand jury investigation where the old proverb is that you can indict a ham sandwich for just about anything.  The ugly reality about this is that things like mandatory discovery of evidence for both sides, cross examination, and the like are actually how the truth is best arrived at. Schiff's refusal to allow these basic standards of justice to operate tells us what kind of investigation he's running--"Kangaroo court" is about the most printable thing I can say about it.

To draw a picture, imagine what one might find if, say, the Biden money from Burisma was investigated.  You would find, I believe, exactly the same kind of quid pro quo arrangement phrased in precisely the same concerns by diplomats.  Really, the same question I expressed before holds; why is it hugely significant that the Trump administration wanted a deal for the Bidens investigated, but not significant at all that Hunter Biden scored sinecures with the Ukrainians and Chinese at the same time his father was handling diplomacy for both countries?  

Along the same lines, since corruption is one of the chief obstacles to the long term prosperity of the entire former Warsaw Pact region (happy 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, BTW!), couldn't we make a reasonable argument that the Biden bribes were indeed a key point which could result in a great deal of corruption being removed from Ukraine--and then you would have a situation where citizens of that country would suddenly have a much better reason to fight for it.

One key point made as well--going back to my first point--is that the Republicans, in their opening comments, made clear their displeasure with Schiff's kangaroo court.  It is to say, again, "Adam, if you want to indict a ham sandwich, be my guest, but at the end of the day, we are going to make clear that is exactly what you have done."  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.