Pro-Trump preachers on message against impeachment probe

[Darrell Post]

But the media loves to paint evangelicals as moral hypocrites, and so the narrative goes that all evangelicals endorsed immorality in 2016 when in fact that was not the case in the GOP primary process, and morality was not an option on the general election ballot.

This is so intuitively obvious that it’s a wonder it has to be explained over and over. I guess that means the media is doing a pretty good job pushing that false narrative.

I’m in Cameroon teaching pastors we’ve been working with for three years. Several have asked me about Trump. Most are glad he’s president from their corner of the world. My response is simple and I might be one of those simpleton white male evangelicals who believe that at this time the choices are bad and worse. That’s usually the case. There’s much about Trump I dislike. There’s much he’s done I applaud. Our church in Philly is made up mostly of immigrants and we don’t endorse candidates in any way. We are not obsessed with politics or overly concerned about who becomes president. It’s a blip in world history. We pray for Trump just as we prayed for Obama. As a citizen I refuse to vote for someone who believes it’s not only okay to kill babies but extol it and push a godless agenda. If I voted for the moral candidate I wouldn’t have anyone to vote for. If there were an electable third party candidate I would consider that. Until then for me the choice is simple. Others disagree. That’s our system. It’s far from perfect but I prefer that to a system where the same president has been in power for over 35 years as it is here. We get to actually vote. So vote your conscience, take the moral high ground or low ground. Let none of us think we are more obedient to God, more godly, or more insightful in our choice to the point where we demean others. As a believer the main thing is the gospel, the main problem is sin, the only solution is a Savior. There’s no political solution. God has his own agenda and he will accomplish his purposes.

You nailed it as well!

Your information is very insightful, and exposes the lie about the so-called hypocritical evangelicals.

Eric Ciaramello, the leaker, was leaking classified information—a felony—about actions of President Trump which were not in effect criminal. And yes, I’m saying “leaker” and not “whistleblower” for a reason here, because Ciaramello’s actions don’t qualify under the law.

And Adam Schiff is enabling these crimes, which implicates him (and other Democrats) in this as well. I think I remember that Democrats used to be worried about this kind of thing, but apparently my memory is faulty here. One does not need to love Trump—I certainly didn’t like him in the primary season and held my nose to vote for him—to say “um, something’s out of line here, and it’s not in the White House.”

So Bert knows more about the law than the multiple officials who read the WB’s complaint and decided it was credible (including some who were appointed by Trump himself). Bert in his infinite wisdom declares that there was no crime in the WH and it is actually the WB who committed a crime! I would love to know where Bert gets his insight (other than conspiracy theory radioland).

And Bert knows who the whistle blower is! I would love to know how he knows that for sure since there are plenty of people that are in the know who admit they don’t know for sure and the name is only published on whacky conspiracy theory sites. I would also like to know why he thinks it is OK to help expose the man who may not even be the WB to violence at the hand of some of Trump’s many nutty zealots.

I don’t know a lot of things Bert but here is one thing I do know: you don’t have a clue about what you are talking about and there are plenty of people who do actually know the law who disagree with your armchair legal theories.

[GregH]

… there are plenty of people who do actually know the law who disagree with your armchair legal theories.

Sure enough. And there are also lawyers who disagree with those lawyers. So what we have is the battle of competing experts, which means most of us have to let it play out to know the actual truth (assuming we’ll know it even then). In the meantime, we can certainly use our intuition and common sense given the evidence we do see to at least have a reasonable opinion on what is happening, if not an expert one, or one guaranteed to be true. That’s how most of us operate on most subjects, since we can’t be experts on very many things. Of course, that may mean what I find obvious you find ridiculous, and vice versa.

I would like to appeal to SI to remove the name of the possible WB from Bert’s post. Again, the only people naming that person are discredited conspiracy theory websites and that news is not confirmed. Even Fox News has the decency not to name that person.

Here is one thing I would hope we can agree on. If that person were our son, we would not want him exposed to danger from alt-right morons even if we did know he was the WB (and don’t know he is). There is simply no reason for SI to contribute to the potential of that person being harmed.

Multiple conservative personalities have contacted the WB’s lawyer and offered free time for them to publicly state that they are not the WB. If they refuse to deny, that is on them.

Eric Ciaramello is his name. Own it bro… you know you want to because Trump is so evil…

[GregH]

…the only people naming that person are discredited conspiracy theory websites and that news is not confirmed.

I’m guessing that means you think Real Clear Investigations and Washington Examiner are “discredited conspiracy theory websites.” I disagree with that opinion. As long as that info is public on sites like those, removing the theory about the WB identity from SI (which presumably has an order of magnitude smaller readership, and most of whom would be unlikely to have a propensity for violence) is rather pointless.

I don’t know where gregH is getting his information, but Donald Trump, Jr, has named the Whistleblower and is being castigated for doing so, but I’m not aware that anyone is denying this identification. (Which he says was previously reported on Drudge, and he simply re-tweeted that information.)

It would appear that the WB has been “outed” and he turns out to be an active Democrat with personal ties to Pelosi, Clinton, Schumer, etc. His attorney stated in 2017 that “the coup has begun.” It is smelling more and more like a six day old kettle of fish. I think Bert is exactly right. The so-called WB is no whistleblower, he’s a political leaker. Funny how the CBS/ABC Whistleblower was afforded no consideration or protection, but the Trump leaker must be protected. Why isn’t the left calling for the protection of the ABC whistleblower? Are WB’s supposed to be protected or not? Or does it all depend upon whose political position they hurt?

[Joeb]

We are BROKE and Trump will be gone when it needs to be fixed.

That’s one of my personal pet peeves about the candidates. No matter who gets in, no one is going to do anything about the deficit or debt.

Debating over absurd theater is correct. This is smelling more and more like the Russia collusion and Kavannaugh fiascos where there was this initial unhinged outrage only to have the accusations fall apart and be found as lies. This, as apposed to the corruption by the Clintons & Bidens, which the Democrats and lefty media give a total pass.

Not that the Republicans are all that great themselves often enough, but the Democrats have totally gone off the rails as they work to out-left each other.

I believe Darrell Post is correct that Trump was not the favorite among evangelicals during the 2016 Republican primaries. I remember my pastor saying from the pulpit during the 2016 election campaign that it was a race between a Corrupt-o-crat and a Clown.

Greg H’s appeal to SI to remove the name of the alleged WB is ridiculous.

Steve Davis’ post is spot on!

I have been wondering for some time when I should leave SI. I have been here for at least 10 years probably but I have known for some time that I really don’t belong here for a few reasons. I won’t go into all the reasons but one of them is the fact that I just can’t stomach what is happening in evangelicalism in two areas that get a lot of attention here: Donald Trump and domestic abuse.

While it is true that SI has a tiny reach compared to other sites that have named the alleged WB, it is still incredibly stupid and anti-Christian to contribute to potential violence by exposing that man to the hate of the Trump mob, especially when you don’t even know if he is the WB. Again, even Fox News has enough decency not to do that.

Some of you who know nothing think you know more than the numerous experts in reputable organizations who have refrained from engaging in that even though doing so would increase their revenue. Mark and Bert: you should be ashamed. Your actions are anti-Christian. Your Christianity is not something I want anything to do with. Those of you that defend their actions should be ashamed. Your defense is anti-Christian.

I am doing a lot of soul searching and it is clear to me that my life would be better if I distance myself as much as possible from the drama of today’s politics and some of the other topics discussed here. Frankly, more of you need to do likewise. If you stopped reading/watching your partisan conspiracy theory sources, you might actually start sounding intelligent again. At the moment, some of you are regurgitating the BS you get from Breitbart like it is gospel. Folks, that is drivel for the uneducated morons. If you don’t want to get offended by being called an uneducated white male, stop acting like one.

This is my last post here. Many of you will say good riddance about me and I am saying it about many of you too.

On the flip side, many of you are good people and to you I say, thanks for the interactions over the years. I am not upset with everyone; I am leaving just because it will be helpful to my quality of life to step out of this.

Aaron, please terminate my membership.

Regarding Greg’s comments, first of all, when one is taking ad hominem fire, as Greg H loves to do give, one might infer one is over the target. Edit: and if Greg H. desires to confront someone over an anti-Christian attitude, perhaps he ought to address his habit of making personal attacks and mocking brothers in Christ? That is, after all, a big reason why politics can at various times turn injurious and even lethal. You want the temperature turned down, Greg? It starts at home.

Regarding Mr. Ciaramella, precisely why should he get a pass when he (a) provided only legally inadmissible evidence, (b) has an obvious huge bias shared by his lawyer and his handler, Adam Schiff, and (c) the whole deal is inextricably linked to protecting the interests of the real criminal here, Joe Biden? If he were a real whistleblower—providing legally admissible evidence about the conduct of members of the State Department or such—then we would come to a different conclusion. However, what we have here is little more than a political “hit” on the President that ignores the fact that we actually want things like Hunter Biden’s sinecures to be investigated. Or does Greg H perhaps not care that the Bidens are cashing in, big time, on so-called public “service”?

(and I would say the same thing about President Obama’s $60 million book deal….there is no way that the publisher is going to recoup that much from the sale of the book)

Sorry, you do a “hit” on the President, you don’t get your identity protected.