Convict Trump: The Constitution is more important than abortion

[libertybele]

Maybe the best post I've read since starting here on the site...a good 4 years or so at this point. Absolutely gutted the idiocy that taking down Trump is somehow saving the Constitution...when what's actually killing the Constitution is this childish left wing (and GOP establishment) rejection of the 2016 election and the ensuing attempt to overturn it through non-democratic means. Essentially, an attempted bureaucratic coup' attempt. VERY well said.

 

[Hoodat]

One of the articles of impeachment drafted against President Richard Nixon in 1974 charged him with contempt of Congress

Nixon was never impeached.

[Nixon] refused to respond to Congressional subpoenas for documents related to his criminal behavior.

Not sure how that applies to Trump since he did not engage in any criminal behavior.

Nixon withheld information, claimed executive privilege, and appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court unanimously rejected his claims, firmly establishing that the president is not above the law and is subject to the legal process.

Again, not sure how that applies to Trump since he has not withheld any information.  Quite the opposite.  He volunteered the full transcript of the Zelenskyy call at a very early point in this witch hunt.  And at no time has President Trump appealed to any court regarding executive privilege.

The same charge has now been levied against Trump for the same behavior. Trump refused to comply with Congressional subpoenas and claimed the impeachment inquiry was illegitimate. Trump’s lawyers have literally argued in court that, while president, Trump should be immune from investigation or prosecution for any criminal conduct.

Complete unadulterated bullsh!t.  CT should know that lies make Jesus cry.  (See:  Commandment 9)

If Trump is acquitted by the Senate and his legal claims are vindicated, his acquittal essentially reverses the Supreme Court’s decision against Nixon. Trump’s acquittal (coupled with Clinton’s, in 1999) would mean that, over time, a future president can abuse his power, obstruct justice, commit perjury, profit from office, defy Congress, ignore subpoenas, seize Congress’ power of the purse, never reveal tax records, admit to sexual assault, violate campaign finance laws, intimidate witnesses, and disregard truth with impunity, firm in the knowledge that he faces no accountability, no check, no balance, no consequence, and no higher law.

More bullsh!t.

@Chosen Daughter

The bottom line (again) is that Trump has violated no law, committed no crime, and has acted in good faith far better than his predecessor in regards to Ukraine.  He now stands charged by a House Judiciary Committee that failed to call a single witness with knowledge or facts of the case before it.  How would that feel to you personally if the local sheriff came by your house and arrested you for Abuse of Private Property Rights without hearing from a single witness providing evidence of how you abused them.

[Chosen Daughter]

Nixon was never impeached.


Not sure how that applies to Trump since he did not engage in any criminal behavior.


Again, not sure how that applies to Trump since he has not withheld any information.  Quite the opposite.  He volunteered the full transcript of the Zelenskyy call at a very early point in this witch hunt.  And at no time has President Trump appealed to any court regarding executive privilege.


Complete unadulterated bullsh!t.  CT should know that lies make Jesus cry.  (See:  Commandment 9)



More bullsh!t.

@Chosen Daughter

The bottom line (again) is that Trump has violated no law, committed no crime, and has acted in good faith far better than his predecessor in regards to Ukraine.  He now stands charged by a House Judiciary Committee that failed to call a single witness with knowledge or facts of the case before it.  How would that feel to you personally if the local sheriff came by your house and arrested you for Abuse of Private Property Rights without hearing from a single witness providing evidence of how you abused them.

Nixon was never impeached because he resigned before they voted on the articles.  Still there are parallels.  It just isn't the case that there aren't.  Congress did try to call witnesses and Trump kept them from testifying. 

[Hoodat]

Nixon was never impeached because he resigned before they voted on the articles.  Still there are parallels.  It just isn't the case that there aren't.  Congress did try to call witnesses and Trump kept them from testifying.

Again, Trump has violated no law, committed no crime, and has acted in good faith far better than his predecessor in regards to Ukraine.  He now stands charged by a House Judiciary Committee that failed to call a single witness with knowledge or facts of the case before it.

[Chosen Daughter]

This is a weird piece.

First, it treats the Democrats as acting in good faith while denying the same benefit of doubt to the President. (It's pretty obvious, at least to me, that the Democrats are not acting in good faith and that there are, and always were, political motivations for all this maneuvering.)

But as for abortion, how has Brett Kavanaugh ruled that has increased protections for the unborn? So far, he hasn't. The one case that he's ruled on so far involving any related issue, he ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood. Not a good start.

My stance on this... and maybe given recent editorials I should flesh this out into a full essay (but not tonight; after all, it is Christmas, and we should at least have peace for today), is that there may indeed be things that disqualify Donald Trump from the presidency and warrant his removal from office. This row, however, is not one of them. The only ones abusing the system for their own political gain are the Democrats.

Come on!  Its all about political motivation.  Take for instance the Democrat that didn't vote for impeachment.   Now he is just another liberal in the Republican party that Trump is pushing.  Well when we replace all the Conservatives with Socialists then maybe you will be happy.

Republicans decried Jeff Van Drew as a ‘socialist.’ Now he’s switched sides, the GOP is falling in line.
by Pranshu Verma, Updated: December 26, 2019- 2:41 PM

The Republican establishment is starting to fall in line for Jeff Van Drew.

A week after the New Jersey congressman and longtime Democrat defected to the GOP in an Oval Office meeting where he pledged his “undying support” to President Donald Trump, the political apparatus of Van Drew’s new party is going to work for him. The president has endorsed Van Drew. A Trump-allied political action committee spent $250,000 on TV and digital ads supporting him. And the candidate who had formerly been seen as the Republican front-runner in the South Jersey district is shedding establishment support.

https://www.inquirer.com/politics/new-jersey/jeff-van-drew-trump-republicans-nrcc-20191226.html

Bull crap!  Yeah right Donald no Socialism.

[Chosen Daughter]

Again, Trump has violated no law, committed no crime, and has acted in good faith far better than his predecessor in regards to Ukraine.  He now stands charged by a House Judiciary Committee that failed to call a single witness with knowledge or facts of the case before it.

Hard to tell if anyone had knowledge or facts if they aren't allowed to testify.

[Hoodat]

Hard to tell if anyone had knowledge or facts if they aren't allowed to testify.

Even harder to ignore the fact that Trump has violated no law, committed no crime, and has acted in good faith far better than his predecessor in regards to Ukraine.  He now stands charged by a House Judiciary Committee that failed to call a single witness with knowledge or facts of the case before it.

[Chosen Daughter]

Even harder to ignore the fact that Trump has violated no law, committed no crime, and has acted in good faith far better than his predecessor in regards to Ukraine.  He now stands charged by a House Judiciary Committee that failed to call a single witness with knowledge or facts of the case before it.

If there are no witnesses that are allowed to testify then I guess there isn't a crime.  That is what it is about.  The mob takes care of witnesses too to protect them from prosecution.

[sneakypete]

Come on!  Its all about political motivation.  Take for instance the Democrat that didn't vote for impeachment.   Now he is just another liberal in the Republican party that Trump is pushing.  Well when we replace all the Conservatives with Socialists then maybe you will be happy.

 @Chosen Daughter

Once again you are confusing the worlds "cultism" and "conservatism". There is no excuse for this. They don't even sound alike.

[EdinVA]

Come on!  Its all about political motivation.  Take for instance the Democrat that didn't vote for impeachment.   Now he is just another liberal in the Republican party that Trump is pushing.  Well when we replace all the Conservatives with Socialists then maybe you will be happy.

Republicans decried Jeff Van Drew as a ‘socialist.’ Now he’s switched sides, the GOP is falling in line.
by Pranshu Verma, Updated: December 26, 2019- 2:41 PM

The Republican establishment is starting to fall in line for Jeff Van Drew.

A week after the New Jersey congressman and longtime Democrat defected to the GOP in an Oval Office meeting where he pledged his “undying support” to President Donald Trump, the political apparatus of Van Drew’s new party is going to work for him. The president has endorsed Van Drew. A Trump-allied political action committee spent $250,000 on TV and digital ads supporting him. And the candidate who had formerly been seen as the Republican front-runner in the South Jersey district is shedding establishment support.

https://www.inquirer.com/politics/new-jersey/jeff-van-drew-trump-republicans-nrcc-20191226.html

Bull crap!  Yeah right Donald no Socialism.

Does this sound like a socialist?

WASHINGTON — U.S. Rep. Jeff Van Drew, D-2nd, kept his promise to vote “no” on Nancy Pelosi for speaker on his first day in Congress, but she was elected by a vote of 220-192.Van Drew, who also vowed not to follow his party blindly, took his promise literally.

https://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/politics/van-drew-begins-congressional-career-by-refusing-to-back-nancy/article_07728ec0-e1d6-5ba2-bc81-3f7a19bade60.html

This Pranshu Verma you are quoting is a real socialist....

[Hoodat]

If there are no witnesses that are allowed to testify then I guess there isn't a crime.  That is what it is about.  The mob takes care of witnesses too to protect them from prosecution.

Who wasn't allowed to testify?  Seriously, who are these witnesses who were eager to come forward and be sworn in to testify under the threat of perjury, but were somehow blocked from doing so by Trump?  Meanwhile, the 'witness' [sic] who started this whole nonsense, Eric Ciaramella, has yet to appear before any committee, much less have his name mentioned publicly.  Nadler certainly didn't call him.  And Schiff falsely claimed to have even met him.



Of course none of this changes the fact that Trump has violated no law, committed no crime, and has acted in good faith far better than his predecessor in regards to Ukraine.  He now stands charged by a House Judiciary Committee that failed to call a single witness (even the nameless ones you cite) with knowledge or facts of the case before it.

[Chosen Daughter]

Does this sound like a socialist?This Pranshu Verma you are quoting is a real socialist....

He's a gun grabber and pro abortionist.  Trump can't be both for and against. 

Van Drew Must Denounce Political Machine, GOP Chair Says
The Gloucester County Republican Party chair said Jeff Van Drew must denounce George Norcross if he is going to gain Republican trust.
By Anthony Bellano, Patch Staff
Dec 16, 2019 9:37 am ET

Congressman Jeff Van Drew's reported decision to switch from the Democratic to Republican parties is drawing reaction at all levels of government, from the federal to the local level.

While prominent Democrats are furious with Van Drew's decision, Republicans in South Jersey remain skeptical. One has even called on Van Drew to denounce his ties to South Jersey's most powerful unelected official.

Gloucester County Republican Party Chairwoman Jacci Vigilante said Van Drew has been "backed by South Jersey's political machine for many years," and that he will have to denounce his connections to South Jersey powerbroker George Norcross. He must also be prepared to run in the Republican Primary for the seat he already holds against candidates who have been preparing to earn the nomination.

"A 100 percent rating from Planned Parenthood and voting with Nancy Pelosi over 90 percent of the time is a lot to overcome," Vigilante said. "My point is Mr. Van Drew has some obstacles in front of him if he wants to be a Republican. We'll accept him, but I am curious to see how he fixes these and other issues the rank-and-file are going to have with him."

https://patch.com/new-jersey/gloucestertownship/van-drew-must-denounce-political-machine-gop-chair-says

[Hoodat]

@Chosen Daughter

Charles Kupperman, former Deputy National Security Advisor, is a good example.  The House subpoenaed him to appear before three different House committees.  None of the three was the Judiciary Committee - the committee tasked with impeaching Trump.  Kupperman (not Trump) fought the subpoena by hiring his own lawyer and filing his own suit in court.  Over a month before the case was scheduled to be heard, the House withdrew the subpoena.  In other words, the House gave up any pretense of discovering the facts of the case.  They had already invented their own narrative, which Kupperman's testimony would only discredit.

And then there is Mick Mulvaney who tried to join the Kupperman suit which effectively was a suit against the President.  But when the House dropped the subpoena against Kupperman, he backed out, choosing instead to openly defy the subpoena from the House Intelligence Committee - the same committee that refused to call Ciaramella as a witness.  That was 45 days ago.  btw, this same committee failed to subpoena John Bolton who had been dismissed 2 months prior and was under no executive obligation to the White House.  Again, there was never any effort to get to the truth of the matter by any House Committee.

And when it finally got to the Judiciary Committee - the committee with the duty of impeachment - that committee failed to call Mulvaney, Kupperman, Bolton, Yovanovitch, Ciaramella, etc.  In fact, that committee failed to call a single witness who had knowledge of the facts and events of this case.  So for you to continue to blame Trump for the behavior of House committees is just plain disingenuous.

Again, Trump has violated no law, committed no crime, and has acted in good faith far better than his predecessor in regards to Ukraine.  He now stands charged by a House Judiciary Committee that failed to call a single witness (even the nameless ones you cite) with knowledge or facts of the case before it.

[Chosen Daughter]

@Chosen Daughter

Charles Kupperman, former Deputy National Security Advisor, is a good example.  The House subpoenaed him to appear before three different House committees.  None of the three was the Judiciary Committee - the committee tasked with impeaching Trump.  Kupperman (not Trump) fought the subpoena by hiring his own lawyer and filing his own suit in court.  Over a month before the case was scheduled to be heard, the House withdrew the subpoena.  In other words, the House gave up any pretense of discovering the facts of the case.  They had already invented their own narrative, which Kupperman's testimony would only discredit.

And then there is Mick Mulvaney who tried to join the Kupperman suit which effectively was a suit against the President.  But when the House dropped the subpoena against Kupperman, he backed out, choosing instead to openly defy the subpoena from the House Intelligence Committee - the same committee that refused to call Ciaramella as a witness.  That was 45 days ago.  btw, this same committee failed to subpoena John Bolton who had been dismissed 2 months prior and was under no executive obligation to the White House.  Again, there was never any effort to get to the truth of the matter by any House Committee.

And when it finally got to the Judiciary Committee - the committee with the duty of impeachment - that committee failed to call Mulvaney, Kupperman, Bolton, Yovanovitch, Ciaramella, etc.  In fact, that committee failed to call a single witness who had knowledge of the facts and events of this case.  So for you to continue to blame Trump for the behavior of House committees is just plain disingenuous.

Again, Trump has violated no law, committed no crime, and has acted in good faith far better than his predecessor in regards to Ukraine.  He now stands charged by a House Judiciary Committee that failed to call a single witness (even the nameless ones you cite) with knowledge or facts of the case before it.

White House gave orders to stay away.

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/28/773524571/bolton-deputy-wants-court-ruling-before-he-talks-in-trump-impeachment-inquiry

[Hoodat]

White House gave orders to stay away.

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/28/773524571/bolton-deputy-wants-court-ruling-before-he-talks-in-trump-impeachment-inquiry

Your article confirms exactly what I stated in the previous post.  Kupperman filed suit seeking a judicial ruling on whether he had to testify.

Here it is again:

• Kupperman subpoenaed to testify before three House committees, none of which was the Judiciary Committee
• Kupperman hires his own lawyer.
• Kupperman files his own suit in court seeking a judicial ruling (i.e. from the Judicial Branch of government) on whether he can be compelled to testify by these legislative committees.
• House drops subpoena.
• Kupperman continues to ask judge for ruling even though he no longer has staying.

Now show me in all that where Trump prevented Kupperman from testifying.

And that still doesn't change the fact that Trump has violated no law, committed no crime, and has acted in good faith far better than his predecessor in regards to Ukraine.  He now stands charged by a House Judiciary Committee that failed to call a single witness (even the nameless ones you cite) with knowledge or facts of the case before it.

[Snarknado]

It's sad that there are a handful of so-called Christians whose hatred for Trump blinds them to his efforts and results in slowing the erosion of the fundamental religious values and freedoms this country was founded on. If they get their way I'm sure they'll be much more comfortable with a president Clinton or Warren.

[sneakypete]

It's sad that there are a handful of so-called Christians  ......

@Snarknado

So-called Christians/so-called Republicans.

[Cyber Liberty]

He's a gun grabber and pro abortionist.  Trump can't be both for and against. 

Excuse me, but the article you posted said, essentially, "Screw the Abortion 'issue,' we need to Impeach and Remove Donald Trump!"  So, who cares what Van Drew thinks of Abortion if you are throwing the dead baby issue overboard anyway?  You can't have it both ways, either.

[skeeter]

It's sad that there are a handful of so-called Christians whose hatred for Trump blinds them to his efforts and results in slowing the erosion of the fundamental religious values and freedoms this country was founded on. If they get their way I'm sure they'll be much more comfortable with a president Clinton or Warren.

Some people are not what they claim to be.

[Chosen Daughter]

Excuse me, but the article you posted said, essentially, "Screw the Abortion 'issue,' we need to Impeach and Remove Donald Trump!"  So, who cares what Van Drew thinks of Abortion if you are throwing the dead baby issue overboard anyway?  You can't have it both ways, either.

Excerpt from the article:

Our democratic Constitution — adopted to “secure the blessings of liberty” for all Americans — is what guarantees that our voice matters. Without it, we can talk about the evils of abortion until we are blue in the face and it will never affect abortion policy one iota. The Constitution — with its guarantees of free speech, free assembly, the right to petition the government, regular elections, and the peaceful transfer of power — is the only thing that forces the government to listen to us.


Policy based on nothing is nothing.  I view abortion as murder of an American citizen.  Who has the right to secure the blessings of liberty.  But if we break down the Constitution that guarantee's our rights as American citizens.  And that is what the article is about.  Not that they don't care about abortion.  That would be an outrageous accusation based on who they are and their positions as Christians.

This is not the same as a Democratic Congressman supporting abortion.  If he had his way I am sure that babies would be aborted to term or killed after birth.  There are differences to defending our Constitution or merely supporting the killing of babies.  Christian Post was not advocating the killing of babies.  They were advocating supporting our Founding document which is what all law is based on.  As the excerpt says without the Constitution there is nothing to allow us to voice opposition to abortion or any grievance.  Not one.  Not whether a person is free to choose religion or not choose it either.  It just becomes a piece of paper.  Once it crumbles there is no legal standing for anything. 

 

[EdinVA]

I view abortion as murder of an American citizen.

Ok, got it... What I don't get is how will fabricating impeachment against the President fix that?
Are you hoping the democrat that get elected next will change things because Pence is a nice guy, but he is not a fighter and does not stand a chance..

[Chosen Daughter]

It's sad that there are a handful of so-called Christians whose hatred for Trump blinds them to his efforts and results in slowing the erosion of the fundamental religious values and freedoms this country was founded on. If they get their way I'm sure they'll be much more comfortable with a president Clinton or Warren.

Really?  What has Donald Trump done for faith?  Nothing more than was done in Germany.  It opens the door for government controlled church.  No longer faith based but a political arm of the government.  Allowing any and their brothers with political agenda's to practice activism for any political cause and still do it tax free.  Take this wacky Episcopal Priest who is leading her church to push planned Parenthood and abortion.  All tax free and they can't do a damn thing about it.  Maybe they don't care actually.

Episcopal Woman Priest Says Abortionists are “Saints”
 October 30, 2019 by Fr. Dwight Longenecker

The National Abortion Federation (NAF) have announced that  The Very Reverend Katherine Hancock Ragsdale is to be their  President and CEO.
“We are pleased to announce that Katherine will be staying at NAF as our President & CEO,” said Sue Carlisle, MD, NAF’s Board Chair. “In her short time at NAF, Katherine has demonstrated her unwavering commitment to serving our members and her great vision for the future of NAF, the NAF Hotline Fund, and NAF Canada. After working with her for the last year, it was clear to the Board that the best person for the job was already leading the organization.”

Ragsdale is an Episcopal priest who has been outspoken about abortion rights, LGBTQ equality, and public policy issues affecting women and families throughout her career. She has testified before the U.S. Congress as well as numerous state legislatures about the importance of abortion access and was a featured speaker at the 2004 March for Women’s Lives in Washington, DC.

Rev. Ragsdale has preached about how abortion is a blessing and has been active in clinic defense work and other activities to support abortion providers for more than 35 years.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2019/10/episcopal-woman-priest-says-abortionists-are-saints.html

Wow that is really doing something for the unborn.

Katherine Hancock Ragsdale (born c. 1959) is an American Episcopal priest based in Massachusetts and former president and dean of Episcopal Divinity School. Before becoming dean she was director of Political Research Associates from May 2005 through June 2009.
Katherine Hancock Ragsdale - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Hancock_Ragsdale

https://www.dailywire.com/news/lesbian-priest-tapped-to-head-major-abortion-group-calls-abortionists-modern-day-saints?%3Futm_source=twitter

And then the liberty of the church to advocate breaking immigration law and still maintain tax free status

Much more disturbing is how brazenly all three groups—La Familia Latina Unida, Pueblo Sin Fronteras, and Centro Sin Fronteras—use the Lincoln United Methodist Church as a rallying point for illegal immigration activism, using a tax-exempt church as cover to advocate for foreign violation of our country’s border laws.

https://capitalresearch.org/article/the-open-border-activists-behind-the-illegal-immigrant-caravans/

The only thing that these phonies, Paula White included should be preaching from the pulpit is the Word of God.  It isn't liberty to turn Gods House into political activism.

[Chosen Daughter]

Ok, got it... What I don't get is how will fabricating impeachment against the President fix that?
Are you hoping the democrat that get elected next will change things because Pence is a nice guy, but he is not a fighter and does not stand a chance..

Who knows anything about Pence?  The only thing we have ever heard from Pence is defense of Donald.  But yeah, I certainly would take him over Trump who has turned the presidency into a Trump reality show. 

[Chosen Daughter]

It's sad that there are a handful of so-called Christians whose hatred for Trump blinds them to his efforts and results in slowing the erosion of the fundamental religious values and freedoms this country was founded on. If they get their way I'm sure they'll be much more comfortable with a president Clinton or Warren.

What results?  What freedoms?  I don't feel any more free.  I just noticed a president that supports the rights of rich "Evangelists" to bilk people of their money.  To allow them to petition politically for financial gain.  Take this example:

Televangelist Paula White said that Christians who don't support President Donald Trump will have to answer to God.
White, who serves as spiritual adviser to President Donald Trump and chairs the president’s evangelical advisory board, made the comments during a Friday appearance on the “The Jim Bakker Show” where she was promoting her latest book, Something Greater, in which she discusses intimate details of her life including her relationship with Trump.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/paula-white-christians-will-stand-accountable-before-god-if-they-vote-against-trump.html

Oh the letter of 200 political Evangelists who condemn the Christian article calling for Trumps removal.  Saying that it is questioning the faith of Christians.  But here they are condemning people to hell for not supporting Trump.  The new age political church.

Remember Jim Baker?  Yeah he is the one who bilked Americans for probably billions and is back for his second round with the support of the Donald Trump political church.

[Cyber Liberty]

Your argument might carry more weight if you supported kicking Trump out of office before the Election if the Articles were about his not being "conservative" enough.  Instead you are four-square in favor of Conviction because Trump talked to Ukrainians.

@Chosen Daughter