Trump impeachment: President demands immediate Senate trial

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
4,553
2,208
113
www.christiancourier.com
#21
This is laughable. "High moral standards"! Which of the Democrats have ever had high moral standards??? They specialize in lying and smearing anyone and everyone.

Particularly Hillary Clinton, who was criminally involved with many things, and should have already been behind bars.
I didn't read our sister saying Democrats have high moral standards, however, I do agree with your sentiment concerning the Democrats of today. And I very much agree with your sentiment concerning HRC.
If her offenses were perpetrated by someone else working in government they would indeed already be behind bars.
HRC is smug. She knows she'll never get the justice that she and others long deserve. Likely because in her case, being she has an attorney background, she'd make a deal and take a whole bunch of other people with her to the pokey. In which case, she may be surprised that this time it is her that ends up as a report of an inmate that committed suicide.

The circle she travels in do not intend to ever be held accountable for anything as the rest of us would. They're above the law and they relish that fact. And they eat their own.
That could be why she's keeping her head down in this election cycle. Though there are some who think she'll run again in 2020. That would be a real joke but it would tell us how smug she is in knowing she'd still get the votes. That's just how loyal Dem partisans are.
 

kaylagrl

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2014
14,862
2,736
113
#22
Generally speaking we know that Russia has both the will, and the means, to be meddling with other countries affairs.

Distinguishing this knowledge to this particular case, while simultaneously taking into consideration the evidence, solid or hearsay, that is present here, there’s a fair chance there was some sort of foreign interference in the general election. We can’t be 100% sure, though.

HRC is not president. Comparing Trump with her is not establishing an environment, where the standards of which he is expected to meet can be compared to her.

It all boils down to whether we will accept economic growth before high moral standards.
If high morals are the standard not one politician would be standing in WA. Nor would most of the past presidents. Certainly not Hillary, Bill or Obama.
 

calibob

Sinner saved by grace
May 29, 2018
7,165
4,845
113
66
lawton ok
#23
If high morals are the standard not one politician would be standing in WA. Nor would most of the past presidents. Certainly not Hillary, Bill or Obama.
That's why we should pray for them but God and the Bible are the authority, our loyalty is to God, rather than any government, nation, or military organization. CO; https://wizzley.com/mennonite-beliefs/
 

kaylagrl

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2014
14,862
2,736
113
#24
That's why we should pray for them but God and the Bible are the authority, our loyalty is to God, rather than any government, nation, or military organization. CO; https://wizzley.com/mennonite-beliefs/
Voting someone into office has nothing to do with loyalty. It has to do with keeping socialism/communism out of the country and an evil agenda being pushed by the far left.
 

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
4,553
2,208
113
www.christiancourier.com
#25
That's why we should pray for them but God and the Bible are the authority, our loyalty is to God, rather than any government, nation, or military organization. CO; https://wizzley.com/mennonite-beliefs/
There are those scriptures that tell us to respect governing authorities, or those put in leadership over us. Though some say that edict pertains to leadership in the church only.

Voting someone into office has nothing to do with loyalty. It has to do with keeping socialism/communism out of the country and an evil agenda being pushed by the far left.
Agreed. Unfortunately, there are today those who are partisan loyal to the Democratic party and are all for their trumpeting on behalf of a "Democratic Socialist" America.

And it is surprising how many that are all for that in the Millennial generation have no clue what Socialism actually entails. See Here =
YouTube

It's the idea of getting a paycheck whether they work or not, all bills paid by government, that appeals apparently. When the question, where is all that money coming from, never dawns on them to ask. Either themselves, in serious retrospection, or their own representatives. One wonders how many would even know those people's names.

Unfortunately, those who are all for such nonsense follow the talking points of people like AOC and Bernie, I have three houses and made over 1 million dollars last year, Sanders. Both profess to support Democratic Socialism and in fact both proudly publicly claim to be one.

People should know when AOC, for whom BS is a mentor, talks about the positive of DS that it is a bad idea.


 
Dec 9, 2011
11,440
1,015
113
#26
Voting someone into office has nothing to do with loyalty. It has to do with keeping socialism/communism out of the country and an evil agenda being pushed by the far left.
If high morals are the standard not one politician would be standing in WA. Nor would most of the past presidents. Certainly not Hillary, Bill or Obama.
Sounds like you are saying neither side has high standards when It comes to morals.
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
#27
If high morals are the standard not one politician would be standing in WA. Nor would most of the past presidents. Certainly not Hillary, Bill or Obama.

right

when the world acts like the world, why are believers so surprised?

many believers do not seem to hold themselves accountable, so why hold unbelievers accountable to the morality we see in scripture

some of the posts in these 'news' forum threads, show no understanding of what is actually going on and not at all comprehending what is at stake...not just for the US, but the entire globe

God have mercy...and I do not say that lightly
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
11,485
4,617
113
#28
People should know when AOC, for whom BS is a mentor, talks about the positive of DS that it is a bad idea.
BS is correct. In fact everything come out of the Democrats and Leftists is essentially BS.

But what really bothers me is that (a) President Trump did not send an official message to Mitch McConnell to DISMISS all the bogus charges and (b) all the Republicans have stood by day after day and allowed the unhinged Democrats to carry on their nonsense, without seriously exposing them publicly, and through the conservative media.

This whole impeachment farce should have been dismissed by the Senate the day it started. Why was it not done to save tax dollars and prevent the Democrats from going ahead with their bogus articles of impeachment?
 

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
4,553
2,208
113
www.christiancourier.com
#29

C-SPAN has coverage that is unbiased and forthright. They simply record what's happening in the Senate chamber.
This is a circus. He was "impeached" based on hearsay. And the so called 'whistle blower' didn't testify. When everyone knows who it is, especially on the Left, Adam Schiff. Who admitted he fabricated quotes he claimed were in the conversation between Trump and the Ukraine leader. And worse, Schiff admitted it was wrong of him to do.
No kidding!
Could that be why he didn't testify before the House circus? Why wouldn't he? It isn't like the law would come down on him for perjury later, should he have admitted his claims of what was said was fabrication.
And really, how imbecilic can a Leftist Seditionist be? When Trump recorded the call and released it, which surprised the Democrats, so as to prove what was said. And what was not. A man committed to wrong doing on that call would record the evidence? No.

This travesty makes the Democrats look bad. Not Trump. Every one of them, starting with Daft Nancy, should be impeached out of office when this is over.
But no doubt, in 2020 they'll all be re-elected by Democrats in the Electorate. That's why the Dem's on the Hill of shame aren't worried. They know there is nothing they can do that will actually wake up the Left so as to let what they really are finally be recognized. Traitors, Perjurers, Seditionists.

God please let justice be done. Stop the evil that is on the Left! For the sake of this Constitutional Democratic Republic. Amen.
 
Apr 26, 2012
1,537
429
83
62
#30
I haven't had a chance to keep up with the news with zero degrees 0 Fahrenheit here, but I haven't heard anything that has been set up as grounds for impeachment? Misconduct in office? Sounds like a jihad of some kind - multiple conspiracies, and multiple collusions.

I voted for President Donald Trump because he is a successful CEO, a maverick conservative who can make command decisions in chaos. I believe he has divine help, seeking God's guidance and Christian grace in the midst of life's stormy seas, not to mention powerful religious influences in his family, such as The First Lady, Melania Trump being Catholic, and I believe his son in law is Jewish.

What swayed my vote was 2 swans approached the dock at a cabin by a lake where I was staying, as well as consideration should be given to the Bible quote about the "last Trump" (trumpet sounding). How can he be the last Trump if he is the first Trump?

His foreign policy with Russia sounds like it is stable with mutual presidential respect.

The election is in divine hands.
Let the voters decide, not courts.
 

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
4,553
2,208
113
www.christiancourier.com
#35
Thanks for posting that second source link. This is what is in the article I posted. Yours is a good standby too if The Hill article link doesn't open for some folks.
https://www.scribd.com/document/443425648/House-Impeachment-Trial-Brief#from_embed

Anyone here going to watch the trial, if it goes forth, next week? C-SPAN will carry it live. I'm sure it will also be live feed on YouTube. I'm going to try if work scheduling allows.
 
Mar 23, 2016
3,692
992
113
#36
Thanks for posting that second source link. This is what is in the article I posted. Yours is a good standby too if The Hill article link doesn't open for some folks.
https://www.scribd.com/document/443425648/House-Impeachment-Trial-Brief#from_embed
yeah, the trial brief was embedded via scribd at The Hill site. I like a larger font because I find "small type" too hard to read ... I use a magnifying glass to read small print on labels!!! ah, the joys of these aging bodies ...





Whispered said:
Anyone here going to watch the trial, if it goes forth, next week? C-SPAN will carry it live. I'm sure it will also be live feed on YouTube. I'm going to try if work scheduling allows.
I might listen to the audio unless it interferes with my work.
 

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
4,553
2,208
113
www.christiancourier.com
#37
January 2019

Can the Senate Decline to Try an Impeachment Case?

"...The Constitution does not by its express terms direct the Senate to try an impeachment. In fact, it confers on the Senate "the sole power to try,” which is a conferral of exclusive constitutional authority and not a procedural command. The Constitution couches the power to impeach in the same terms: it is the House’s “sole power.” The House may choose to impeach or not, and one can imagine an argument that the Senate is just as free, in the exercise of its own “sole power,” to decline to try any impeachment that the House elects to vote. "
yeah, the trial brief was embedded via scribd at The Hill site. I like a larger font because I find "small type" too hard to read ... I use a magnifying glass to read small print on labels!!! ah, the joys of these aging bodies ...
No kidding. When we're young we can't wait to hit the age milestones. Thirteen, Yay! We're officially a teenager. Sixteen, hey I can drive legally now. Eighteen, I'm an official adult & I can vote. Twenty-one, I can get carded at night clubs and stay there! :LOL:
After that it's all uphill in age and downhill in gradually losing all that we had going for us when we were young.
There's just something so wrong with that. :unsure:






I might listen to the audio unless it interferes with my work.
As I understand it the Senate can dismiss the trial itself. When all of the House "evidence" is hearsay, wouldn't it be great if that's what happened? All this trouble to set up the Senate trial and then on the first day, charges are dismissed. I think those on the Left side of the aisle would combust with the shock of it.
Hey look mom, fireworks. And it isn't even July. :ROFL:
 

JesusLives

Senior Member
Oct 11, 2013
13,858
1,623
113
65
#38
Didn't vote for Trump I didn't and don't think he has ever been presidential material ever. He highly entertained me on The Apprentice and I was very disappointed when he was elected president. That being said I have still prayed for the man to be truly converted and accept Jesus as his Savior.

How many who talk against the democrats pray for them? We are directed to pray for our enemies and to hear the talk on the forums democrats are treated/talked about as the enemy...… Just wondering anyone pray for a democrat?
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
11,485
4,617
113
#39
As I understand it the Senate can dismiss the trial itself. When all of the House "evidence" is hearsay, wouldn't it be great if that's what happened?
Looks like the Senate now wants a circus also. However, here is the truth of the matter:

January 19, 2020

Trump’s attorneys issue a powerful response to the Articles of Impeachment


By Andrea Widburg

Anyone who has watched a Trump rally or followed Trump’s Twitter feed knows that he’s been open about his disdain for the House’s impeachment proceedings. However, now that the House formally delivered the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, Trump’s lawyers can finally make known the President’s official legal stand against the Democrats’ blatant political effort to overturn the 2016 election.

In five-and-a-half fiery pages, Jay Alan Sekulow and Pat A. Cipollone attack both the impeachment process and the legal and factual bases (or lack thereof) underlying the articles of impeachment. Sekulow and Cipollone understand that the real audience is the American people, so the document is written in ordinary English, not legalese.

Regarding the entire impeachment, the lawyers state that this warped process attacks the American people and free elections:

“The Articles of Impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their President. This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election-now just months away. The highly partisan and reckless obsession with impeaching the President began the day he was inaugurated and continues to this day.

For the first Article of Impeachment, which alleges “abuse of power,” Sekulow and Cipollone explain that, contrary to the Constitution’s demand for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” the first Article fails to state any legal violation. Not only does it fail to identify actual legal wrongdoing, the facts alleged also fail to show that Trump abused his powers:

“At all times, the President has faithfully and effectively executed the duties of his Office on behalf of the American people. The President's actions on the July 25,2019, telephone call with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine (the "July 25 call"), as well as on the earlier April 21, 2019, telephone call (the "April 21 call"), and in all surrounding and related events, were constitutional, perfectly legal, completely appropriate, and taken in furtherance of our national interest.”

The attorneys also note that the best evidence is the telephone call transcript, which Trump released immediately. Ukrainian officials, from President Zelenskyy on down, all support the transcript and the tenor of Trump’s deals with Ukraine.

Additionally, Gordon Sondland, Ambassador to the European Union, testified that Trump disavowed any quid pro quo, as did Senator Ron Johnson. It was only a “fundamentally flawed and illegitimate process” that let the House Democrats turn undisputed facts and legitimate constitutional powers into an article that is “constitutionally invalid, founded on falsehoods, and must be rejected.”

Sekulow and Cipollone make equally short shrift of the Second Article for obstruction of Congress. Trump was within the purview of his constitutional powers and, indeed, “acted with extraordinary and unprecedented transparency by declassifying and releasing the transcript of the July 25 call that is at the heart of this matter.”

Instead, it was the House Democrats who abused their powers by issuing “a series of unconstitutional subpoenas for documents and testimony,” something they did without the necessary predicate of a congressional vote.In addition, although they don’t use the word, the attorneys state facts describing the kangaroo court proceedings in which the House Democrats engaged.

What the House Democrats did, say the attorneys, was to violate the Constitution from root to branch by trying to disenfranchise American voters and take control of Executive powers:

In the first Article, the House attempts to seize the President's power under Article II of the Constitution to determine foreign policy. In the second Article, the House attempts to control and penalize the assertion of the Executive Branch’s constitutional privileges, while simultaneously seeking to destroy the Framers’ system of checks and balances. By approving the Articles, the House violated our constitutional order, illegally abused its power of impeachment, and attempted to obstruct President Trump's ability to faithfully execute the duties of his Office. They sought to undermine his authority under Article II of the Constitution, which vests the entirety of “[t]he executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.”

There is nothing more to add. Sekulow and Cipillone are correct in every respect.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo..._response_to_the_articles_of_impeachment.html