Is impeachment of a President biblically justified?

[PetraG]

Pelosi could not ignore this.
Trump can shoot someone in the middle of 5th Ave, and they still support him. Bank on that! But it can be 2/3 to 1/3 easily.
This is a simple easy case compared to 400 pages of summary and a million pages of support. And the news and Democrats out out quick, and set the narrative.

Time will tell. I have learned in the last several years to never underestimate the power of la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you-la-la-la-la-la.

We have a Republican President who appoints conservative justices and we have some very old justices still left on the Supreme Court (I mean Breyer and Ginsburg). I think there will be a lot of Catholics and Evangelicals trying to keep singing la-la-la-la-la, come what may from rambling phone conversations about dirt that they’d love to see disclosed themselves. The temptation to let the end keep on justifying the means is pretty strong.

 

[Hodos]

What do you think “inquiry” means? Pelosi hasn’t called for an impeachment vote, but for looking into the whole thing. Which sounds to me like the very investigation you want.

I agree, that an impeachment inquiry is an investigation, to determine if initiation of impeachment is warranted. However, if you listen to the statements made by Pelosi herself and other Democrats such as Nadler, Schiff, etc., they have asserted on several occasions that the President has definitively committed an impeachable offense. In other words, they are leading the public to believe that no investigation is necessary, and that sufficient grounds already exists. This kind of confusion of terms is counter-productive to ensuring due process.

 

[godisgood77]

Trump is bad … I don’t known how anyone could deny that. The transcript of his conversation is bad enough to push for impeachment. Combine that with all of the other lies and it’s unbelievable that he is still President

 

[De_Maria]

This might be of interest to those on this thread.

 

[Maximus1]

Cannot deny Trump is above the law and sin for many

 

[Gorgias]

Well, asking them to dig up dirt on Biden is asking for material support for his re-election campaign,

Sounds like a request for information. Imprudent, perhaps… but a request for an investigation into the truth… no?

 

[LilyM]

PetraG:

Well, asking them to dig up dirt on Biden is asking for material support for his re-election campaign,

Sounds like a request for information. Imprudent, perhaps… but a request for an investigation into the truth… no?

You think Trump wants the truth if the truth is Biden and his son did nothing wrong (or at least nothing criminal)? How would that be a “favour”? More like a request for dirt and/or a guilty finding.

 

[PetraG]

Sounds like a request for information. Imprudent, perhaps… but a request for an investigation into the truth… no?

The problem is that it is not information the US government needs. It is information the Trump campaign wants, and the President wants to have it funneled through Giuliani, who is his personal attorney. (Not that Trump doesn’t think that every attorney working for the Executive Branch should not in essence act as if they’re his personal attorney.)

As Mitt Romney put it:
Mitt Romney ‏Verified account @ MittRomney

FollowFollow @ MittRomney

More

If the President asked or pressured Ukraine’s president to investigate his political rival, either directly or through his personal attorney, it would be troubling in the extreme. Critical for the facts to come out.

11:34 AM - 22 Sep 2019

 

[Gorgias]

You think Trump wants the truth if the truth is Biden and his son did nothing wrong (or at least nothing criminal)?

That assertion depends on the truth of your “if” clause, doesn’t it?

The problem is that it is not information the US government needs. It is information the Trump campaign wants, and the President wants to have it funneled through Giuliani, who is his personal attorney.

Good distinction. Is Trump able to act as a person, or only as the POTUS?

 

[farronwolf]

For anyone at this point to say that congress is not doing the right thing by looking into impeachment, or that the current president should be impeached is simply nonsense.

None of us have the information to make either of those calls. The Constitution allows for congress to call for an impeachment inquiry, which is what is being done currently. If evidence is found during the inquiry an impeachment hearing will take place should congress choose to do so.

Lots of folks on this site are so caught up in whether or not this or that little thing they have done is a sin, but have no problem making a judgement about something which they have little or no information on, or repeat information that may be completely inaccurate and don’t consider that to be sinful. Ever think that might fall under bearing false witness?

Let the government do their job, and keep religion out of politics. The two mix about as well as oil and water. If you don’t like the way the gov is functioning vote out your reps and senators at the next election. If you don’t like what reps and senators are doing who don’t represent you, too bad, they aren’t up there to represent you, they are up there to represent other people which elected them.

 

[PetraG]

Good distinction. Is Trump able to act as a person, or only as the POTUS?

He is not allowed to use his influence with foreign governments to directly funnel financial or material gain towards himself, those he favors, or his campaign.

Now, obviously, a President can (and often does) use a state visit to make himself look good and get good photo ops. That’s different than using a foreign agent to do work for your campaign like digging up and publicizing information (or even disinformation) meant to embarrass your opponent.

Notice that Trump was very interested in putting HRC in jail until he beat her in the election. Then it was all forgiven. What has he said about this Biden matter, except when it seemed to have a bearing on whether Trump would be elected? Not at all.

Of course, history would tell us that Donald Trump also makes a big deal of conspiracy theories that are popular among his supporters, like the birther thing, whether there is any substance to them or not. (I don’t know about you, but I remember his statements implying he had investigators finding “things you wouldn’t believe” in about the circumstances surrounding Obama’s birthplace. There was even less to that than his imaginary beautiful health care package that would cover everyone. His “investigation” into that popular conspiracy theory was all a fabrication and Donald Trump always knew it.)

I Wrote About the Bidens and Ukraine Years Ago

 

[farronwolf]

If he is calling a leader of a foreign country he is acting as POTUS. Does one really have to ask that question?

 

[farronwolf]

Donald Trump is a liar, and always has been, it is in his character, which is extremely lacking.

 

[PetraG]

Donald Trump is a liar, and always has been, it is in his character, which is extremely lacking.

I still cannot believe he was really the best the GOP had to offer.
I don’t like to name-call, but I have never seen a public figure dish up lies as frequently and brazenly as he does.
I guess there is nothing to replace 100% name recognition and a reputation for competence that was cultivated in the realm of “scripted reality” (which is just another word for “fantasy.”)

 

[Fauken]

I still cannot believe he was really the best the GOP had to offer.

He wasn’t picked because he was the best. He was picked because he was not like any of the other candidates the GOP put forth, and there were (still are) some people who have been very angry with both parties.

 

[PetraG]

He wasn’t picked because he was the best. He was picked because he was not like any of the other candidates the GOP put forth, and there were (still are) some people who have been very angry with both parties.

100% name recognition and said outrageous things.
I think people also believed that someone who made a lot of money in real estate must have some clue how to run the government. Couldn’t hvae been more wrong about that.
The only thing more shocking than the frequency with which he lies is how little he understands about…well, about a lot of things. Like this one…just astonishing.
“My uncle was a great professor at MIT for many years. Dr. John Trump. And I didn’t talk to him about this particular subject, but I have a natural instinct for science, and I will say that you have scientists on both sides of the picture.”

 

[LilyM]

If he is calling a leader of a foreign country he is acting as POTUS. Does one really have to ask that question?

He is only acting as POTUS if he is discussing matters that fall within the purview of a Head of State or Government. Prying into foreign criminal investigations into private individuals doesn’t, at least at first blush, seem to be within the remit of a POTUS merely because they relate to the son of a former Vice-President.

The daughter of an ex-head of government of my country (Australia) is allegedly caught up in a major criminal case in America. Our Prime Minister hasn’t, and wouldn’t normally, be on the blower to Trump about such a matter. Nor our Head of State (Governor-General).

 

[Fauken]

100% name recognition and said outrageous things.
I think people also believed that someone who made a lot of money in real estate must have some clue how to run the government. Couldn’t hvae been more wrong about that.

More like the other side picked a career politician viewed by the Republicans as the embodiment of political corruption in Washington whose nomination got hit with allegations of being fed debate questions and having the deck stacked against others running within her party, who then decided to pin the legacy of the then-President on her campaign, which caused the Republican side to be further entrenched and voters on her own side feel disenfranchised since it looked like their preferred candidate was cheated.

 

[farronwolf]

As you alluded to in your previous post a large portion of his supporters, the so call “christians” have no problem overlooking his complete lack of morals regarding marital relationships, business dealings or simply being able to tell the truth, in hopes that he will be able to alter the makeup of the SCOTUS. Thinking that if changed abortion will miraculously disappear. When in fact the SCOTUS can not make it illegal, as it would become a state issue, without being able to be totally banned if somehow Roe is overturned.

These same people thought Clinton (satan to them) was the worst thing to hit Washington, forgetting that economic numbers were very good then, and we actually had a balanced budget. They simply berated his morals, now they simply overlook morals in the current POTUS.

Did I agree with many of Obama’s actions as POTUS, no, but he is a good man . Just like I didn’t agree with Bush 2 while he was being led astray by Rumsfeld and Cheney, but he is a good man.

Were Carter and Bush 1 like minded in politics, absolutely not, but they are two of the best men who have held the office in my lifetime.

I can overlook politics of the POTUS due to the fact they can’t really do much legally that congress doesn’t approve, but I certainly can not overlook the character of the person wanting to be or who is the POTUS. I find it difficult to fathom how “christians” can.

 

[PetraG]

More like the other side picked a career politician viewed by the Republicans as the embodiment of political corruption in Washington whose nomination got hit with allegations of being fed debate questions and having the deck stacked against others running within her party, who then decided to pin the legacy of the then-President on her campaign, which caused the Republican side to be further entrenched and voters on her own side feel disenfranchised since it looked like their preferred candidate was cheated.

Hey, I didn’t vote for her and I think she lost it herself with her tone-deaf (and incredibly insensitive) “deplorables” comment and other ones like it. The problem is that the GOP made such a bad nomination that I had to write somebody in. (I don’t live in a swing state…)
I don’t know that Bernie Sanders was all that “preferred.”

My theory of presidential elections is this: The candidate who attracts undecided voters will win. That isn’t the same as the candidate that the partisans who decide primaries happen to like.

That is entirely different than the question of this thread, which is whether or not it is Christian to impeach a President.

Yes, our Constitution is written so that those in authority can be held to respect the law by others in authority. There is nothing about that which contravenes divine law.

Making impeachment a matter of politics and political advantage rather than an actual matter that only involves an impartial assessment of truth, justice and the rule of law? Using a law meant to hold authorty to a standard of justice in a cynical way where justice is only pursued when there is political advantage in it could be a sin, even if it isn’t a violation of the law.