Is impeachment of a President biblically justified?

[Fauken]

Hey, I didn’t vote for her and I think she lost it herself with her tone-deaf (and incredibly insensitive) “deplorables” comment. 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.”

He still had supporters who decided to go vote for Trump due to perceived unfairness. Her tone-deafness did her no favors either. Really, this should have been in the bag for Hillary Clinton. She lost in my opinion due to her turning too many undecided/on the fence voters against her, due to deafness (as you said) and a larger desire for “Not Hillary” more than “Not Trump”.

 

[farronwolf]

farronwolf:

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).

What personal cause would the POTUS have to discuss a criminal case in a foreign country? He has no business discussing criminal charges against anyone. Even though the DOJ and FBI are under the executive branch, he has no authority personally to investigate or press charges. There are paid professionals who know what they are doing to do that.

According to his own words, he was calling as POTUS to congratulate the newly elected leader of Ukraine. Did you read the information (transcript) that was released. Does that sound like the POTUS or a private citizen talking.

BTW this Biden stuff is nonsense. The IMF, and many other countries were calling for the removal of the prosecutor due to his actions. The IMF was withholding 40 billion in funds from Ukraine. Folks really should do some of their own research.

 

[PetraG]

He still had supporters who decided to go vote for Trump due to perceived unfairness. Her tone-deafness did her no favors either. Really, this should have been in the bag for Hillary Clinton. She lost in my opinion due to her turning too many undecided/on the fence voters against her, due to deafness (as you said) and a larger desire for “Not Hillary” more than “Not Trump”.

Well, by Election Day we’d put ourselves into a pickle that Heaven would have been hard-pressed to bail us out of.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Fauken]

Well, by Election Day we’d put ourselves into a pickle that Heaven would have been hard-pressed to bail us out of.

Yup, since the prevailing opinion is that there’s basically only two political parties to vote from.

 

[PetraG]

BTW this Biden stuff is nonsense. The IMF, and many other countries were calling for the removal of the prosecutor due to his actions. The IMF was withholding 40 billion in funds from Ukraine. Folks really should do some of their own research.

The birther stuff was nonsense, too, but that didn’t stop Donald Trump from making hay from it.
He knows how to suck up to the idea that there’s a big dark force out there running the world from behind a red velvet curtain. If he can get some doubt thrown onto the integrity of Joe Biden, that is all he wants. (The way he dropped the HRC accusations practically as soon as he made his acceptance speech proves that…)

 

[PetraG]

Yup, since the prevailing opinion is that there’s basically only two political parties to vote from.

I wrote somebody in, because there isn’t a minor party I’d particularly like to see grow up in their places.

Again with the original question, though:
No, it is not sinful to impeach the President.
Yes, it could be sinful to cynically make the decision to impeach or to not impeach or to convict or not convict not to protect justice and the rule of law but in order to gain or protect political advantage.

If the President is a committing crimes, his own party should vote to remove him, even if it means they may lose influence over important matters. He should be subject to justice.
If the President is not committing crimes, the opposition shouldn’t paint him as a criminal just because they don’t like his policies. He should expect to be treated justly.

 

[Fauken]

I wrote somebody in, because there isn’t a minor party I’d particularly like to see grow up in their places.

Not even the Solidarity Party?

Again with the original question, though:
No, it is not sinful to impeach the President.
Yes, it could be sinful to cynically make the decision to impeach or to not impeach or to convict or not convict not to protect justice and the rule of law but in order to gain or protect political advantage.

If the President is a committing crimes, his own party should vote to remove him, even if it means they may lose influence over important matters. He should be subject to justice.
If the President is not committing crimes, the opposition shouldn’t paint him as a criminal just because they don’t like his policies. He should expect to be treated justly.

I agree with this.

 

[PetraG]

Was the Solidarity Party printed on the Oregon Ballot?
No, I wrote somebody in.

 

[Fauken]

Was the Solidarity Party printed on the Oregon Ballot?
No, I wrote somebody in.

According to Wikipedia, it was a write in option for Oregon.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

farronwolf:

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).

What personal cause would the POTUS have to discuss a criminal case in a foreign country? He has no business discussing criminal charges against anyone. Even though the DOJ and FBI are under the executive branch, he has no authority personally to investigate or press charges. There are paid professionals who know what they are doing to do that.

According to his own words, he was calling as POTUS to congratulate the newly elected leader of Ukraine. Did you read the information (transcript) that was released. Does that sound like the POTUS or a private citizen talking.

BTW this Biden stuff is nonsense. The IMF, and many other countries were calling for the removal of the prosecutor due to his actions. The IMF was withholding 40 billion in funds from Ukraine. Folks really should do some of their own research.

Well he obviously, by his own records, did a heck of a lot more than that.

He DID discuss the Hunter Biden investigation with him. And asked the President of Ukraine to “do a favor” by also looking into it. His own words - “there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great”. Not only that, but it is directly after discussing how “we (the US) do a lot for Ukraine” and “it’s not necessarily reciprocal.” In other words saying he is seeking this"favor" as a quid pro quo for US aid to Ukraine.

If, as you say, “he has no business discussing criminal charges against anyone” as POTUS, and it is crystal clear that he WAS discussing criminal prosecution of Hunter Biden, then isn’t it obvious that he ISN’T doing so as POTUS? And isn’t his personal interest also obvious, at this point in time when he would personally benefit from dirt on Joe Biden and his son? The US wouldn’t, particularly. Trump personally would.

 

[Rasoleil]

According to the Constitution, the USA is a republic, and there are 3 co-equal branches of government, and that’s how the framers of the Constitution established them. One is not supposed to be more powerful than another, and there are supposed to be checks and balances. The framers put the Legislative branch first in Article 1 intentionally ( By not having one person with the concentration of the majority of power) , then the Executive branch secondly in Article 2, and the Supreme Court in Article 3. The idea of an Imperial Presidency, as it exists now is not what the founders intended, and certainly not to the extreme as it is today with the Chief Executive having the Senate and Supreme Court bend under his will. He is acting like a king, dictator, and tyrant. He is subverting the Constitution, his oath of office, broken a multitude of laws, etc. Romans 13:1-2 does not apply because we have an unlawful, unjust “authority.” The delicate balance that should exist between the 3 co-equal branches as established in the Constitution no longer exists, and not only Impeachment, but Indictment, Trial, and Incarceration for the multitude of crimes must be carried out to help restore that balance, ad to save the republic.

 

[farronwolf]

Just because he would personally benefit from actions doesn’t mean he isn’t doing it as POTUS.

You mention quid pro quo, as Trump the person, he has nothing to offer Ukraine, only as POTUS can he offer anything in that situation.

He has started having military planes land and refuel at an airport near his golf course in Scotland. Yes, he is personally benefiting from it but is having it done as POTUS.

Trump is not alone in his acting in a capacity as and elected official to benefit himself personally. Congress critters do it all the time, and we will see more and more of it as the impeachment inquiry advances. If you ever watch congressional hearings, they are acting in their official capacity as elected officials to benefit themselves by grandstanding for their constituents so they can stay in office, or for their donors so they keep the money flowing. All of it done in an official capacity to benefit themselves personally.

 

[PetraG]

According to Wikipedia, it was a write in option for Oregon.

Well, everybody is a write-in option in Oregon.
I think that means they didn’t make the deadline for the voter’s pamphlet.
Ah, well, maybe in 2020

 

[De_Maria]

His “investigation” into that popular conspiracy theory was all a fabrication and Donald Trump always knew it.)

Then this investigation will clear Biden, the same way the Russia investigation cleared Trump. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. But, the evidence of graft, in Biden’s case, looks overwhelming. And, judging from the text of the phone call, it looks like the Ukrainians had already re-opened the investigation without Trump’s request. It’s just a matter of time before they request the Biden’s come back to Ukraine to assess the extent of their involvement.

 

[De_Maria]

… And isn’t his personal interest also obvious, at this point in time when he would personally benefit from dirt on Joe Biden and his son? The US wouldn’t, particularly. Trump personally would.

Yes, the US would. It’s called, “justice”. If Biden was taking graft, he was acting criminally. And he needs to be brought to justice. Look at what is happening to Brazil’s ex-president. The same thing could happen to Biden. Everybody is wondering why Obama wouldn’t endorse him. This may be one of the reasons.

 

[bibcat]

Jimmy Carter was not only incompetent, but a craven coward as well. His handling of the Iran hostage crisis was beyond disgraceful. But more to the point, it seems that a forum full of–presumably–professing Roman Catholics is simply willing to disregard what Saint Paul had to say in the realm of relations between citizen and state, despite it being divinely inspired. Like I said before, even Luther didn’t go this far. Might as well toss out Acts and Corinthians then while we’re at it.

 

[Fauken]

the Iran hostage crisis was beyond disgraceful. But more to the point, it seems that a forum full of–presumably–professing Roman Catholics is simply willing to disregard what Saint Paul had to say in the realm of relations between citizen and state, despite it being divinely inspired. Like I said before, even Luther didn’t go this far. Might as well toss out Acts and Corinthians then while we’re at it.

You’ve been asked multiple times to show that your interpretation matches Church teaching and you’ve yet to do so. So it doesn’t seem to be disregarding St. Paul, but rather, your interpretation.

 

[farronwolf]

You may think Carter was a coward, and incompetent, your opinion.

He is a good man, by any reasonable standard. You must have missed my point about not having to agree with one’s politics or policies but admit that the person is good, as opposed to those who will overlook the person as long as they agree with their politics.

 

[whatistrue]

He is a good man, by any reasonable standard.

I absolutely agree that he was a very good man on a personal level. I even agree that he did a good job as Governor of Georgia (I was there at the time so I speak from personal experience). I do not believe that he did a good job as President nor did I believe that he was a good choice during the campaign.

 

[whatistrue]

willing to disregard what Saint Paul had to say in the realm of relations between citizen and state,

The President of the United States is not the State in that sense. He functions as Head of State during his tenure in office, but he does not rule in the sense intended in that passage. In the US system, the governing authority is not a single person or even a single institution as has been explained to you numerous times in numerous ways. Please stop repeating the same error; repetition does not make your assertion true.