King Cyrus? Born Again Christian? AntiChrist? THE TRUMP!!! The Last Trumpet?

[jshiii]

I've never seen a more corrupt or a more dishonest President.

Try Crooked Hillary? She was President really! While Bill Clinton flew the Pedophile Jet multiple times! Yea, Trump Once, but Bill went back for second rides? What 20+? He loved that Jet.
Ok, what's your answer? King Cyrus or Antichrist? I guess Born Again Christian is outta the question?

The Lord Jesus Christ ONLY, is Worthy of all our Praise and Worship!
Eternity is a Very long Time!
Satan Loves Distractions and Wants Christians To Just Die!!

 

[Base12]

I'm registered as an Independant just for those who may ask.

The United States is a Republic. There shouldn't even be other 'parties'. Just sayin...

 

[Base12]

Presidents don't have much Power anyhow.

Take your pick at who runs things...

*) Shadow Government
*) Illuminati
*) Freemasons
*) CFR
*) Bilderburg Group
*) Pope
*) Queen
*) Aliens from Zeta Reticuli
*) Satan

Etc.

 

[Giuliano]

Try Crooked Hillary? She was President really!

Are you trying to be funny or did you do too many drugs in your youth?

While Bill Clinton

flew the Pedophile Jet multiple times! Yea, Trump Once, but Bill went back for second rides? What 20+? He loved that Jet.

I was in favor of ousting Bill when he was impeached, and I think Trump is worse.
Ok, what's your answer? King Cyrus or Antichrist? I guess Born Again Christian is outta the question?
[/QUOTE]He's just a man. Why exaggerate either way? I try to see people as they are, not wishing to make them better or worse than they really are.

 

[FHII]

No doubt? Jesus said not to pray in public, but people like that coach Joseph Kennedy wanted to show off his religion.

Matthew 6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

I prayed the Lord's Prayer too as a child every day in school, and it meant nothing to me. It was vain repetition. I didn't mean it. I was just obeying orders. It was trivializing something that should be treated with reverence.

We are all already free to pray whenever and where ever we want. We are free -- to pray silently. That doesn't seem to be enough for some people who want to pray in a way that other people can see them praying.

Amen! Prayer hasn't been taken out of schools. I am a school teacher and I pray alot in school. Any govt ordinance hasn't stopped me one bit!

What has stopped is the recitation of the Lord's prayer over the intercom during homeroom (it wasn't his prayer though; it was given by the Lord to his disciples).

They get that from Matthew 6, yet the same chapter says not to do it that way!

 

[Enoch111]

Do these idiots trying to defend Trump know what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means? Do you?

You continue to remain clueless (just like all the Democrats). So here's your rebuttal.

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

 

[Giuliano]

You continue to remain clueless (just like all the Democrats). So here's your rebuttal.

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

What mindless drivel. If this impeachment is about trying to disenfranchise voters, no President could ever be impeached since the same argument would hold true. These are unscrupulous lawyers getting overpaid to put out the best rubbish they can concoct trying to defend a President unfit to hold office.

And get this straight. I am not a Democrat. I was a Republican until Trump won the nomination. I refused to belong to a party who nominated such a bum. I would have been ashamed to admit being a Republican. If either Weld or Walsh could be the nominee however, I'd be glad to vote for them over any of the Democrats running. Both believe in fiscal conservatism; both are far more honest than Trump; and both are more patriotic. I might even rejoin the Republican Party if either of them won the nomination.

 

[lforrest]

If you need proof that the democrats have no respect for the rule of law it is right here. Only two democrats voted against impeachment, and no republicans for it. Of these two Van Drew appears to be conscientious regarding his decision. The other appears to have voted in accordance to the will of those he Reps. One out of 232 democrats in the house recognizes this sham for what it is and was willing to vote against it. And he has switched parties, so that makes zero.

How Ironic that much of the noise from dems comes from their being exposed. Like the email scandal, and trying to hold multiple dems accountable for their own shady dealings in Ukraine after they had interfered with the investigation. I've no doubt it was bigger than the Bidens, as they had the support from the administration to fire the prosecutor. The stance of the obama administration was that the prosecutor wasn't aggressive enough in pursuing corruption cases. After the prosecutor was fired the investigation into Hunter Biden was dropped.

 

[Enoch111]

What mindless drivel.

Obviously you hate the truth and love the lies of the Leftists. How can legal experts be accused of mindless drivel, when that is what has been emanating from Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Waters, and all the Leftists gangsters?

 

[Giuliano]

Obviously you hate the truth and love the lies of the Leftists. How can legal experts be accused of mindless drivel, when that is what has been emanating from Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Waters, and all the Leftists gangsters?

And I'd say obviously you hate the truth and love the lies of the likes of Jay Sekulow. Trump can count himself lucky his trial is in the Senate that is controlled by his allies. If he had to go before an unbiased judge, he and his wacko lawyers would be in real trouble. I'd love to know how much Sekulow is being paid for his crazy antics.

 

[pompadour]

Trump is being Impeached because is upsetting the money making machine that is Washington DC. That is being run by corrupt politicians and lobbyist. Democrat's and Republicans.
And for NO other reason. And " I believe " that they will fail because God has his back.

 

[Giuliano]

Trump is being Impeached because is upsetting the money making machine that is Washington DC. That is being run by corrupt politicians and lobbyist. Democrat's and Republicans.
And for NO other reason. And " I believe " that they will fail because God has his back.

I wish you were right; but I don't think it's working out that way. Both sides are using it to scare people into making campaign contributions. Trump's campaign said the impeachment was good for raising money. I believe it.

January 2, 2020 Trump campaign credits impeachment for massive $46 million fundraising haul

President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign announced Thursday that it raised $46 million during the final three months of 2019 and had nearly $103 million on hand — a massive total at the start of the election year.

The quarterly total, which the campaign described as its largest yet, underscores how Trump has financially capitalized on impeachment. The reelection team has sent out scores of fundraising appeals and launched a merchandising effort aimed at stoking the grievances of Trump’s small donor base and presenting the president as a victim of congressional Democrats out to destroy him.

Trump's fundraising narrowly outpaced Barack Obama, who brought in $42 million during the fourth quarter of 2011 as he was running for reelection.

It's been equally good for the Democratic candidates. Their message is, "If you don't like Trump, give me money and help me defeat him." It looks as if lots of people are giving them lots of money.

January 4, 2020 https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...g-numbers-sanders-yang-klobuchar-biden-warren

Several Democratic candidates for president are celebrating after the final fundraising numbers for the fourth quarter of 2019 were made public.

Sen. Bernie Sanders raised a whopping $34.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2019, closing out a historic year of fundraising in which he was consistently near the top of the 2020 pack. South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg raised the second most in the field, bringing in $24.7 million in donations from more than 326,000 people, his campaign said.

Both candidates have been consistently strong fundraisers throughout the primary thus far, and are considered frontrunners both nationally and in early states. But also of note were the fundraising totals of candidates who lack the strong polls numbers enjoyed by Sanders and Buttigieg, particularly the fundraising of entrepreneur Andrew Yang and Sen. Amy Klobuchar.

 

[pompadour]

Interesting I just looked up the meaning of Donald John Trumps name.
Donald = The ruler of the world. John = Graced by God. Trump = Descendant of a drummer.

 

[lforrest]

I wish you were right; but I don't think it's working out that way. Both sides are using it to scare people into making campaign contributions. Trump's campaign said the impeachment was good for raising money. I believe it.

January 2, 2020 Trump campaign credits impeachment for massive $46 million fundraising haul

President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign announced Thursday that it raised $46 million during the final three months of 2019 and had nearly $103 million on hand — a massive total at the start of the election year.

The quarterly total, which the campaign described as its largest yet, underscores how Trump has financially capitalized on impeachment. The reelection team has sent out scores of fundraising appeals and launched a merchandising effort aimed at stoking the grievances of Trump’s small donor base and presenting the president as a victim of congressional Democrats out to destroy him.

Trump's fundraising narrowly outpaced Barack Obama, who brought in $42 million during the fourth quarter of 2011 as he was running for reelection.

It's been equally good for the Democratic candidates. Their message is, "If you don't like Trump, give me money and help me defeat him." It looks as if lots of people are giving them lots of money.

January 4, 2020 https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...g-numbers-sanders-yang-klobuchar-biden-warren

Several Democratic candidates for president are celebrating after the final fundraising numbers for the fourth quarter of 2019 were made public.

Sen. Bernie Sanders raised a whopping $34.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2019, closing out a historic year of fundraising in which he was consistently near the top of the 2020 pack. South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg raised the second most in the field, bringing in $24.7 million in donations from more than 326,000 people, his campaign said.

Both candidates have been consistently strong fundraisers throughout the primary thus far, and are considered frontrunners both nationally and in early states. But also of note were the fundraising totals of candidates who lack the strong polls numbers enjoyed by Sanders and Buttigieg, particularly the fundraising of entrepreneur Andrew Yang and Sen. Amy Klobuchar.

I think you're right, and it is a despicable tactic. Both sides will profit from pushing this as far as it can go. It will get people personally invested.