How can you understand this? (Never Trumpers and their ilk)

Is the Pope a Catholic? Mark Powell – “Committed Catholics have been increasingly concerned about many of the Pope’s statements regarding divorce and remarriage, homosexuality (‘Who am I to judge?’), capital punishment, the existence of hell, and even the re-wording of the Lord’s Prayer.”

“But the reason I address this is because it is the responsibilities of leaders to uphold the values of the institutions which employ them. If they can’t continue to do that then they should have the integrity to resign. As Gillette has found out the hard way, once you go woke you quickly go broke. Which is precisely the direction the Church of Rome is heading under its current theologically progressive leadership.

Bottom Lining the Democrat-manufactured Trump-Ukraine Scandal. Judi McLeod – “When the Democrats Investigate Trump For Over 2 Years; And The Only Thing They Can Uncover Is Their Own Crimes.” … “Problem with that is that all the perps in the ongoing pumped-up scandal are comfortably nestled and protected inside a most devious Congress.

If Anyone Should Be Impeached, It’s the Liberal Media. Trevor Thomas – “Contrary to their sacred duty to provide what is truthful, they have willfully presented false and misleading information to the public at large concerning, but not limited to, the following:

No, the Electoral College Isn’t “Electoral Affirmative Action” for Rural States. John W. York, Ph.D. – “The reason Trump was able to win the presidency while losing the popular vote has nothing to do with “affirmative action” for rural states. It has everything to do with the way states choose to apportion their delegates.” … “It is a nod to a historical reality: When large swaths of a vast country feel they have been forgotten, dark days are likely to be on the horizon.

Zelensky: “This is not corruption, it was just a call” Ed Morrissey – “it’s tough to build a case of quid pro quo and corruption when the two players in the alleged act both say nothing of the sort occurred — and the record backs that up.” … doesn’t matter to House Democrats or their propaganda machine (or Volokh Conspiracy lawyers, see below), though.

Anti-Trump Psychodrama 10.0? Victor Davis Hanson – “The particular narrative is not all that important, at least compared with a general overriding theme: We are in a virtual civil war, and the Left believes that it can win over the hearts and minds of 20 to 30 percent of the swing voters in the United States with therapeutic tales of racism, sexism, unearned white privilege, and right-wing greed and selfishness, and also by destroying the elected president.

The Bluffpeachment. Gary Gindler – “The current situation in Washington is, in the language of poker, a bluff. The Democrats are bluffing; they have only weak cards in their hand. They actually have nothing against Trump. That’s all they have ever had.” Gindler also notes: “The U.S. Constitution empowers only the entire House of Representatives with the impeachment authority, not just the speaker of the House or the chairmen of the committees of the House.” This is interesting in light of the argument that the Constitution is vague on the issue and, therefore, the House can use whatever process it wants. That starts playing games on what one means by House of Representatives in the U.S. Congress. (See Volokh Conspiracy post and the following assertions)

New Statement from Checks and Balances on President Trump’s Abuse of Office. Jonathan H. Adler – “We believe the acts revealed publicly over the past several weeks are fundamentally incompatible with the president’s oath of office, his duties as commander in chief, and his constitutional obligation to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed.’” This is signed by a number of rather prestigious lawyers and is a conclusion based on their reading of the Ukraine matter. What these lawyers are saying is that chasing corruption in the affairs of U.S. elected officials involving other nations is “fundamentally incompatible with the president’s oath of office.” Trying to wrap one’s head around that, even when dressed up in a lawyerly sounding epistle such as this, is a difficult task. The base logic is just the expressed part of the problem. The context (i.e. Mueller findings) and the reference in long established precedent are missing and very likely it is because they show this official sounding pronouncement to be a farce. But why would such a distinguished collection of lawyers expose themselves like this?

Comments are closed.