Court Evangelicals: In All Things, Trump Must Have the Preeminence.

Last weekend, Donald Trump’s evangelical advisors met with him to talk over impeachment strategy. Here is a picture of group on Family Research Council president Tony Perkins’ twitter feed.

I see Gateway Church pastor Robert Morris, James Dobson, Robert Jeffress, Paula White, and AACC owner Tim Clinton among others.

Perkins says the reason the Democrats want to impeach Trump is due to his support for pro-life, pro-family policies. Odd, absolutely nothing has been mentioned about those policies in the numerous depositions taken so far. Everything has been about the president’s effort to manipulate Ukraine’s president to start an investigation of Hunter Biden in order to get dirt on Joe Biden. The president has stonewalled Congress and engaged in activities to cover up his activities. I believe the attempt to get a foreign government help to win an American election is an impeachable offense.

American evangelical leaders will have to answer for their blind trust in a political leader. I didn’t think evangelical leaders could get much lower but they have. Even if they don’t think what Trump did is impeachable, they should not excuse it. It is as if the Constitution or framers’ intent don’t matter anymore. The only thing that matters is protecting Donald Trump.

Rick Joyner: Everything in the Constitution Comes from the Bible

For years, David Barton has promoted the false notion that everything in the Constitution comes from the Bible. Two summers ago, I read James Madison’s entire notes on the Constitutional Convention looking for the elusive biblical roots of the Constitution only to come up empty.

Now self-appointed prophet Rick Joyner has taken up this message. Watch:

He says everything in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is linked to a Scripture verse. Joyner adds to this falsehood by saying the Federalist papers further explains the links.

I have examined this claim on several occasions when made by David Barton (see the links in the first paragraph above). As noted, I read through the notes on the entire Constitutional Convention looking for the biblical influences on the Constitution. Surely, if the framers meant for the Bible to be the foundation of the Constitution, they would have cited it in their debates. Even if they didn’t use chapter and verse, there would have to be some reference to phrases from the Bible for these claims to be true. In fact, there were few references to the Bible or Christianity. There were far more references to Greek and Roman democracies, prior governments, British law and common sense. For the hearty souls who wish to take that same journey, I humbly recommend the series and the endeavor to read Madison’s notes on the 1787 convention.

Regarding Joyner’s remarks about the Federalist papers, he must be thinking about the Antifederalists.  In a study of citations by Donald Lutz frequently misused by David Barton and Christian nationalists, Lutz found that Federalists cited many influences but didn’t cite the Bible. See Lutz’s assessment of the writings of the Federalists and Antifederalists below: By the way, the Smithsonian has 156 million items, 145 million of which are scientific artifacts.

 

Hat tip to Right Wing Watch.

Beth Moore Says “Let’s Move On”

About John MacArthur, Beth Moore recently said:

If you are on Christian twitter, you probably know this story. John MacArthur was asked to respond to a word association exercise on stage at his church’s Truth Matter’s conference and the host began with “Beth Moore.” MacArthur’s response was “Go home” (at 53 seconds into the clip below). There is audio from YouTube:

He continued to say there was no biblical basis for women to preach. This led to a huge uproar with MacArthur understandably roasted for his callous, dismissive approach to a Christian sister. Grace to You executive director Phil Johnson followed by calling Moore “narcissistic” and criticized her ministry.

Many have commented on this. I once thought women should not preach, and now I believe they may be called to do so. I have changed my perspective on many things over the years. Christians have assorted views on who should and shouldn’t do many things. In other news, water is wet.

What seems plain is that Christians are supposed to get along and love one another. I hope that isn’t controversial. I am pretty sure it isn’t happening as much as it should. That is why I wanted to highlight two tweets from two strong spiritual women.

I led with Moore’s tweet. Look at it. Putting the lie to Phil Johnson’s judgment of narcissism, a narcissist doesn’t call off the dogs. A narcissist rounds them up, calls out reinforcements, and sends them in for the kill. Witness Donald Trump. He wants his Republican troops to ignore what he has done and give up all for his cause. Deny yourself and follow Trump. Attacking those who attack the narcissist is the true test of loyalty. Beth Moore said back off, slander doesn’t honor God.

Then another one that caught my eye comes from Julie Roys:

I am not certain but I bet Julie and I disagree on some things, but I sure agree with her here. Being dismissive and cruel isn’t a fruit of the Spirit.

I hope all the “dudes” (listen to the audio) get that. If we are all right about the afterlife, we all — dudes and dudettes — will be spending a lot of time together on holy and equal ground.

 

Watergate House Judiciary Interviews were Held Behind Closed Doors

Yesterday, nearly 30 House Republicans invaded the secure hearing room where a witness was being interviewed in the Trump impeachment investigation. Known as a SCIF (sensitive compartmented information facility), the room is off limits to cell phones and and communications devices which can be compromised by listening technology. However, several of the House members brought their cell phones into the SCIF, potentially compromising security.

Ostensibly, their complaint was that the hearings were secret and should not keep them from entering. They also compared the Trump investigation to the Nixon investigation during the Watergate scandal, saying the Nixon process was public.

There is a surface appeal to their calls for openness. Many people who follow this matter would like to know more than can be gleaned from opening statements and leaks. However, the claim that Republicans have been shut out is preposterous. There are scores of Republicans who have clearance to be in the closed meetings. In fact, there were Republicans in the meeting yesterday who had permission to be there.

Also, the comparison to Watergate isn’t favorable for the Republicans. The House Judiciary Committee held closed-door hearings prior to submitting articles of impeachment just as the current House is doing. Critics in that day had similar criticisms as described in this May 10, 1974 article from the Des Moines Tribune (click the link to read the entire piece).

The article sounds quite current with similar criticisms of the process of interviewing witnesses. In hindsight, this process served to protect witnesses and eventually gave way to a public presentation of evidence.

Something that was true of Watergate that is not true now concerns the involvement of the Senate. The Senate convened public hearings in early 1973 and compelled witnesses to testify. Many people remember these hearings and have perhaps conflated the Senate’s hearing and the House’s work in their memory of that era.

Regarding the current rules governing impeachment in the House, there is nothing that appears to forbid standing committees from investigating what might and might not be an impeachable offense. Here is a relevant quote from the Congressional Research Service brief on impeachment in the House:

Material related to the conduct of a federal official might reach the House and be referred to committee prior to the adoption of a resolution directing a committee to conduct an investigation. Historically, this has included petitions and materials from citizens. In addition, standing committees, under their general investigatory authority, can seek information and research charges against officers prior to the approval of a resolution to authorize an impeachment investigation.

There are three standing committees currently investigating the conduct of the president and related officials. They already have investigatory authority and will turn over their findings to the Judiciary committee and eventually to the public. There will be public hearings and a vote on articles of impeachment which the Judiciary committee will almost certainly produce. Then the matter will go to the Senate where the Chief Justice will preside over a public trial. The president will have a chance to offer his defense.

For those who can’t believe something unless they see it on Fox News, first I offer my sympathy, and second, I offer this from Fox and Friends:

Donald Trump Laments Constitution’s “Phony Emoluments Clause”

During a cabinet meeting today, Donald Trump had some choice words for our founding document. Speaking on various topics, including the possibility of holding the G7 meeting of world leaders at his Doral Golf Resort in Miami, Trump was quoted as follows:

Watch:

One of the principle reasons I believe Trump is a danger as president is his disregard for our institutions and principles. He has ignored the emoluments clause during his entire term and he has ignored Congressional subpoenas and all efforts to provide oversight. His threat to the checks and balances of Constitutional government far outweighs any policies he might support of benefit to conservatives.

For the record, here is what the Constitution says about emoluments and the president:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them. ARTICLE 2, SECTION 1

If the president accepts money from foreign governments without Congressional approval, he would violate that clause. There are also numerous other conflict of interest statutes governing federal employees which are in play.