First Baptist of Dallas pastor and Trump court evangelical Robert Jeffress doubled down on his warning of a “civil war like fracture” if Trump is removed from office via impeachment and conviction. Watch:
One of the CBN hosts gave him an opportunity to ratchet back his rhetoric but in Trump-like fashion, he called his analogy to the Civil War “a perfect idea.”
When the same host cited Illinois GOP Representative Adam Kinzinger’s tweet condemning the reference to the Civil War, Jeffress said:
Read the comment and if they come away with that conclusion that I’m advocating or the president’s is a civil war, then they either can’t read or are too stupid to understand what we’re saying.
Here is Kinzinger’s tweet:
I have visited nations ravaged by civil war. @realDonaldTrump I have never imagined such a quote to be repeated by a President. This is beyond repugnant. https://t.co/a5Bae7bP7g
— Adam Kinzinger (@RepKinzinger) September 30, 2019
Dr. Warren some people believe we are already in a civil war, a new kind of war and if they are correct you are in it.
HA! Starnes has been fired by Fox, for his interview with Jeffress!
So even Fox has limits? Who knew!
https://www.thewrap.com/exclusive-host-todd-starnes-out-at-fox-news/
I guess I must suck at being a Christian Democrat because I had to look up who I’ve been worshiping.
Jeffress on Democrats: They don’t worship the Christian God. Oh, and they apparently worship the demon god Moloch. https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/robert-jeffress-democrats-worship-the-demon-god-moloch/
But I suppose that’s not really “vitriol”…
Jeffress does not worship the Christian God – he worships the Golden Goat named Mammon.
So basically he’s saying that if Congress follows the law and lawfully impeaches him, that this is a bad thing?
Sorry, if he broke the law (which it appears he did), then he doesn’t belong in that position.
Whatever happened to “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. . .? ” Jesus was pretty definite about obeying governing authorities. Robert Jeffress, not so much.
Robert Jeffress will be deeply offended when he discovers what Jesus actually taught.
He will never discover it.
Well, it’s been said: pastors are the ones who protect their congregations from ever having to hear about Jesus. So I imagine the people Jeffress surrounds himself with are comfortable where they are at in life, presumably continuing to “live by the sword” in preparation for the coming civil war Jeffress is calling for.
A pessimistic response. Though you do raise a valid point. As Trump’s lies, obfuscations, and corruptive behavior are visible before the world, what do we see from Evangelicals like Jeffress and Evangelical trolls currently spamming this comment section? A doubling down of their deplorable behavior. They actually believe we won’t see through their moral/spiritual relativism.
It’s so funny being called an Evangelical troll! I’ve only been in an Evangelical church maybe 10 times in my life. But I guess it is the usual line of defense whenever your echo chamber gets invaded by wrongthink. How’s this working out for you, calling the people you disagree with “deplorables” while your political edifice crumbles in every major Western country? Perhaps there’s a time you may have to engage and recognize that not all moral systems that differ from your own are intrinsically evil or uninformed? Clearly now is not that time–far better to impeach!
“Jesus is a polite, suave, very charming college professor who sits with his charges on the campus green and instructs them how to agitate.” ~ Jim Wallis
I read this and imagined Jeffress meeting Jesus in heaven, who says to him: “That is not what I said.”
Robert Jeffress is attractive to only two groups of people:
1) those who don’t know what Jesus taught, and
2) those who know what Jesus taught but don’t care.
Sounds too Red Letter to me.
i can understand his point, and agree with the pastor. I do not take his comments to refer to the violence of the civil war, but the division that estranged family members, business associates, communities and the like.
I believe that such conditions already exist, but most of the vitriol I have experienced has been of the left, or the dems, towards the right.
as far as impeachment is concerned, perhaps it’s best to remember that impeachment is but a part of the process of removal, and that after a simple majority of the House approves impeachment, a trial is conducted in the Senate which requires a 2/3 vote to effect removal. Unless some more damaging evidence arises, I find it doubtful that removal will occur.
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” U.S. Const., art. III, sec. 3.
This is what the South did in the actual Civil War, and what idiots like Jeffress are flirting with. So are these would-be fools: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-warns-of-civil-war-if-hes-removed-some-followers-are-listening
These are not people of “the left”. Dylan Roof was not a person of “the left”. Timothy McVeigh was not a person of “the left”. Alex Jones is not a person of “the left”. Projection is a powerful drug. So is denial. Think about that, because we have already had enough bloodshed, thank you, and it hasn’t come from people of “the left”. I would suggest you ask Heather Heyer, but you can’t. She was murdered, and not by anyone of “the left”. She was murdered by a man whose soul was poisoned by the likes of Jeffress and the Proud Boys.
If Trump is impeached it will be pursuant to a constitutional process conducted by elected and accountable representatives. If he is convicted, it will be by elected senators pursuant to the Constitution.
Jeffress is not using mere rhetoric, he is toying with treason. The Constitution does not provide for its own destruction (just one reason why the “check against tyranny” interpretation of the Second Amendment is so laughable, yet dangerous). And calling it an “analogy” is pure sophistry. There are any number of illegal “militias” who will gladly take up Jeffress’ analogy, but with blood and slaughter.
Quit it.
Thank you for educating Richard about the well-documented rise in Radical Right-Wing violence and this country’s biggest terrorist threat: Domestic White-Nationalist Terrorism. Now Richard is responsible for correcting his erroneous, naive thinking and can no longer claim ignorance.
you have proved my point to a T –
no attempt on your part to even attempt to see the point of view of the other side.
you are right, they are wrong.
the belittling attitude of the left is part of the reason Trump will be reelected. almost half the country disagrees with you, but in your view we are all unenlighted idiots. instead of compromise you see only your way as right. sad.
You haven’t even gotten the point.
And smarm while people bleed and die is frankly offensive. These are not matters of opinion, they are matters of law and civic responsibility.
You might want to look at public sentiment regarding impeachment. It is not going Trump’s way, or yours. But then, Trump knows nothing of the Constitution. What’s your excuse?
“…attempt to see the point of view of the other side.”
When I look at the “other side” I see hatred and ignorance and fear. I see “fine people” on both sides. I see support for separating families at the border and locking up children in cages. I see courts being packed with incompetent right-wing judges with life-time appointments. I see bigotry supported in the name of Jesus. I see billions wasted in holes in the ground on the southern border. I see an incompetent dementia patient with his thumb on the launch button (when he’s not traitorously selling out our country to his bff Vlad.)
Thank you, I see and understand that point of view, and find it vile and repulsive. Indeed, deplorable.
Quibble: Some like to throw around words like treason far too casually. You can’t be guilty of treason merely by expressing a desire for civil war (though Jeffress didn’t go quite that far). From the experts I’ve read, even if Trump was colluding with the Russian, even then wouldn’t be guilty of “treason” in the legal sense. Treason means something specific and it doesn’t help reasonable discourse to overuse the term.
He is guilty of fear-mongering and essentially making an argument from consequences. “We can’t impeach Trump because something bad will happen.” It’s 100% an argument from emotion. One that I might add is highly disingenuous. Are their quotes from Jeffress about civil war fracturing the nation when Clinton was impeached? Or the dozens of times impeachment was brought up with Obama’s name? I highly doubt it.
“even if Trump was colluding with the Russian, even then wouldn’t be guilty of “treason” in the legal sense.”
That actually depends on the situation. If Trump gave Russia anything in return for the election help, then that could in fact mean it was treason.
He might be betraying his country. He might be guilty of a crime. But that crime won’t be treason, which is literally what Jeff Ryan posted. He’s not firing weapons or killing Americans in an attempt to overthrow the government. And we’re not at war with Russia. So, there is no “enemy” is give aid and comfort to.
I’m just saying, treason is a word that gets tossed around and has a lot of emotional baggage associated with it. It was ridiculous when it was levied against Obama and to use the word against Trump only serves as a distraction.
“He might be betraying his country. He might be guilty of a crime. But that crime won’t be treason,”
Actually that would be treason. Treason does not require the US to be “at war” with an enemy. If you don’t believe me, just ask the children of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.
Actually, you just proved my point. According to Wikipedia, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted and sentenced to death under section 2 of the Espionage Act of 1917 *not* treason. Again, treason means something specific.
Yes, here is what Treason means (I’ve highlighted the portion relevant to Trump):
if Trump, as president, gave Russia anything for their aid in the election that was contrary to US interests, that constitute: “giving them aid and comfort.”
You assert again, and I notice, without any source to back up your claim. So, please provide one.
From what I have read, you need a declaration of war for that clause to kick in, see here, but there are many others: https://www.salon.com/2018/09/16/treason-is-now-a-popular-word-heres-what-it-really-means_partner/
This is also born out by actual convictions. According to wikipedia, the last bunch of people convicted of treason were for actions during WWII for helping the Germans or Japanese.
I cited the actual law defining treason. Further, it does NOT require the US to have declared war. Your problem is you only looked at convictions rather than actual charges. In fact, people have made the case (ex: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002/aug/11/20020811-040049-4153r/ ) that Jane Fonda should have been charged with treason for her actions in Viet Nam (note, while it is referred to as “the Viet Nam War” congress NEVER made a declaration of war).
the problem with convicting someone of treason is the constitutional requirement of needing 2 witnesses to an “overt act.” This is why the Rosenbergs were not convicted of treason, because the government only had one witness (David Greenglass). However, what they did, would fall under the definition of treason.
Alright this is getting silly. You cited the law, but you didn’t site any relevant experts agreeing with your interpretation. I did and there are many more. So, unless you are arguing from your authority as a lawyer or constitutional scholar…
Also, lol, “people” making the case Jane Fonda should have been charged with treason. Number 1, that link is a 404. Number 2, it’s from the Moonie Times, a paper with a notorious right wing bias and disconnect from reality. You’ve basically just made the argument that “A lot of people at World Net Daily make the argument that Adam Schiff should charged with treason.” Which I’m sure doesn’t impress you. As someone clearly anti-Trump, congrats on the double hypocrisy back-flip.
Number 3, do I even need to point out that even if the above weren’t true, she was never prosecuted, so we don’t really know if she would be convicted. Therefore, you can’t really use it as evidence for anything.
Please, just find a reputable source that agrees with you.
1st the “export” you cited (from the salon article) made a provably false claim: “the crime of treason can only be committed by an American citizen during time of war with a foreign enemy.”
that isn’t true. the reference to war in the constitution means war AGAINST the US. then Sedler ignores the 2nd condition (i.e. after the word or) which gives another case for treason.
the law (which I cited) makes this clearer. The link i gave works for me and it is to the Washington times, so not sure where you are ending up. It is an article discussing a book: “AID AND COMFORT:” JANE FONDA IN VIETNAM by Holzer and Holzer.
The Washington Time is the Moonie Times. From Wikipedia:
You might have mistook the link for the Washington Post, but the Times holds as much credibility as World Net Daily.
Provable by whom? Oh, random person on the internet? i’m convinced. If you don’t get it by now, I am rejecting your interpretation of the clause. Like I said, cite a (reputable) expert who agrees with you. it should be easy since it is so obvious.
And the book the article cites?
“Provable by whom?”
By anyone with an understanding of the english language. It isn’t an “interpretation” it is an understanding of what the words mean. That law I cited gives 2 cases for treason:
1) Attempting war AGAINST the US
2) giving “aid and comfort” to the enemies of the US.
Now I do agree with Sedler that the term “treason” gets used far more often than it should, but he is wrong to claim it can only be used when the US is in a state of war. (i.e. a formal declaration of war has to have been made).
And the book the article references?
Jeffress is a leader, and he pointedly isn’t using his influence to ask his followers to respect the rule of law if Trump is impeached or removed from office.
When a general warns you that his troops will attack it is a threat.
Sorry, we have free speech in the US and Jeffress is not a general in any real sense. Yes, he is a (self appointed) leader, but he doesn’t have the coercive power of the state to enforce his “orders” like the military. And the law protects free speech zealously as it should. Generally, the only speech that’s illegal are specific threats against individuals. Even saying, “If Trump is impeached, I will personally lead a civil war.” doesn’t rise to that standard. And be thankful it doesn’t or, I have no doubt, Trump would have already used that power to arrest many of his critics.
It’s called a metaphor.
He has many followers, and he is priming them to revolt.
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I did not say either Trump or Jeffress were committing treason.
What you’re really trying to do, though, is handwave away the consequences of words. And if you’d bothered to follow the TPM link I posted, you would see just what kind of consequences words can prompt. There are many people who take their marching orders from Trump and Jeffress. James Fields wasn’t born hating liberals and Jews. He had to be taught these things. If “fear-mongering” is so freaking benign, Paul Josef Goebbels would have spent World War II, if there even had been a World War II, toiling namelessly in some ministry or other. Instead, he gave a master class in propaganda, and a country went insane, and millions died. If words didn’t have consequences, The Turner Diaries would have remained a little read and poorly written racist fantasy. The Murrah Building would still be standing.
Words matter. Thanks to Trump, millions believe a lot of provably false things and hate a lot of people. Jeffress is a powerful leader in his own sphere. His words matter, too.
You belittle yourself when you belittle the obvious consequences.
Listen, I’m not saying what he said is benign. I’m suggesting to call him out on what he actually said, which fear-monger, offer overwrought hysteria, and blatant hypocrisy. And if he didn’t commit treason, don’t bring it up. Neither is he flirting with treason by merely speaking. It’s ignorant or partisan bias to think so. To flirt with treason, he would have to act or start making plans to act.
Also, going straight to mentions of treason is only going to cause distraction. it’s simply not true, and Trump fans can simply point that out (and be right). Rather than me, it’s you who takes away focus from what Jeffress is actually saying by invoking hyperbolic accusations based on emotion. As you said, words matter. So, use them with accuracy.
Jeffress talked about civil war. Civil war is something we’ve had. It was treason. Somehow, you think referring to our Civil War, accurately, as what it was under the Constitution is “fear mongering”.
I’m sorry if you’re distressed. But I think dancing around the true meanings of what someone says is, frankly, a cop out. Maybe you should be distressed. But that doesn’t change the facts on the ground, no matter how much you don’t want consider them.
Most times I hear people invoke the “civil war” card, I suspect they actually want it to happen,so they’ll have an excuse to jump into the fray and eliminate people they’ve been harboring hatred for, for a long time. In other words, it’s a threat along the lines of, “…don’t make me do it… if you don’t stop, I’m going to… ”
Sometime a media person needs to ask people like Jeffress, Graham, Falwell ect, “so, are you wanting to start it? Is there some kind of red line, that when you think it’s crossed, you’ll incite your followers to break out the stockpiles they’ve been hording the last few decades and start slaughtering your/their political/cultural enemies?”
Personally I tire of this beating around the bush, weasel words these guys engage in… Is it bluff or are they really trying to start an american version of the taliban?
There’s a reason Trump talks like a mafioso.