Monday, March 11, 2019

Want to support the right to life? Impeach Trump!

I can understand the pro-life argument as a reason maybe for voting for Trump over Hillary. What I don't get is Christians not challenging the proclivity of the Republican party to cover from Trump no matter what comes out against him, to refrain from serious investigation of his fitness to be President. Whatever my conscience might tell me about voting Democratic in light of its excessive defenses of abortion, there is no way in the world I could vote Republican so long as Republicans refuse to address wrongdoing by the President. The Cohen hearings are an excellent example. Republican questioners, with maybe one exception, kept just attacking Cohen, who is not on trial (at least by the House), not on any ballot, and whatever you think of him, was offering hard evidence of criminal activity by a sitting President. If the worst happens and Trump is impeached guess what? Hillary Clinton won't become President. The one who will become President will be the most President most dedicated to the pro-life cause in history: Mike Pence. Want to support the right to life? Impeach Trump!

14 comments:

Legion of Logic said...

Michael Cohen, as in the guy convicted for lying to Congress? "Offering hard evidence of criminal activity by a sitting President" seems a very strong statement from a proven liar. "Possible evidence" would seem to be much more accurate and less likely to cause future embarrassment.

Speaking of, I'm still waiting for the hard evidence of Russian collusion that has been the central talking point of the left for years now.

Starhopper said...

"possible evidence"

That phrase got me thinking. Is evidence necessarily true? If I accuse Legion of Logic of robbing a bank, is my accusation in and of itself evidence that he did so? We have concepts such as uncorroborated evidence, unsubstantiated evidence, planted evidence, circumstantial evidence, etc. Are we wrong in calling all of these things "evidence"?

I bring this up, not because of Cohen, but because of atheists like Hugo and the long gone and unlamented im-skeptical, who insist that there is no evidence for the truth of Christianity. And they make this claim by excluding all sorts of things as being evidence. So they say that the New Testament is not evidence. Neither is archaeology, nor are logical arguments, Church history, and personal witness (amongst other things).

bmiller said...

Good for you Starhopper.

You sustained your lenten vow to abstain from politics!

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
Michael Cohen, as in the guy convicted for lying to Congress? "Offering hard evidence of criminal activity by a sitting President" seems a very strong statement from a proven liar. "Possible evidence" would seem to be much more accurate and less likely to cause future embarrassment.

Cohen's evidence does include documentary verification.

Legion of Logic said...

Cohen's evidence does include documentary verification.

That is of far more credibility than his spoken testimony, then. Thanks for letting me know.

And they make this claim by excluding all sorts of things as being evidence.

As Cohen has already proven himself a liar in Congressional testimony, I simply put no stock whatsoever in his testimony. But One Brow said there was more than simply a known liar prattling on, so that is indeed more substantial.

I called it "possible" evidence because he is untrustworthy. Could turn out to not even be true.

Legion of Logic said...

Thinking more on it, I probably should not have said "possible evidence" at all due to the things Starhopper outlined. Rather, if we are to take things with a grain of salt, his testimony warrants a salt flat until verified independently.

Victor Reppert said...

Of course, Cohen's testimony has to be a basis for further evidence, and nothing will or should be done on his word alone. The Democrats know that, and Cohen knows that. But you can't just call him a liar and stop there. Insofar as he provides documentation, or mentions others that might corroborate him, this is where a case has to be made. But the Republicans seemed unwilling to pursue anything based on his testimony, and that is what I am complaining about.

Joe Hinman said...

My Answer to Euthephro




The "ED" is fro Socrates. It's is X good because God commands it or does God command it because "he's" good,Atheists use this to argue if the former then God is arbitrary on his commands and if the latter then something higher than God. Here is my answer in conversation with a friend who is a Philosopher form secular Outpost.

Joe Hinman said...

One Brow said...
Legion of Logic said...
Michael Cohen, as in the guy convicted for lying to Congress? "Offering hard evidence of criminal activity by a sitting President" seems a very strong statement from a proven liar. "Possible evidence" would seem to be much more accurate and less likely to cause future embarrassment.



We should abolish the witness protection program,they are all a bunch of crooks. How can we trust someone to tell the truth about the guy who paid him to be a liar? Maybe the guy who paid him to lie is honest and doesn't lie? Sure that's why he needs someone to lie for him

Legion of Logic said...

How can we trust someone to tell the truth about the guy who paid him to be a liar?

How much money would it take to make you lie under oath? Who's actually more morally culpable there, the guy wanting you to lie, or you if you do the lying?

Cohen gets no sympathy from me. I'm not going to believe a proven liar simply because I have frothing-at-the-mouth levels of rage and hatred for the subject being discussed. If I do, I'm irrational.

When the extremely questionable testimony of proven liar Cohen is independently verified, I'll take it seriously. Until then, rage and hate do not make him more credible.





bmiller said...

Victor,

You spend too much time worrying about politics.

Democrats oppose Republicans and Republicans oppose Democrats. Democrats are going to try to protect their own interests and Republicans are going to try to protect their own. Democrats are much better at this IMHO.

So I don't expect either party to seek the truth any more than I expect a defense lawyer to make arguments against the interests of his client.

I'm pretty sure that the Special Counsel has everything this individual could provide and actually has the power to investigate crimes. Be patient.

Joe Hinman said...

How can we trust someone to tell the truth about the guy who paid him to be a liar?

How much money would it take to make you lie under oath? Who's actually more morally culpable there, the guy wanting you to lie, or you if you do the lying?

Cohen gets no sympathy from me. I'm not going to believe a proven liar simply because I have frothing-at-the-mouth levels of rage and hatred for the subject being discussed. If I do, I'm irrational.

When the extremely questionable testimony of proven liar Cohen is independently verified, I'll take it seriously. Until then, rage and hate do not make him more credible.


sympathy for Cohen is not important. Trump is a criminal that's the point. Cohen connects him to organized crime, Trump;s only defense is do what he always does, Trump always accuses his critics of being guilty of the things he does.

Legion of Logic said...

Trump is a criminal that's the point.

I'll admit to not reading much of anything having to do with Cohen beyond headlines. What crime do you know for a fact that Trump committed? I haven't seen that he has been charged with anything yet.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic,

To my understanding, the Justice Department policy is that the President can not be charged; they must be impeached.

Cohen has provided cancelled checks of Trump's payoffs to Daniels, which is a campaign finance violation (that is, a crime). We have emails from Trump's legal team reassuring Cohen of his friends "upstairs" that will protect him.