Just War And Impeachment “€“ Foundations Of Freedom: Did Trump have the Constitutional power to take out Soleimani? When is it okay to go to war anyway? How do we fix the partisan use of impeachment? Tune in to hear the Biblical, Historical and Constitutional answers to these questions and more!

Air Date: 01/30/2020

On-air Personalities: David Barton, Rick Green, and Tim Barton


Download: Click Here

Transcription note:  As a courtesy for our listeners’ enjoyment, we are providing a transcription of this podcast. Transcription will be released shortly. However, as this is transcribed from a live talk show, words and sentence structure were not altered to fit grammatical, written norms in order to preserve the integrity of the actual dialogue between the speakers. Additionally, names may be misspelled or we might use an asterisk to indicate a missing word because of the difficulty in understanding the speaker at times. We apologize in advance.

Faith and the Culture

Small Child: President Calvin Coolidge said, “The more I studied the constitution, the more I realized that no other document devised by the hand of man has brought so much progress and happiness to humanity. To live under the American constitution is the greatest political privilege that was ever accorded to the human race.”

Rick Green:   Welcome to the Intersection of Faith and the Culture. It’s WallBuilders Live! where we’re talking about today’s hottest topics on policy and faith and other areas of the culture. We always do that from a biblical, historical and constitutional perspective. My name is Rick Green. I’m a former Texas legislator and America’s constitution coach. I’m here with David Barton. He’s America’s premier historian and the founder of WallBuilders. Tim Barton is a national speaker and pastor and the president of WallBuilders. And all three of us are just thrilled that you’re here with us on WallBuilders Live! because it tells us you’re interested in knowing what to do in the culture, in our society, in this nation. How to use the freedoms that we’ve been given to do our part, fulfill our responsibilities that come with our rights.

Everybody loves to talk about their rights under the constitution. But what about the responsibilities? And if you’re listening today, we know that you want to be a part of the solution. You want to fulfill those responsibilities and so our goal is to equip and inspire, to entertain. Yes, we have a fun program that’s entertaining with lots of great information. But also to equip and inspire you. We want to make sure you have the tools you need to go out there and make a difference in your culture and in your society.

Be the Change!

If you want to help us do that and spread the word and reach more people, you can do that very simply going to wallbuilderslive.com, click on the contribute button, and that’s a great way to come alongside us. Those dollars, every time you make a contribution, it expands our voice. It allows us to reach more people through more stations, through more programs. We train pastors and young leaders, we train legislators, all kinds of things that we’re doing with the dollars that you donated and it helps to impact the culture in a positive way. You can become a force multiplier by going to the website today and making that contribution right there at wallbuilderslive.com.

All right guys, it is time to dive into those questions. Audience members, we’d love to hear from you. If you’d like to send some questions to us, send them to [email protected], [email protected]. It could be about the constitution, founding fathers, application of constitutional and biblical principles, whatever you’d like to ask, send that into [email protected] we’ve got plenty for today. David, Tim, first question is going to come from our home State of Texas, actually from a David. David Barton, did you send a question in to WallBuilders Live?

David Barton: I sent that for myself. I moved to a different town temporarily, establish residency and [Cross talking]

Tim Barton: I think he just wanted our opinion and we weren’t giving it to him, so he just sent in a letter. Hey guys, please answer my question.

Rick Green: You must have moved because this is a David from League City. So David from League City, thank you for sending your question in. Here is what he said.

Did Trump Overstep?

He said, “Love your show. My questions related to all the hubbub from the Democrats regarding president Trump’s issuance of orders to attack Soleimani. Does the constitution require congressional approval or authorization for such actions? Thanks for all you guys do to educate the people to strengthen our country.” That’s David from League City. Thanks David for sending that in. David, Tim, I got my own thoughts on this, but what do you all think? What’s the Constitution’s requirements for a president to issue an order like this?

David Barton: Constitution does not require it. Next question.

Rick Green: That’s good. All right, next question is. And I agree, that’s what I was going to say.

David Barton: Actually, there is no constitutional requirement for that. There’s no constitutional requirement for Congress to have to weigh in. Every time the president makes a decision, he is the commander in chief.  Now, Congress appropriates the money and they can put some parameters around them, but even as the house has tried to do in the last few weeks, they’ve tried to take actions to say what he can and cannot do with responding to Iran, and that’s just not constitutional.

Tim Barton: Well, and it’s different too, right? Taking out a terrorist than it is having an all-out war.  Where if you look at war, I mean, the constitution does give some guidelines about declaring a war. This was not declaring a war.

Rick Green: Right.

Tim Barton: This was taking out a known terrorist who was responsible for the death of 603 Americans and however many countless others that he was responsible for. So this was a known terrorist.

Within the Chain of Command                     

There was good Intel where we had the knowledge of where he was going to be and so the president made a judgment call. Let’s take this guy. That that is not something that you have to run up the chain of command of Congress. And if you did in these situations, you wouldn’t have gotten him.

David Barton: That’s right.

Tim Barton: And that’s why you guys, you do have precedent from previous courts acknowledging, I think this right back under George W. Bush, that the courts upheld this, that the president does have the right to be able to make that call. This is what you saw with even President Obama when they take out bin Laden, he did not go ask permission from all the Congress if he could do that first. This was something as a known terrorist, they are now in a position, and they”€™re an enemy of the state. Right? And in this situation, we would say they’ve already gone through a trial. They’ve been found guilty, they’ve been sentenced to death, and then the sentence is carried out as soon as we are able to locate them and somebody squeezes the trigger, which is what happened with Soleimani.

Rick Green: It really kind of, it points out the brilliance of the founding fathers because there is some tension between that article to power of the President to be the Commander in Chief and make these moment, you know, real time decisions. And then the Article one power of Congress to declare war. And, and they meant for that to kind of split that power just a little bit, but not hamper the President from being able to defend the country in the moment.

A Historical Perspective    

And there’s been congressional actions to define, “okay, how long can he be engaged in a particular region? And at what point does he come for permission and all that.” So they can get into that minutia, but man, just to make this strike, just like you’re saying Tim, to have to go before a hearing or go even in the intelligence, a hearing, private and all that would, you’d lose the guy. You can’t do it. So I think the Founders were just brilliant in the way they designed this and Trump followed it to the letter.

David Barton: There’s a couple of things I want to throw in here, Rick, because I think this is a good time to really kind of put forth from historical perspective. What if Congress had been involved in the Bin Laden decision? What if Congress, because who in Congress would not want to see Bin Laden taken out?

Rick Green: Right.

David Barton: What if Congress had been involved in the Soleimani decision? Here’s why that’s not going to happen. If you go back to the first woman elected to Congress, is the only woman who voted against both World War One and World War to. Now World War I, I can understand, let’s not get involved with somebody else’s war. World War II, you came to America and you hit and killed 3000 Americans in one day, but she said, I will never vote to go to war ever. So it doesn’t matter if 99.9% of the nation wanted to go take care of Hitler and take care of Tojo in World War II, she was going to vote no. If this has been today, she would have leaked that to the press.

Threat of Compromising Intelligence

If we would’ve gotten her permission, she would’ve said, “This is really wrong. I’m going to tell the press about it.” And then Hitler would’ve known, Tojo would have known. This is why you don’t go to Congress and everything because no matter if 99.9% of the nation is agreeable, you’re going to find a staff member. You’re going to find an individual that will release the intelligence and completely compromise the operation.

Tim Barton: And just to clarify, the problem was not that she was a woman. Its no because…

David Barton: Well, actually in this case it was, she said, “I will never vote to send a mother’s son to war.” And so it was the fact that she was saying….

Tim Barton: Nope, nope, nope, nope. That’s good to see you, that sound bite is going to come off and some ridiculous persons are going to say he’s against women in office, in Congress. Okay, that’s ridiculous, right? No, the point is, in her situation, she was saying that this is my eternal position, but had been a different woman.

David Barton: Oh, yeah for sure.

Tim Barton: They’d make a different call. So you’re talking about the individual, but this is why when we look at individuals, I mean we see with even President Trump, why he keeps a lot of, we call his cards close to the vest because in his own cabinet there are people leaking things.

David Barton: That’s right.

Tim Barton: And when you include now 435 members, right, of the house, a hundred members of the Senate, and then their staffers are going to know too. There’s no way that information stays quiet.

Loose Lips Sink Ships

And it goes back to the adage of I believe World War II, that loose lips sink ships. So you don’t spread information because you don’t want people getting it out there because then the bad guys go into hiding and we can’t get them. So this is why the President needs to be able to make that judgment call. And certainly he includes his cabinet and he’s got a lot of great military minds and advisers in there and people who have done way more in this realm than any of us. And in anybody listening, they are able to give some very good counsel. A lot of wise assessment takes place. And in this situation, President Trump made a great call.

David Barton: And I would say even with that perspective, Tim and thank you for clarifying on Jeannette Rankin. But if you go back, even in the American revolution, you’ve got folks who are Quakers who are 100% post a war, no matter if they invade us, no matter if they kill everyone else, no matter if the Indians come after us and scalp everyone in Cherry Valley, Wyoming, we’re still going to be opposed to war. You will always have people who will not want this, and that’s why you cannot get a unanimous vote on anything like this and you don’t want to. That’s why you have a Commander in Chief. So the Presbyterians and Baptist and Congregationalist and Anglicans are always going to be on the other side of the Quakers. It”€™s just that way.

Different Than Going to War

Tim Barton: And right, this is where it would be different if we’re going to war because now it’s not a one team going after one bad guy kind of scenario or in this case we’re in a drone strike or whatever else, where it literally is just somebody on a video game controller, so to speak, pushing that button, but it’d be different if we’re sending all of our nation’s sons and daughters to war. At that point, no, you need to make sure we include people in this decision. This is far greater reaching than just one bad guy being taken out. But that’s not where we were in this scenario. This was one bad guy being taken out. The constitution puts no limitations on the resident being able to make this judgment call and courts have upheld that presidents can’t make that judgment call. And so this not only is not contrary to the constitution, it’s upheld by modern courts to say, this is totally illegal.

Rick Green: Hey guys, got to take a quick break. We’ll come back to this same question. David, you’ve got some thoughts on what a just war is, and some of our folks out there have never even heard that phrase, and so they’re probably wondering, well, how do you decide when it’s okay to have a strike like this or to actually go to war? Back in a moment to talk about what that is.  You’re listening to WallBuilders Live!

Moment from American History

Tim Barton: This is Tim Barton from WallBuilders with another moment from American history. The Reverend James Caldwell was a famous minister during the American war for independence. His sermons taught Liberty and God’s opposition to tyranny. The British hated him and tried to kill him. So for his own protection, he would actually take loaded pistols with him into the pulpit and lay them beside his Bible as he preached. In the 1780 Battled Springfield, the Americans ran out of wadding for their guns, which was like having no ammunition. Pastor Caldwell ran aside a nearby church and return with an arm load of [Inaudible 09:38] hymnals. The pages of which would provide the much needed [Inaudible 09:43]. He took this great Bible-based hymnal, raised it in the air and shouted to the troops, ” Now put Watson in them, boys.” This pastor’s ingenuity saved the day for the Americans. For more information on Pastor James Caldwell and other colonial Patriots, go to wallbuilders.com.

Liberties Worth Defending

Small Child: Samuel Adams said, “The liberties of our country and the freedom over civil constitution are worth defending against all hazards, and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.”

Rick Green: We’re back here on WallBuilders Live! It’s Foundations of Freedom Thursday today, and our first question has been about the drone strike that Trump ordered to take out the terrorist and whether or not he was authorizing in doing that and how the constitution works on this. And David, you were looking at it from a bigger picture. We always talk about constitutional, biblical, historical. So, while we were on the break that you wanted to point out what a just war is. When should we even go to war, let alone an individual strike like this?

A Preemptive Attack

David Barton: Let’s take the scenario that we’re going to ignore the 603 American lives that were taken by this guy, and we all know individuals like Chad Robichaud who had some of his friends taken out by this guy. So we know the people who know the guys who got killed by this guy, it happened. But let’s say we don’t know that. Let’s say that all we got, let’s say we heard that he is going to attack the American embassy. Can we take him out preemptively if he has not attacked the American embassy yet? And this is where a just war scenario comes in. The founding fathers going back to the beginning, they said, “Look, God deals with Wars in the Bible. There’s a lot of Wars in the Bible, and one thing he makes clear is he is not going to bless an office of aggressive, unjust war.”  If you just say, “I want your land, I want your property, I like Greece. I’m going to go take Greece.” God’s not going to bless that.

So what does he bless? He blesses a defensive war just as God gives you the right to defend yourself. Exodus 22:2, and passages and Nehemiah and passages in Luke. You have the right to defend yourself. A nation has the right to defend itself. So the founding fathers taught out of the pulpit that we cannot go to war against the British.

Pastor Jonas Clark

Now if they start it, if they fire in us. Then we can engage because then it is a matter of defense. We’re defending ourselves, our families, our property. And that’s why Pastor Jonas Clark with the less than a minute man told them, you cannot fire the first shot. Their Captain, Deacon John Parker said, “€œdon’t fire unless fired upon. And if they fire at you, you can fire back.”€

So the belief is a just war is always defensive in nature, if somebody else started. We did not start 911, they hit the towers, they took it down. At that point, we can go to war. So what happens with the Soleimani, if he’s ordering that? If we know and they have a record of keeping their word when they’re going to tell you they’re going to kill you, then a preemptive strike as a matter of self-defense is still a defensive war. If you are defending yourself because you know he has picked up a gun and just coming at you, that’s a whole different thing. And so there’s examples of that throughout history.

And this is the other aspect, even if he had not killed 603 guys, there is still a biblical and a moral and a constitutional right to be able to take him out because of what his intent is and because he’s proven that by killing so many of his own people and what he’s done in other nations by the hundreds of militias that he runs in Syria, that he runs in Afghanistan, that he runs in Iraq.

Soleimani Had a Record

This guy has a record, even if it’s not against Americans. So if we hear that he is going to go kill Americans and an embassy, yeah, we then have the right to take him out, not because we don’t like the guy, but because we are saving lives. And so that’s the other aspect. And that was really big in the founding fathers era. That’s why after the British fired that first shot, and of course, British general house said, “well, we didn’t fire first.” And that’s where Pastor Jonas Clark said, “No, I was standing there. I was an eye witness. I saw who fired first.” And he had all these affidavits he pulled together of who fired first. And all of these eye witnesses said that British fired first. I mean, once that happens, then you’re going to see the American starting to fight. When you get to Concord Bridge, you’re going to see the American spider on the road to Boston. You can see the Americans fighting after that because they said, “we didn’t start this thing, but you’re shooting at us. We have the right to shoot back to defend ourselves”. And that’s really kind of what the Soleimani situation was, is the right of just war, the right of self-defense. This is something that can be done.

So the question was, is the constitutionally required to get permission to do this. And the answer is no. He’s not required to get permission. Now, Congress has said, “we want you to report when something like this happens.” So by statutory law, he’s going to make a report, an incident report of what this was and how it happened, but there’s nothing in the constitution requires previous notice.

Calling Nancy Pelosi

Tim Barton: And information did come out that there was a call placed in Nancy Pelosi to try to give her a heads up an hour before this took place, and she didn’t take the call. And then right there was a fence of, “Oh my gosh, she didn’t let us know.” Well, when you don’t take the call, right? You can’t blame somebody for not letting you know if you ignored the call or whatever the case was. So there was an effort to try to keep people on a small level in the loop, even though there is no official requirement, this is just kind of a courtesy call, but he did make that call.


Rick Green: All right guys, quick break. We’ve got more questions coming up. Stay with us folks, you’re listening to WallBuilders Live!

Great Resources for Young People

Tim Barton: Hi friends, this is Tim Barton of WallBuilders. This is the time when most Americans don’t know much about American history or even heroes of the faith. And I know oftentimes for parents, we’re trying to find good content for our kids to read. And if you remember back to the Bible, the book of Hebrews, and it has a Faith Hall of Fame where they outlined the leaders of faith that had gone before them. Well, this is something that as Americans, we really want to go back and outline some of these heroes, not just of American history, but heroes of Christianity in our faith as well. I want to let you know about some biographical sketches we have available on our website. One is called the courageous leaders collection, and this collection includes people like Abigail Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Francis Scott Key, George Washington Carver, Susanna Wesley, even the Wright brothers. And there’s a second collection called Heroes of History. And this collection you’ll read about people like Benjamin Franklin or Christopher Columbus, Daniel Boone, George Washington, Harriet Tubman and the list goes on and on. This is a great collection for your young person to have and read and to providential view of American and Christian history. This is available at wallbuilders.com that’s www.wallbuilders.com.

Power Inherent in the People

Small Child: Thomas Jefferson said, the constitution of most of our States and of the United States assert that all power is inherent in the people that they may exercise it by themselves. That is their right and duty to be at all times armed. That they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.

Rick Green: We’re back on WallBuilders Live, its Foundations of Freedom Thursday today. That’s the day we get your questions, so send them in at [email protected]. Ask about foundational questions, constitutional questions, you name it, send them on in. We got one from Joe here about impeachment. He said, “Setting aside the impeachment of Donald Trump.” So in other words, let’s take the emotions out of this, I think is what he’s saying. He says, “Do you think impeachments had become partisan to the point that even if a president did do something worthy of removal of office. If his party controls the Senate, they would let him off? If so, how would you fix it? Do you agree with the idea that the house must send the articles of impeachment to the Senate within 25 days or drop the charger?” So a mix of questions here, guys. I’ll let you all pick which ones you want to take first. It looks like, first of all, do you think a president would be removed even if his party controlled the Senate? And then what do you think about this proposed rule by the Senate to say they can take up the articles or dismiss the articles within 25 days, if they aren’t delivered across the [Inaudible 16:38], Go for it.

A Love for the Truth

David Barton: Yeah. What happens first is he asks, how do you fix this? And how you fix it is you have to have a love for truth and you have to have an understanding of what’s right and wrong.

Tim Barton: Yeah.

David Barton: We’re not there. We don’t have a love of truth. We want my side to win and what’s right or wrong is what’s good for me, what helps my side. We don’t have the moral sense anymore of what constitutes a right, what constitutes a wrong. It’s wrong for me, it’s wrong for you, its right for me. So as long as we have that subjective standard, it is going to be completely partisan, top to bottom. You’re not going to have the sense of, you know what? This actually was a violation of a law and we’re going to take you out because this is the wrong thing to do morally, everybody agrees. Not everybody agrees on this. Part of what I think is such an admission that this was partisan was the fact that they did not bring in competitive witnesses on the other side. If this had been conducted like a real, now this is not a trial, we’ll get to that in a minute.

An Indictment

The constitution puts the trial over in the hands of the Senate, but this is an indictment. And in an indictment, you bring forth both sides even at that point. Now you don’t necessarily get to confront the witnesses on the other side, get confront the accusers, but you get witnesses on both sides. And that was not happening. So we’re, we’re getting all of those. And once we did get people who contradicted it, we got them out of there pretty quick and got more into override them. And so we pretty much stacked this thing with people who said, “You need to be indicted”. And that’s what the house basically does. It’s like a grand jury indictment. So the fact that they were not after truth came out at that point because if they really cared what was true, they would have asked all sides and can this go forward.

And then further, the fact that they really weren’t interested in truth is once they got that impeachment done and the impeachment is just kind of like again, it’s an indictment. So this is the third President that’s been impeached in history. Andrew Johnson was his first, Bill Clinton was second and then now Donald Trump is third. At this point, none of them have been convicted. Conviction takes place over in the Senate. So now we go to the constitution.

An Interesting Argument

Tim Barton: Although let me point out, some people are making an interesting argument that if Nancy Pelosi does not turn in the papers, then maybe he hasn’t been impeached. Because part of what makes him impeached is they submit those papers to the Senate, so Senate can have a trial. So if she hasn’t submitted the papers, I’ve heard even very liberal and secular progressive professors who’ve come out and said, “It”€™s not an official impeachment until she turns the papers over to the Senate.”

David Barton: No. I disagree with them though Tim, I really do. I mean because the constitution doesn’t say anything about the ministerial lack…

Tim Barton: That’s where I am.

David Barton: …of walking though the constitution.

Tim Barton: The constitution puts it in the hands of the house and when they vote, that’s the impeachment.

Rick Green: Once they voted, it’s done. I think as soon it could take them up when they want. Now they do have it in the Senate rules that it all starts upon receipt of that. But those are rules that were adopted in the 1880s after some, I don’t know if it was after the Johnson impeachment or if it was after a judge being impeached. But they can change those rules and that’s what Josh Holly’s proposing. I just don’t like the idea that he’s proposing they would dismiss, I’d rather him say, “Hey, if they don’t deliver them, we’re going to start the trial,” or “It’s our choice, we can either start it or dismiss them.” Anyway. I just think we shouldn’t put a burden on the constitution that that’s not there and Nancy thinks she can tell the Senate when they can take this thing up.

An Interesting Argument on Impeachment

Tim Barton: Well, and this is where I think it’s an interesting conversation, right? Because of some of the modern reading of that and you’re right. Ultimately that, whether it’s the Senate rules or whatever else it is. Yeah, I mean, we can say he’s been impeached. I just think it’s an interesting conversation that even liberal, secular, progressive professors are saying,” well, it’s not officially in impeachment yet.”

Rick Green: Right.

Tim Barton: I think one of those, Tim was one of the ones they had testify, that the house said testify. I’m pretty sure it was one of the three supposed experts, because they were law school professors that had said, “Yes, this is impeachable. Yes, let’s go get him.” That actually said later, “Well, if you don’t deliver the articles, it’s not an impeachment.” I think they’re wrong on that, but it’s their guys that are saying that. So Nancy’s probably saying, you know, “oops.”

Tim Barton: Well, I’m with you, Rick. I don’t think the constitution requires that, but the constitution does say that each body can determine its own rules. And so that’s where those rules that were crafted for the Senate on how it receives the impeachment, and that’s significant constitution gives that authority. But the constitution is pretty clear that by majority vote in the house, you impeach. And by two thirds, a super majority vote in the Senate, you convict. If there is no conviction, there is no removal from office. Now, here’s where it gets interesting to me is, all through this process, Pelosi and chef and others are talking about the founders and an original intent and constitution and constitutional intent, and we’ll read the constitution.

It”€™s Up to the Senate

Your job is done when you have the vote. It’s now up to the Senate. Well, we’re going to tell the Senate what rules are going to do, and if they don’t do this within 25 days, then, no, no, no. That”€™s like the legislature of Texas telling the legislature of Massachusetts when they have to pass bills and what those bills are, that that doesn’t happen.

Rick Green: That’s right.

Tim Barton: Your duties are ended when you had the vote, that’s it. Now you turn the papers over, you don’t turn the papers over. That”€™s in your own rules. But constitutionally your duties end with impeachment and that’s what they did. So now it’s up to Mitch McConnell and for Polosi to even presume that she can, I don’t know if you want to use the word pressure or blackmailed or whatever, hold it over his head. And now they’re not even thinking, may be, they don’t even deliver these things at all. You know, that is a pure proof that it is political partisan because if they think there’s really something substantive here, they would be pressing this and they would go to the American people and they would say, “We”€™ve got to have a full trial on this.” And now they’re pulling back from even having a full trial because the Senate has made clear that we’re going to call all the witnesses you refuse to call.

Rick Green: Yeah.

Democrats Have Shown Their Hand

David Barton: And so, I think they have shown their hand that truth was not what they were after. They were after something that would be earned media, you know. Politically we call earned media, it’s media you don’t have to pay for, but you get all the effects of it.

Rick Green: You would want to stick that label on him that he’s impeached. He’s impeached forever.

David Barton: That’s right, that’s right.

Rick Green: She wants the process to stop right now instead of him actually having his day in court.

David Barton: And she wants a tarnished legacy for him, whatever happens.

Rick Green: Yep.

David Barton: “Oh, that that judge is put on the Supreme Court by an impeached president.” Well, it’s likely to come back to where that now impeachment will mean absolutely nothing. And I think that what they have done is Chicken Little in the sense that if they were to come up with a legitimate impeachable offense right now and we’re trying to start something, I think most people would absolutely turn them out and turn them off.

Rick Green: I agree. It might’ve made him bulletproof for the next four years.

David Barton: That’s exactly right.  I think it has actually strengthened him and it is weaken the constitution and that they use the constitution to do something it was not designed to do, and they blamed the constitution or they’ve credited the constitution for where they are. And now people say, “Well, that’s not what I want.”


And so I think they have gone way over the line and the impact is going to be opposite of what they thought. But that was all to answer that constitutional question of what happens in 25 days, is there a constitutional requirement? No, there was not.

Rick Green: And guys, just real quick before we’re out of time. But in the previous impeachments, I they didn’t have the control of the Senate, but in the Nixon case it was actually Republicans. It was Howard Baker that went over and said, “We”€™re going to go against you on this.” So I think to the heart of Joe’s question is that party parties will turn and say, “Hey, if my guy really did something wrong, ethics would say, I’m still going to want them to be impeached.” So it’s not just, you know, Republicans are defending Trump just because he’s a Republican. They’re saying, “Hey, there’s nothing here. He didn’t break any of the four things in the constitution that rise to impeachment.”

Tim Barton: Well, if you look at Andrew Johnson who came within one vote of being convicted, he’s a Republican president. The house was totally run by the Republicans. The Senate totally run by the Republicans.

Rick Green: Great point.

Tim Barton: It was Republicans, Republicans with supermajorities that went after a Republican president.

Rick Green: A good point. There’s your good point.

Just War And Impeachment “€“ Foundations Of Freedom

Tim Barton: That’s what you think truth should be, is this is wrong. We recognize it’s wrong. We’re not going to put up with what’s wrong.

Rick Green: We’re out of time folks, send your questions in. We love your questions, so thank you for participating in the program. [email protected] is where you send them. It’s Foundation to Freedom Thursday you’ve been listening to here on Wall Builders Live.

Small Child: President Thomas Jefferson said, “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. And if we think them not enlightened enough who exercise their control with the wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”