Posted Dec 19, 2019 by Michael L. Brown

Like many evangelicals, I have great respect for Christianity Today. It remans a hallmark, evangelical publication. And although it has leaned leftward in some respects in recent years, it is quite conservative compared to far-left evangelical publications like Jim Wallis’ Sojourners. So, it represents a serious moment when Mark Galli, the editor in chief of Christianity Today (henceforth CT), writing on behalf of the publication, calls for Trump’s removal.

Galli recalls Billy Graham’s vision in founding CT, namely, that the magazine “will help evangelical Christians interpret the news in a manner that reflects their faith.” And while CT normally does not focus on political issues, recognizing the diversity within evangelicalism, it “welcomes Christians from across the political spectrum, and reminds everyone that politics is not the end and purpose of our being.”

Nonetheless, the impeachment of the president calls for comment, and so Galli will share his thoughts with conviction and love.

After affirming CT’s love and prayers for President Trump, Galli recognizes how the Democrats have “had it out for [Trump] from day one,” acknowledging the partisan, even unfair nature of the impeachment hearings.

Nonetheless, he writes, “the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.”

Why is it, then, that many evangelicals are not shocked by this? It is because “this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration.”

Not only so, but “[h]is Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.”

On this basis, Galli argues, Trump should be removed, and no amount of good that he has done can justify his continuing in office with our support. Rather, “The impeachment hearings have illuminated the president’s moral deficiencies for all to see. This damages the institution of the presidency, damages the reputation of our country, and damages both the spirit and the future of our people. None of the president’s positives can balance the moral and political danger we face under a leader of such grossly immoral character.”

Back in 1998, CT said of then-impeached President Clinton, “Unsavory dealings and immoral acts by the President and those close to him have rendered this administration morally unable to lead.”

Consistency calls for them to say the same thing today about President Trump.

And then this impassioned plea: “To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come? Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?”

How should we respond?

First, I’m glad that Galli spoke his mind as an evangelical leader on behalf of CT. Surely, he echoes the sentiments of many others, and the Church and world need to hear this perspective too.

It’s true that this also speaks of disunity within our ranks. But where it is written that we must have political unity to be one in Christ? That we must have the same view of the president to stand together for the larger cause of the gospel?

As I’ve said many times before, when we stand before God on that day, He will ask us what we have done with Jesus, not what we have done with Trump.

I’m aware, of course, of how the secular media will spin this. Galli’s editorial will be used to deepen the divide between us.

It will be used to make rejection of Trump a litmus test for true evangelical Christianity. (Ironically, in other circles, it is support of Trump that serves as a litmus test of one’s true faith.) It will be used to discourage evangelicals from voting for Trump, if not to shame them from voting for him.

But again, because a substantial minority of evangelicals concur with Galli’s words, they needed to be spoken.

Second, there are many evangelicals who do not believe the Democratic charges against Trump and who see the impeachment as a witch hunt and a sham. (See this article from my Stream colleague John Zmirak for a clear, philosophical perspective.) In their minds, the charge are hardly “unambiguous.” Quite the contrary.

If, then, the president did not abuse his power as president, does Galli believe that Trump should be removed from office because of his offensive tweets and comments?

It is one thing urge evangelicals to say, “Let’s put forward an alternate candidate during the Republican primaries who will more closely mirror our values.” It is another thing to say the president should be removed from office. For what, based on the Constituion?

Third, I share Galli’s concern that we evangelicals can seem more closely aligned with the president than with the Lord, something I have written and spoken about time and again. (Most recently, see here.) Have we sold our integrity and our ethics in support of a strong-willed president who fights for our sacred causes and gets in the trenches on our behalf?

At the same time, we are fooling ourselves if we think that the world will suddenly listen to us if we call for Trump’s removal. Not a chance.

Mark Galli might be the talk of leftwing media today (which, I do not believe was his goal in writing). But tomorrow they will view him as just another bigoted, hateful, homophobic, misogynist who opposes women’s rights and believes in an antiquated book.

He wonders if anyone will “take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come” if we don’t seek to remove Trump. The answer is that it depends on how we conduct ourselves.

We can support the president for the very real good he does do, much of it on behalf of causes that are of great importance to evangelicals. Religious liberty really does matter. Protecting babies in the womb really does matter. Helping the poor get better jobs really does matter. These, too, are issues of justice and righteousness.

We simply need to be consistent when it comes to our ethics, meaning, we call balls and strikes with fairness and impartiality, and we call for ethical behavior as loudly as we call for righteous legislation. Why can’t we do both?

I agree with Galli that, under the current administration, there has been a dumbing down of the idea of morality. And it’s true that many evangelicals now wink at things that once grieved them, thankful to have a man like Trump who will stand up and fight (many would say, “Finally!”).

But that doesn’t mean we remove him for his alleged dumbing down of morality. It means we are careful not to lose our own morality in the process.

Fourth, I believe those on Galli’s side need to listen to Trump-supporting evangelicals who feel that, despite his evident shortcomings, the man has been a God-send.

During a recent trip to California, a pastor spoke to me about the very real threat to religious liberties Christians were facing there, among other, major problems. He was convinced that, with Hillary Clinton as president, irreparable damage would have been done and that Trump has served as a strong anti-Hillary leader.

“Like a wedge in the door,” I suggested to him, and he agreed.

But he also agreed that the wedge can only do so much. Only the Church, through the gospel and with God’s empowerment, can open the door and turn the tide.

That is where we must put our emphasis: living as Jesus would have us live, with politics an important and yet much more distant priority for most of us.

My proposal today for my fellow-evangelicals is this. Let us each humble ourselves before God and pray, “Father, what is Your heart in all this? And what would you have me do? Show me my blind spots, and strengthen my convictions when they reflect yours. I only want Your will.”

Then, let’s have honest conversations with our brothers and sisters who differ with us, starting with this: “Please share your perspective with me. I want to understand where you’re coming from.”

Then, when they’re done and you’ve heard their heart, ask if you can share yours.

Finally, go back to prayer and meditation on the Word.

The stakes are very high, and our nation is dangerously divided. Let us be sure that, as God’s people, we do not follow suit.

Tags: 

Sign Up or Login to post comments.

Comments

user profile
Jay500 posted a comment · Jan 01, 2020
It’s bad enough when the political left in our country too often feigns moral outrage to extract what they want when convenient. This falls in line with how they also insincerely use the language of patriotism and Christianity whenever it serves their purpose as well. However when Christians are not filled with the Spirit, they can be dull and lack wisdom, and morality often becomes their standard of behavior, but misplaced in their stigmatized perception of reality. These are believers who often lack discernment, stuck in a narrow mindset that doesn’t go beyond their surface perceptions of what actually is reality. This includes not having a real grasp of what constitutes evil. This also too often segue’s into making narrow, self righteous evaluations. Galli for the most part based his argument for the president’s impeachment on moral grounds. Even though he did state that he didn’t approve in the way that the democrats held the impeachment hearings, nevertheless, he agreed with their fabricated assessment that he committed a crime. It’s apparent that he didn’t take to heart in his own assessment that their’s was based on innuendo and a caricature of what actually took place. It is also suspect that he never even mentioned Biden’s own culpability. This disconnect is rather telling as to how disingenuous he was in his editorial, lacking any true discernment, let alone any sense of fairness. It was obvious that the democrats were set from the beginning to procure an assumed conclusion by which a vote for impeachment can be based. In fact, there was no objectivity at all in determining any violation of the law, let alone any reason to justify impeachment. There was only the need to feed their psychosis by using any excuse or means to remove the man from office. If morals were important to Galli, he then should have considered the corrupt nature of how the accusers came to their conclusion, making it all suspect. But he seemed to have been so overcome with the president’s rough mannerisms, that it completely obfuscated his judgment in reference to his motives. He failed to be objective, thus, the spiritual reality of this whole affair seems to have slipped right by him. He enjoins the demonic in the name of moral integrity without the accused ever having a fair public trial. He, like the democrats, assumed to know the president’s motives without any objective proof to back up his conclusion. In their public discourse it was one accusation after the other without once having any evidence to back any of it up. Schiff’s exaggerated depiction of the phone call was unbelievably pathetic, yet even worse, it was to them an accurate assessment. Again, Galli may have objected with their abuse of power, but in the end he became a useful tool for their agenda. The problem with some believers clinging to morality as their standard of life is that no one is ever good enough.... This is why morality can easily become a tool of the enemy. Living at the good side of the tree of knowledge, rather than in the tree of life, is the great danger many believers are in. My pastor, many years ago, clearly recognized Christianity Today to be liberal, yet at the same time he held Billy Graham with such respect and honor. He had great discernment in this and always said that with believers, it would always come down to being a “down the road issue”, where the germ of what we genuinely believe, if left unchecked, would eventually become fully manifest. What the editor of CT revealed was an inevitable outcome of liberal Christian thinking. Maybe he did endorse Bill Clinton’s impeachment, but again he was basing it more on the moral implications of sexual scandal and lying than the legal injunction of breaking the law by committing perjury (lying under oath). That’s a different issue from president Trump and thus should not be compared to his case. There’s no consistency between the two since the premise is entirely off. President Trump didn’t lie under oath, nor has it been proven that he broke any laws let alone did anything that amounts to being constituted as a high crime or misdemeanor. Every allegation thus far made cannot be proven, only alleged. Yes, he may be course and cringe worthy in his speech at times, but that’s hardly a reason to remove any man from office. Winston Churchill was a bit too blunt for many in his day, but he was the salt his nation needed at the time of its greatest need. Gallis concern for the church can only be in correlation to how he understands truth. Rightly dividing the word is crucial in times like these, and letting our words be few on earth is really stating that we should be ready to be accountable for each word spoken. He may think he may be the guardian on the wall for the church, but it seems that he’s more like those who would allow the enemy to have their say at the building of the wall.
rls posted a comment · Dec 27, 2019
There are no legal grounds for impeachment! For that reason alone, Mark Galli and Beth Moore are way off base, and have made me wary of anything else they endorse.
rls posted a comment · Dec 27, 2019
President Trump: Fights for the lives of the unborn. Fights for the victims of human trafficking and has had more traffickers arrested world-wide than anyone. Fights for benefits for our military vets Respects and honors law enforcement and our military like no other President Fights for religious freedom Publicly calls on God for his help and blessing Allows people to publicly pray for him and for our nation Is exposing evil like no one has ever dared before Loves his family and raised honest, respectful children despite their wealth Has a clean tax record Has accepted no bribes and cannot be bought Spent 30 years as an FBI informants to bring down the NY Mafia Is hated because of all of the above. If the world hates you, then maybe it’s because you are standing for righteous principles. Anyone without his toughness would have withered by now. God has brought him forward for such a time as this.
user profile
neptune posted a comment · Dec 24, 2019
Well, here's something interesting. To learn more about Mark Galli's "Christian" background, please check out the article "Christianity Today Editor in Chief Called God a 'Divine Drama Queen' But is Worried About President Trump Disrespecting God?" by Brannon Howse. Funny quote from it: "My late friend Vic often referred to Christianity Today as 'Christianity Astray.'" :)
user profile
neptune posted a comment · Dec 23, 2019
Here's something else to think about: If Trump were truly guilty of impeachable offenses, don't you think at least ONE Republican in the House would have voted to impeach him?? Yes, politicians have their blind spots, but many of these Republicans are Christians. And if he had pulled a Richard Nixon, I believe that many of these representatives—or at least a few—would be calling for his resignation. In fact, 45 years ago, Nixon largely lost the support of his *own* party. Now, I'm not defending all of Trump's actions. A lot of his behavior is objectionable, and deserves to be reprimanded. But do his actions actually meet the criteria for impeachment according to the Constitution? I don't think so. It seems that Christianity Today doesn't have the most sophisticated thinkers on its editorial board—maybe they can just use their "talents" to dish out Hollywood gossip instead. At least I would trust them to report on what Paris Hilton will be wearing for Christmas. :) LOL.
user profile
A._catholic posted a comment · Dec 23, 2019
Pres. Trump is a servant of mammon/wealth, not God (Mat 6:24) whose policies place wealth generation above protecting the creation that sustains all life; a lover of money who boasts of greed, and whose vision for America is one of greed (1 Tim 6:10); [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOF03ZAuemE ] a man who uses untruths and expects them to be accepted as truth (Jn 8:44) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwc9K5W6fgw ] His support of evangelical *issues* (abortion and religious freedom) -which you have pointed out, Dr. Brown-has blinded you and evangelicals to his primary idolatry to Money. He has to every available evidence committed impeachable offenses, including ones that he has not been formally charged with. [https://www.needtoimpeach.com/impeachable-offenses/ ] Maintaining the rule of law and democratic governance is more important that pushing an evangelical political agenda.
truthforce posted a comment · Dec 22, 2019
I congratulate Christianity Today for standing against what has traditionally been a united Christian front of the Vatican agenda. I do not support democrats either, but that a stand of some kind other than what is commanded by the Vatican to conform, is refreshing. I wonder what the evangelicals would say if they knew of Trumps affiliation with Epstein, and his activities with the child trafficking that Epstein did on behalf of Mossad. But that is too deep for most Christians who follow the Christian media's whitewashing of world affairs. Will you post this Dr. Brown? And if it is news to you, you are welcome to contact me. I remain your friend to communicate with. Oh yes, I do not support impeachment. Pence is of the same ilk, and every politician in office, democrat or republican alike, does what the Vatican wants, so I do not involve myself in opinions regarding who should be in "power" as it doesnt matter. I just want to take down the whole system.
user profile
Miguel posted a comment · Dec 22, 2019
Skeptic is correctly named. He alleges that I committed the NTS logical fallacy. It goes without saying that I vehemently disagree. NTS only occurs if a group (i.e., converted Christians) is later redefined for no valid reason. I have not redefined Christian conversion. Rather, Christ Himself provided the framework of Christian conversion in the two great Commandments in the New Testament (As a skeptic or atheist, I would not expect you to know that, however): "One day an expert in the law stood up to test Him. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “What is written in the Law?” Jesus replied. “How do you read it?” He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’ and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” “You have answered correctly,” Jesus said. “Do this and you will live” (Luke 10:25-28). So, we are to love the Lord with all our heart (i.e., affective conversion), with all of our soul (i.e., religious or spiritual conversion), with all of our strength (i.e., volitional or moral conversion), and with all of our mind (i.e., intellectual conversion), and we are to love our neighbors as ourselves (i.e., socio-political conversion). Thus, the notion of Christian conversion is not exogenous to the definition of being a Christian. Rather, there is no way to call oneself a Christian without having been converted. This is not what I am saying; this is what Christ said. Accordingly, the NTS fallacy does not apply in this case. But, nice try. It's time to go back to the drawing board. Your attempt to trip me up failed miserably, you pseudo-intellectual.
user profile
Skeptic posted a comment · Dec 22, 2019
It’s the same kind of arguments Dr. Brown has made in other articles before. In my opinion rather badly written (e.g. #2 doesn’t matter since CT believes the articles of impeachment are sound...). What is really delightful, are the comments - with all due respect - but they take you straight into crazy-land... ranging from wild conspiracy to ‘no-true-Christian/Scotsman’.
user profile
Kenneth Greifer posted a comment · Dec 22, 2019
If you went to a government office to do something and no matter what it doesn't work out and then someone there says to you that they need a favor from you, and you realize that you can't get your stuff done unless you do that favor, that is an abuse of power. Ukraine received money from the Congress. The president was supposed to give it to them after it was approved by the Defense Department which said they met the standards for fighting corruption, etc. If Trump wanted some investigations, he could have asked Ukraine for them without holding back the money. That is the abuse of power. He wanted investigations of Democrats, especially his political opponent for president. I am not against him asking for an investigation into Biden and his son, just that he should not have abused his power to force it and to force them to publicly announce it. He knew that an announcement of an investigation would hurt Biden's reputation. The FBI did not announce their investigation of Trump's campaign so his reputation would not be damaged, but Trump wanted Ukraine to announce their investigation before finding evidence of wrongdoing. If someone did this at a government office in America, you would want that person to be fired immediately. You would be very angry and not want that person to do that to anyone else again.
user profile
DLM posted a comment · Dec 21, 2019
Jesus came to save sinners. His words were "repent and sin no more." However, he had the harshest of words for the Pharisees. I believe this sums it up.
user profile
Miguel posted a comment · Dec 21, 2019
For some reason, OneNewsNow removed the following comment from their site. That act demonstrates exactly what this post speaks about: a pervasive lack of conversion among so-called evangelical Christians. With all due respect Dr. Brown, political unity is a necessary aspect of being a converted Christian. I note that you do not cite scripture to support your argument, which is an indication that it may not be biblical. The unity of the body of Christ is cosmic in scope, which includes politics. You cannot remove individual sticks from the bundle of unity and still call it unity. What is really at stake here, and which you do not mention, is the question as to whether all or most so-called Christians are truly converted. As you may know, Gelpi has done outstanding work with respect to a theology of conversion. He identifies five aspects of Christian conversion: affective; intellectual; moral (volitional); religious; and sociopolitical. He defines conversion itself as "the decision to pass from irresponsible to responsible behavior in some distinguishable realm of human experience" (Donald L. Gelpi, Committed Worship: A Sacramental Theology for Converting Christians, Vol. 1, Adult Conversion and Initiation (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1993), 18). Unfortunately, many, if not most, evangelicals are not converted. They exhibit an "irresponsible and supine acquiescence in accepted beliefs," rather than "a commitment to validating one’s personal beliefs within adequate frames of reference and in ongoing dialogue with other truth seekers" (Ibid.). Nor have they turned "from irresponsible selfishness to a commitment to measure the motives and consequences of personal choices against ethical norms and ideals that both lure the conscience to selfless choices and judge its relapses into irresponsible selfishness" (Ibid.). They have adopted an "unreflective acceptance of the institutional violations of human rights," refusing to "collaborate with others in the reform of unjust social, economic, and political structures" (Ibid.). They "worship" God on their terms, not God's terms. The implications of this are staggering. We have churches filled with the unconverted who believe falsely that they are converted. They have no idea that they are not saved because few if any in the church tell them the truth. Civil religion has taken the place of the worship of the Triune God. I would expect you as a leader to stand up and tell people these hard truths. It is impossible to divide the body of Christ, which is knit together by the Holy Spirit himself. Accordingly, if there is division among so-called believers, it is because some or all are not converted and are not part of the body of Christ. If we fail to tell people the truth about their spiritual condition and how their acts, thoughts, and convictions reflect that condition (i.e., their fruit), then we are like the blind leading the blind, and all of us will fall into the pit together (Mt. 15:14; Lk 6:39). Instead of converting believers, too many of our churches (like during slavery) "make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves" (Mt. 23:15). The problem, then, is not political division; it is the widespread lack of conversion among so-called evangelicals who practice civil religion in the name of Christianity.
user profile
neptune posted a comment · Dec 21, 2019
Did <i>Christianity Today</i> really endorse Hillary Clinton in 2016??? I did a Web search and couldn't find anything about this. If anyone has details, please post them here. Thanks.
user profile
Sharon C posted a comment · Dec 21, 2019
The United States is a constitutional republic and as such our impeachment proceedings are based on our Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution understood the potential for impeachment to be abused and for that reason deliberately avoided vague language like "corruption" and "maladministration" in describing the basis for impeachment. The biggest problem with Mark Galli's arguments is that they have even less constitutional basis than the actual articles of impeachment.
user profile
lpratt posted a comment · Dec 21, 2019
I am currently reading a book, "THE GREAT PRAYER AWAKENING of 1857-58 (the Prayer Movement that Ended Slavery and Saved the American Union) written by Eddie L. Hyatt, that reveals a parallel of Christian thought during the Civil War, which followed the height of the prayer revival to the attitudes of Christians today. Note: There was division during this time between the North and the South over slavery. Dr. Hyatt records: There were bold claims from both sides (the Confederacy and the Union) that God was on their side and defending their cause. Abraham Lincoln expressed a different perspective. When a minister from the North expressed to the president his hope that "the Lord is on our side," Lincoln replied, I am not at all concerned about that...but it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side." The agreement that the Lord requires from us will not center around whether or not we agree with one another or our president. We should be praying for our president and his administration to make decisions that favor God's commandments, to give him wise counsel, and for the wise council to bring correction when needed. The unity God wants in His people will not occur because we agree with one another. It will happen when we set our hearts to agree with Him. We desperately need to walk in a place of truly knowing Him. Was this not Jesus' invitation? Were we not told to come and learn of Him? Intimacy with Him will align our attitudes and opinions with His ideas and thoughts. I've found over the last 40 years that He has a definite "opinion" ABOUT EVERYTHING and is more than willing to share WHAT HE THINKS if we ask Him. :)
user profile
Aaron posted a comment · Dec 21, 2019
A simple look back at CTs endorsement of Hillary, a pro choice, admitted necromancer, and utterly corrupt candidate that enriched herself and husband selling influence to foreign players is evidence enough to full stop all support for them. Franklin Graham's response is right on. Nothing was mentioned about the billions that seemly disappear when congress sends aid to these countries. Trump is well aware of the racket and I believe was justified is asking about the Biden boy arrangement. The whole angle that he demanded dirt on his political opponent is a creation of the left. What he did illuminated an obvious abuse of office in his predecessor's administration.
user profile
dcondon posted a comment · Dec 20, 2019
Good comment by Carl Stanton; " would a kind and gentle abortionist be better?" Also, can't help but wonder, is Galli getting soft on the lgbtq cause?
Melchizedek posted a comment · Dec 20, 2019
I will not take seriously opinions about morality expressed by anyone who supports abortion as if killing babies was anybody's right. That pretty much excludes 99% of Democrats.
user profile
neptune posted a comment · Dec 20, 2019
This is a thoughtful, balanced article. In addition, I read another insightful article called "A Response to Christianity Today’s Call for President Trump’s Removal" on the Caffeinated Thoughts Website.
user profile
words2yz posted a comment · Dec 20, 2019
Seriously, we need to call Trump's character and conduct into question when it is unethical, immoral, and reprehensible !!
user profile
Swkh310 posted a comment · Dec 20, 2019
It took almost 50 years, but the so-called evangelical/born again/fundamentalist “Christian” voting block has finally been exposed for what they truly are: a bunch of right-wing extremists who hide behind our faith.
user profile
Carl Staton posted a comment · Dec 20, 2019
"Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?” I have not heard ANYONE (except our accusers) say that the President's "broken character... doesn't really matter." And how can anyone even dare to say that a man who is literally saving the life of children should be removed from office because of flaws in his character. Would a kind and gentler abortionist be more tolerable? I believe that Providence has put President Trump in office just as was done with Jehu in 2Kings 9. Jehu was fearless and fierce in carrying out his mandate. He was too fierce and overstepped his mandate. Still, he was offered a chance to follow God and rejected His offer. It remains to see what our President chooses to do with the Sovereign's offer but he has many religious advisors surrounding him and many praying that he would not only make the right decision but to produce good fruit that is displayed in good character.
user profile
Kenneth Greifer posted a comment · Dec 20, 2019
I think that Christians should be able to support Trump while at the same time speaking out when he does something wrong. They should not look away when he does bad things. I am amazed that they have never cared about the cruel and inhumane treatment of the legal and illegal immigrants who are being kept in terrible conditions in detention centers. And they don't care about the parents who were deported without their kids or if anyone knows where those kids are. That was and is unbelievably cruel and disgusting and the Christians seem to think it is fine because they are illegal immigrants, and in some cases legally allowed to seek asylum here. About Ukraine. Trump says he is against corruption there, but he only wanted investigations that involved the Democratic party and his political rival Biden and his son. He never asked Ukraine about any other corruption being investigated. Biden had nothing to do with the $400 million of military aid they needed to fight Russia. Even if you don't think this is enough to impeach him, you should at least admit the reality of what happened. He wanted an announcement of an investigation into Biden and his son to damage the reputation of his top opponent for president. You don't have to be a genius to see why he wanted this investigation suddenly. I am not even against these two investigations he wanted, I am just against him cutting off their aid to force them to do them. I also think he should have let the State Department handle it and not his personal attorney. That is just not normal for a president.