I was also interested to see that David Muselman, a student at evangelical Taylor University, will speak. He defended Mike Pence’s visit to Taylor last May.
There are also a host of breakout sessions and breakfasts:
Columbia International University, an evangelical Bible school (formerly Columbia Bible College), will host a breakfast on Friday morning. Speakers at this event will include CIU president Mark Smith and former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum. You may recall that Smith was recently accused of covering-up his son’s sexual harassment when he was president of Ohio Christian University. I have never known Columbia International University to be a such a politicized institution. Smith appears to have taken it in this direction.
Todd Starnes will sign copies of his recent book in the wake of his firing from Fox News.
Other sessions include: “Speech, Sex, and Silenced Parents: The Darkening Landscape of American Education;” “Two Paths to Becoming a Young Conservative Influencer;” “Why Christians Should Support Israel;” “The Progressive Assault on Christian Freedom of Conscience;” “How Conservatives Can Win in 2020.” If future historians want to see how evangelical Christians have influenced the Republican Party and vice-versa, they should read the proceedings of these sessions.
I spent part of the weekend reading the Mueller Report. Nothing I have written below is new if you have been following the news coverage of the report or read it for yourself, but I thought I would use this space to jot down some of my notes as I processed it.
The Russians interfered in the 2016 presidential campaign against Hillary Clinton and in favor of Donald Trump. In other words, it is possible that Donald Trump won in 2016 because of Russian help (Vol. 1:1). Future historians should put an asterisk next to Trump’s victory in 2016. We may never know how the Russians helped Trump, but they clearly interfered.
There are “numerous links” between the Russian interference in the U.S. election and the Trump presidential campaign (Vol 1:1).
The Trump campaign did not conspire or coordinate with the Russian government in its election interference activities (“collusion” is not a legal term), but it certainly came close.
The Russian Facebook campaign played to American fears. These Russian-authored social media accounts and ads were promoted through retweets and responses to tweets by Sean Hannity, Roger Stone, Kellyanne Conway, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Michael Flynn. (Vol I: 26-27). In other words, these people helped make the Russian interference effective. (Of course none of these people knew they were retweeting and promoting the work of Russians).
The report presents the Trump campaign as chaotic and disorganized. Several members of the campaign were working with Russia to help Trump get elected. Some lied about it and got caught. Others seemed to just get lucky that they did not do anything reaching the level of criminality. Those who told the American people that there were no links between the Trump campaign and Russia included Paul Manafort, Donald Trump Jr., Kellyanne Conway, Mike Pence, and Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Trump himself. (Thanks to Lawfare Blog for identifying these names and providing links).
It seems like most Trump supporters stopped reading the report after Volume 1.
Mueller says up-front that he respected the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) and agreed not to indict a sitting President. Yet he also says his office uncovered “potentially obstructive acts related to the Special Counsel’s investigation itself.” (Vol. 2:1)
Mueller reminds the readers that “a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.” Why would he put that in the report if he did not think a legitimate case of obstruction could be made against Trump? (Vol 2:1). Perhaps the answer comes on p. 2:2: “if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” In other words, Mueller may have found evidence of a possible indictment for obstruction, but could not bring an indictment because of the OLC guidance. As several scholars have shown, including historians Julian Zelizer and Yoni Appelbaum, this is Mueller’s way of suggesting that it is the job of Congress to handle such behavior. (Also 2:156-182).
Volume 2:3-7 reads like Mueller’s case for impeachment:
Trump lied about contacts with Russia
Trump tried to intimidate former FBI Director James Comey to end the investigation into Michael Flynn’s ties with the Russian government. According to Mueller, there is “substantial evidence” to support Comey’s side of this story. Trump denied that he asked everyone in the room to leave so he could pressure Comey to drop the investigation. He lied about this.
Trump tried to get Jeff Sessions and several other members of the federal government to bring an end to the ongoing Russia investigation. How is this not obstruction?
Trump fired FBI director James Comey and tried to make it look like he was fired for incompetence unrelated to the Russia probe. We now know that Comey was indeed fired because Trump did not like the Russia probe, despite the fact that the FBI director insisted that Trump was not under investigation.
Trump tried to get White House attorney Don McGahn to remove Mueller as Special Counsel. McGahn told Trump that such a request was “silly” and “not real.” He would not do it. Trump then told McGahn to deny press reports confirming that the president ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed. (2:114)
Trump tried to get Corey Lewandowski to tell Attorney General Jeff Sessions to publicly declare that the Mueller investigation was “very unfair” to him. Trump also wanted the probe limited to future election interference, rather than focus on the Russian election interference in 2016. Lewandowski asked White House aid Rick Dearborn to get the message to Sessions. Dearborn never delivered it. This is one of many examples of Trump’s staff protecting an out-of-control and incompetent president motivated by his own narcissism, self-image, and personal vendettas.
Trump edited Donald Trump Jr.’s statement about a June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer who claimed to have dirt on Hillary Clinton to make it appear that the meeting was about adoption. He and his personal lawyer then lied about the fact that he did this.
Trump pressured Jeff Sessions, on more than one occasion, to unrecuse himself from heading the Mueller investigation because he thought Sessions might fire Mueller.
After Flynn began cooperating with the Special Counsel, Trump tried to get Michael Flynn to give him a “heads up” about any “information that implicates the president”
Trump tried to manipulate Trump Organization executive Michael Cohen’s testimony before the Special Counsel. (2:138, 146)
On pages 2:9-12, Mueller lays out the five kinds of obstruction of justice under the heading “The Legal Framework of Obstruction of Justice.” Wow! It seems like Trump violated all five of these forms of obstruction.
The Bottom Line:
Donald Trump is a liar who clearly obstructed justice. He has forced others to lie to the American people on his behalf. Some, like Sarah Huckabee Sanders, a self-professed evangelical Christian, lied for the president on multiple occasions. (That is a lot of slips of the tongue). Others refused to lie for him. The Mueller report reveals that Trump’s presidency lacks a moral center. He should be impeached.
And what about the court evangelicals and all of those other white evangelicals who still support Trump? They will double down in their support for the president. He is God’s chosen instrument and his evangelical supporters will invoke biblical examples of how God’s anointed instruments will always suffer persecution. They will claim that the Mueller Report is biased (except, of course, the parts that say there was no collusion). They will continue to stoke the “witch hunt” metaphor. They will continue to take their marching orders from Fox News and claim that the report proves that Trump did not commit a crime. They will argue that the country should simply move forward as if nothing happened. They will ignore the parts of the report that show Trump’s immorality and lies. Court evangelicalism blinds one to the truth. For example:
Americans must demand that “no collusion, no obstruction” means NO MORE HARASSMENT of President @realDonaldTrump!
The attacks on @PressSec Sarah Sanders are disgraceful and pure politics. She does an outstanding job as WH Press Secretary and is a woman of character & integrity.
Now @POTUS’ enemies will comb through this giant haystack of information to try to find one chaff that they could use against him. We’ve already wasted 2 years & millions of dollars. Let’s pray for our president, for this country, & that we can move on. #MuellerReport 2/2
I can’t imagine what Comey, McCabe, Brennan and all those deep state operators are thinking today. They tried to take down President Trump and failed. Now it is likely that a day of reckoning will come for their abuse of power.#MuellerReport#MuellerThursday#MAGA2020#Barr
AG Barr was masterful in his press conf. The lie of Russian collusion and obstruction of justice has been completely refuted. But the left won’t stop. They are addicted to the lie.#MullerReport#BarrPressConference#Barr#MAGA
What did we get for our $35 million? Naught. Nada. Goose egg. Zero. We’ve seen everything Mueller’s got, and there’s still nothing | Mike Huckabee https://t.co/NPK758FoJd
What document are these guys reading? It can’t be the Mueller report. 🙂
But perhaps a few pro-Trump evangelicals will see the light and finally realize, like Billy Graham eventually did with Richard Nixon, that Trump is not worthy of their support
In case you have not heard, Donald Trump is having a big dinner right now for evangelical leaders. It looks like a court evangelical extravaganza.
Click here to see what court evangelical Robert Jeffress is saying about it at the Christian Broadcasting Network. Jeffress makes it all sound like a political calculation. We need Trump and Trump needs us.
(2) More from @robertjeffress : “President Trump is the most pro-life, pro-religious liberty, and pro-conservative judiciary president in history which is why evangelicals continue to support him enthusiastically.” @CBNNews@realDonaldTrump@POTUS@WhiteHouse
So many people are asking me about the dinner tonight Celebrating Evangelical Leadership @WhiteHouse. Over six weeks ago, the President & First Lady issued invitations to about 100 evangelical leaders for a dinner at the White House (1 of 2)
to thank the evangelical community for their invaluable contribution to American life and in particular for their selfless service to communities, nationwide. That is the purpose of dinner. (2 of 2)
I am at the White House right now with a 100 faith leaders having dinner with President Trump and the First Lady. We are here encouraging him in the brutal fight he is in against the left. Anything you want me to tell him?
This evening Deb and I are attending a dinner at the White House with @POTUS and @FLOTUS@mike_pence and members of the cabinet to celebrate the contribution evangelical Christians are making to American life. The influence and voices of believers is massive
So are James Dobson, Jentezen Franklin, Samuel Rodriguez, and Ronnie Floyd:
In attendance tonight at The White House evangelical dinner: Dr. James Dobson, Pastor Greg Laurie, Jentezen Franklin, Rev. Sam Rodriguez, Pastor Jack Graham, Dr. Ronnie Floyd. @CBNNews@POTUS@realDonaldTrump
It wasn’t very hard to learn which evangelicals came to the White House tonight. Many of them proudly tweeted to their followers and congregation as they relished in the power of the court and solidified their celebrity.
Some of you may be wondering what I mean by the term “court evangelical.” I wrote a an entire chapter about these Christians in Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump. That chapter builds off of several shorter pieces, including:
The term “court evangelical” has even made it into the Urban Dictionary.
Perhaps the court evangelicals should go back to their hotel rooms tonight and read 2 Samuel 12. (There is a Gideon Bible in the drawer). Nathan was one of King David’s court prophets. In other words, he had a “seat at the table.” When David committed adultery with Bathsheba and then arranged for her husband, Uriah, to be killed on the battlefield to cover up David’s sins, Nathan rebuked his king. He told David the story of a poor man whose beloved “little ewe lamb” was stolen by a self-centered rich man who had plenty of lambs but wanted the poor man’s only lamb to serve his guests. When David’s anger “was greatly kindled” against the rich man in the story, Nathan said to the king, “You are the man!”
Will there be a Nathan in the room tonight? Somehow I doubt it.
Earlier today we did a post on Franklin Graham’s statement that Donald Trump’s adulterous affair with Stormy Daniels was “nobody’s business.” His views on these things have apparently changed. This 1998 piece is really revealing:
Few people have lived a more public life over the past 50 years than has my father, Billy Graham. I can assure you that the Billy Graham you see in public is the same one we children have seen at home. He has spent a lifetime making sure that his public ministry is confirmed in his private behavior.
The topic of private vs. public behavior has emerged as perhaps the central moral issue raised by Bill Clinton’s “improper relationship” with Monica Lewinsky. Much of America seems to have succumbed to the notion that what a person does in private has little bearing on his public actions or job performance, even if he is the president of the United States.
Last week Mr. Clinton told 70 million Americans that his adulterous actions with Ms. Lewinsky were a “private” matter “between me, the two people I love the most–my wife and our daughter–and our God.”
But the God of the Bible says that what one does in private does matter. Mr. Clinton’s months-long extramarital sexual behavior in the Oval Office now concerns him and the rest of the world, not just his immediate family. If he will lie to or mislead his wife and daughter, those with whom he is most intimate, what will prevent him from doing the same to the American public?
Private conduct does have public consequences. Some of Mr. Clinton’s defenders present King David of the Bible, one of history’s great leaders, as an example as they call on us to forgive and forget the president’s moral failings. Since God pardoned David’s adulterous act with Bathsheba, the reasoning goes, we should similarly forgive Mr. Clinton.
But forgiveness is not the end of David’s story. Huge consequences followed immediately. The prophet Nathan confronted David with the news that while his life would be spared, the life of his child would be extinguished after just seven days on earth. Bathsheba’s husband and others were killed in an attempt to cover up the illicit affair. David, who confessed his sin when confronted by Nathan (perhaps God’s special prosecutor), also witnessed a bloody coup attempt by his own son, Absalom. He was never the same king.
The private acts of any person are never done in secret. God sees and judges all sin, and while He seeks to restore the offender with love and grace, He does not necessarily remove all the consequences of our sin. As a boy I remember my mother telling me of the consequences of sin. Like a boat, whose wake can capsize other boats, sin leaves a wake. Just look at how many have already been pulled under by the wake of the president’s sin: Mr. Clinton’s wife and daughter, Ms. Lewinsky, her parents, White House staff members, friends and supporters, public officials and an unwitting American public.
Mr. Clinton’s sin can be forgiven, but he must start by admitting to it and refraining from legalistic doublespeak. According to the Scripture, the president did not have an “inappropriate relationship” with Monica Lewinsky–he committed adultery. He didn’t “mislead” his wife and us–he lied.
Acknowledgment must be coupled with genuine remorse. A repentant spirit that says, “I’m sorry. I was wrong. I won’t do it again. I ask for your forgiveness,” would go a long way toward personal and national healing.\
The scandal of Mr. Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky has forced us to examine the morality of public and private behavior with new intellectual and spiritual vigor. There needs to be no clash between personal conduct and public appearance. Throughout my life, I have seen consistency of the two in the Graham house. I pray this will also be true in the White House.
Thanks to Kyle Mantyla for sending this my way.
Franklin Graham is not the first court evangelical to forget about what he said in 1998.
At the time Gary Bauer wrote this he was the president of American Renewal, a public policy organization that promotes family, faith and freedom. He was also the president of the Family Research Council.. Today he is a prominent court evangelical.
A taste:
The highly educated people who daily hold forth at our nation’s universities, on the editorial pages of major newspapers, and in network television studios could learn a great deal if they would stop and listen to the wisdom of children. Take, for example, the children who recently gave the New York Times their reaction to the scandal swirling around President Clinton.
Eleven-year-old Keith Lynch of the Bronx said, “He’s lying to people who love him and trust him. That’s no President to me. He should be ashamed of himself for teaching kids bad things.” Tyrone Strother, 15, also of the Bronx, said, “He went to lie school, not law school.”
Cory Hinojosa, a Houston seven-year-old, knows that lying is wrong. When he lies, he says, he gets a “time-out.” Says Cory, “They should give a punishment like not to be President the rest of the year.”
The point here is that children inhabit a moral universe. There is a law, St. Paul says, “written on the hearts of men” that gives us a sense of right and wrong. These kids know right from wrong. Dare we reeducate them to believe that there is no truth, that there are no consequences for bad behavior?
On inauguration day 1993, Bill Clinton led a children’s parade across the Memorial Bridge into Washington. He sought to symbolize his leadership of this new generation. He would be the President to lead all of us into the 21 st Century.
Children, at least those who have already been born, have been at the center of countless Clinton pronouncements during the past six years. Now, however, his bridge to the 21st Century is crumbling, and the children are at grave risk.
These children cannot be set adrift into a culture that tells them that lying is okay, that fidelity is old-fashioned and that character doesn’t count. Every American parent’s job has been made more difficult by this debacle. The virtue deficit has grown.
Day after day, children hear adults saying that it doesn’t matter if the President lied. After all this is just about sex. Everyone lies about sex, they are told. These messages are abominable, and the messengers must be vigorously rebuked.
Our nation has reached a disturbing pass when the mass of allegations and evidence swirling around our President requires parents in every part of the country to clutch the TV remote for fear that some news about the highest official in the land will reach their children’s ears.
The seamy facts under public discussion are shameful enough. But fascination with this story should not be allowed to obscure the deeper lesson these incidents impart. That lesson is this: Character counts–in a people, in the institutions of our society, and in ournational leadership.
In character is destiny. Our founders believed and set down in their own words that only a virtuous people could remain free.
Edmund Burke reminded us that people who are enslaved to their passions only “forge their own fetters”–they cannot be free. Those moral chains, in a world where self-government is eroded, swiftly become physical chains of iron.
There are those who say that we must recognize absolute boundaries between public and private behavior. If all that matters is the quality of the job an individual does, then it is the concern of no one that a corporate executive sexually harasses every woman in his vicinity. Or that a securities expert beats his wife. And the lawmaker with his hand out for a bribe is home free, too, so long as he brings back the pork or the local economy hums.
Whatever we believe about these things, we must recognize this: Our nation’s founders believed otherwise. They understood that the fate of the nation they established was mortally linked to the character of the people who inhabited it.
They called such character indispensable. They knew the human truth that private deeds spill over into public philosophy and public actions. And they also knew that the mixture of power with corrupt character was nothing short of deadly.
Samuel Adams, in a letter written in 1775, told a friend, “He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard for his country.”
Source: Gary Bauer, “Clinton Corrupts Our National Culture,” Human Events, September 25, 1998. (Cover story).
This article is not online, but you can look it up through Academic Search Complete if your institution subscribes.
Here is Bauer in the Oval Office earlier this year. He is standing to Paula White’s right. (White is in the red dress).
