The Impeachment of Donald Trump.

[The Romulan Republic]

It looks like at least part of this is uncertainty that they could get the 51 votes to dismiss- note the specific fear of a tie, which is very telling. My guess is that they're worried specifically that Romney (who has indicated he's keeping an open mind on convicting), Collins, and Murkowski would vote to allow a trial, resulting in a tie (and Pence cannot be tie-breaker on an impeachment case, thank God for small blessings).

There's also the matter of the trial Judge, Supreme Court Judge John Roberts has shown several times to buck his republican beliefs for the sake of the Court's historical legacy. Meaning there's an excellent chance if called on to preside over the case he won't permit a speedy vote and away case meaning called witnesses are possible as well as public hearings. Doubly so since with 5% chance of impeachment (at best) he gets to appear as the statesman and historical figure he yearns to be by allowing the Democrats their say and their trial in full faith and confidence.

Since it won't affect the outcome why not give them their show? At this point I'm very inclined to believe that SC Judge John Roberts is firmly committed to his conservative ideals... but not the Republican party.

I expect he will want the outcome that involves the least partisan politicization of the Supreme Court- which could mean letting McConnell run the show however he wants, and avoid the "damage to the country" that many people seemingly believe will be caused by treating the President like a mere man and holding him accountable for his crimes (if removing a President is so damaging to the country that we dare not ever use it, why is it even in the Constitution?).

That said, he is at least able and willing to occassionally entertain an independent thought- or as today's Republican Party calls it, "treason".

[The Romulan Republic]

Vote is tomorrow. Rallies are being held nation-wide in support of impeachment tonight, with over 200,000 signed up to attend.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump has been impeached in the House on both counts. Apparently, one Republican voted for the first count, but not for the second. Justin Amash, former Republican-turned-independent for his support of impeachment, voted yes.

Two Democrats turned their coats and voted no. Russian Asset* took the self-serving coward's way out, and voted Present on both articles.

Thank God its done, and that it wasn't a purely party-line vote. If it had been party line, it would have looked bad. If it had been only Dem defections, it would have looked really bad, as Republicans could have said that the only bipartisan vote was against impeachment, and anti-establishment faux progressives (and Russia) could have started chanting "Both Sides".

I think a vote with a defection or two on either side looks more legitimate, more fair.


*I'm sure some of you will loudly rush to call me out for calling Gabbard a Russian Asset. But considering that she voted "Present" on whether the President is above the law, while running for the Democratic nomination, I don't really give a flying fuck.

[TimothyC]

Trump has been impeached in the House on both counts. Apparently, one Republican voted for the first count, but not for the second. Justin Amash, former Republican-turned-independent for his support of impeachment, voted yes.

Two Democrats turned their coats and voted no. Russian Asset* took the self-serving coward's way out, and voted Present on both articles.

Cool your jets here Skippy.

Rep. Peterson (Minn. 7th), Rep. Van Drew (NJ 2nd, and who has stated that following the vote he is planning on switching parties), both voted no on both articles, and Rep. Golden (Me. 2nd) voted yes on the first article, and no on the second. Rep. Gabbard (HA 2nd) voted present on both. Rep. Amash (Mich. 3rd) voted for both. I'd note that Representatives Peterson, Van Drew, & Golden all were elected in districts that Pres. Trump won in 2016.

And, unlike you, I can at least quote Rep. Gabbard's statement:

Throughout my life, whether through serving in the military or in Congress, I’ve always worked to do what is in the best interests of our country. Not what’s best for me politically or what’s best for my political party. I have always put our country first. One may not always agree with my decision, but everyone should know that I will always do what I believe to be right for the country that I love.

After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no.

I am standing in the center and have decided to vote Present. I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing.

I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country. When I cast my vote in support of the impeachment inquiry nearly three months ago, I said that in order to maintain the integrity of this solemn undertaking, it must not be a partisan endeavor. Tragically, that’s what it has been.

On the one side — The president’s defenders insist that he has done nothing wrong. They agree with the absurd proclamation that his conduct was “perfect.” They have abdicated their responsibility to exercise legitimate oversight, and instead blindly do the bidding of their party’s leader.

On the other side — The president’s opponents insist that if we do not impeach, our country will collapse into dictatorship. All but explicitly, they accuse him of treason. Such extreme rhetoric was never conducive to an impartial fact-finding process.

The Founders of our country made clear their concerns about impeachment being a purely partisan exercise. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton warned against any impeachment that would merely “connect itself with the pre-existing factions,” and “enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other.” In such cases, he said, “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

Donald Trump has violated public trust. Congress must be unequivocal in denouncing the president’s misconduct and stand up for the American people and our democracy. To this end, I have introduced a censure resolution that will send a strong message to this president and future presidents that their abuses of power will not go unchecked, while leaving the question of removing Trump from office to the voters to decide.

I am confident that the American people will decide to deliver a resounding rebuke of President Trump’s innumerable improprieties and abuses. And they will express that judgment at the ballot box. That is the way real and lasting change has always occurred in this great country: through the forcefully expressed will of the people.

A house divided cannot stand. And today we are divided. Fragmentation and polarity are ripping our country apart. This breaks my heart, and breaks the hearts of all patriotic Americans, whether we are Democrats, Republicans, or Independents.

So today, I come before you to make a stand for the center, to appeal to all of you to bridge our differences and stand up for the American people.

My vote today is a vote for much needed reconciliation and hope that together we can heal our country. Let’s work side-by-side, seeking common ground, to usher in a bright future for the American people, our country, and our nation.

[Ralin]

Man, thanks Timothy. That makes perfect sense in context. Senators definitely shouldn't vote for impeachment if they think that opinions on the subject correspond to party lines and that the people pushing it believe the president is a criminal and that leaving him in office is a threat to the country as a whole. A resolution from Congress stating that Trump has been VERY bad and is on notice to shape up is a much better option. Otherwise the country might become polarized.

[Steel]

Man, thanks Timothy. That makes perfect sense in context. Senators definitely shouldn't vote for impeachment if they think that opinions on the subject correspond to party lines and that the people pushing it believe the president is a criminal and that leaving him in office is a threat to the country as a whole. A resolution from Congress stating that Trump has been VERY bad and is on notice to shape up is a much better option. Otherwise the country might become polarized.

It makes no sense! The vote is only on party lines because despite ample evidence that these crimes were committed, and no legal defence offered, the republicans refuse to vote to impeach (and some have even stated that they would not do so under any circumstances). Gabbard even states that she believes that he is guilty, but wont vote he is guilty unless everyone else does - how does that make sense?

The democrats believe he is a criminal because there is a mountain of evidence that he is a criminal. The country is already polarised.

[Ralin]

It makes no sense! The vote is only on party lines because despite ample evidence that these crimes were committed, and no legal defence offered, the republicans refuse to vote to impeach (and some have even stated that they would not do so under any circumstances). Gabbard even states that she believes that he is guilty, but wont vote he is guilty unless everyone else does - how does that make sense?

The democrats believe he is a criminal because there is a mountain of evidence that he is a criminal. The country is already polarised.

You don't understand. We can't let a proverbial 'mountain' of evidence distract us from the fact that most of the people who say they believe that evidence are Democrats. How can Gabbard vote in a bloc with the rest of the Democrats unless the Republicans do the same? That would divide the country into two camps with one side being determined to obstruct everything the other side tries to do no matter how much harm it causes. It's like something a Republican would do!

[houser2112]

Why is voting "Present" even allowed, especially on something as monumental as an impeachment vote?

[Steel]

It makes no sense! The vote is only on party lines because despite ample evidence that these crimes were committed, and no legal defence offered, the republicans refuse to vote to impeach (and some have even stated that they would not do so under any circumstances). Gabbard even states that she believes that he is guilty, but wont vote he is guilty unless everyone else does - how does that make sense?

The democrats believe he is a criminal because there is a mountain of evidence that he is a criminal. The country is already polarised.

You don't understand. We can't let a proverbial 'mountain' of evidence distract us from the fact that most of the people who say they believe that evidence are Democrats. How can Gabbard vote in a bloc with the rest of the Democrats unless the Republicans do the same? That would divide the country into two camps with one side being determined to obstruct everything the other side tries to do no matter how much harm it causes. It's like something a Republican would do!

I can't tell if this is satire or not. From your first post it looked like you were serious, this looks a little less clear cut.

Assuming not: Are you saying that if the republicans agree internally that they will never vote to prosecute one of their own for crimes they have (verifiably) committed then the democrats must not prosecute them?

If so, what do you imagine the likely consequences of such a policy to be?

[Highlord Laan]

Why is voting "Present" even allowed, especially on something as monumental as an impeachment vote?

Because there always has to be a pathetic coward option for the weaselly fucks to use as an out to maintain political capital. For someone that likes to crow about her service from the rooftops, Gabbard is certainly scared of taking any sort of stand.

[Ralin]

Assuming not: Are you saying that if the republicans agree internally that they will never vote to prosecute one of their own for crimes they have (verifiably) committed then the democrats must not prosecute them?

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the Democrats are the real Republicans?

If so, what do you imagine the likely consequences of such a policy to be?

A new golden age of bipartisanship, honesty and social harmony.

Alternatively, I could be mocking Timothy for being a posturing dumbass.

[Steel]

Assuming not: Are you saying that if the republicans agree internally that they will never vote to prosecute one of their own for crimes they have (verifiably) committed then the democrats must not prosecute them?

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the Democrats are the real Republicans?

If so, what do you imagine the likely consequences of such a policy to be?

A new golden age of bipartisanship, honesty and social harmony.

Alternatively, I could be mocking Timothy for being a posturing dumbass.

Well that sounds great.

I wonder if the democratic strategy, knowing immediate partisan acquittal in the Senate is likely, is to delay submitting the charges in the hopes that the elevated stress level of having the impeachment live makes trump explode?

[The Romulan Republic]

TimothyC, I am more than capable of quoting Gabbard if I wished. I simply see no reason to take anything she says at face-value.

I am actually glad that it wasn't a straight-party line vote, even if a lot of people are falsely spinning it as such. The fact that it wasn't lends it more credence.

[aerius]

I wonder if the democratic strategy, knowing immediate partisan acquittal in the Senate is likely, is to delay submitting the charges in the hopes that the elevated stress level of having the impeachment live makes trump explode?

That's exactly what their plan is. The problem for them is John Durham might just torpedo everything. Nobody really talks about it, but Durham has been assigned as the special investigator to look into how various parties conducted their investigations against Trump and how many illegal things they may have done such as those falsified FISA warrants. It's an incredibly wide ranging investigation which covers pretty much every government agency and he has almost unlimited powers. IF he finds enough irregularities and people start getting criminally charged, there's a chance that impeachment is dead before the Senate even touches it. Problem for everyone is that unlike Mueller, Durham's investigations do not leak and no one knows what's going to happen until he drops the results on them.

[The Romulan Republic]

I wonder if the democratic strategy, knowing immediate partisan acquittal in the Senate is likely, is to delay submitting the charges in the hopes that the elevated stress level of having the impeachment live makes trump explode?

That's exactly what their plan is. The problem for them is John Durham might just torpedo everything. Nobody really talks about it, but Durham has been assigned as the special investigator to look into how various parties conducted their investigations against Trump and how many illegal things they may have done such as those falsified FISA warrants. It's an incredibly wide ranging investigation which covers pretty much every government agency and he has almost unlimited powers. IF he finds enough irregularities and people start getting criminally charged, there's a chance that impeachment is dead before the Senate even touches it. Problem for everyone is that unlike Mueller, Durham's investigations do not leak and no one knows what's going to happen until he drops the results on them.

Wow, you're literally shilling for every Trump conspiracy theory you can get your hands on, aren't you?

Yeah, Durham is totally going to prove that it was all a Deep State Witchhunt, that Crooked Killery was the real colluder, and all the Dems are going to be locked up!

You are fucking cheerleading for the use of the Justice Department for a partisan political purge of the President's enemies list, because it happens to target people you don't like. You sicken me. I'd honestly respect you more if you outright admitted you were a fascist, rather than pretending otherwise.

I wish the mods would just ban you for your relentless trolling and intellectual dishonesty. You might as well be a sockpuppet account for the Trump campaign or the Kremlin at this point.

[aerius]

That's exactly what their plan is. The problem for them is John Durham might just torpedo everything. Nobody really talks about it, but Durham has been assigned as the special investigator to look into how various parties conducted their investigations against Trump and how many illegal things they may have done such as those falsified FISA warrants. It's an incredibly wide ranging investigation which covers pretty much every government agency and he has almost unlimited powers. IF he finds enough irregularities and people start getting criminally charged, there's a chance that impeachment is dead before the Senate even touches it. Problem for everyone is that unlike Mueller, Durham's investigations do not leak and no one knows what's going to happen until he drops the results on them.

Wow, you're literally shilling for every Trump conspiracy theory you can get your hands on, aren't you?

Yeah, Durham is totally going to prove that it was all a Deep State Witchhunt, that Crooked Killery was the real colluder, and all the Dems are going to be locked up!

You are fucking cheerleading for the use of the Justice Department for a partisan political purge of the President's enemies list, because it happens to target people you don't like. You sicken me. I'd honestly respect you more if you outright admitted you were a fascist, rather than pretending otherwise.

I wish the mods would just ban you for your relentless trolling and intellectual dishonesty. You might as well be a sockpuppet account for the Trump campaign or the Kremlin at this point.

Yeah, ok there, you got me.


Apparently, pointing out what could potentially go wrong with the impeachment process makes me a Putin/Trump apologist and a facist. Which is fucking hilarious coming from a dingbat who screams "unconstitutional!" in every other post yet thinks the 4th Amendment doesn't apply when comes to investigating Trump. You are literally the poster child for Trump Derangement Syndrome.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know full well what you're doing, and its not "pointing out what could go wrong". You are pretending that Trump's investigators are credible and might actually expose FBI/Dem crimes, leading to arrests. That last could happen, I suppose, but only as part of a naked power-grab/political purge by Trump.

I also never said that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to Trump, I never implied it, that is not my view. So you are, once again, also libeling me, not that anyone here will give a shit.

[TimothyC]

Apparently, pointing out what could potentially go wrong with the impeachment process makes me a Putin/Trump apologist and a facist. Which is fucking hilarious coming from a dingbat who screams "unconstitutional!" in every other post yet thinks the 4th Amendment doesn't apply when comes to investigating Trump. You are literally the poster child for Trump Derangement Syndrome.

It seems to me that if the House refuses to send the articles to the Senate for trial, they could run the risk of a sixth amendment issues with a speedy trial. It does come off as though the current House majority is more concerned with getting rid of the President than they are with doing so in the right and proper manner.

[houser2112]

It does come off as though the current House majority is more concerned with getting rid of the President than they are with doing so in the right and proper manner.

They all say that they hope the Senate does the right thing, but privately I don't think any of them expect enough defections for an actual removal.

[Ralin]

It seems to me that if the House refuses to send the articles to the Senate for trial, they could run the risk of a sixth amendment issues with a speedy trial. It does come off as though the current House majority is more concerned with getting rid of the President than they are with doing so in the right and proper manner.

Outside of stuff like the specific steps and votes required the 'right and proper manner' of conducting an impeachment trial or whatever the proper term for that is boils down to whatever Congress decides it is. There are precedents, sure, but not a lot and not ones they have to follow.

[FaxModem1]

Politico

Pelosi invites Trump to deliver State of the Union on Feb. 4
The timing means Trump could deliver the annual address as the Senate presides over his impeachment trial.

Donald Trump
President Donald Trump. | Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP Photo

By JOHN BRESNAHAN and DARREN SAMUELSOHN

12/20/2019 01:04 PM EST

Updated: 12/20/2019 02:22 PM EST

Facebook
Twitter
Link
More
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has invited President Donald Trump to deliver the State of the Union address on Tuesday, Feb. 4.

Pelosi extended the invitation in a letter to the president on Friday. Aides to Trump and Pelosi said the date was worked out following consultations between the speaker's office and White House officials, and the president accepted the invitation on Friday afternoon.

Story Continued Below
Pelosi's invitation comes just days after the House impeached Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The timing means Trump could deliver the annual address as the Senate presides over his impeachment trial.

Story Continued Below
The high-profile event will also take place a day after the Iowa caucus, the first chance Democratic voters have to begin selecting their nominee to take on Trump in November.

And Trump’s speech looks like it may end up as a repeat of one of the most famous moments in recent presidential history, although not one he would be eager to replicate.

In January 1999, Bill Clinton’s defense team delivered its opening statement in the president’s Senate trial on the same day the Democrat gave his second-to-last State of the Union address.

Clinton talked about the economy, the previous year’s fatal shooting in the Capitol and “solving the so-called Y2K computer problem” — but he didn’t mention impeachment.

So, will Trump accept, and if he does, will he talk about the impeachment proceedings?

[The Romulan Republic]

Apparently, pointing out what could potentially go wrong with the impeachment process makes me a Putin/Trump apologist and a facist. Which is fucking hilarious coming from a dingbat who screams "unconstitutional!" in every other post yet thinks the 4th Amendment doesn't apply when comes to investigating Trump. You are literally the poster child for Trump Derangement Syndrome.

It seems to me that if the House refuses to send the articles to the Senate for trial, they could run the risk of a sixth amendment issues with a speedy trial. It does come off as though the current House majority is more concerned with getting rid of the President than they are with doing so in the right and proper manner.

Trumpers attack the procedures with vague inuendo and conspiracy theories because they cannot justify Trump's actions on the merits. Don't buy it.

As others have noted, there's not a whole lot of Constitutional guidelines for how an impeachment is to be conducted, nor is there much precedent in the US for it. But as for a "speedy trial"... define speedy. Lots of cases take months or years to make their way through the court system. Is Trump entitled to a speedier trial than the average man?

Besides, considering that Pelosi is doing this as leverage to force the Republicans to actually hold a fair trial after McConnell and Graham flat-out declared that they would not be impartial jurors, interpreting this as the Democrats being partisan and violating procedure is pretty damn biased and unfair.

[aerius]

It seems to me that if the House refuses to send the articles to the Senate for trial, they could run the risk of a sixth amendment issues with a speedy trial. It does come off as though the current House majority is more concerned with getting rid of the President than they are with doing so in the right and proper manner.

I don't think there's a 6th Amendment issue in play since there is nothing in the rules or any precedent for what constitutes a timely trial in the case of an impeachment. If they wait a few weeks there's not going to be any issues, if they sit on it till next summer it would probably still be legal but then you run into a whole bunch of issues with public perception and controlling the narrative, which the Democrats absolutely suck at doing. My money is on Pelosi fucking everything up again as usual.

[The Romulan Republic]

That's actually not too far off, although I think Pelosi is actually handling it fairly well at this point.

My guess is that in addition to pressuring the Republicans, they might be hoping to push the trial back at least past Super Tuesday so that the Senate isn't taken off the campaign trail before the most important primary races. Then do a spring trial, and wrap it up for better or for worse before the general really gets going (July/August, the conventions).

Which I think is fair. I'd be open to pushing it back anyway so as not to needlessly create a massive scheduling conflict for the Senate (both the Dem and Republican members, though its more pressing for the Dems because several of their Senators are currently running in the Presidential primary, and taking Sanders and Warren off the campaign trail right before Iowa and New Hampshire, in particular, would be almost tantamount to declaring Biden the nominee right now).

I doubt very much whether Pelosi wants the timing of impeachment to look like it was done to benefit the Biden campaign.

[The Romulan Republic]

A major evangelical Christian newspaper founded by Billy Graham, Christianity Today, has endorsed the impeachment and removal of Donald Trump. This is pretty big, given that Trump won the Evangelical vote by a massive margin and its normally a reliable Republican voting block for the most part.

https://christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/d ... ffice.html

In our founding documents, Billy Graham explains that Christianity Today will help evangelical Christians interpret the news in a manner that reflects their faith. The impeachment of Donald Trump is a significant event in the story of our republic. It requires comment.

The typical CT approach is to stay above the fray and allow Christians with different political convictions to make their arguments in the public square, to encourage all to pursue justice according to their convictions and treat their political opposition as charitably as possible. We want CT to be a place that welcomes Christians from across the political spectrum, and reminds everyone that politics is not the end and purpose of our being. We take pride in the fact, for instance, that politics does not dominate our homepage.

That said, we do feel it necessary from time to time to make our own opinions on political matters clear—always, as Graham encouraged us, doing so with both conviction and love. We love and pray for our president, as we love and pray for leaders (as well as ordinary citizens) on both sides of the political aisle.

Let’s grant this to the president: The Democrats have had it out for him from day one, and therefore nearly everything they do is under a cloud of partisan suspicion. This has led many to suspect not only motives but facts in these recent impeachment hearings. And, no, Mr. Trump did not have a serious opportunity to offer his side of the story in the House hearings on impeachment.

But 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.

The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His 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.

Trump’s evangelical supporters have pointed to his Supreme Court nominees, his defense of religious liberty, and his stewardship of the economy, among other things, as achievements that justify their support of the president. We believe the impeachment hearings have made it absolutely clear, in a way the Mueller investigation did not, that President Trump has abused his authority for personal gain and betrayed his constitutional oath. 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.

This concern for the character of our national leader is not new in CT. In 1998, we wrote this:

The President's failure to tell the truth—even when cornered—rips at the fabric of the nation. This is not a private affair. For above all, social intercourse is built on a presumption of trust: trust that the milk your grocer sells you is wholesome and pure; trust that the money you put in your bank can be taken out of the bank; trust that your babysitter, firefighters, clergy, and ambulance drivers will all do their best. And while politicians are notorious for breaking campaign promises, while in office they have a fundamental obligation to uphold our trust in them and to live by the law.

And this:

Unsavory dealings and immoral acts by the President and those close to him have rendered this administration morally unable to lead.

Unfortunately, the words that we applied to Mr. Clinton 20 years ago apply almost perfectly to our current president. Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments.

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?

We have reserved judgment on Mr. Trump for years now. Some have criticized us for our reserve. But when it comes to condemning the behavior of another, patient charity must come first. So we have done our best to give evangelical Trump supporters their due, to try to understand their point of view, to see the prudential nature of so many political decisions they have made regarding Mr. Trump. To use an old cliché, it’s time to call a spade a spade, to say that no matter how many hands we win in this political poker game, we are playing with a stacked deck of gross immorality and ethical incompetence. And just when we think it’s time to push all our chips to the center of the table, that’s when the whole game will come crashing down. It will crash down on the reputation of evangelical religion and on the world’s understanding of the gospel. And it will come crashing down on a nation of men and women whose welfare is also our concern.

Mark Galli is editor in chief of Christianity Today.

Trump being Trump, of course, he apparently immediately went on a viciousrant against Christianity Today.