I'm hearing quid pro quo is out

CirrhosisDawg said:

Swaye said:

2001400ex said:

Swaye said:

Doogles said:

There are so many low points for the Dems the past 4 years it's hard to choose, but this impeachment business might be the most embarrassing.

It's like if the early 80s coked up SNL cast tried to hold an impeachment proceeding. I can't wait until Schifforbrains has to admit he coordinated with the whistleblower before all this. Doesn't really matter though, because the validity of this whole thing has already unraveled. Now we are just waiting to see if the Dems are stupid enough to hold an impeachment vote based on hearsay and democrat operative schemes. It's over Dems. You lost. Again.

You do know it's like 6 minutes into the first quarter. Right?

Their next batch of "witnesses" will have gotten the info 7th hand. The led with their "best" witnesses they hand selected in secret meetings in a basement. I can only imagine how great this will be in the Senate when everyone, including GOP witnesses, get called. Face it. It's over. Find another new scandal to pin your hopes on. Russia, Collusion-gate, Obstruction-gate and now Ukraine were all duds. Just keep trying. And failing.

Hold on one cotton-picking minute there Slim. Can you show me 51 votes in the senate for a show trial? It’s more than plausible to expect Romney, Collins, Burr and Sasse to vote with the 47 dems for a REAL trial on the articles of impeachment.

I knew Trumptards lose their shit over trump’s upcoming impeachment but I didn’t think it would such a meltdown after day 1.

I have never cared What Mitt Romney or Susan Collins do. Don't much care now either. Takes a supermajority to convict. If you think you are going to find 20 RINOs to vote with that loser Romney, welp, good luck.

2001400ex said:

Swaye said:

2001400ex said:

Swaye said:

2001400ex said:

Swaye said:

Doogles said:

There are so many low points for the Dems the past 4 years it's hard to choose, but this impeachment business might be the most embarrassing.

It's like if the early 80s coked up SNL cast tried to hold an impeachment proceeding. I can't wait until Schifforbrains has to admit he coordinated with the whistleblower before all this. Doesn't really matter though, because the validity of this whole thing has already unraveled. Now we are just waiting to see if the Dems are stupid enough to hold an impeachment vote based on hearsay and democrat operative schemes. It's over Dems. You lost. Again.

You do know it's like 6 minutes into the first quarter. Right?

Their next batch of "witnesses" will have gotten the info 7th hand. The led with their "best" witnesses they hand selected in secret meetings in a basement. I can only imagine how great this will be in the Senate when everyone, including GOP witnesses, get called. Face it. It's over. Find another new scandal to pin your hopes on. Russia, Collusion-gate, Obstruction-gate and now Ukraine were all duds. Just keep trying. And failing.

Swaye, we give each other shit and I think you are hilarious a lot of the time. But what you've said here isn't reflective of reality. I know you won't trust anything but your news source, so I'd try to actually watch it rather than your news source take on it. And it's the same on the other side, I'd imagine MSNBC is saying Trump hung himself and he's done with this testimony. Where your side is only saying the fourth hand testimony line of testimony.

I read the transcript. I watched the hearings yesterday. I don;t give a shit what Fox news or MSNBC or anyone else tries to tell me. I can read. I can listen to questions and answers at a hearing. Unless there is something super explosive Shifforbrains has been holding out there is no there there. None. My eyes and brain see a charade. Fuck Fox News.

Ok. What about when they get Mulvaney on the stand? And he gets asked why he said Trump was withholding aid? Would that change your opinion?

If Mulvaney says "Trump told me he planned to withhold aid unless Ukraine investigated Hunter Biden's possible ties to corruption in an effort to hurt his fathers campaign," then yes, I will agree Trump stepped over the line. That's the standard. If you cannot PROVE Trump sought to bribe another country to specifically do damage to a potential political opponent then there is no there there. Doesn't matter what it looks like. Doesn't matter what anyone thinks about it. Can you prove it? So if Mulvaney says that, then yes I will agree Trump fucked up.

So, I suppose this means if he doesn't say that then you will agree that Trump's methods, while unsavory (to you), did not rise to the level of impeachment?

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

2001400ex said:

Swaye said:

2001400ex said:

Swaye said:

2001400ex said:

Swaye said:

Doogles said:

There are so many low points for the Dems the past 4 years it's hard to choose, but this impeachment business might be the most embarrassing.

It's like if the early 80s coked up SNL cast tried to hold an impeachment proceeding. I can't wait until Schifforbrains has to admit he coordinated with the whistleblower before all this. Doesn't really matter though, because the validity of this whole thing has already unraveled. Now we are just waiting to see if the Dems are stupid enough to hold an impeachment vote based on hearsay and democrat operative schemes. It's over Dems. You lost. Again.

You do know it's like 6 minutes into the first quarter. Right?

Their next batch of "witnesses" will have gotten the info 7th hand. The led with their "best" witnesses they hand selected in secret meetings in a basement. I can only imagine how great this will be in the Senate when everyone, including GOP witnesses, get called. Face it. It's over. Find another new scandal to pin your hopes on. Russia, Collusion-gate, Obstruction-gate and now Ukraine were all duds. Just keep trying. And failing.

Swaye, we give each other shit and I think you are hilarious a lot of the time. But what you've said here isn't reflective of reality. I know you won't trust anything but your news source, so I'd try to actually watch it rather than your news source take on it. And it's the same on the other side, I'd imagine MSNBC is saying Trump hung himself and he's done with this testimony. Where your side is only saying the fourth hand testimony line of testimony.

I read the transcript. I watched the hearings yesterday. I don;t give a shit what Fox news or MSNBC or anyone else tries to tell me. I can read. I can listen to questions and answers at a hearing. Unless there is something super explosive Shifforbrains has been holding out there is no there there. None. My eyes and brain see a charade. Fuck Fox News.

Ok. What about when they get Mulvaney on the stand? And he gets asked why he said Trump was withholding aid? Would that change your opinion?

When does the whistle blower testify?

You answer my question and I'll answer yours. Deal?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Everyone knows the whistle blower since he started all this. You don't find it odd that he isn't going to testify? What a fucking partisan hack

Feel free to show us the smoking gun that Mulvanny has

Let’s revisit what he said during the briefing last Thursday. In response to a question from ABC’s Jon Karl about whether a “demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that [Trump] ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine,” Mulvaney said this: “[T]he look-back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.”

“To be clear, what you described is a quid pro quo,” Karl pointed out. But Mulvaney was unbothered: “we do that all the time with foreign policy,” he said, confirming Karl’s characterization.

That is not a smoking gun Hondo. That is Mulvaney saying yes Trump wanted corruption looked at before we give you more money you will waste on crony capitalism. That is NOT "Trump specifically withheld aid to try to damage Joe (fuck Hunter) Biden's campaign." Again, not how it looks (to some), but what you can prove.