Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[Sparko]

Isn't that exactly what the Democrats are doing now and for the last 3 years? They have been investigating Trump, coming up with fake Russian conspiracies, hiring a foreign national to write a fake report, and now trying to use impeachment as a method to eliminate Trump from the next election.

[Cow Poke]

We don't need your Breitbart hearsay.

Hearsay Can Be Much Better Evidence Than Direct Evidence, Tass!

[Sparko]

Hearsay Can Be Much Better Evidence Than Direct Evidence, Tass!

That's what my friend's sister's cousin said!

[Cow Poke]

That's what my friend's sister's cousin said!

Did you hear this personally?

[Sparko]

Did you hear this personally?

I heard that someone said it, so it must be true.

[Cow Poke]

I heard that someone said it, so it must be true.

I heard it through the grapevine and I'm just about to lose my mind...

[One Bad Pig]

Biden didn't make a quid pro quo, Obama did, and in that case it was perfectly legal since the quo wasn't for Obama's personal gain.

Uh huh. Interested in buying a bridge in NYC?

[One Bad Pig]

He's been trolling for a week nowever.

Ftfy, n/c.

[JimL]

Uh huh. Interested in buying a bridge in NYC?

Yah huh. Care to dispute it, or can't you?

[rogue06]

Then rapidly walked it back during cross-examination reduced to saying that he "guessed" and "presumed."

[rogue06]

I heard it through the grapevine and I'm just about to lose my mind...

00000000000000ab000-00aaahx5.jpg

[One Bad Pig]

Yah huh. Care to dispute it, or can't you?

You're attributing what Biden said to Obama. That Biden invoked Obama's authority doesn't change that Clown Shoes Joe made the quid pro quo. It also doesn't make the situation ethically much better, since your scenario makes Obama out to be abusing the power of his office for his VP's son.

[JimL]

You're attributing what Biden said to Obama. That Biden invoked Obama's authority doesn't change that Clown Shoes Joe made the quid pro quo.

Seems the part that you don't understand is that a quid pro quo in and of itself is not illegal or wrong in any way. Like Mulvaney said, though mistakingly in his case, we do this all the time. But, we do it all the time for things that are in the interest of the country, not for ones personal gain of any kind. The U.S. as well as the rest of the western world wanted Shoken gone because of the rampant corruption which he, as Prosecutor General was a part of. We were trying to help them clean up the corruption as well as give them much needed economic aid. That really doesn't even add up to a quid pro quo since the U.S. wasn't recieving anything in the deal.

It also doesn't make the situation ethically much better, since your scenario makes Obama out to be abusing the power of his office for his VP's son.

See the above. Obama recieved nothing in return, Trump demanded something in return, and not for the country, but to benefit himself politically.

[Tassman]

Isn't that exactly what the Democrats are doing now and for the last 3 years? They have been investigating Trump, coming up with fake Russian conspiracies,

and now trying to use impeachment as a method to eliminate Trump from the next election.

No. This is Congress doing legitimate oversight into presidential abuse of the Constitution. There is specific evidence that Trump abused the office of the President for his own gain, including an overheard phone call between Trump and Sondland demanding foreign interference into a domestic political rival.

[Watermelon]