<:trumpepe:588019356215279642>

well, failure in regards to the surface level of the democrats plan

yeah

for the rest it would be a success<:Pepe_of_akkad:462279833511264257>

Lets hope it fails

@Troye Dont mistake my neutral tone as support for the saudis. I am just being realistic.

A bill for censure would have been best. The impending problem will be the Biden's being called to testify as witnesses, while all other viable Dem candidates will be tied up in Senate hearings.

i don't see how it wouldn't really, so i wouldn't be worried. that being said, i also wouldn't get complacent either.

I wonder why they didnt censure

Remember about half the country voted against trump and the dems passed impeachment. This hasn't been won yet

It would be easy support

I guess a easy win for support vs a hard win for mike pence is preferable?

Yeah no they want it to fail

Christ, president pence sounds terrifying.

***ZAP THE GAYS AWAY*** <:smugay:593502151758708776>

i don't think many of them put thought intothe prospect of mike pence becoming president

Thats why @Gray__Fox is completely correct

although I *did* hear that pence was 'allegedly' involved in ukrainegate too, which implies that they'd try to impeach him after Trump should he actually get convicted

That's because the average American realizes this doesn't have a chance in hell of passing the Senate.

Which is why it's losing support

@Cobra Commander wow

As a perceived waste of everyone's time.

Thats bold

Yep

They just want to get rid of Trump for 2020 or at least delegitimize him. They don't care about anything else

This is like, as close as you can get to a coup without being a *real* coup

Please, spare me the Russiagate / Ukrainegate narrative. There's eminently more evidence implicating Biden's son in actual acts of corruption than a fucking phone call with Trump casually asking for investigations into possible corruption.

in other news Virginia is fighting gun grabs. GOOD LUCK TO YOU

Oh i've talked to people who say the biden stuff was *completely debunked*

Sure it was.

I tried my best to demonstrate how their thought process was retarded, but alas my efforts were in vain

And so I left them retarded

I'll believe it when I see sauce that doesn't list their source as "an unnamed individual"

Or at least have 3 informants

Which isnt a standard anymore

While I'm all about freedom of press, it should be considered journalistic malpractice to spit out an op-ed as factual reporting with "unnamed sources"

I watched a movie recently that had that

And it was a big deal that the person didnt have 3 informants

Ahh the good days

@Mersenne standard was at least 3 informants

one means no story. two means no story. 3 vetted informants run the story