Here is my question to Senate Repubs

[Hutch Starskey]

He said that for idiots like yourself who can't think critically. Obviously there was a QPQ.

Look at what Trump did not what he said.

The president withheld the funds.
The President wanted investigations per his call.
The President put Rudy on the case and told everyone to talk to Rudy.
Rudy was pushing for a public announcement of investigations.

/---/ All perfectly legal.
View attachment 291802

We'll see.
Rudy Giuliani Is Now the Subject of Three Different Investigations: Report

The U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan (SDNY) - Trump haters.

Sure. Just "Trump haters" who still have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, dope.

Notice that they never investigate Democrats.

Barr will have to prove his case against the Bidens "beyond a reasonable doubt." What's your problem with investigating them?

Barr will have to prove what case? He never called his Ukranian counterpart.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Is Rudy being impeached or Trump? This is about Trump, and Trump's word is much more relevant than what Rudy said.

Trump told all of the people from the State Dept to "talk to Rudy" when they asked for direction on Ukraine.
Trump told Zalensky to "work with Rudy" when he asked for his "favors" on the call

The WH withheld the funding. Not Rudy.

Now you're going to act as if Rudy went rogue and Trump knew nothing despite Trump directing them all to "talk to Rudy"?


Truly retarded.

Rudy is Trump's attorney. He doesn't speak for Trump's actions as a President. That's exclusively Trump's call.

Sondland testified that he was miffed by what Trump actually wanted through Rudy and others. So he called Trump directly and asked Trump what he was expecting. Trump answered he wanted nothing. He said (according to Sondland) that he didn't want any quid pro quo.

Now those are direct words from President Trump--not Rudy.

He said that for idiots like yourself who can't think critically. Obviously there was a QPQ.

Look at what Trump did not what he said.

The president withheld the funds.
The President wanted investigations per his call.
The President put Rudy on the case and told everyone to talk to Rudy.
Rudy was pushing for a public announcement of investigations.

Right, because Trump planned that his conversation with Sondland would be public in the near future, that's why he said it.

Yes, Trump did withhold funds, just like the many Presidents before him including Hussein.
You won't find the word "investigation" once in that phone transcript.
Yes, Trump put Rudy in charge, but not to make decisions for him in regards to policy.
Yes, he wanted an announcement. That's an impeachable offense?

Yes, Trump did withhold funds,

Yes, he wanted an announcement. That's an impeachable offense?

That's a QPQ, dope.

It is? So what did Trump get in return?

Quid pro quo's are not illegal, nor an impeachable offense even if that's what Trump wanted. Remember the last guy that used a quid pro quo? He's running for the Democrat nomination today.

 

[bripat9643]

/---/ All perfectly legal.
View attachment 291802

We'll see.
Rudy Giuliani Is Now the Subject of Three Different Investigations: Report

The U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan (SDNY) - Trump haters.

Sure. Just "Trump haters" who still have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, dope.

Notice that they never investigate Democrats.

Barr will have to prove his case against the Bidens "beyond a reasonable doubt." What's your problem with investigating them?

Barr will have to prove what case? He never called his Ukranian counterpart.

What makes you believe he won't in the future?

 

[bripat9643]

Rudy is Trump's attorney. He doesn't speak for Trump's actions as a President. That's exclusively Trump's call.

Sondland testified that he was miffed by what Trump actually wanted through Rudy and others. So he called Trump directly and asked Trump what he was expecting. Trump answered he wanted nothing. He said (according to Sondland) that he didn't want any quid pro quo.

Now those are direct words from President Trump--not Rudy.

He said that for idiots like yourself who can't think critically. Obviously there was a QPQ.

Look at what Trump did not what he said.

The president withheld the funds.
The President wanted investigations per his call.
The President put Rudy on the case and told everyone to talk to Rudy.
Rudy was pushing for a public announcement of investigations.

Right, because Trump planned that his conversation with Sondland would be public in the near future, that's why he said it.

Yes, Trump did withhold funds, just like the many Presidents before him including Hussein.
You won't find the word "investigation" once in that phone transcript.
Yes, Trump put Rudy in charge, but not to make decisions for him in regards to policy.
Yes, he wanted an announcement. That's an impeachable offense?

Yes, Trump did withhold funds,

Yes, he wanted an announcement. That's an impeachable offense?

That's a QPQ, dope.

So was the "treaty" Iran agreed to in exchange for $150 billion in cash.

No, dope.

Yes, turd.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Trump told all of the people from the State Dept to "talk to Rudy" when they asked for direction on Ukraine.
Trump told Zalensky to "work with Rudy" when he asked for his "favors" on the call

The WH withheld the funding. Not Rudy.

Now you're going to act as if Rudy went rogue and Trump knew nothing despite Trump directing them all to "talk to Rudy"?


Truly retarded.

Rudy is Trump's attorney. He doesn't speak for Trump's actions as a President. That's exclusively Trump's call.

Sondland testified that he was miffed by what Trump actually wanted through Rudy and others. So he called Trump directly and asked Trump what he was expecting. Trump answered he wanted nothing. He said (according to Sondland) that he didn't want any quid pro quo.

Now those are direct words from President Trump--not Rudy.

He said that for idiots like yourself who can't think critically. Obviously there was a QPQ.

Look at what Trump did not what he said.

The president withheld the funds.
The President wanted investigations per his call.
The President put Rudy on the case and told everyone to talk to Rudy.
Rudy was pushing for a public announcement of investigations.

Right, because Trump planned that his conversation with Sondland would be public in the near future, that's why he said it.

Yes, Trump did withhold funds, just like the many Presidents before him including Hussein.
You won't find the word "investigation" once in that phone transcript.
Yes, Trump put Rudy in charge, but not to make decisions for him in regards to policy.
Yes, he wanted an announcement. That's an impeachable offense?

Yes, Trump did withhold funds,

Yes, he wanted an announcement. That's an impeachable offense?

That's a QPQ, dope.

It is? So what did Trump get in return?

Quid pro quo's are not illegal, nor an impeachable offense even if that's what Trump wanted. Remember the last guy that used a quid pro quo? He's running for the Democrat nomination today.

You were just arguing that there was no QPQ because Trump said so.
Now it's, there was but... meh....so what?

He got nothing in return because he was caught.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

We'll see.
Rudy Giuliani Is Now the Subject of Three Different Investigations: Report

The U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan (SDNY) - Trump haters.

Sure. Just "Trump haters" who still have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, dope.

Notice that they never investigate Democrats.

Barr will have to prove his case against the Bidens "beyond a reasonable doubt." What's your problem with investigating them?

Barr will have to prove what case? He never called his Ukranian counterpart.

What makes you believe he won't in the future?

LOL....

That ship has sailed.

 

[bripat9643]

The U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan (SDNY) - Trump haters.

Sure. Just "Trump haters" who still have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, dope.

Notice that they never investigate Democrats.

Barr will have to prove his case against the Bidens "beyond a reasonable doubt." What's your problem with investigating them?

Barr will have to prove what case? He never called his Ukranian counterpart.

What makes you believe he won't in the future?

LOL....

That ship has sailed.

How do you figure?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Sure. Just "Trump haters" who still have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, dope.

Notice that they never investigate Democrats.

Barr will have to prove his case against the Bidens "beyond a reasonable doubt." What's your problem with investigating them?

Barr will have to prove what case? He never called his Ukranian counterpart.

What makes you believe he won't in the future?

LOL....

That ship has sailed.

How do you figure?

LOL...

You keep looking for that to happen.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Rudy is Trump's attorney. He doesn't speak for Trump's actions as a President. That's exclusively Trump's call.

Sondland testified that he was miffed by what Trump actually wanted through Rudy and others. So he called Trump directly and asked Trump what he was expecting. Trump answered he wanted nothing. He said (according to Sondland) that he didn't want any quid pro quo.

Now those are direct words from President Trump--not Rudy.

He said that for idiots like yourself who can't think critically. Obviously there was a QPQ.

Look at what Trump did not what he said.

The president withheld the funds.
The President wanted investigations per his call.
The President put Rudy on the case and told everyone to talk to Rudy.
Rudy was pushing for a public announcement of investigations.

Right, because Trump planned that his conversation with Sondland would be public in the near future, that's why he said it.

Yes, Trump did withhold funds, just like the many Presidents before him including Hussein.
You won't find the word "investigation" once in that phone transcript.
Yes, Trump put Rudy in charge, but not to make decisions for him in regards to policy.
Yes, he wanted an announcement. That's an impeachable offense?

Yes, Trump did withhold funds,

Yes, he wanted an announcement. That's an impeachable offense?

That's a QPQ, dope.

It is? So what did Trump get in return?

Quid pro quo's are not illegal, nor an impeachable offense even if that's what Trump wanted. Remember the last guy that used a quid pro quo? He's running for the Democrat nomination today.

You were just arguing that there was no QPQ because Trump said so.
Now it's, there was but... meh....so what?

He got nothing in return because he was caught.

He got nothing in return because he didn't ask for anything in return. Again....you're talking about assumptions of other people.

 

[lennypartiv]

You were just arguing that there was no QPQ because Trump said so.
Now it's, there was but... meh....so what?

There was no quid pro quo.

 

[berg80]

Trump told all of the people from the State Dept to "talk to Rudy" when they asked for direction on Ukraine.
Trump told Zalensky to "work with Rudy" when he asked for his "favors" on the call

The WH withheld the funding. Not Rudy.

Now you're going to act as if Rudy went rogue and Trump knew nothing despite Trump directing them all to "talk to Rudy"?


Truly retarded.

Rudy is Trump's attorney. He doesn't speak for Trump's actions as a President. That's exclusively Trump's call.

Sondland testified that he was miffed by what Trump actually wanted through Rudy and others. So he called Trump directly and asked Trump what he was expecting. Trump answered he wanted nothing. He said (according to Sondland) that he didn't want any quid pro quo.

Now those are direct words from President Trump--not Rudy.

He said that for idiots like yourself who can't think critically. Obviously there was a QPQ.

Look at what Trump did not what he said.

The president withheld the funds.
The President wanted investigations per his call.
The President put Rudy on the case and told everyone to talk to Rudy.
Rudy was pushing for a public announcement of investigations.

Right, because Trump planned that his conversation with Sondland would be public in the near future, that's why he said it.

Yes, Trump did withhold funds, just like the many Presidents before him including Hussein.
You won't find the word "investigation" once in that phone transcript.
Yes, Trump put Rudy in charge, but not to make decisions for him in regards to policy.
Yes, he wanted an announcement. That's an impeachable offense?

Yes, Trump did withhold funds,

Yes, he wanted an announcement. That's an impeachable offense?

That's a QPQ, dope.

It is? So what did Trump get in return?

Quid pro quo's are not illegal, nor an impeachable offense even if that's what Trump wanted. Remember the last guy that used a quid pro quo? He's running for the Democrat nomination today.

A bank robbery doesn't need to be successful to be illegal. Neither does extortion of a foreign country.

 

[berg80]

He said that for idiots like yourself who can't think critically. Obviously there was a QPQ.

Look at what Trump did not what he said.

The president withheld the funds.
The President wanted investigations per his call.
The President put Rudy on the case and told everyone to talk to Rudy.
Rudy was pushing for a public announcement of investigations.

Right, because Trump planned that his conversation with Sondland would be public in the near future, that's why he said it.

Yes, Trump did withhold funds, just like the many Presidents before him including Hussein.
You won't find the word "investigation" once in that phone transcript.
Yes, Trump put Rudy in charge, but not to make decisions for him in regards to policy.
Yes, he wanted an announcement. That's an impeachable offense?

Yes, Trump did withhold funds,

Yes, he wanted an announcement. That's an impeachable offense?

That's a QPQ, dope.

It is? So what did Trump get in return?

Quid pro quo's are not illegal, nor an impeachable offense even if that's what Trump wanted. Remember the last guy that used a quid pro quo? He's running for the Democrat nomination today.

You were just arguing that there was no QPQ because Trump said so.
Now it's, there was but... meh....so what?

He got nothing in return because he was caught.

He got nothing in return because he didn't ask for anything in return. Again....you're talking about assumptions of other people.

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.
The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.
Read the transcript of Trump's conversation with Volodymyr Zelensky - CNNPolitics

 

[Andylusion]

Members of the POT (party of Trump) and their right wing media cohorts are free to express their opinion that the impeachment inquiry is a sham. But those allegations don't change the constitutional authority given to the House committees to lawfully conduct it. So riddle me this.
We know for an absolute certainty Trump has obstructed the inquiry by refusing to release requested documents and by ordering that subpoenaed witnesses not testify. Therefore, we know one of the articles of impeachment will include a charge of obstruction.
Senate Repubs can disingenuously claim the extortion of Ukraine does not, in their minds, rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But how will they get around the fact Trump has obstructed the inquiry?

As an aside, it should be noted the Trump admin may open itself up to the commission of another impeachable offense. The hypocritical Trump lackey known as Lindsey Graham has requested from the State Dept. documents pertaining to Joe Biden's activities with respect to the US government's demands the corrupt prosecutor Shokin be removed from office because he refused to prosecute cases of corruption in Ukraine. If the admin acquiesces to this request while blocking the release of documents sought by the House Intel Committee in the course of its impeachment inquiry it runs the risk of being charged with selectively releasing documents for investigations it favors. Representing yet another abuse of power.

Hm..... I don't think you can do that, because Clinton directly threatened and coached witnesses, and concealed evidence.

You can't tell me Trump should be impeached for not being helpful to the investigation, when Clinton did all the same things and more. This guy said stuff like "Depends on how you define 'is'".

Look, you either have a standard, and you need to follow it yourself first.... or stop preaching so much.

 

[berg80]

Members of the POT (party of Trump) and their right wing media cohorts are free to express their opinion that the impeachment inquiry is a sham. But those allegations don't change the constitutional authority given to the House committees to lawfully conduct it. So riddle me this.
We know for an absolute certainty Trump has obstructed the inquiry by refusing to release requested documents and by ordering that subpoenaed witnesses not testify. Therefore, we know one of the articles of impeachment will include a charge of obstruction.
Senate Repubs can disingenuously claim the extortion of Ukraine does not, in their minds, rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But how will they get around the fact Trump has obstructed the inquiry?

As an aside, it should be noted the Trump admin may open itself up to the commission of another impeachable offense. The hypocritical Trump lackey known as Lindsey Graham has requested from the State Dept. documents pertaining to Joe Biden's activities with respect to the US government's demands the corrupt prosecutor Shokin be removed from office because he refused to prosecute cases of corruption in Ukraine. If the admin acquiesces to this request while blocking the release of documents sought by the House Intel Committee in the course of its impeachment inquiry it runs the risk of being charged with selectively releasing documents for investigations it favors. Representing yet another abuse of power.

Hm..... I don't think you can do that, because Clinton directly threatened and coached witnesses, and concealed evidence.

You can't tell me Trump should be impeached for not being helpful to the investigation, when Clinton did all the same things and more. This guy said stuff like "Depends on how you define 'is'".

Look, you either have a standard, and you need to follow it yourself first.... or stop preaching so much.

I'd be glad to respond if you could just substantiate anything you wrote.

 

[lennypartiv]

A bank robbery doesn't need to be successful to be illegal. Neither does extortion of a foreign country.

But Trump didn't rob a bank.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Right, because Trump planned that his conversation with Sondland would be public in the near future, that's why he said it.

Yes, Trump did withhold funds, just like the many Presidents before him including Hussein.
You won't find the word "investigation" once in that phone transcript.
Yes, Trump put Rudy in charge, but not to make decisions for him in regards to policy.
Yes, he wanted an announcement. That's an impeachable offense?

Yes, Trump did withhold funds,

Yes, he wanted an announcement. That's an impeachable offense?

That's a QPQ, dope.

It is? So what did Trump get in return?

Quid pro quo's are not illegal, nor an impeachable offense even if that's what Trump wanted. Remember the last guy that used a quid pro quo? He's running for the Democrat nomination today.

You were just arguing that there was no QPQ because Trump said so.
Now it's, there was but... meh....so what?

He got nothing in return because he was caught.

He got nothing in return because he didn't ask for anything in return. Again....you're talking about assumptions of other people.

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.
The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.
Read the transcript of Trump's conversation with Volodymyr Zelensky - CNNPolitics

Yes, I've only read it about 20 times or so now. Where are the words "your US aid depends on it" at? I don't even see Trump mentioning it; not even hinting at it.

Nobody is denying what Trump asked of him, but it's not only not impeachable, there are no regulations against it. Biden on record did use a quid pro quo, and laughed about it. No problem there though.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Rudy is Trump's attorney. He doesn't speak for Trump's actions as a President. That's exclusively Trump's call.

Sondland testified that he was miffed by what Trump actually wanted through Rudy and others. So he called Trump directly and asked Trump what he was expecting. Trump answered he wanted nothing. He said (according to Sondland) that he didn't want any quid pro quo.

Now those are direct words from President Trump--not Rudy.

He said that for idiots like yourself who can't think critically. Obviously there was a QPQ.

Look at what Trump did not what he said.

The president withheld the funds.
The President wanted investigations per his call.
The President put Rudy on the case and told everyone to talk to Rudy.
Rudy was pushing for a public announcement of investigations.

Right, because Trump planned that his conversation with Sondland would be public in the near future, that's why he said it.

Yes, Trump did withhold funds, just like the many Presidents before him including Hussein.
You won't find the word "investigation" once in that phone transcript.
Yes, Trump put Rudy in charge, but not to make decisions for him in regards to policy.
Yes, he wanted an announcement. That's an impeachable offense?

Yes, Trump did withhold funds,

Yes, he wanted an announcement. That's an impeachable offense?

That's a QPQ, dope.

It is? So what did Trump get in return?

Quid pro quo's are not illegal, nor an impeachable offense even if that's what Trump wanted. Remember the last guy that used a quid pro quo? He's running for the Democrat nomination today.

A bank robbery doesn't need to be successful to be illegal. Neither does extortion of a foreign country.

If that's your definition of extortion, then please riddle me this: Is Joe Biden guilty of extortion, yes or no?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Rudy is Trump's attorney. He doesn't speak for Trump's actions as a President. That's exclusively Trump's call.

Sondland testified that he was miffed by what Trump actually wanted through Rudy and others. So he called Trump directly and asked Trump what he was expecting. Trump answered he wanted nothing. He said (according to Sondland) that he didn't want any quid pro quo.

Now those are direct words from President Trump--not Rudy.

He said that for idiots like yourself who can't think critically. Obviously there was a QPQ.

Look at what Trump did not what he said.

The president withheld the funds.
The President wanted investigations per his call.
The President put Rudy on the case and told everyone to talk to Rudy.
Rudy was pushing for a public announcement of investigations.

Right, because Trump planned that his conversation with Sondland would be public in the near future, that's why he said it.

Yes, Trump did withhold funds, just like the many Presidents before him including Hussein.
You won't find the word "investigation" once in that phone transcript.
Yes, Trump put Rudy in charge, but not to make decisions for him in regards to policy.
Yes, he wanted an announcement. That's an impeachable offense?

Yes, Trump did withhold funds,

Yes, he wanted an announcement. That's an impeachable offense?

That's a QPQ, dope.

It is? So what did Trump get in return?

Quid pro quo's are not illegal, nor an impeachable offense even if that's what Trump wanted. Remember the last guy that used a quid pro quo? He's running for the Democrat nomination today.

A bank robbery doesn't need to be successful to be illegal. Neither does extortion of a foreign country.

/----/ "A bank robbery doesn't need to be successful to be illegal. Neither does extortion of a foreign country."
But Hildabeast successfully broke the law but it wasn't her intention - so she got off scot-free. Imagine that.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

He said that for idiots like yourself who can't think critically. Obviously there was a QPQ.

Look at what Trump did not what he said.

The president withheld the funds.
The President wanted investigations per his call.
The President put Rudy on the case and told everyone to talk to Rudy.
Rudy was pushing for a public announcement of investigations.

Right, because Trump planned that his conversation with Sondland would be public in the near future, that's why he said it.

Yes, Trump did withhold funds, just like the many Presidents before him including Hussein.
You won't find the word "investigation" once in that phone transcript.
Yes, Trump put Rudy in charge, but not to make decisions for him in regards to policy.
Yes, he wanted an announcement. That's an impeachable offense?

Yes, Trump did withhold funds,

Yes, he wanted an announcement. That's an impeachable offense?

That's a QPQ, dope.

It is? So what did Trump get in return?

Quid pro quo's are not illegal, nor an impeachable offense even if that's what Trump wanted. Remember the last guy that used a quid pro quo? He's running for the Democrat nomination today.

You were just arguing that there was no QPQ because Trump said so.
Now it's, there was but... meh....so what?

He got nothing in return because he was caught.

He got nothing in return because he didn't ask for anything in return. Again....you're talking about assumptions of other people.

He got nothing in return because he didn't ask for anything in return. Again....you're talking about assumptions of other

He didn't?

Then why withhold the aid?
And....
Why was Rudy pushing for investigations then?

You're the one ignoring their actions in favor of your own assumptions. The testimony was clear.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

He said that for idiots like yourself who can't think critically. Obviously there was a QPQ.

Look at what Trump did not what he said.

The president withheld the funds.
The President wanted investigations per his call.
The President put Rudy on the case and told everyone to talk to Rudy.
Rudy was pushing for a public announcement of investigations.

Right, because Trump planned that his conversation with Sondland would be public in the near future, that's why he said it.

Yes, Trump did withhold funds, just like the many Presidents before him including Hussein.
You won't find the word "investigation" once in that phone transcript.
Yes, Trump put Rudy in charge, but not to make decisions for him in regards to policy.
Yes, he wanted an announcement. That's an impeachable offense?

Yes, Trump did withhold funds,

Yes, he wanted an announcement. That's an impeachable offense?

That's a QPQ, dope.

It is? So what did Trump get in return?

Quid pro quo's are not illegal, nor an impeachable offense even if that's what Trump wanted. Remember the last guy that used a quid pro quo? He's running for the Democrat nomination today.

A bank robbery doesn't need to be successful to be illegal. Neither does extortion of a foreign country.

If that's your definition of extortion, then please riddle me this: Is Joe Biden guilty of extortion, yes or no?

Of course not.
Bribery and extortion require corrupt intent.