Televised Impeachment Inquiry Nov. 13th. I invite ATS members to utilize this thread

He admits since 2014 the US thought zlochevsky was corrupt and needed to be charged.

he admits it was a conflict of interest for hunter to work for him.

He claims he wanted an investigation of zlochecksy and it was being held up by Shokin, who biden got fired.

Why oh why then did he not speak up when the NABU, whioh was allied with Obama, let zlochevksy go with only a small fine?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
this dude admitted an issue and an investigation of bursma

holy crap

game set match

Sure sounded that way!

a reply to: Grambler

I see that no one else notice that Shiff flat out lied within an hour of this whole shin dig, with a big one

He claimed he didnt know who the Whistle Blower was, yet it was HIM the whistle blower came to in person, and theres pictures of them together

That alone should shut this whole thing down

originally posted by: Guyfriday
SO I'm confused? Didn't he just say that we had an obligation to assist Ukraine investigate corruption, but then is making as issue that Trump did just that?

He amdits quid pro quos are fine.

Basically he is saying he thinks Biden had a good motive for wanting to use a qpq to fire shokin, the prosecutor looking into his sons company.

He then say he thinks Trump had a bad motive for wanting an investigation of whether or not Biden improperly interfered.

last vestige of the old guard bureaucrats attempting to hold on to power
disgusting

So Kent has said he had a possible problem with Hunter Biden. There was a breakdown with the diplomat and Rudy who was looking into the corruption at that company that Kent had a problem with...so Trump was vindicated?

Now he admits to being buddies with the other people testifying against trump.

Really seems upset Yavanvicth was fired.

He feels she was entitled to the job.

Thats how all of these unelected people feel; they are the boss, they set policy, how dare trump go against them or fire one of them.

originally posted by: SailorJerry
a reply to: Grambler

I see that no one else notice that Shiff flat out lined within an hour of this whole shin dig, with a big one

He claimed he didnt know who the Whistle Blower was, yet it was HIM the whistle blower came to in person, and theirs pictures of them together

That alone should shut this whole thing down

That is a new one to me. I had not heard about these pictures. Any links? Last I knew they were towing the line that Schiff head did not know or meet with the WB.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
So Kent has said he had a possible problem with Hunter Biden. There was a breakdown with the diplomat and Rudy who was looking into the corruption at that company that Kent had a problem with...so Trump was vindicated?

It appears that way to me

wow

a reply to: shooterbrody

Was there a sanity hearing for vetting purposes before cherry picking these people?

originally posted by: Ahabstar
So Kent has said he had a possible problem with Hunter Biden. There was a breakdown with the diplomat and Rudy who was looking into the corruption at that company that Kent had a problem with...so Trump was vindicated?

One would think that.

But he basically says he FEELS biden is a good guy, and trump is a bad guy.

So he feels it was ok for Biden to issue the qpq to force the firing of the prosecutor looking into Burisma, but feels its not ok for trump to look to see if this was corrupt


Someone needs to ask kent; if you think it was a conflict of interest for hunter to work for zlochevsky, and you know he was let go with a slap on the wrist, do you think we should investigate why this occured?

does it bother anyone these bureaucrats are cheering a proxy war with russia?

do we want open war with russia?

seems the house dems and bureaucrats do.....

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: shooterbrody

Was there a sanity hearing for vetting purposes before cherry picking these people?

it was overcome by bamn
these people vindicated trump

originally posted by: shooterbrody
does it bother anyone these bureaucrats are cheering a proxy war with russia?

do we want open war with russia?

seems the house dems and bureaucrats do.....

At what expense, just letting Russia annex the rest of the world?

a reply to: Wayfarer
are you for war with russia?

It sounds to me that they both have highlighted that the core issue is nothing more than them and there controllers not driving policy anymore. I may be wrong here but this smells more like kids crying foul that they are not getting allowance anymore, and are being told to get a job instead.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Only when necessary. I don't think just letting Russia invade/annex countries until there's nothing left but us and Russia is a viable strategy either.....

His wife opposed it! LOL

a reply to: Wayfarer
perhaps the eu could deal with this?

i think that may have actually been one of the reasons for reviewing the aid aforementioned

and no, at this point I would in no way send american lives to defend ANYTHING in europe


also, who would get to make this decision?

originally posted by: MrRCflying
His wife opposed it! LOL

Thank god we have his family trying to drive foreign policy instead of the elected leaders of the country.