Pam Bondi DROPS A MOAB ON Joe Biden and Son Hunter Biden at Senate Impeachment Trial

Conjure up what ever reasons you'd like. Only one makes sense.

 

Sure have, however I have the ability to filter the truth from the propaganda.

 

WHAT ? It is absolutely impeachable.


Sorry you are not a mind reader and it was not illegal.


Are you denying that even during the Obama administration the State Department was warning about Burisma and Hunter Biden's involvement?

How is it different when Obama told the Russians he would have more flexibility after the 2012 election? That was him altering US policy in a way detrimental to the US for his own personal political gain.[/QUOTE]

NOBODY is saying Trump doesn't have the power to manage foreign policy ? But I would ask you to explain WHY he hid everything from congress, why he didn't use the state department, why he sent his PERSONAL lawyer? Why did he lie about everything, and why did the republicans support those lies.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

You conviently left out this part that they very muck gloss over int the article....

Its odd that he never made any of these claims until he was in a "private interview" with Rudy..........theres nothing fishy there . Wink wink...nudge nudge

 

Biden threatened to hold back US funds to the Ukraine in March of 2016. Funny how the Burisma case is closed in APRIL 2016 and Shokin fired.

 

The investigation by Shokin was to address government contracts given to the company in 2012.......hmmmmmm

Shokin himself had been under investigation by the government anti corruption unit since 2013........but hey, you do you

 

Two statements and no citations from a reliable news source. Please stop wasting our time.

 

FFS. This is ALL common knowledge outside of the Fox News bubble. But hey, id rather trust Rudys personal notes from his interview with Shokin. Thats a much more reliable source

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...orced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/

 

No, obviously quite the reverse is true.

There is not a single favorable report of Shokin by anyone, anywhere, that did not originate from Shokin himself, as per your oft-quoted Fox News article.

You would know this if you had actually looked.

 

No named sources.......

State Department documents show.

The truth will rise to the top like cream in a freshly milked cow. The truth will come out and the Democrats will be left holding a bag of dung.

 

Look above this post ^^^^^.

 

Too bad you have to deal with another 5 years of American prosperity under President Trump, huh?

 

They won't stop at this attempt, unless the Republicans win big like they did in 2010.

 

Clinton made sure she had plausible deniability when paying for the Steel dossier, Obama made sure he had plausible deniability when he began spying on the Trump campaign and he made sure his fingerprints weren't all over the bogus DOJ immunity agreements over the Clinton cell phone destruction, had Rice look like an idiot with the Benghazi excuse for starters.

 

There seems to be a lot of that going around.



Funny how that works.

 

I though you guys thought it was so funny that so many in the Trump campaign are under indictment or in jail? Who has he given a get out of jail free card to? I thought the Democrats already used up all those cards in the deck?

 

Thanks for telling me about your feelings. I hope you feel better.

 

Didn’t you read your own article? It contains numerous named sources - as do literally countless articles and reports online, none of which are favorable to Shokin.

Please don’t ever complain about “fake news” because what you’re presenting here is as fake as it gets.

You would know this if you had checked the veracity of the article by checking the source “state dept documents” for yourself.

Firstly, they are in fact one “document” - a solitary email.

Secondly, the email does not in any way, shape or form support the assertions in the article. So much so that the headline is more than misleading - it’s blatantly false.

No surprise, then, that the article doesn’t show or even link to the email - it's key source.

Ironic, given that you complained about sources in your first article.

And? Kent states that he had been concerned that Hunter Biden’s position could create “the perception of a conflict of interest." Several people had the same concern. But the concern was perception - poor optics - with no suggestion of actual wrongdoing.

Further, none of the above shows that you’ve actually researched Shokin, let alone found a favorable article or report on Shokin.

 

Post proof or your assertions.

 

Proof that the first article "contains numerous named sources" is... in the article. That's what "contains numerous named sources" means. Read it, because you obviously didn't before you linked to it.

In the third article, proof that Kent was concerned that about "the perception of a conflict of interest" is that it says so... in the article. In fact, these exact words are in your very own clip from the article. Didn't you read that either?

As for the second article, you chose to include it even though it contains no supporting evidence whatsoever. So, it's up to you to provide proof that what it says is true. If you can't be bothered to prove that it's true, why should I waste my time proving that it's not? As it stands, it's null and void.

And again, how did any of the above rebut my assertion that there are no favorable articles or reports about Shokin? They didn't. Just deflection.

 

Your assertions about Shokin being corrupt must be substantiated by a reliable news source FIRST before they can be rebutted. By the way, your link to the USA today article doesn't work.

 

There are countless reliable news sources and reports showing that Shokin is corrupt, and NONE that are favorable.

Hence YOUR opinion is the (a) the product of willful ignorance and (b) an outlier, to say the very least. As the holder of the outlying opinion, it's up to YOU to support your opinion because mine is supported by all reliable news sources or reports.

Your problem is that you can't.

 

~ The good thing to come out of the farce impeachment: the elected radical Gobalists have been exposed . Trump is doing his part to slowly get rid of the shadow government.
❓Who would think that we would witness an attempt to overthrow a duly elected President the same way countries run by dictators do things...

 

That has to be most PATHETIC attempt to date to defend your criminal IMPOTUS on this entire forum.



Sad!

 

Post them or the discussion is over.

 

I can see ya got nuthin.