>>/181010/, >>/181011/, >>/181012/, >>/181013/, >>/181014/, >>/181015/, >>/181016/, >>/181017/, >>/181018/, >>/181019/, >>/181020/, >>/181021/, >>/181022/, >>/181023/, >>/181024/, >>/181025/, >>/181026/, >>/181027/, >>/181028/, >>/181029/, >>/181030/, >>/181031/, >>/181032/, >>/181033/, >>/181034/, >>/181035/, >>/181036/, >>/181037/, >>/181038/, >>/181039/, >>/181040/, >>/181041/, >>/181042/, >>/181043/, >>/181044/, >>/181045/, >>/181046/, >>/181047/, >>/181048/, >>/181049/, >>/181050/, >>/181051/, >>/181052/, >>/181053/, >>/181054/, >>/181055/, >>/181056/, >>/181057/, >>/181059/, >>/181060/, >>/181061/, >>/181062/, >>/181063/, >>/181064/, >>/181065/, >>/181066/, >>/181067/, >>/181068/, >>/181070/, >>/181072/, >>/181073/, >>/181074/, >>/181075/, >>/181076/, >>/181078/, >>/181080/, >>/181081/, >>/181082/, >>/181083/, >>/181084/
This guy came in with a phony baloney story about the phone call that he heard somebody talk about.
We have his whistleblower complaint. The guy who went to... Basically, this is like the human resources guy, right?
This is the guy you go to to get other people in trouble. Sometimes human resources does that.
This is on page one. I know it's a little bit hard to read here, but... This is the first thing.
This is the whistleblower. And he says, "I do not have direct knowledge of private comments or communications by the president.
However, I have direct knowledge of interagency discussions about Ukraine in which" blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
"I have no direct knowledge of private communications."
They should have thrown him out of the office right then and there. That's what the handbook says to do. Get out of here.
You can't blow the whistle.
Find somebody else to blow the whistle.
You don't have a whistle.
But they let this guy do the whole thing. And then they immediately sent it up to Congress. Next, we've got something else here: "Potential for bias, biases, or to be discredited."
It's very interesting that one of the key players in this - and I'm sorry to do this - Witness Number Two was the co-author of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russia Interference in the 2016 Election.
The main witness there was in on the Russia hoax!
Yeah, it's okay. I'm sure you're objective now! It literally says that. It literally says, oh no, but he's apolitical. Now he's apolitical.
Now we can trust him. There might be one more goodie in here.
Ah, now this has been circulating for a while, but finally, the complainant is a registered Democrat.
And not only that, excuse me, the guy, the complainant, the whistleblower, worked closely with...Vice President Biden, as an expert on Ukraine, traveled with Biden to Ukraine, and was part of controversies where Lutsenko corruption was discussed.
This guy was totally corrupt. You can't trust him. Get the hell out of my office. You don't know anything.
...coup on our hands. and the media went with it "oh this is something really really important."
-
Now, I think we have to revisit the details because this is confusing. It's like, OK, what the hell happened back then?
Well, it actually, I'm going to try to simplify it.
Joe Biden thought that he could do something corrupt, but if he talked about it in public, it would be okay, right?
Well, that's no problem.
"I talked about it in front of a bunch of people. I had that prosecutor fired. I always go to countries and demand that local prosecutors be fired."
-
Biden: "I said, I'm telling you, you're not getting a billion dollars. I said, you're not getting a billion. I'm going to be leaving here. I think it was what, six hours. I looked, I said, I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor's not fired, you're not getting the money.
Oh, son of a bitch. He got fired. "
-
Greg Kelly: Just going around bragging about getting Ukrainian prosecutors fired. Now, what really happened?
Oh, by the way, your son Hunter works for one of the companies over there in one of the most corrupt countries in the world, and he's paid $83,000 a month.
61