Jabbar + 465 JN December 5, 2019 (edited) The Congressman said three Whitehouse National Security Advisors that worked on Ukraine issues need to testify. The Congressman didn't mention the third unnamed was the whistleblower but all knew . Misko and Grace were close to fake whistleblower Ciaramella. SEAN MISKO AND ABIGAIL GRACE WERE HIRED AND ARE NOW ON THE STAFF OF CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/10/13/no-surprise-schiff-reportedly-hired-two-nsc-aides-who-worked-with-ukraine-whistleblower-n2554644 Nadler will prevent GOP from having the 3 testify in Judiciary Committee , but they surely will be called in the Senate Trial. Can't wait. Edited December 5, 2019 by Jabbar 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
remake it + 288 December 5, 2019 26 minutes ago, Jabbar said: The Congressman said three Whitehouse National Security Advisors that worked on Ukraine issues need to testify. It's an interesting twist that House Republicans are who are consistently complaining about hearsay evidence now want 2 named witnesses who appear to have had no physical Ukrainian presence to testify! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jabbar + 465 JN December 5, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, remake it said: It's an interesting twist that House Republicans are who are consistently complaining about hearsay evidence now want 2 named witnesses who appear to have had no physical Ukrainian presence to testify! No Ukraine presence ? What are you talking about. LOL If no presence or knowledge of Ukraine you surely would have no objection to them testifying at the Senate Impeachment Trial or being questions by Barr and Durham criminal investigation. GREAT. The noose is tightening around the Dems. PS : IG Horowitz report coming, then Atty General Barr criminal investigation next year. Edited December 5, 2019 by Jabbar 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
remake it + 288 December 5, 2019 4 minutes ago, Jabbar said: No Ukraine presence ? What are you talking about. LOL Happy for you to explain the capacity of these people in the Ukraine such that they were physically present at any of the events which have been covered by those who have provided witness testimony. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jabbar + 465 JN December 5, 2019 1 hour ago, remake it said: Happy for you to explain the capacity of these people in the Ukraine such that they were physically present at any of the events which have been covered by those who have provided witness testimon . . .. .. .. .. . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tom Kirkman + 8,860 December 5, 2019 @Jabbar and others please post your Geopolitical threads in the Geopolitics subforum. I've already moved a number of political threads to Geopolitics. Oil threads remain in the main Oil forum. Thanks. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ronwagn + 6,290 December 8, 2019 On 12/5/2019 at 7:21 AM, remake it said: It's an interesting twist that House Republicans are who are consistently complaining about hearsay evidence now want 2 named witnesses who appear to have had no physical Ukrainian presence to testify! So, it is OK for Democrats to utilize them but not for Republicans to question them. Typical Demoncrat logic. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
remake it + 288 December 8, 2019 1 hour ago, ronwagn said: So, it is OK for Democrats to utilize them but not for Republicans to question them. Typical Demoncrat logic. It's about the fact that if Republicans are claiming "hearsay" for the prior evidence then they should not add more to it, one would think! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members