Lindsey Graham garbage

What a petulant child...


About this website

ESSENCE.COM

Lindsey Graham Says He'll Out Whistleblowers If Trump Is Impeached
Senate Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham said it was "imperative that the whistleblower be interviewed in public, under oath and cross-examined."
The man is pure garbage Republican garbage

What a petulant child...


About this website

ESSENCE.COM

Lindsey Graham Says He'll Out Whistleblowers If Trump Is Impeached
Senate Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham said it was "imperative that the whistleblower be interviewed in public, under oath and cross-examined."
The man is pure garbage Republican garbage

He is such a hypocrite. He use to hate tramp , now he loves him , he spends a lot of time on his golf course.
 
A whistleblower has nothing but hearsay evidence. Why should anyone believe what he says unless he presents solid evidence. This double-secret trial is bullshit. It won't move the impeachment needle.
 
The American people deserve to know the identity of the "whistleblower" and question him/her under oath....

especially about 911....


To deny that would be to subvert the concept of DUE PROCESS....
 
A whistleblower has nothing but hearsay evidence. Why should anyone believe what he says unless he presents solid evidence. This double-secret trial is bullshit. It won't move the impeachment needle.

What is it about the word "mostly" that you don't understand .

Is it the same reason Barr didn't understand "suggest"??
 
The American people deserve to know the identity of the "whistleblower" and question him/her under oath....

especially about 911....


To deny that would be to subvert the concept of DUE PROCESS....

The American people deserve to have tramp under oath and question him.
 
The American people deserve to have tramp under oath and question him


Not without a valid issue to do so, and you aren't even close hiding this "whistleblower" under a white sheet in Obama's CLOSET....
 
A whistleblower has nothing but hearsay evidence. Why should anyone believe what he says unless he presents solid evidence. This double-secret trial is bullshit. It won't move the impeachment needle.

What is it about the word "mostly" that you don't understand .

Is it the same reason Barr didn't understand "suggest"??
Not sure what your post means, the only "mostly" I recall is "Leslie Mostly" from SNL way back?!
 
A whistleblower has nothing but hearsay evidence. Why should anyone believe what he says unless he presents solid evidence. This double-secret trial is bullshit. It won't move the impeachment needle.

What is it about the word "mostly" that you don't understand .

Is it the same reason Barr didn't understand "suggest"??
Not sure what your post means, the only "mostly" I recall is "Leslie Mostly" from SNL way back?!
Your post is a lie.

Some of what the WB used in the complaint was hearsay and some was not.

And guess what?

The part that was hearsay was the actual phone call...which he got RIGHT.

The newest WB has FIRST HAND evidence that agrees with the first...HE (or she ) was ON THE CALL
 
The American people deserve to have tramp under oath and question him


Not without a valid issue to do so, and you aren't even close hiding this "whistleblower" under a white sheet in Obama's CLOSET....

Mueller tried and failed. Who cares he will be under oath enough when he leaves the oval office.

For a man with nothing to hide, he sure hides everything even his word, which is all lies. One lie to the cover the previous lie, once a liar , always a liar.
 
A whistleblower has nothing but hearsay evidence. Why should anyone believe what he says unless he presents solid evidence. This double-secret trial is bullshit. It won't move the impeachment needle.

What is it about the word "mostly" that you don't understand .

Is it the same reason Barr didn't understand "suggest"??
Not sure what your post means, the only "mostly" I recall is "Leslie Mostly" from SNL way back?!
Your post is a lie.

Some of what the WB used in the complaint was hearsay and some was not.

And guess what?

The part that was hearsay was the actual phone call...which he got RIGHT.

The newest WB has FIRST HAND evidence that agrees with the first...HE (or she ) was ON THE CALL

I don't care what "evidence" the WB presents, the accused needs the opportunity to cross-examine the "witness/liar" as to "intent".
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top