39 review for THE TRUMP-UKRAINE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY REPORT: Report of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Pursuant to H. Res. 660 in Consultation with the House Committee on Oversight and Reform

1. 

   4 out of 5

   Randolph Breschini – Dec 05, 2019

   Read this report from the House Intelligence Committee...very well laid out...very chronological....much better presentation than the Mueller Report. Simply...the criminality is pervasive throughout this Administration by the tRump political appointees who now are prevented from testifying to the Congressional Committee’s...fortunately, our career public servants have participated and told what they know...they are true patriots! If tRump’s conduct does not warrant impeachment and removal, I mean Read this report from the House Intelligence Committee...very well laid out...very chronological....much better presentation than the Mueller Report. Simply...the criminality is pervasive throughout this Administration by the tRump political appointees who now are prevented from testifying to the Congressional Committee’s...fortunately, our career public servants have participated and told what they know...they are true patriots! If tRump’s conduct does not warrant impeachment and removal, I mean really, what does? I predict that the impeachment will proceed to the Senate, but I also predict that the Senate will not convict...Tribalism and the Cult is too too powerful. The only chance in the Senate for removal, is that after the convincing evidence is presented, that the Senate takes a SILENT vote...tRump might then be removed. I am just so so so tired of listening, seeing, reading about tRump. I just want it to end and for the country to move to the next chapter.

2. 

   4 out of 5

   David J. – Dec 21, 2019

   As a historical document, it was good to read. However, it was very repetitive and could have easily been covered in half the pages. I'm sure there was a political reason for increasing the length of the document. As a historical document, it was good to read. However, it was very repetitive and could have easily been covered in half the pages. I'm sure there was a political reason for increasing the length of the document.

3. 

   4 out of 5

   jennet wheatstonelllsl –

4. 

   5 out of 5

   Pam –

5. 

   4 out of 5

   Greg Hephner –

6. 

   5 out of 5

   Gerard A Hagen –

7. 

   5 out of 5

   Yahia Aktham –

8. 

   4 out of 5

   Puhnner –

9. 

   4 out of 5

   Alex –

10. 

    4 out of 5

    Francisco Aguilar –

11. 

    4 out of 5

    Asher –

12. 

    5 out of 5

    janice bryant –

13. 

    4 out of 5

    Duckyknits –

14. 

    4 out of 5

    Lil –

15. 

    5 out of 5

    Bewaji –

16. 

    4 out of 5

    h –

17. 

    4 out of 5

    Dana Peterson –

18. 

    4 out of 5

    Alice R Hutchinson –

19. 

    4 out of 5

    marie schwartz –

20. 

    5 out of 5

    Margal Colegrove –

21. 

    5 out of 5

    Laura Nielsen –

22. 

    4 out of 5

    Shadie Nirou –

23. 

    4 out of 5

    Miriam Span –

24. 

    4 out of 5

    Melanie –

25. 

    4 out of 5

    Philip –

26. 

    5 out of 5

    James Lindbo –

27. 

    5 out of 5

    Nluke –

28. 

    5 out of 5

    Mary –

29. 

    5 out of 5

    Jbzap –

30. 

    4 out of 5

    Frank Knickerbocker –

31. 

    5 out of 5

    Debra –

32. 

    5 out of 5

    Marilyn Benham –

33. 

    5 out of 5

    Carlos Neu –

34. 

    5 out of 5

    Jan Thornton –

35. 

    5 out of 5

    Sue E Gilbert –

36. 

    5 out of 5

    Eric –

37. 

    4 out of 5

    Terri –

38. 

    4 out of 5

    Jeffry –

39. 

    5 out of 5

    John –