Since the unbiased, professional and ethical journalist ken klippenstein has acknowledged public and voluntarily to have inside knowledge about Unidentified Aerial Vehicle Retrieval Programs, Should he be summoned by Congress to testify under oath?

Generate New Template

public (1567) , uap (1561) , disclosure (1383) , ufo (1296) , transparency (1220) , government (1066) , information (1011) , disinformation (943) , ufos (919) , campaign (862) , congress (769) , people (678) , phenomena (648) , national (632) , urge (586) , regarding (565) , issue (565) , unidentified (561) , security (538) , truth (506) , american (506) , support (503) , potential (498) , know (477) , trust (469) , uaps (467) , writing (462) , accountability (461) , time (424) , scientific (410) , intelligence (381) , understanding (370) , act (363) , rep (357) , members (354) , defense (331) , action (314) , efforts (311) , research (310) , committee (309) , objects (302) , related (301) , legislation (297) , house (290) , secrecy (288) , oversight (286) , template (283) , ndaa (282) , concern (280) , being (274) ,

Consider the options:

Yes. He could possibly be useful to the cause. Beautiful karma: having to publicly acknowledge the existence of what Grusch denounced, validating his testimony and contradicting his poor article.

No: let’s not give him more attention. His 15 seconds of infamy have passed, and he probably won’t be of much use for this either.

What does the community think? Other pros and cons?

If the answer is affirmative, how do we communicate this to Tim Burchett and the others?

submitted by /u/tuasociacionilicita
[link] [comments]