Go ahead and subpeona him then. He's not required to voluntarily appear as a witness for an alleged crime he has said he did not witness.
Do you believe Kavanaugh or Ford or do you believe truth is somewhere in between?
- Thread starter Mr Jimmy Pop
- Start date
Go ahead and subpeona him then. He's not required to voluntarily appear as a witness for an alleged crime he has said he did not witness.
I would love for the JC to subpeona him, they refuse to do so because truth is not the objective. Putting on a show trial with a predetermined verdict is the objective.
triple is probably constantly masturbating to the possibility of this upcoming trial.
TDS - seek help.
TDS - seek help.
Let him say that under oath, then. What are you scared of?
Absolutely nothing. It's just a waste of time. It's just bizarre that you want people who deny being a witness to a crime to testify that they did not see a crime for a crime you can't prove even happened because it's only based on the word of a person who refuses to say a crime happened under oath. It's fucking bizarre.
Triple, do you believe a subpoena is warranted for Judge? It's a case of he said she said over 30 years ago. So the under oath bs is meaningless, not that somehow being under oath would compel him to all of a sudden change his tune anyway.
yes and all women have a "only tell the truth" gene and all men have a "never tell the truth" gene
If being under oath is meaningless one way or the other, why are all the conservatives on this board against it?
If it doesn't matter, why do you care?
If you think he'll tell the same story under oath, that would only bolster Kavanaugh's side.
The only reason to be against this is because you think he'll back up Ford, or he'll be inconsistent and fuck up.
If you think he's telling the truth though.. which I assume most of you do.. you have absolutely nothing to worry about.
not only is it meaningless, it's a waste of fucking time. that's why we are against it.
it doesn't matter, so why do YOU care so much?
Excellent deflection. I've not said anything of the sort. In fact, quite the opposite. There's nothing to be defensive about. He said he didn't see anything. Why should I not take him at his word? Why are you so adamant that a man who claims he did not witness a crime do so under oath, but I've yet to see you demand that she testify under oath that a crime transpired?
not only is it meaningless, it's a waste of fucking time. that's why we are against it.
it doesn't matter, so why do YOU care so much?
what if i told you that wasting time
instead of getting other things done
was triple's only point and purpose
and that this is the entire point of the DNC right now?
burning up the clock is their goal
GOP better get with the game already
Well he's being accused of watching while his friend tried to rape a minor. For one.
Probably because she's already offered to, and in addition wants to go to the FBI and talk to them as well about it.
hey remember when your party obstructed scotus for 400+ days? no?