As long as they’re not breaking the rules, yes.
You don’t get to create new rules and rights based on your own righteous fury.
Yeah I hope she goes on 60 minutes too. She better have her story nailed down verbatim. We can see how well her handlers prep her.
Feinstein has as well.
You dont?
10 char
Who looks like fools?
DiFi, who withheld this for two months, allowed it to be leaked despite the accuser claiming she wanted to be anonymous,and refuses to cooperate with the chairman of the committee, or the chairman who found out about the allegation from the media, has allowed for repeated delays despite their flimsy excuses, offered to have the testimony in private or public, and even offered to fly his own staff out to CA?
I’m sure she’s getting excellent advice from all her democratic opperative lawyers. The 60 Minutes interview will be on the Sunday before the election, so you will have to wait a bit for that.
1 Like
I would not want a sexual assaulter on the Supreme Court. I don’t think anyone does regardless of whether they have a D or an R on their voter registration card.
However, if someone accused a person of sexual assault I would want to hear what they have to say. Scrubbing your social media, lack of important details, going into hiding and playing games with the Senate doesn’t lend much in the way of credibility.
I hope it’s the other way around, as she asked. He goes first.
It will be the Sunday before the election. No attempt to influence the outcome of course.
Grassley et al.
DiFi. Thats a good one!
On what planet does the accused testify before the accuser? How is he supposed to rebut the claims against him?
And what does he testify to? Only what’s in the letter that hasn’t been publicly released (and I don’t mean someone reading it over the phone)?
Then she comes in and testifies to what – only what’s in the letter as well?
Do you have a link?
As Trump would say, “Let’s see what happens.”
1 Like
We shall see.
You don’t think the FBI could figure out the where and when by investigating the matter?
This is like easy peasy stuff for them.
I wouldnt want a Sexual Assaulter on the Court either. I also wouldnt want an over privileged uber Elite Frat boy for that matter but thats just me. I would prefer a Judge that had struggled a little bit to understand humanity a bit better.
Yeah as we all are told, liberals are looking out for votes errr I mean victims.
These people don’t care about justice. This is revenge for Garland. If an innocent man’s life and career are ruined… oh well.
It is totally transparent what they are doing. In the real word, an accuser does not get to set the terms. If I was going to court to testify that a man assaulted me, I wouldn’t be able to demand that only a female jury would hear my case.
In the real world the prosecution always goes first, then the defense gets their chance to rebut testimony.
1 Like
This is not a court of law.
