Take 2.
Then put him under oath, even privately, and get it officially on the record. Shouldn’t be a problem, right?
And either way, what Democrats want is moot-they literally have no power to put up hoops-republicans can put an end to this and confirm just as fast as they’d like.
But remember, what’s good for the GOP goose is good for the DEM gander. It’s the McConnell rule after all 
Would be nice if the accuser would appear wouldn’t it?
Opinion piece? Is that what OP has to offer?
here is article
Mark Judge, high school friend of embattled Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh said he has nothing to add to a planned Sept. 24 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on allegations Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a woman in high school.
The accuser, Professor Christine Blasey Ford, has said Judge was in the room when the alleged assault took place and Hill Democrats have called for him to be included in the hearing.
But in a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the committee Tuesday (Sept. 18), said Judge had no memory of the alleged incident or the party described by Ford. “I have no more information to offer the committee and I do not wish to speak publicly regarding the incidents described in Dr. Ford’s letter.”
I’m sure they could subpoena him but it seems like he has nothing else to offer.
So another left-wing talking point that will go nowhere. But again that’s all libs have isn’t it?
Indeed it would be.
But again we all know this is drive by hit job.
So you are confirming he may be avoiding lying under oath and the penalties that come with it?
Amazing when a liberal paraphrases what I say it never is.
Why do you think the republicans are trying to avoid it?
Because they know the only purpose is delay.
We’re talking about having one or two more people added to the list that the republicans want to limit to Judge and Ford. Eight Benghazi investigations says you people don’t really care about minimizing “hoops.”
It’s all a moot point is the alleged victim won’t get her accusation under oath.
This thread is about why the republicans don’t want anybody else to testify. What do you think about that?
I think they want to base it on the credability and testimony of the accused and the accuser. Remember it’s isn’t a trail (as libs keep pointing out in other threads).
It doesn’t have to be a “trail” in order for other people to testify. Don’t you know that we can see you?
And for them to judge the credibility they don’t need other witnesses.
Good point. Why would witnesses ever be necessary? Carry on.
Like I said. All a moot point if she won’t go before the committee and give her sworn accustion and try to answer questions about a night she doesn’t remember very much about.
What and have to actually attempt to back up her accusation? Where’s the fun in that? Much better to send letters to politicians and have them play games with it, isn’t it? It must be, since that’s what her lawyers have been doing so far.
If Ford testifies, should Judge be called to testify?
My opinion no.
Should be That accuser and the accused.
She says there was a witness. Why wouldn’t you want to hear from that person?
Hannity Community
The official community forum of Sean Hannity. Join the conversation with fellow conservatives on the issues that matter most.