Prediction: you won't actually answer that, because you're well aware that the judge's "evidence" does not bolster your claim. That's what happens when you're confronted with people who engage with you on the actual facts (and hence why you're only left w/ insults & deflection).
-
-
I can answer what the indictment was for--in fact I've had to explain precisely this indictment to your fellow denialists Maté and Greenwald. But I want you to have to admit to what it was. Go ahead. Tell us what the indictment was for.
-
I’ll answer for him. The indictment was for witness tampering.
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
exactly
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.