Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Roy Moore Accuser Leigh Corfman Went Public After Washington Post Reporters ‘Sought Her Out’

Roy Moore Accuser Leigh Corfman Went Public After Washington Post Reporters ‘Sought Her Out’

“It literally fell in my life, and I had to make a decision.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH-VSWSDfxY

Earlier this month, The Washington Post published Leigh Corfman’s accusations of sexual assault against Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore when she was only 14 and he was in his 30s. After that, more women came forward with their own stories.

Corfman made her first media appearance on the Today show with Savannah Guthrie and explained that she wanted to confront Moore on many occasions. But she decided to go public after WaPo found out about her story and contacted her.

Corfman said that she would only tell WaPo her story “if they found additional people.” They found those people and she spoke:

“I didn’t go looking for this, this fell in my lap. It literally fell in my life, and I had to make a decision,” she said.

She also said that she has not received any payment or gifts for her story:

“If anything, this has cost me,” she said, explaining she’s had to take a leave of absence from her job. “I have no tickets to Tahiti and my bank account has not flourished. If anything it has gone down because currently I’m not working.”

Corfman retold the story of what happened to her:

Corfman said Moore first approached her outside an Alabama courthouse as she was waiting for her mother inside. He asked for her phone number and later arranged to meet her pick her up and he took her back to his house.

“I wouldn’t exactly call it a date. I would say it was a meet. At 14 I was not dating. At 14, I was not able to make those kind of choices,” she said.

Corfman said the second time she went to Moore’s house, he laid out blankets on his living room floor and “proceeded to, um, seduce me, I guess you would say.” He removed most of her clothing, left the room and then returned wearing only in his “white underwear.”

“He touched me over my clothing, what was left of it, and he tried to get me to touch him as well,” she recalled.

Corfman said she pulled back, frightened, and had Moore take her back home.

“I was a 14-year-old child trying to playing in an adult’s world, and he was 32 years old,” she said.

She kept her composure as she explained to critics that accused her of not saying anything before. She did tell people. First she told her friends and eventually told her parents. She wanted to confront Moore, “but feared the repercussions against her and her family.”

Moore has denied all the accusations against him and refuses to step aside. The special election is on December 12 and Republican Governor Kay Ivey said it will go on as scheduled. Ivey has also said she will still vote for Moore, even though she believes the women, to keep the GOP majority in the senate.

Many Republicans across the nation have called on Moore to step aside if the allegations are true. President Donald Trump finds the allegations “troubling,” but wants the people of Alabama to determine his fate. Trump agreed with the National Republican Senate Committee when it decided to “withdraw its support for Moore’s campaign.”

Professor Jacobson explained that if Moore wins, the Senate could expel him if it invokes Article I, Section 5, clause 2, of the Constitution:

Republican politicians fall into two categories: Moore should step down if the allegations “are true,” and Moore should step down regardless of whether the accusations are true because the accusations are serious. The seriousness of accusations, rather than the evidence of the seriousness of accusations, seems like an unsound basis to overrule the will of the voters.

If enough evidence accumulates, and if Moore does win the election, the Senate has wide discretion in expelling members. Article I, Section 5, clause 2, provides that: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.” The Senate could hold proceedings in which testimony and other evidence is gathered, and could reach a determination.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Show me the MONEY!

    alaskabob in reply to C. Lashown. | November 20, 2017 at 2:32 pm

    Or is it because it was “the right thing to do”? Appealing to her to come out and defend her fellow sisters and to r”ight the wrong” can be alluring. It is easier now with the mob stirred up.

    In the Old West a lynch mob got out of hand and hung a deputy by mistake. Lesser behavior is being folded in with legitimate issues. That the Left and MSM can amplify this to fit their needs and wants is where it gets dangerous.

WaPo selects its targets carefully per the marching orders issued by the Central Committee. Blinders are standard issue for the massive racism, sexual harassment, corruption, intolerance, and dishonesty for the fellow leftists. Moore was a target.

Further, Corfman should have known that the left would simply use her then destroy her when her utility dropped to zero. She was sold out by one of the people she talked to. She made a mistake of trusting “friends” and then she made a bigger mistake by trusting the WaPo.

She quite understandably feared repercussions from Moore at 14, but as an adult Corfman now fails to realize the dirt she’s shoveling in Moore’s direction is coming from the hole she’s digging for herself. No way does this end well for her, legitimate victim or not.

After watching that interview I am even more convinced that this is a complete fabrication.

“I wouldn’t exactly call it a date. I would say it was a meet. At 14 I was not dating. At 14, I was not able to make those kind of choices,” she said.

Well apparently you could make those kind of choices. Considering she snuck out of her house to go “meet” him and go back to his house. Especially in 1979 this was not acceptable behavior.

Also, this just highlighted the fact that there is not a single witness to any of the main points, because even she says she “snuck out and went around the corner to meet him.”

“If anything, this has cost me,” she said, explaining she’s had to take a leave of absence from her job. “I have no tickets to Tahiti and my bank account has not flourished. If anything it has gone down because currently I’m not working.”

Well when you make unprovable claims against someone it should cost you.

I do like how the interviewer made sure to get that she voted Republican, gotta get that in there to make this “interview” look more objective.

    Observer in reply to Gremlin1974. | November 20, 2017 at 3:52 pm

    Yes, “a meet” but not “a date”? Give me a break. Why did she think this man, who’d been flirting with her and had told her how pretty he thought she was (according to her), wanted to pick her up around the corner from her house? She knew what he wanted, which is why she took his call in her room (according to her), and why she agreed to sneak out of the house to meet him around the corner so her mother would not see. And she did it not once, but twice.

    But she wants us to believe she was just an innocent, naive child who had no idea the bad man wanted to touch her. Not buying it lady. Also not buying your line about how this event was the cause of all your subsequent bad choices in life (the multiple boyfriends/husbands, drinking, drugs, etc.). If you were sneaking out of your mother’s house at age 14 to go off to unknown destinations for “meets” with grown men you didn’t know, then you obviously already had serious issues.

      Paul In Sweden in reply to Observer. | November 20, 2017 at 5:36 pm

      Her mother said that there wasn’t a phone in her bedroom for her to be speaking to anyone, much less Roy Moore.

        Ragspierre in reply to Paul In Sweden. | November 21, 2017 at 5:56 am

        And the same T-rumpBart piece reporting that unimportant item reported important items of corroboration from mom.

        Look up PowerLine on the subject.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Gremlin1974. | November 20, 2017 at 4:38 pm

    Yes.

    The fact that it is from the corrupt WaPo is all you need to know to know it is FAKE NEWS, imo.

    Milhouse in reply to Gremlin1974. | November 21, 2017 at 8:54 am

    I do like how the interviewer made sure to get that she voted Republican, gotta get that in there to make this “interview” look more objective.

    On principle I never put any credence in such claims. They’re easy to make and impossible to disprove, and reporters regularly use them to score cheap points.

      tom_swift in reply to Milhouse. | November 21, 2017 at 5:54 pm

      You’re being generous.

      I assume they’re lying. There’s no way a reporter can know how someone voted, short of being in the voting booth with them.

She is not credible. At. All.

    Ragspierre in reply to LisaGinNZ. | November 21, 2017 at 5:46 am

    Donal Ducks apparently disagrees…

    http://freebeacon.com/politics/white-house-official-trump-campaign-roy-moore-didnt-think-allegations-credible/

    BTW, where’s Bannon?

    Apparently, Moore is now “Radioactive Roy”…

      MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | November 21, 2017 at 8:06 am

      Right from CNBC:

      Right-leaning Washington Free Beacon was the first to pay the firm behind the Trump-Russia dossier

      Shoot, why not just post from the DNC.

        Milhouse in reply to MarkSmith. | November 21, 2017 at 8:56 am

        Right-leaning Washington Free Beacon was the first to pay the firm behind the Trump-Russia dossier

        And what exactly is your objection to that? Are you suggesting the press should not be investigating political candidates?!

          MarkSmith in reply to Milhouse. | November 21, 2017 at 9:55 am

          No objection. Just pointing out the bias news source.

          Classic liberal move:

          ” Are you suggesting the press should not be investigating political candidates?!”

          Apparently you missed the point that the press should be doing their job instead of manufacturing fake dossiers”

          Interesting enough, the 1st Amendment intent behind free speech and free press is to allow for counter arguments. So the Free Beacon can continue have at it, but I will call them out just like I do you and Jacobin Rags about BS posts.

          Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | November 21, 2017 at 10:12 am

          “I will call them out just like I do you and Jacobin Rags about BS posts.”

          Let us know when you start doing that. Because so far, all you’ve done is post more of YOUR bullshit.

          Nothing relating to the FACT that T-rump is clearly NOT supporting Moore.

          And nothing relating to your bigotry regarding interracial couples.

          MarkSmith in reply to Milhouse. | November 21, 2017 at 2:26 pm

          “And nothing relating to your bigotry regarding interracial couples.”

          LOL, not sure where that is coming from or what it has to do with this thread. Definitely something stuck in your twisted head that you think is important. Keep making up stuff, it is par for your course. LOL

          You better stop sniffing the cat food.

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 21, 2017 at 8:36 am

      I guess you missed the substance, Alt-right bigot.

      Oh, did I ever get a response from you about your interacial couples “remark”…???

      No? How come…???

      BTW, you’re “Jacobin” word-salad was just inane. I saved it.

        MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | November 21, 2017 at 9:58 am

        I bet you have it posted right next to the cat food can opener……..trolling, trolling, trolling, kept those kitties rollin…yeah ha.

      inspectorudy in reply to Ragspierre. | November 21, 2017 at 5:13 pm

      Well, you are wrong on that one Rags. Trump just said he wanted Moore to win because the country cannot stand another lying liberal Demorat. He said he would decide during Thanksgiving as to whether or not he would campaign for him. He said he is taking Moore at his word and that whatever happened, was 40 years ago.

Does anybody else hear the phrase “Book Deal” floating in the wind from the way the WaPo angled this story? Because if there’s one sure way to launder money, a book advance for a ghostwritten book is a sure thing, and Hillary has that down cold.

I expect no end of meticulous detailing of the perfect recollection all of us have for things that happened 40 years ago when we were 16.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to georgfelis. | November 20, 2017 at 4:39 pm

    Amazon owned WaPo offer a “book deal’s millions of dollars” to entice people fake it?

    Surely you jest.

    Snark!

How did WaPo find out about her story?

What I’d like to know is — how did she know it was Roy Moore? Did he introduce himself? I find it unlikely that a random 14 year old is familiar with the assistant DA’s in her county. Is she possibly conflating two separate events in her childhood? Human memory is not perfect. People can swear to remember things that did not happen.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to BrokeGopher. | November 20, 2017 at 4:41 pm

    Bet there are lots and lots and lots of Democrats and GOPe named “Roy Moore.”

    She’s probably confused with James Bond’s Roger Moore…..

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/11/moore_yearbook_signature_fraud.html

Can’t post the pictures, but this author takes the photo of the yearbook and finds what he sees as a lighter colored ink.
Not an expert but the sevens and the M’s look different enough to say it might be a fake.

    randian in reply to 4fun. | November 20, 2017 at 10:08 pm

    The different ink and bizarre name in the signature (who puts their job title in a yearbook missive?) proves it’s a forgery to me.

Several things to consider in this “Interview”. One, what was her size and appearance at the age of 14. WAs she “Developed” for her age and was she a “Big” girl physically? Two, did Moore know she was 14? Three, why would Moore put a blanket on a living room floor when the bed was just a little bit further in or the sofa? Four, she said she had read a lot of Harlequin novels and was looking for something really exciting from sex. She said that she was disappointed at what happened between them and asked to be taken home which he did with no hesitation. This smacks of a young girl dressing and wearing makeup to look much older and then when she got into a situation that was not what she expected she wanted to go home to mommy. This sounds like, if you believe her story, she misrepresented her age to Moore and then backed out of the deal. This has been done thousands of times before and this sounds like one of those deals, if you buy her story.

    I hereby invoke the “Pinto” defense. You know, Pinto from Animal House. Pinto’s girlfriend never told him she was 14 until after they did it.

DINORightMarie | November 20, 2017 at 9:36 pm

She also said that she has not received any payment or gifts for her story….

Yet. Has not received any payment…yet.

They would never leave a money trail, only promises of what may be IF she sticks to the same story……

Stinks more and more like a political hatchet job, a frame-up for future rewards, every day.

Corfman said the second time she went to Moore’s house, he laid out blankets on his living room floor and “proceeded to, um, seduce me, I guess you would say.” He removed most of her clothing, left the room and then returned wearing only in his “white underwear.”
This sounds more like a 14 year-old’s expectation or fantasy of how things would go. It isn’t how a 32-year-old man does things. He doesn’t spread blankets on the floor that sounds more like a female fantasy that would never occur to grown man.
Isn’t this supposed to be the same man who roughed up a teenager in a parking lot and shoved her face into his crotch for a blowjob?

I don’t see how these two women could be describing the same man because these approaches are polar opposites. I see a likelihood both these Roy Moore’s” are made up by these two women and that is why they sound nothing alike.

Did the Alabama gov say that “she believes the women”?

I know that she did say, “I certainly have no reason to disbelieve any of them.” But, she questioned the timing of them, calling it: “a little curious.”

caseoftheblues | November 21, 2017 at 3:08 am

Apparently another waitress who worked at the old hickory during the timeframe claimed by Alreds accuser has been trying to come out but no one will report…..she utterly debunks virtually all of the accusers story….up to and including not only was Moore not a regular she doesn’t think he ever even was a customer at all….and she also states NO 15 year olds were allowed to work and she has no recollection Beverly Nelson actually even worked there and her description of back and outside of restaurant completely wrong

Now, see, all this crap up and down this thread about Corfman…

THIS is “innuendo”.

So, for clarity; her’s is an “allegation” (look it up), while all this bullshit is “innuendo” (again, look it up).

Maybe some of it is really in the nature of an internet rumor, like the nonsense about “another waitress”…who can’t find T-rumpBart somehow.

    MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | November 21, 2017 at 8:49 am

    Yea, this is suppose to be about Corfman. It is interesting that there has been zero traction about the others mentioned in the article and they have been pretty much discredited or really do not offer any value.

    There are a few things we can gleam from Corfman including she has had a troubled past. I think is has been established that Moore did like to date younger women.

    Based on others comments, Moore sexually assaulting her seems out of character and others that had dated him seem to support that.

    Based on her troubled past, it would be reasonable to say that she could have been trying to latch on to a father figure. Questions that should have been ask is “is there any reason that Moore would have thought you were older?”
    This does assume that Moore and Corfman actually got together (and twice according to Corfman).

    I am bothered by this statement too:

    She says that her teenage life became increasingly reckless

    I would be curious when did it really start and why?

    Something tells me that this teenage girls problems started long before Moore came in the picture and Moore did not “take the bait” and get enmeshed with her and possible take advantage of her.

    Based on some of the other articles about Moore, he sounds more like a 32 year old virgin than a sexual predator.

    It is interesting the WAPO does not have the pay wall up on the original article.

    She says that her teenage life became increasingly reckless with drinking, drugs, boyfriends, and a suicide attempt when she was 16.

    As the years went on, Corfman says, she did not share her story about Moore partly because of the trouble in her life. She has had three divorces and financial problems.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/woman-says-roy-moore-initiated-sexual-encounter-when-she-was-14-he-was-32/2017/11/09/1f495878-c293-11e7-afe9-4f60b5a6c4a0_story.html?utm_term=.7826fe43e03d

      Ragspierre in reply to MarkSmith. | November 21, 2017 at 9:14 am

      “It is interesting that there has been zero traction about the others mentioned in the article and they have been pretty much discredited or really do not offer any value.”

      That’s just happy bullshit.

      The lives of sexual assault victims are very often deeply troubled as the result of their experience.

      I don’t think this explains T-rump’s divorces and financial troubles, however…

        MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | November 21, 2017 at 10:19 am

        Other than stating the obvious:

        The lives of sexual assault victims are very often deeply troubled as the result of their experience.

        I suspect that you really don’t care about this and are using the opportunity to promote your BS.

        IMO (not using your collective “we” bs) Corfman is being used by the media, just like those that have abused her in the past.

        Jury is still out on Moore, but right now, the allegations seem pretty weak to me.

caseoftheblues | November 21, 2017 at 7:31 am

Ah Rags…nobody needed your clarification…they are trying to take a guy down based on allegations and innuendo…it was 40 years ago btw. They deserve to have it tossed right back at them….that’s the mudpit they picked to fight in…taking the higher ground is the
GOP excuse for not fighting cause we are really fine with the consequences of yet another one of our guys going down. Stick your finger in the air…the winds are a changing….

    Ragspierre in reply to caseoftheblues. | November 21, 2017 at 8:41 am

    See, that’s interesting. Some of us don’t decide anything by “sticking our fingers in the air”.

    We have what are called “principles”. Just now, these are deprecated by cultists and morons. But I predict they’ll make a come-back, by-and-by. They’ve proven quite durable over time. Much more than the fads of personality or tribe.

      MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | November 21, 2017 at 9:01 am

      Who is “We” and what are those “principles”? The WAPO and NBC has principles? Please defend for me “the principles” of the media.

      I think one good principle would be to be suspect of anything that the opposition throws out there 30 days before the election. Even more so if the “allegations” are over 40 years old and other accounts seem to be lacking in creditably.

Why is it interesting or relevant that WaPo sought her out rather than waiting for her to come to it? That’s its job. Of course this doesn’t make her more credible, but it doesn’t make her less credible either.

Ignore the claims about her being a Republican, or of not being paid; these may very well be true, but they may just as easily be false, and they’re easy to make and impossible to disprove, so they have no value.

    Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | November 21, 2017 at 9:17 am

    As to payment, that is really quite easily proven.

    Moore just has but to file this threatened law suit and conduct discovery.

    But we know he won’t. Just like T-rump will never sue his accusers. It’s just a hard-ball thrown at the heads of people you want to intimidate.

      MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | November 21, 2017 at 10:25 am

      Just like T-rump will never sue his accusers. It’s just a hard-ball thrown at the heads of people you want to intimidate.

      Just like shooting fish in a barrel!

      Melania Trump Settles Defamation Lawsuit Against Maryland Blogger

      http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/melania-trump-defamation-webster-tarpley-1201980173/

        Ragspierre in reply to MarkSmith. | November 21, 2017 at 10:31 am

        You’re drunk. Go home.

        You’ve proven that you can shoot a barrel packed with fish…

        and completely miss.

        Incredible.

        Still waiting for your explication about how interracial couples are unequal in their development.

          MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | November 21, 2017 at 11:50 am

          Cat Loving Jacobin Rags says:

          “Just like T-rump will never sue his accusers.”

          Is instantly proven false:

          Melania Trump Settles Defamation Lawsuit Against Maryland Blogger

          But here is the great attorney’s reply:

          You’re drunk. Go home.

          Let me help you out:

          Trump + Lawsuit + accusing Blogger = Trump sues accuser and wins!

          So what kind of food do you feed your cat? Do you need to ask your mom?

    Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | November 21, 2017 at 9:24 am

    Being…or not…a Republican is pretty easily proven, as well. Look at her voter registration, and ask people who know her.

      MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | November 21, 2017 at 10:36 am

      Easily proven, ha!

      Looking at my voting registration you would not know who I supported or voted for. Same goes to asking my friends, most have no clue who I voted for. No something I discuss with them.

      The statement “voted republican” is another red flag on this. At face value the allegations are serious. Why must that be added to give it more creditably? Maybe because the original allegation is not what it appears to be?

        Ragspierre in reply to MarkSmith. | November 21, 2017 at 10:41 am

        “Why must that be added to give it more creditably?”

        Well, because the knee-jerks immediately attack the question of affiliation. As with the lady who provided sign-language for the Clinton campaign.

        (She did it because it was her ethical duty to provide her services to the deaf. It was no indicator of anything beyond that.)

        That’s why.

          MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | November 21, 2017 at 11:40 am

          So the statement is to deflect knew-jerk reactions? Ok? LOL.

          Why does it make the statement more creditable, again?

          I do believe Coufman is a victim of abuse. I don’t think it is at the “hands” of Moore but those around her and the media is exploiting her.

          As for the lawsuit, I heard on the radio, the who I think is an editor at WAPO, threatening Moore to bring suit. He said that the accuser would have to be included in the suit and that would look really bad for Moore.

          I agree, even if Moore is being defamed, bringing suit against the women would look very mean and vindictive. I would say a suit is last resort.

    MarkSmith in reply to Milhouse. | November 21, 2017 at 10:44 am

    Ignore the claims about her being a Republican, or of not being paid; these may very well be true, but they may just as easily be false, and they’re easy to make and impossible to disprove, so they have no value.

    I same the same about the allegations:

    these may very well be true, but they may just as easily be false, and they’re easy to make and impossible to disprove

    I think all the statements have value to the intent of the reporting more than the accuracy of the allegations.

Isn’t this the same woman who claimed several ministers hit on her? Bless her heart!

I see that Clinton loving Alabama Media AL.com actual had to print something negative about Jones.

Accuser in UAB sex abuse case calls out Jones for ‘hypocrisy’ for position on Moore accusers

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/accuser_in_uab_sex_abuse_case.html#incart_maj-story-1

I am wondering what smoke screen interference they are up to. Maybe trying to distances themselves from the established Republicans before it all blows up.

Unless there is an eyewitness who comes forward and confirms this lady’s story I would ask myself one question. If all she said is true and he stopped immediately and without any pushback when she asked him to stop, took her home, does that sound like a crazy guy who is a predator? Is that like clinton and his biting? Or Weinstein and his gross request and displays? Or any of the others who did not stop and forced themselves on their victims? I’m just trying to get my head around a really nice gentle guy who prays on a 14-year-old but treats her like his own daughter when she asks him to. She said he gave her wine and threw a blanket on the living room floor? Does that even remotely sound real? He must have had a bed or a nice soft sofa to sit/lay on so why the blanket on a hard floor? She said she thought it would be a great sexual experience, because of the Harlequin novels she had been reading, but then decided it wasn’t and wanted it to stop and go home. So he takes her home. No force to pin her down or pleading to stay a little longer. No inducements to get her to stay? This just doesn’t add up to any big night in the sack that I have ever heard of.

She says she spoke with her kids when they were in Junior High and elementary school, about coming forward. A “high overview.” And they vetoed her going public.

Who asks their elementary-aged child to make that decision?

Having been a 14-year-old girl myself once, I completely agree with INspector Rudy that the M.O. described isn’t that of an aggressive predator.

Also, again, the reporter cites the number “8” additional women, but 7 of them have claims that aren’t even noteworthy.

Even if true, not enough to deny Alabama or America a senator opposed to the slicing and dicing of unborn human beings. We know Jones favors keeping the butchering legal.

What do progs do?

Double down on stupid.

As the “story” evolves, it can be shown with near certainty that both of Moore’s accusers (really, there are only 2) are liars. It’s near impossible for their stories to be remotely accurate.

Nelson’s “proof” is a signature in a yearbook, which is of course, proof of nothing. If it were actually Moore’s signature, that yearbook would already be in the hands of a professional for examination. It’s not, nor will it ever be. She cannot even prove she was an employee of the restaurant. No one that worked there remembers her.

Corfman – give me a break. That story is imploding every day. Just read.

Fabricated stories. Believed by the willing ’till the very end. Always doubling down.

And they will claim they are “principled”. They have integrity. The truth be damned.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend