Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

McConnell: Roy Moore Should Step Aside if Sexual Assault Allegations True

McConnell: Roy Moore Should Step Aside if Sexual Assault Allegations True

Moore has denied the allegations.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Judge_Roy_Moore.jpg

A woman has accused Alabama Republican senator candidate Roy Moore of coming onto her when she was only 14-years-old and he was 32.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said that if the sexual assault allegations against Alabama senate candidate Roy Moore are true he must step aside. From Politico:

“If these allegations are true, he must step aside.”

Allegations

Leigh Corfman said the incident happened in 1979 after Moore, who served as assistant district attorney at the time, offered to keep her company on a bench outside of a courtroom during a custody hearing. From The Washington Post:

“He said, ‘Oh, you don’t want her to go in there and hear all that. I’ll stay out here with her,’ ” says Corfman’s mother, Nancy Wells, 71. “I thought, how nice for him to want to take care of my little girl.”

Alone with Corfman, Moore chatted with her and asked for her phone number, she says. Days later, she says, he picked her up around the corner from her house in Gadsden, drove her about 30 minutes to his home in the woods, told her how pretty she was and kissed her. On a second visit, she says, he took off her shirt and pants and removed his clothes. He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear.

“I wanted it over with — I wanted out,” she remembers thinking. “Please just get this over with. Whatever this is, just get it over.” Corfman says she asked Moore to take her home, and he did.

Two of Corfman’s childhood friends say she told them at the time that she was seeing an older man, and one says Corfman identified the man as Moore. Wells says her daughter told her about the encounter more than a decade later, as Moore was becoming more prominent as a local judge.

WaPo said that three other women had been pursued by Moore when they were between the ages of 16 and 18:

Wendy Miller says she was 14 and working as a Santa’s helper at the Gadsden Mall when Moore first approached her, and 16 when he asked her on dates, which her mother forbade. Debbie Wesson Gibson says she was 17 when Moore spoke to her high school civics class and asked her out on the first of several dates that did not progress beyond kissing. Gloria Thacker Deason says she was an 18-year-old cheerleader when Moore began taking her on dates that included bottles of Mateus Rosé wine. The legal drinking age in Alabama was 19.

Of the four women, the youngest at the time was Corfman, who is the only one who says she had sexual contact with Moore that went beyond kissing. She says they did not have intercourse.

Moore denied the allegations:

“These allegations are completely false and are a desperate political attack by the National Democrat Party and the Washington Post on this campaign,” Moore, now 70, said.

The campaign said in a subsequent statement that if the allegations were true they would have surfaced during his previous campaigns, adding “this garbage is the very definition of fake news.”

The Senate Race

Other Republicans have agreed with McConnell:

“The allegations against Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore are deeply troubling,” added Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “If these allegations are found to be true, Roy Moore must drop out of the Alabama special Senate election.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) was unequivocal. “I’m horrified, and if this is true he needs to step down immediately,” she told reporters.

Texas Sens. Ted Cruz and John Cornyn have come under pressure after these allegations since both have supported Moore. From Texas Tribune:

Cornyn, the second-ranking GOP senator, called the allegations “deeply disturbing and troubling.”

“I think it’s up to the governor and the folks in Alabama to make that decision as far as what the next step is,” he said.

Cruz declined to answer questions as he passed reporters.

A cascade of other GOP senators — including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — told reporters that if the allegations are true, Moore must drop out of the race.

Cornyn then returned to reporters.

“Obviously, it’s very troubling, but I think people are trying to sort it out and figure out what the appropriate response is, including Sen. [Luther] Strange,” he said, referring to the temporarily-appointed senator whom Moore defeated in the GOP primary.

“If it is true… I don’t think this candidacy is sustainable, but we believe in a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and so I think it’s important for the facts to come out.”

The Senate Leadership Fund President and CEO Steven Law emailed this statement:

“If there’s even a shred of evidence to these accusations, Gov. Ivey and the Alabama Republican Party need to do everything in their power to remove Judge Moore from the ballot. There is no place in our party for sexual predators.”

Alabama state law says that “the ballot cannot be changed within 76 days of an election.” This special election will take place on December 12. From WaPo:

But a candidate can still withdraw or a state party can request a state judge or the secretary of state to disqualify a candidate from the race.

In the event of either disqualification or withdrawal, the appropriate state canvassing boards would not certify any votes cast for Moore.

However, Alabama allows write-ins during the special election as long as the vote is for a living person and actually written-in. In other words, you cannot use a rubber stamp or label.

This means that his primary opponent Luther Strange is eligible.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Is that anything like “pursuing”?

I don’t believe it. And why should we give a crap what McConnell says? He and his establishment ilk probably helped find persons willing to accuse Moore. At the very least, this is all very convenient for the establishment who always claim that real conservatives cannot win, and Mitch is taking his chance to get rid of the guy who beat his minion in the primary.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Dr. Ransom. | November 9, 2017 at 3:25 pm

    If only McConnell would step aside……..

    McConnell is another snake whose hisses I simply do not believe.

    Ragspierre in reply to Dr. Ransom. | November 9, 2017 at 11:07 pm

    Just to keep it real, Strange was Der Donald’s guy, too. And he was a McConnell vote, whenever he needed one.

      Ragspierre and I do not always agree, but I fail to understand how this comment of his can receive thumbs down.
      Maybe they come from being reminded that Trump’s support of Strange was unsettling to Trump supporters.

        Ragspierre in reply to Rick. | November 10, 2017 at 10:40 am

        There’s a “Ragspierre Factor” whenever I comment. There are a reliable cohort of haters who will down-thumb anything I say. I’ve demonstrated it many times.

        I can literally say, “The sky is blue”, and it will be met with several down-votes.

        It’s just who the haters are.

          MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | November 10, 2017 at 1:19 pm

          Ha, that’s funny. Don’t cha know that “Hate” is a liberal word. The thumb thing is not a big deal and should be ignored but I have you give you credit, I think you have set the record for most thumbs down for one post.

          Who knows, it may be bot driven, but remember seeing 38 thumb downs on a Jacobin post. That has to be a record. Anyone remember one higher?

I don’t believe this crap for a second. Moore has been an EXTREMELY public figure for years, has run for multiple offices before,

And now suddenly gets accused 38 years after the alleged incident, CONVENIENTLY less than a month before an extremely important special election?

They tried this same bullshit with Trump after the pussy grabbing tape didn’t work. Remember how a handful of women claimed he harassed/assaulted them, then disappeared and we never heard from them again?

This is just another page from the modern Democrat slime playbook.

    Awing1 in reply to Olinser. | November 9, 2017 at 3:54 pm

    He has never before run for federal office, with all that it entails. The scrutiny on general election Senate candidates is a whole different league than the scrutiny on candidates for state office, surely you know this.

    Of course, the lesson from the Weinstein and Spacey scandals is that people never keep quiet about sexual abuse for decades./sarc

      gwsjr425 in reply to Awing1. | November 9, 2017 at 4:01 pm

      Not buying that line of bullsh*t

      Yujin in reply to Awing1. | November 9, 2017 at 6:54 pm

      Normally I’d agree that scrutiny at the Federal level is more intense. However, this is Roy Moore, a Southern White Christian Male. The most vile creature on the face of the earth. He is well known for being outspokenly Christian. Do you really believe his opponents haven’t already come at him with everything they have?
      The Dem’s hate him and his kind with a passion. The GOPe would rather have a Democrat than him.
      From that perspective, liking also at the timing, this smells funny.

        Awing1 in reply to Yujin. | November 9, 2017 at 8:14 pm

        You clearly don’t know what it means to have more scrutiny. Allegations like these generally come out because there are just more people, reporters, etc., talking to local residents, anyone that’s interacted with the subject, lived in the same town, whatever. WaPo here has said they were doing a story on Moore’s base when one person they had an in depth conversation mentioned the incident that involved the fourteen year old. She didn’t seek out attention. It’s the simple act of more people seeking deeper background that dregs these things up.

          Yujin in reply to Awing1. | November 9, 2017 at 9:00 pm

          Yes, I do speak English. I have also been involved in politics for close to fifty years, but you go ahead and teach me Bucky.

          Awing1 in reply to Awing1. | November 9, 2017 at 9:14 pm

          Wow, such a logical, substantive response, I don’t know how I can ever come back from that.

      gospace in reply to Awing1. | November 9, 2017 at 7:01 pm

      So maybe you can explain the extreme level of scrutiny given by th MSM to Toricelli or Menendez.

      Sanddog in reply to Awing1. | November 9, 2017 at 7:09 pm

      Moore had national attention during the 10 commandments monument debacle. That would have been the time to trot out the accusations. Now it just looks like opportunistic political games riding the coattails of the Hollywood sex scandals.

        Awing1 in reply to Sanddog. | November 9, 2017 at 8:17 pm

        Well resourced, experienced national publications weren’t regularly doing on the ground, in depth backgrounds on his base of support during the 10 commandments debacle.

          SDN in reply to Awing1. | November 9, 2017 at 8:48 pm

          30+ year AL resident here, 1972-2006. You’re full of it. Roy Moore has had national media scrutiny most of his career, simply because they wanted to smear him for his beliefs.

          Ragspierre in reply to Awing1. | November 9, 2017 at 9:02 pm

          So YOU knew he was dating teenagers when in his thirties and a ADA?

          Because I damn sure didn’t.

          Awing1 in reply to Awing1. | November 9, 2017 at 9:17 pm

          Really? National media were regularly doing ground investigation on his base of support in every area he’s worked? Where they had in-depth conversations with random constituents from areas he’d served in the past?

          I’d love to see the product of this, please feel free to provide…

          “So YOU knew he was dating teenagers when in his thirties and a ADA?

          Because I damn sure didn’t.”

          I know no one was accusing him of that.

          Matt_SE in reply to Awing1. | November 10, 2017 at 8:53 am

          “Well resourced, experienced national publications weren’t regularly doing on the ground [blah, blah, blah]…”

          Quit pretending that this story was discovered only through the COURAGEOUS efforts of the media. If it were true, it could’ve been broken by a high school newspaper.

          The media are a pack of liars.
          Dems and GOPe are a pack of liars.
          There’s lots of previous history of these groups using these same smear tactics.

          In other words, there’s FAR more evidence that we’re being lied to again than there is for Moore’s guilt.

      Milwaukee in reply to Awing1. | November 9, 2017 at 9:00 pm

      “Of course, the lesson from the Weinstein and Spacey scandals is that people never keep quiet about sexual abuse for decades./sarc”

      Context is very important. Weinstein and Spacey are in a different theater of operations. There are loads of pretty faces out there, looking for jobs in the entertainment industry. Screw up, and there is a long of list of people willing to take your place on the staff. Moore wasn’t in a comparable position of power. To the contrary, Moore has been on a more precarious position. These accusations could have come out much earlier. He has been in the national news long enough the accusers really can not claim not recognizing him.

        Awing1 in reply to Milwaukee. | November 9, 2017 at 9:22 pm

        Your argument doesn’t make any sense. So, you’re saying the stories should have come out when Moore wasn’t in a more powerful position than ADA? How is that different than claiming the stories about Spacey, the first of which made claims about his actions long before he was anything close to a success, should have come out then?

        Or are you claiming they should have come out when Moore came to national prominence, and presumably would have had more power? How is that any different than the claim that the allegations against Spacey should have came out after The Usual Suspects or something of the like?

        Can you try being a little clearer?

          MarkSmith in reply to Awing1. | November 10, 2017 at 11:40 am

          I would guess that the stories on Moore were really not that important that is why it did not come out. “Careers” were on the line and the network of Hollywood elites were there to cover up and attack those that went against Spacey and Weinstein.

          Didn’t media actually spike Weinstein stories. It is obvious what is going on here.

      Valerie in reply to Awing1. | November 10, 2017 at 10:20 am

      Scrutiny like that which led to a certain unverified pi$$ dossier?

      I think I read here that some Republican up for election would be the next target, because these creeps are so predictable.

    4th armored div in reply to Olinser. | November 9, 2017 at 6:53 pm

    r.e. Pres Trump, just wait until 2020 season rolls around and see how many NEW allegations pop up.

    Pres Trump is the cure for Obama and the Clinton Crime Family.

    Now if we can get Comey and the other FBI swamp rats indicted for their antics. 😉

The incident happened in 1979, when Carter was president. Supposedly. So thirty-eight years ago. And the *first* three Republicans to hop on the ‘Resign’ wagon are pure swamp critters.

I have never seen a swamp fight so fiercely to avoid being drained.

    Valerie in reply to georgfelis. | November 10, 2017 at 10:24 am

    John McCain thinks somebody should “step aside” on the basis of a stale accusation of sexual misconduct so distantly removed that nobody can disprove it.

    Meanwhile, his adultery is a matter of public record.

    Maybe he should resign his seat, just to conform to his own standards.

How about the Torch as a replacement if Moore drops out.

buckeyeminuteman | November 9, 2017 at 3:43 pm

At a time when sexual immorality is rampant across our culture and media; all of a sudden every Democrat, news media figure and Hollywood celebrity is a Puritan. Seems suspicious to me.

    Yeah, all these puritans opposed to preying on 14 year olds …

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to buckeyeminuteman. | November 9, 2017 at 4:23 pm

    It was those Puritans that got up wind to burn witches after all.

    scooterjay in reply to buckeyeminuteman. | November 9, 2017 at 6:49 pm

    I think the sudden surge in “celebrity outing” on sexual allegations is a setup. These Hollywood figures are being deliberately thrown under the bus to stir up popular outrage, then the allegations will be made against any conservative running for office. Why, all of a sudden, are all the allegations coming out against the Hollywood folks when EVERYONE has known about it for decades? Pure Alinsky, nothing more and nothing less.

Moore will double his vote count in December if he tells McConnell to step aside.

Didn’t McConnell spend like 30 million dollars to beat Moore and didn’t find this information?

Paul In Sweden | November 9, 2017 at 4:01 pm

McConnell, Don’t trouble your useless GOPe mind about Roy Moore, concentrate on your own resignation announcement. Get off the tracks the MAGA train has no seats for you.

    McConnell should rot in hell for betraying Republicans and the country by helping Tyrant Obama the Liar ram his Help Iran Build Nuclear Weapons and ICBMS agreement down our throats when he could have easily stopped it.

      Milhouse in reply to ConradCA. | November 10, 2017 at 2:16 am

      You’re a damned liar. There was literally nothing McConnell or any other Republican could have done to stop it, without enough Democrats to make up 2/3 of each house. Corker & Menendez came closest to stopping it, and did manage to wring out of 0bama a concession that ultimately proved insufficient, but the plain truth is that everything 0bama promised Iran was within his authority to deliver without anyone’s permission, so the only way to stop him was to pass a law forbidding it, and laws need 2/3 of each house to pass over the president’s veto.

      It would have been different had he promised something he couldn’t deliver on his own, and he’d therefore needed either a statute or a treaty to authorize it. A statute would need a majority in each house; a treaty wouldn’t need any votes in the house, but it would need 2/3 of the senate. It would have been his choice which goal to try for, but he would almost certainly have failed at either one. But that wasn’t the case, so he didn’t need anything, and stopping him needed more votes than could be had.

      Those who blame the Republicans, and especially those who blame Corker, and those who claim the senate could have stopped it by pretending it had been asked for 2/3 consent and refusing it, are all either completely ignorant of the constitution, or deliberate liars.

    Paul In Sweden in reply to Paul In Sweden. | November 9, 2017 at 10:58 pm

    …and that goes double for John McCain!

To keep from being a clinton clone Moore needs to be proactive and challenge this woman to a lie detector test with him, in public! If he loses he’s toast but if he only cries “Lie” he is toast too. This tactic going to be very common in the near future and the R’s had better devise a plan to deal with it. Years ago when my children were young, I told my wife that I would never take the babysitters home when we returned in the evening because all one of them had to do was to say that I “Touched” her. The truth would never be known because public opinion would condemn me no matter what. This woman claims to have voted for Trump and says she is a Republican. Going after her character is not going to work.

    In a word, no.

    Remember that rule of being in court? Never put anybody on the stand and ask them a question that you don’t know the answer to.

    It is possible (although unlikely) that this woman either is deluded enough to think this really happened, or can fool a badly run lie detector, or can rig a lie detector session, or any one of a number of things that could make such a challange backfire. Even if she took the challenge and failed, that would only fuel the fire you’re trying to put out as every news organization puffs up a piece about how the ‘brave woman’ stood up and accepted the challenge. The fact she failed will get buried.

    Remember, the press doesn’t care if it’s true. The press just wants some dirty laundry to wave every evening for the news.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHimia_Fxzs

    Arminius in reply to inspectorudy. | November 9, 2017 at 5:44 pm

    Your faith in the polygraph is misplaced. Lie detectors can be beaten even when administered by an accredited examiner. If you recall, during the campaign an audio tape came out with Hillary Clinton chuckling about getting a defendant off with a reduced sentence for raping a 12 y.o. after he got her drunk.

    Unlike these accusations the girl reported the crime immediately. There was actual physical evidence; the clothes she was wearing that night. Clinton got that evidence thrown out by claiming it had been mishandled and adulterated. Then she blamed the sixth grader for “seducing” the older man.

    She got one of her biggest chuckles out to the fact she had him take a lie detector test. He passed, and she found that incredibly amusing because she knew her client was guilty as sin. Of course, she ruined the girl’s life, but why let that bother her? She was just such a clever lawyer she could get a child rapist and all around scumbag off with a slap on the wrist. All Clinton had to do once she had the physical evidence tossed was paint the girl as a liar even though she knew the girl was telling the truth.

    It’s because of cases like this that many jurisdictions have absolute bans on admitting polygraph results in court. I can give you a whole list of traitors/spies like Aldrich Ames, Johnny Walker “Red,” and Ana Belen Montes who have beaten them repeatedly.

    Well, Montes beat the polygraph at least once.

    http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/espionage/polygraph.htm

    ” WASHINGTON – Even though confessed Cuban spy Ana Belen Montes already outwitted a lie-detector test, the government plans to rely on polygraph exams to check her honesty as they debrief her about her 16-year spying career while working for U.S. military intelligence.

    Montes took a polygraph examination at least once during her career as an analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency, her attorney says.

    ”At the time she was polygraphed, she passed it,” said prominent Washington attorney Plato Cacheris, who added that he did not know when the exam was given.

    Critics of polygraph exams, which are designed to snare liars, say they are astounded that U.S. officials would rely on them to determine if Montes is telling the truth.

    ‘Isn’t this incredibly ironic?’ asked Drew C. Richardson, a retired FBI agent who wrote a doctorate dissertation on polygraph research. `She beats the polygraph and now we’re going to use a polygraph to assess the damage? It’s utterly, unbelievably stupid.’…”

    There are techniques that can be taught. I’d be surprised to find that Cuban spies (or any other spies) don’t learn them from their instructors. Trained examiners are supposed to be able to spot someone who is trying to cheat the polygraph. But I hear it’s just standard trade craft to not only learn those techniques but also get enough practice time on the machine to not only be able to beat it but get good enough at beating it so the examiner ho knows what to look for can’t spot it.

    Of course a really smooth, cool, natural liar born liar doesn’t need any training. Like Clinton’s client. Or for that matter Clinton herself.

    If Clinton volunteered to be polygraphed on everything from White Water to Benghazi and the results show she’s as pure as the driven snow and free of all misconduct from the beginning of time to date, would you buy it?

    As far as I am aware in all of the jurisdictions that ban polygraph results from the court room, if an attorney even mentions that the defendant passed one that’s enough for a judge to immediately order a retrial. Because some jurors will believe that the lie detector is infallible. I wouldn’t be one of those jurors.

    The Republican “leadership” has devised a plan, see below:

    Conservative? Here comes the bus.
    Rockefeller Republican? Defend only if there’s a really, really good chance it goes away, else here comes the bus.

    Lie detector tests are not all that reliable.

Why should we believe anything alleged to have happened over 35 years ago? There is absolutely no proof of any misbehavior. It is just very very belated he said she said. Are the accusers registered democrats???

This act confirms the need for McConnell to be removed as Senate Majority Leader.

    So you don’t think he should step down if the allegations are true?

    How utterly depraved do you have to be to think this?

      The Packetman in reply to Awing1. | November 9, 2017 at 5:16 pm

      *IF* it’s true, yes, but there’s no time now to actualy find out if it’s true. Convenient, that ..

      McConnell et al spent, what … $30 million on the primary, only to lose? He doesn’t give a fuck whether the allegation’s true or not, he just wants Moore to go away so that his preferred creature can take Moore’s place.

      And if Moore does step aside, you can bet your bippy that the accusations will just … fade away ….

        McConnell quite explicitly said “if true”. It’s even in the headline, so you can’t use the excuse of being too lazy to read the details in the article.

          MarkSmith in reply to Awing1. | November 9, 2017 at 9:44 pm

          Either McConnell intentional did that to get Strange back in the game or he an idiot being played by the Democrats. Either play is not good.

          His best bet would be to point out that the claim is over 38 years old and the timing is suspect. After the election, he will ask that the matter be looked into and request that Moore do the appropriate thing necessary to right this matter.

          As it stands now, the claim is suspect based on timing and Washington Post article, a Democrat owned newspaper by a very rich man.

          Moore needs to stand up to McConnell. Even if the claims are true, McConnell is out of line. I would remind everyone about Barney Franks and Mary Jo on the bottom of the lake.

          Ragspierre in reply to Awing1. | November 9, 2017 at 9:58 pm

          I’d accuse you of a bad parody, but I know you aren’t capable.

          This is the mind of the Alt-right.

      ConradCA in reply to Awing1. | November 9, 2017 at 6:30 pm

      He should resign no matter what. There is no significant evidence to support these charges, but instead of supporting a fellow Republican he is piling on like a Progressive Fascists.

      Halcyon Daze in reply to Awing1. | November 9, 2017 at 6:45 pm

      I am happy someone stepped up to help Yellowsnake out in his absence.

So far, this smells like a Fusion GPS attack to me:
– wildly outlandish accusations
– conveniently politically timed
– benefits both Dems and GOPe

I want to see a character run-down of every single accuser, well before the election. It needs to be done, because the purpose of a smear is to never allow the subject to respond.

    Awing1 in reply to Matt_SE. | November 9, 2017 at 5:03 pm

    Funny, because when the Washington Post asked Roy Moore for a response prior to publication, Moore sent it to Breitbart, who then publicized that the story was coming, Moore’s response, and claimed to have “scooped” the Washington Post.

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to Matt_SE. | November 10, 2017 at 8:00 am

    Right. It does seem like the dossier. The difference is the media did not report the dossier during the campaign because it could not be corroborated. Only after the election did Buzzfeed break the embargo.

    This has names. This isn’t the usual “anonymous sources say” garbage. I’m inclined to think there is something to it.

    If Moore is dirty and there is more in his history, it’s going to come out. Now that WaPo opened this story, sleezy reporters in NYC and DC will be in Alabama from now until the election talking to everybody Moore has known since grade school. He’s not going to be able to keep a lid on it. I think McCain and McConnell understand that and that’s why they said “if true”.

    They know the dirt digging has just begun.

      “If Moore is dirty and there is more in his history, it’s going to come out.”

      Will it come out in the next two weeks? I highly doubt it.
      Remember, Democrats smeared Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Tom DeLay, et. al. before elections too.

      They don’t give a rat’s ass if the charges are true, or even if they’re disproven later. If it sabotages the election for Moore, then it did its job.

      I find your gullibility disturbing.

        MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to Matt_SE. | November 10, 2017 at 9:43 am

        I think I’m realistic, not gullible. I find people who are willing to go on the record credible. They are going to have their character attacked and get nothing out of it.

        I actually think the GOP establishment is behind this. Under Mitch McConnell they have a long history of going after insurgents they don’t like. See Joe Miller in Alaska, McDaniel in MS, and Todd Akin in MO. Akin did nothing wrong. He is guilty of expressing a nutty opinion. No corruption, no ethical or moral lapses, nothing. But the GOP establishment hated him. They used his comments as an excuse to demand he remove himself from the ballot so they could install their own preferred GOP nominee. When Akin refused to buckle, he had been so damaged that the GOP establishment had effectively engineered the Deocrat McCaskill’s election. I live in MO. She is currently the ONLY Democrat in office to have won a state wide election. Thanks to the GOP establishment.

        It’s a reasonable bet that because this story about Moore was published by WaPo rather than local media in Birmingham or Huntsville, the initial source comes out of Washington.

        It’s been reported that McConnell and other GOP affiliated groups spent $30 million to try to buy Strange the nomination. Presumably, they spent tons of money on oppo research.

        When Strange didn’t win, I think they took the oppo research they developed on Moore to WaPo. If that is true, I can’t explain why they did not use the research in the primary. Maybe they had polling showing Strange was likely going to win without it and decided to spare Moore the humiliation. But the gloves came off after he won the primary.

        Establishment Republicans hate many of the people who vote for them. They play dirty. I strongly suspect they are the source.

        That doesn’t make the accusations wrong.

OK, early supporter of Moore’s here, and still am…provisionally.

http://patterico.com/2017/11/09/allegations-of-sexual-misconduct-made-against-roy-moore/

Now, I don’t give a good shit about whether you like Patterico or not, but pay attention to the trend in these allegations, which are NOT from unnamed people. They do paint a pattern, and it’s very consistent with a smart lawyer who loves to dance very close to the edge of the cliff.

Personally, I HOPE none of this is true. At the same time, I think it is.

    Again, 30+ years in AL. Moore has always been in the national spotlight, and has been investigated by experts.

    There’s also the simple fact that at the time 14 could get married. And it wasn’t all that rare, although the age difference wasn’t usually that much.

    Finally, this whole thing reminds me of what happened in MS 2014 with McDaniel. Vichy Mitchy is more than capable of setting something like this up.

      Ragspierre in reply to SDN. | November 9, 2017 at 9:10 pm

      See my above comments for your disgusting apologetics.

      So far, what I’ve read from Moore is that the allegations are the product of evil.

      Sorry, I’ll need something a bit more reality-based. Like, “I never picked up the young lady in question. She was never in my car. I never drove her to my home in the woods. I never called her on the telephone.”

      Then he can explain why both the lady and her mother relate the same story. AND he can explain why he was dating teenaged girls at all.

        Again, sorry you’re proving again you can’t handle facts. Check the statutes and the marriage announcements. I lived there, you didn’t.

        And fuck you with a 10 inch meathook.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 10, 2017 at 8:07 am

        You can…and you ARE…using facts as disgusting apologetic

        The crap you’re trying to use has no relevance to sexual battery of a minor. Does it?

Subotai Bahadur | November 9, 2017 at 5:14 pm

If Mitch McConnell, Cory Gardner, and Lisa Murkowski attack Moore I view it as testimony in favor of Moore. And Gardner is one of my senators [who would happily be a Democrat if the Colorado GOP did not pick and install him at their expense instead of the Democrats’. He votes with his Democrat colleague most of the time.]

So, where is the video tape of this relationship? How about the police report on the incident? Perhaps it was reported to a respected church elder or teacher? Where is the corroboration of this incident, other than the people involved?

I find the timing on this, along with the specific allegations, to be very suspicious. It looks like simply another political attempt to discredit a candidate just before an election.

    Awing1 in reply to Mac45. | November 9, 2017 at 5:20 pm

    If you read the story, there is significant, on the record corroboration from people who knew the victims at the time, as well as substantial corroboration from records of who was where, and when.

      4th armored div in reply to Awing1. | November 9, 2017 at 7:18 pm

      if that is the case, why don’t these women file lawsuits against the politician. they have already made public claims ?

        Boy I do love it when non lawyers try to derive meaning from the existence, or nonexistence, of lawsuits.

        Please, do tell, using cites, what plausible causes of action do you see arising out of these allegations? Make sure to include, in your argument, assessments of the level of recoverable damages, the applicable law at the time the incidents took play, and the impact of any time bars.

          Rick in reply to Awing1. | November 9, 2017 at 8:50 pm

          As a lawyer, I am repulsed at smug lawyer’s who put down non-lawyers who are simply articulating logical inferences.
          Your comment makes me want to puke.

          Awing1 in reply to Awing1. | November 9, 2017 at 9:06 pm

          Well, I’ve got good news for you! While I do have a JD from Cornell, where I took this blog’s founder’s clinical course, I am not a lawyer. I do hate when smug lawyers, as you claim to be, make false assumptions about others, but I suppose that doesn’t bother you. Of course, if you were consistent, your own post would make you want to puke.

          There is nothing logical about trying to draw some inference about the validity or invalidity of some individual’s claims on the mere fact that the individual has, or has not, filed a lawsuit related to those claims. Without an intimate understanding of the relevant law, the motivations and desires of the individual, the relevant facts as they are known to that individual, and the financial situation of whatever proposed defendants are out there, there is very little that can be derived from such rudimentary knowledge.

          This is something most competent litigation attorneys understand.

          Rick in reply to Awing1. | November 9, 2017 at 11:24 pm

          You are a sad joke, puke.
          Funny that as a self proclaimed “not a lawyer” you pontificate about what “most competent litigation attorneys understand.”
          We are all blessed that you are not a lawyer.

          Ragspierre in reply to Awing1. | November 9, 2017 at 11:30 pm

          He’s right, Rick. You know it, and that’s why all you could do is attack him.

          From Althouse’s article this morning: “How do we factor in a failure to report the incident to the police or to bring a civil lawsuit?”

          Ragspierre in reply to Awing1. | November 10, 2017 at 10:36 am

          Just like you’d factor in any allegation of sexual battery. That’s how.

      Mac45 in reply to Awing1. | November 9, 2017 at 10:43 pm

      Corroboration? From Mom and friends? And, as far as I can tell from the story, these “friends” seem to indicate that this woman only “said” she was having some kind of relationship with an older man. However, it was apparently thought to be so benign that no one brought it to the attention of any authority figure at the time. Mom reportedly knew nothing about this for a DECADE. So, we are supposed to believe that, for THIRTY years, a mother was totally unconcerned that a 30 year old man was seeing her 14 year old daughter and was now running for political office. And, that NO ONE else in the state knew about this. Right. Everyone in Hollywood knew about Harvey Weinstein for YEARS. The same for Bill Clinton. Politicians have lost elections because, no matter how careful they were, someone always knew about their peccadilloes and outed them for political gain. But not Roy Moore. The media would have us believe that he was a serial abuser, just like Harvey and Bill, but NOBODY had any suspicion of this. If this is true, then Moore should be elected simply because he is the smartest, cagiest politician in history. He is so cunning, that he was apparently able to convince the media that he is an unstable buffoon who is not suited to be a Senator. Uhhh, which Roy Moore are we talking about here?

      Look, everything that this woman says about Moore may be true. Then again, it may not be true. No tangible evidence has been presented to corroborate this behavior. The “witnesses” do not report having any personal knowledge of any relationship, or the extent of that relationship, beyond what the woman told them 38 years ago. And, it was apparently not of enough import, at that time, to bring to the attention of any known authority figure. Also, all of these people kept this “secret” for 38 years while Moore was a high profile state public figure and was running for political office. Yet, people are jumping on the “Moore Is Guilty” bandwagon pretty fast, without any tangible evidence. Maybe we should simply wait until some tangible proof surfaces before we convict this man.

“He said, ‘Oh, you don’t want her to go in there and hear all that. I’ll stay out here with her,’ ” says Corfman’s mother, Nancy Wells, 71. “I thought, how nice for him to want to take care of my little girl.”

On of the many reasons I call complete and utter BS. I was alive and well and 24 yearas old in 1979. At 71 now, she would have been 37 or so then.

No 37 year old mother in her right mind in 1979 would have thoughts of “I thought, how nice for him to want to take care of my little girl.” when a 30 something year old man offered to look after her teenage girl. Not one. Every single one I know would have their hackles raised and their internal predator alarms going off on high.

Think about it. Do you know any woman who would think that a purely innocent request?

    Awing1 in reply to gospace. | November 9, 2017 at 5:46 pm

    Yeah, what 1979 Alabama woman, about to go into a custody hearing( obviously not at all nerve wracking for her), would put trust in an ADA? Obviously false./s

    This is getting ridiculous.

    Ragspierre in reply to gospace. | November 9, 2017 at 5:54 pm

    What are you, nuts?

    An assistent DA offers to sit with a kid on a bench in a courthouse hallway, and THAT raises your hackles.

    Hell, I’ve been in jury rooms (often used for such purposes when juries are not involved) with kids of various ages alone. NOBODY was remotely uncomfortable with that, including me and the kids.

    When an ad litem meets with a kid, they are ALONE in the attorney’s office. BECAUSE they are the kid’s attorney, appointed by the court, and the kid gets the same confidentiality as any client.

    On the other hand, I never asked them for their phone number, or took them out.

    Jeeeeeebus….

    gospace in reply to gospace. | November 9, 2017 at 6:24 pm

    Maybe I think women would think it’s creepy behavior is because the describing the scene to my wife her first comment was “That sounds creepy.”

      Semper Why in reply to gospace. | November 10, 2017 at 10:43 am

      It sounds creepy in 2017. But you’ve been raised with literally decades of Stranger Danger burned into your head. In 1979, officers of the court could sit in a fairly busy hallway in a government building and keep an eye on a minor for a few minutes without anyone batting an eye.

      1979, people still hitchhiked.

Watch out, the Dem swamp thing is lurking strong tonight!

How terribly convenient eh. ALMOST as if the R Democrats and the D Democrats had this up their sleeve as insurance against someone unapproved running.

assemblerhead | November 9, 2017 at 6:26 pm

Why do I suspect a frame / slander / libel ? Timing!

This would have come out long ago if true.

Think … how many years has the left been trying to get rid of him in Alabama? Nary a whisper of this allegation before, why?

They tried this for a fit, on Pence. Ran into his “have my wife be my chaperon” rule.

The dems have been refining this technique since Anita Hill used it on Clarence Thomas. It may well be successful here, since these accusations work by shifting the burden of proof and it’s almost impossible for him to prove he didn’t do something almost 40 years ago. The current national climate makes it harder for him to get a fair hearing.

    Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | November 9, 2017 at 7:04 pm

    Moore doesn’t have to “prove” anything.

    What he has to do is credibly refute each of several allegations.

    That’s all.

    And, sadly, I doubt he can.

    This is NOTHING like the Anita Hill bullshit. It IS like the Harvey Weinstein horror.

      VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | November 9, 2017 at 7:11 pm

      rags,
      You’re wrong. It is precisely like Anita Hill.

        Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | November 9, 2017 at 7:23 pm

        VaPigman, you’re wrong. And you can declaim your comparison to eternity. Anyone with a fair mind can see it.

        There is a pattern here. There was a stark LACK of any pattern with Justice Thomas and Hill.

        But, again, all Moore has to do is credibly refute these (several, consistent) allegations. I’m open to hear him out.

          MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | November 9, 2017 at 9:55 pm

          I disagree. I think he just has to point out the credibility of the accusers (Wapo and McConnell gang) and it all will work in favor of Moore. He just has to stand strong.

          If he does have creditably sources to support his actions (which I doubt) that would be even better. I think addressing things with the women accusers is a quick track to failure.

          Could be a blackmail move too. Never know how this all plays out.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 9, 2017 at 10:11 pm

          So your counsel is the Clinton route. Which for many thinking people would signal he’s guilty as hell and a low-life clock-sucker in the bargain.

          Brilliant.

          As to the blackmail fantasy, you’re idiot is showing. You might want to look up the essential elements of blackmail, sparky.

      4th armored div in reply to Ragspierre. | November 9, 2017 at 7:29 pm

      if he has been a conservative *in ALA* his whole public life then bad conduct claims would have come out before.

      gospace in reply to Ragspierre. | November 9, 2017 at 9:16 pm

      Under the law in the United States, he doesn’t have to refute anything. The accusers have to prove what they’re saying is true. They’ve got a pretty big hurdle to jump after this amount of time has passed.

At this point whether he did it or not is really irrelevant as far as the campaign is concerned, the seed has been planted and anyone even slightly suspicious will stay away and not vote for him which will give the vote to the Dem. whether they vote or not. After watching the never Trumpers continually repeating everything negative about Trump, this campaign has now been tainted. Even if Moore was to take a lie detector test and pass they still would think he is guilty. It has worked as planned, the Dem. will get the votes. The swamp has taken another.

The thing about the various Hollywood and media figures being accused of slimy behavior is that there’s (allegedly) a pattern of repeated behavior over years. A thirty-year-old man doing something like this with a fourteen-year-old girl doesn’t do it once and then never again in his entire life. And this very young girl is the only one of the four the Washington Post dredged up who says he did anything sexually explicit or offensive.

I don’t believe it, pending convincing evidence otherwise.

    Ragspierre in reply to tarheelkate. | November 9, 2017 at 6:57 pm

    “And this very young girl is the only one of the four the Washington Post dredged up who says he did anything sexually explicit or offensive.”

    Kate! Really? Teenage girls all avow that he took them “out” and leched on them?

    This is pitiful…

      tarheelkate in reply to Ragspierre. | November 9, 2017 at 7:08 pm

      An unmarried thirty-year-old “dating” a late teenager is not illegal. The other three claim he did nothing more than kiss them, and they were above the age of consent. It’s the fourteen-year-old and the sexual contact which is the question.

      I would consider my teenaged daughter’s dating a thirty-year-old inappropriate, but I can’t say it’s illegal or immoral, per se.

        Ragspierre in reply to tarheelkate. | November 9, 2017 at 7:18 pm

        “An unmarried thirty-year-old “dating” a late teenager is not illegal.”

        This is just sad, Kate.

        You are down to “legal” a your bellwether for conduct you excuse.

        I remember when conservatives had principles. Nothing Dollar Bill did with Monica was “illegal”. It was just entirely wrong.

        So sad…

          4th armored div in reply to Ragspierre. | November 9, 2017 at 7:41 pm

          Rags, the thing is, if someone is a predator, then a pattern develops and there would be a host of more complaints.
          the guy was in the public eye and all kinds of people were looking to bring him down, including the GOPee and the #NeverTrumpers.

          so i call BS on this charge and if i am wrong i am wrong.

          As a former 2dAD tanker, I agree with 4thAD’s comment.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 9, 2017 at 9:17 pm

          No. If you’re wrong, you’re excusing wrong. PLUS, you’re slimming people without evidence, which is another wrong.

          How many does it take to make a “pattern”? What events break a pattern? How ’bout marriage? How ’bout a close scrape with getting caught?

          At least keep a nominally open mind.

          gospace in reply to Ragspierre. | November 9, 2017 at 9:26 pm

          A girl my son dated in HS married her father’s best friend shortly after graduation. Did my wife and I think it creepy? Yes. But her mom and dad had different thoughts on the matter.

          I went to a friend’s 18th birthday party in HS. Which is when I discovered she had a 36 year old boyfriend. They got married shortly after graduation.

          I’ve seen the large age differences often enough that while I think it’s somewhat creepy for an 18 year old to be dating a 30 something (while not thinking it creepy that a 28 year old would be dating a 40 something) I don’t view it as unusual, or usual. It’s something that people do once in a while.

          And unlike rock stars that do it, I don’t see that he was accused of getting them drunk or offering them drugs. Rock stars write about it in their autobiographies, at least their ghostwriters do.

          Awing1 in reply to Ragspierre. | November 9, 2017 at 9:34 pm

          And unlike rock stars that do it, I don’t see that he was accused of getting them drunk

          Then you didn’t read the story, which is not at all surprising.

          gospace in reply to Ragspierre. | November 9, 2017 at 10:04 pm

          I read the story. You read things that weren’t there

          She says that Moore would pick her up for dates at the mall or at college basketball games, where she was a cheerleader. She remembers changing out of her uniform before they went out for dinners at a pizzeria called Mater’s, where she says Moore would order bottles of Mateus Rosé, or at a Chinese restaurant, where she says he would order her tropical cocktails at a time when she believes she was younger than 19, the legal drinking age. So she says she believes she was under 19. Doesn’t say she drank like a college sorority girl until she was blind stinking drunk. Or drunk at all. Nor does she imply she got plastered. And she can’t say for certain she was underage drinking.

          I also read this: In 1985, at age 38, he married Kayla Kisor, who was 24. The two are still married. It’s pretty obvious he dated at the young end of the dating pool, until he found someone. If I had stayed single that long, I might have done the same. Also might not have been successful. I was 23, she was 21.

          If he were like Clinton or others, there would be accusations AFTER 1985.

          3 women they could find. That’s all. Only one of whom actually accuses him of sexual misconduct. And of her in the article: 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……. I notice they didn’t include any quotes from her 3 ex-husbands about her truthfulness. Outstanding investigative reporting.

          tarheelkate in reply to Ragspierre. | November 9, 2017 at 10:25 pm

          I’m sad to disappoint you. So you’re saying that if a man, unmarried, asks a 17-year-old or 18-year-old on a date, and she accepts, and nothing sexual happens between them, that man should be disqualified from public service?

          The alleged sexual assault on a fourteen-year-old is in a different category, and if true, it is disqualifying.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 9, 2017 at 10:37 pm

          No, Kate. I know you can read. Don’t distort what I DID say. (There’s too much of that here already).

          You’ll note that I never suggested “disqualification”. But I DID say the “legality” is a pitiful standard by which to judge right conduct.

          I’ll add that if one of my sons was dating a teenager, we’d have a long, serious talk. Wouldn’t you? And not because it’s illegal, disqualifying, or even “creepy”. I hope you can think of all the reasons without me have to elaborate, because I think well of you.

        MarkSmith in reply to tarheelkate. | November 9, 2017 at 9:58 pm

        I think someone stole the script form American Beauty. Hey, a link to Spacey. Pretty soon we can have six degrees of separation not from Kevin Bacon, but six degrees of sexual activity from Kevin Spacey.

Ask him what, exactly?

In fairness, we should use the Democrat standard for judging the veracity of females who accuse government officials of sexual misconduct:

“Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.” James Carville on the veracity of Paula Jones

Speaking of “BJ” Clinton and other sexual predators, who have repeated their predations over many years, how interesting that the allegations haven’t recurred over 38 years; how interesting the allegations have never come out over his 30+ years in often contentious public campaigns; how interesting that they weren’t published until it was too late to remove him from the ballot; how unusual that McTurtle wasted millions on supporting his opponent and immediately suggested he should resign.

It appears that the Democrats blew their was on Fusion GPS, didn’t have the money to fund an Alabama dossier, and found 3 desperate women to push a highly unlikely, stale, unprovable story.

This is why President Trump will be re-elected – like he said, politics is an incredibly dirty business, especially the way Democrats use it.

The timing is the tell, and it is more than a little curious that these accusations are coming now, especially given all public offices Moore has held and the controversies Moore has been in the subject of.

Hellerty has experience getting people off after being accused of sexual assault. I think she has some time on her hands and she could use the money. She also has references.

Ya’ll know I don’t make many predictions.

But…Moore is a gonner. We’ll be lucky if the new senator isn’t the Deemocrat.

If this was a PC (Pro-Choice) judgment, then we could assume there is a baby and abort it. Perhaps cannibalize it in a press trial for public consumption. It’s not. So, investigate, gather the evidence, and present a case. There may be a baby there, but calls for an abortion seem premature.

A side effect of this might be that any Republican incumbent might find they’re facing a primary challenge from people who are irritated with Republican leadership for putting out hits on their own candidates.

I don’t know if anyone is stepping up, but I’m looking forward to voting for a primary candidate running against Katko in NY. He’s ripe for challenge. Can’t seem to bring himself to back Trump’s policies.

Less mcconnell.

More Moore.

F–k you, mcconnell, and the ship of GOPe rats you came in on.

From what little I’ve seen of Moore, I can say one thing. He won’t promise to push some cause, push it when he has a chance of succeeding, then dump it when he actually has a chance of succeeding.

Moore may not be the most attractive candidate, but he was the one the Alabama Republicans ( you know, the primary voters, not the leadership, just like the union members vs the union leadership ) chose. Strange is, by definition, less attractive. Unless there is something of real substance here then replacing Moore will just result in a loss.

If the Republican party wants to put up more attractive candidates then they should find ones that agree with the important principles of Republican rank and file, not just someone who says they do to get your vote.

As for McConnell talking about replacing Moore. He should shut up until there is some thing substantial and criminal revealed, not just some vague accusations. The way he jumped on the “depose Moore” bandwagon, smells of overturning a popular election as much as Democrats screaming “impeach Trump”.

One thing I want to briefly comment on. People talking about how this “kissing a 14 year old girl” is creepy. Let me point out that kissing a 14 year old girl is not illegal, and I don’t condone anything illegal. At the same time, some of the sexual relationships hetro/home/polygamous and oherwise are much more creepy then a legal relationship between a much older man and a much young woman. Yet those relationships are accepted, if not condoned.

I am highly affected by 40s and 50s movies which I enjoy. Many of the romantic ones mention such formula a husband should be two times as old minus ten years. In fact I am soon going to be watching one I watch every December “Susan Slept Here”.

Rapo bill clinton gets a pass?
The corrupt hillary clinton gets a pass?
Perv-enabler obama gets a pass?

Our man Moore gets a pass

D’s ALWAYS circle the wagon’s to protect their own. Until its absolutely impossible to do so.

Seen any prominent D’s pressuring Sen Menendez to resign his seat?? No. Not only that, they think they can keep him in the Senate even after he’s convicted.

RINO’s prove, yet again, they are worse than useless.

Zero evidence presented for 40 year old claims, and they are instantly throwing our guy under the bus.

    MarkSmith in reply to Aarradin. | November 10, 2017 at 1:33 pm

    Actually not true:

    “”I want you to tell her (Boxer) if she does that, we will offer amendments for hearings on Daschle and Chappaquidick. It will work both ways,” the Associated Press, as noted by Mother Jones, reported at the time. ”

    Mitch McConnell attempting to protect Bob Packwood.

caseoftheblues | November 10, 2017 at 5:28 am

“Awing1 | November 9, 2017 at 5:20 pm
If you read the story, there is significant, on the record corroboration from people who knew the victims at the time, as well as substantial corroboration from records of who was where, and when.”

Actually there is NOT….JUST HERESAY…and the timing makes it VERY suspicious…you always swallow whoppers in one big gulp like that?

Too easy. And, for the Dems, an almost bulletproof tactic, as the Repubs can’t play the same game and get the same results.

An unsubstantiated accusation about a Republican—one implying shady ethics or morals—will keep Republican voters away in droves, because they think such things are important.

A similar accusation about a Democrat will have no such effect. Democrat voters don’t think such things are terribly important … if they did, they wouldn’t be voting Democrat.

This is a bit of asymmetric warfare which favors the Dems. Of course they’ll use it. For that reason alone, I’m calling BS on this. Of course, if there’s some evidence, witness accounts, contemporary written reports, or anything tangible, that’s another story. But there won’t be any such thing. There will be lots of detail; the unsophisticated—those who seem unfamiliar with the concept of scripted fiction—think detail means veracity. But it take no great skill to imagine a fantasy, and coach a couple of people in the details. And the more outrageous the details, the better. We can expect a lot of them.

    mailman in reply to tom_swift. | November 10, 2017 at 10:04 am

    Theres a second part to this Tom.

    Democrat voters don’t care, that is true BUT more important is the Democrat propaganda machine will keep quiet about accusations aimed at Democrats.

    With Republicans it will be wall to wall 24/7 saturation coverage at volume 10.

Well of course, the “Swamp Thing,” McConnell would say that. He’s a “Senior Statesman” (not concerned with the state he represents, but with the current state of things. Killing off Conservatives seems to be his goal. Goodness knows what Roy Moore could do in the Senate (after all, Ted Cruz called McConnell “a liar” from the floor and it was recorded into the minutes!).

IF (and notice, it’s still an accusation, not a proven fact, despite the #TrialByMedia, where the accused is always #GuiltyUntilProvenInnocent.) it was true, yes Judge Moore should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But if it is not, the person who falsely accused the innocent person must be charged with Libel.

And since Roy Moore is running for US Senate, the monetary damages requested from any law suit must be severe.

So the #BigQuestionIsWhyNow? Convenient Timing…mixed with #SpinlessRepublicans makes for a Democrat win in the Senate.

    Ragspierre in reply to Jakespeed. | November 10, 2017 at 9:19 am

    There can be no prosecution of Moore.

    I very, VERY much doubt there will be any defamation action. That would be a Tar-Baby Moore does NOT want to punch. Plus, he’d have a legal bar to jump in proving the allegations false that he does not face at present.

    As I noted last night, all he has to do is credibly refute the allegations to the satisfaction of voters.

    mailman in reply to Jakespeed. | November 10, 2017 at 10:05 am

    What IF the law was different back then and there was nothing illegal about kissing a 14yo? Do you try him based on the laws today OR the laws of yesterday?

    Sure seems a very slippery slope to be walking down blind folded?

“Like most Americans, the president believes we cannot allow a mere allegation, in this case one from many years ago, to destroy a person’s life,” Sanders said. “However, the president also believes that if these allegations are true, Judge Moore will do the right thing and step aside.”

Unlike the meth-infused trolls insisting that they JUST KNOW IT IS TRUE!!!! And given that press has lost any pretense of honesty or objectivity, it is impossible to know if these allegations are true or not. The timing is certainly suspect. So much so, that I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Well, yes, if the allegations are true, Moore should step down. That’s quite an “if.” Where are all the people who say that they knew all along Moore did this kind of thing, but were intimidated into silence? Where are the credible allegations of continued activity of this type?

It’s true that political judgment does not require the same level of proof as a criminal conviction. However, questions about how on earth the Washington Post found out about an old scandal nobody else ever heard about, right before a politically important election, are also valid.

Roy Moore isn’t my personal cup of tea, politically. That doesn’t mean I’d like to see him railroaded.

It’s too bad “the truth,” whatever it is, in unlikely to emerge soon.

the fact mcstain has said he should step aside now (no matter if true or not) really makes me wonder.

Democrats, once again, figure out a way to split the republican vote. And once again, the republican establishment blissfully follows along like lambs to the slaughter. Idiots, effing idiots.

What I don’t get is the differences between the likes of Weinstein, Clinton, Spacey, and any number of other Democrat sex predators and Moore is that all these others have recorded track records PLUS the rather inconvenient fact that women are coming out of the wazoo to make allegations against the Democrat Predators.

With Moore, and the same as for President Trump, its crickets and tumble weeds!

Sex predators have history no matter how careful they are…there is always a trail of destruction with their finger prints all over it. As we saw with Weinstein, once that first allegation was out there in the open it was a veritable flood of allegations!

But with Moore nothing. Just three others couched in such a way to make them sound as salacious as hell to back up the one allegation and all four apparently never knew of each other??

Why its almost as if someone was trying to GPSFusion Moore or something (I know, that term will never catch on because its just not god damn catchy enough!).

BUT still, there is no track record of serial sex predatory behaviour here. Marriage didn’t stop Weinstein, Clinton, that other pedophile now in jail did it YET we are supposed to believe that once Moore was married that was the end of him being a predator? It just doesn’t work that way.

So, is the Washington Post running anything about this?

https://www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/dcd/190971/1-0.html

Perhaps they will “debunk” it after the Moore kerfluffel dies down.

    MarkSmith in reply to Valerie. | November 10, 2017 at 1:59 pm

    Valerie, thanks for the link. I think LI should make that a separate thread.

    The case really makes me wonder Bernie donors could blew this thing wide open. Here are two things from the campaign that seem to be validated:

    1. Bernie Sanders supporters were screwed.
    2. The Clinton foundation was in collaboration with Fusion GPS.

    Considering that Fusion GPS had such a great relationship with the DNC and The Russians, why would the Russians need to hack the DNC. Maybe because the DNC was NOT hacked by the Russians.

    There needs to be a list of accusations that are finally proven true again the Clinton Foundation, Russian Hacking, Seth Rich murder, emails that are opposite of what what Clinton.

Hey, it just occurred to me! Is this another one of those cases where Trump turns out to be right after all? 🙂 He supported Luther Strange over Roy Moore (probably not because of this particular problem, though).

These people calling on Moore to step down unless he proves this false are all never-Trumpers like Murkowski and McCain.

I am suspicious of this “hurry up and drop out” that is the way the swamp tries to do every scam. They don’t want any due deliberation by the public. This looks like a hit job where they want it to stick before the story is examined.

I have come up with a couple of questions about all of this. Did Judge Moore break any laws even if he did everything alleged? I know that dating and marrying a 13-17 year old girls was encouraged for thousands of years. I don’t know for sure when that shift happened from acceptable to criminal. If it was not criminal behavior at the time why are we treating as criminal now?

Seems to me that voters in Alabama that want a Republican Senator should simply vote for Roy Moore. then, IF certain allegations prove to be true and are considered character flaws of such significance that Moore cannot possibly execute his duties as a US Senator, then he can resign and a replacement Republican would be selected to replace Moore until such time as Alabama laws provide for another election, which could be in Nov 2018. Should Moore elect not to resign, then there are likely mechanisms available to Alabama voters to replace Moore.

So… Voters wanting a Republican as Senator, should simply vote for Moore.

Sooprise, sooprise.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/_one_of_roy_moores_accusers_wo.html

“One of the women who said Senate candidate Roy Moore pursued her while she was in high school worked for Hillary Clinton’s campaign as a sign language interpreter, according to videos and documents posted online.”

aprilnovember811 | November 10, 2017 at 4:49 pm

I’ve noticed that stories about this show the accuser as a young girl. Since this accusation is nearly 40 years later shouldn’t a current photo of her be used?

It strikes me as trying to give a false impression. When Trayvon Martin was killed they used a photo of him as a young child, not a current photo.

And the latest. Apparently the wife of some Secret Service guy claims she was approached by a WaPo reporter named Beth and offered $1000 to make sexual abuse claims against Moore.

Less mconnnells.

Less mccains.

Less clintons.

Less bushes.

Less grahams.

More Moores.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend