Image 01 Image 03

Would the Senate invoke Article I, Section 5, clause 2, to “expel” Senator Roy Moore?

Would the Senate invoke Article I, Section 5, clause 2, to “expel” Senator Roy Moore?

Let’s hope more evidence comes out that sheds light on who is telling the truth, and that it comes out before the election.

The allegations against Roy Moore as detailed in a Washington Post story on November 9 are serious, and should be taken seriously. Because the allegations involve events from 40 years ago, there is a distinct possibility that voters may be skeptical enough of the allegations to elect Moore nonetheless.

That could provide the Senate with the choice of invoking Article I, Section 5, clause 2, of the Constitution that gives each House of Congress the power to “expel” members. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that, and that enough evidence emerges before the election to make clear who is and who is not telling the truth.

The claims fall into two categories, one of which is criminal, the other of which is creepy but not criminal.

The most serious accusation, and the headline of the WaPo story, concern Moore’s alleged conduct when he was 32-years-old towards a then 14-year-old girl, identified as Leigh Corfman, who was below the legal age of consent. That conduct is alleged by Corfman to have involved sexual contact which, because of her age, was illegal.

It’s a serious accusation that the WaPo article treats seriously and in detail. The WaPo article, however, does not provide a lot of other contemporaneous confirming reporting, except that Corfman mentioned to two friends at the time that she was “seeing an older man” identified as Moore. WaPo does not say that the allegations in the article about sexual contact were mentioned to those friends at the time, though one of them remembered Corfman stating that Moore was in “tight white underwear.” WaPo also says that Corfman told her mother “about the encounter” a decade later.

The other corroborating reporting does not concern Corfman directly, but focuses on three other teenagers Moore allegedly dated when he was in his early 30s. This reporting is meant to establish a pattern that at least indirectly support’s Corfman’s account.

The three women say that Moore dated them to varying degrees when they were “between the ages of 16 and 18,” which was at or above the legal age of consent. There is no accusation of any type of sexual contact or any relationship beyond kissing. It’s creepy, and rightly would enter into the equation of how a voter views a candidate, just as lawful sexual activities of candidates have been brought up in campaigns. But it wasn’t illegal, and it’s in a completely different category than the most serious accusation regarding the 14-year-old.

WaPo says it interviewed “more than 30 people who said they knew Moore between 1977 and 1982,” for the story, which is being taken by numerous Twitter pundits as being 30 people confirming the allegations of Corfman. But that’s not what WaPo says.

Moore adamantly denies the allegation regarding the 14-year-old. He’s a little fuzzy on the subject of having dated teenagers, but insists that nothing improper ever happened.

The WaPo story ran just over a month before the December 12 special election, and just over a month after the deadline to change the ballot for the special election. The timing is being used by Moore as part of his response, arguing that it’s all too suspicious that 40-year-old accusations are being aired for the first time so close to the election. According to WaPo, Moore’s campaign asserted that “if the allegations were true they would have surfaced during his previous campaigns.”

I certainly could understand why a childhood victim of sexual assault would not go public with the accusations against a powerful politician; so while I understand why Moore would use the timing in his defense, it’s not dispositive in my mind. The timing, nonetheless, is important because of the close proximity to the special election. It’s too late for Republican primary voters to change their minds, and certainly it would have been better if the allegations were made earlier this year.

The WaPo article does not say how WaPo found these specific women, it only says it heard general rumors: “While reporting a story in Alabama about supporters of Moore’s Senate campaign, a Post reporter heard that Moore allegedly had sought relationships with teenage girls. Over the ensuing three weeks, two Post reporters contacted and interviewed the four women.” Alabama is a pretty big state, it would be interesting to know how WaPo identified four women out of millions for a story that has not been uncovered by any of Moore’s many prior political opponents.

Almost instantaneously, after the WaPo story was published, there were demands that Moore step down from the race immediately, including from John McCain, based solely on the WaPo article.

That’s interesting because McCain himself was the subject of a detailed NY Times story during the 2008 election cycle about an extramarital affair that would have been politically damaging. The story turned out to be false. McCain needed time to mount his response to the NY Times story, but didn’t want to give Moore any time to mount his response before demanding withdrawal.

Others similarly jumped forward with demands without giving the allegations and denials time to play out. Mitt Romney tweeted that he believed Corfman, but the only account (so far) of what Corfman says was in the WaPo article.

WaPo necessarily filtered the interview (it says it interviewed Corfman 6 times) for its reporting. I assume that at some point between now and the special election Corfman will appear on 60 Minutes or some similar program to tell her story, and at that time we’ll hear her story, not just the WaPo reporting on her story.

I’m becoming more and more convinced that Twitter is poison hemlock in an already poisonous political culture. On Twitter, Democrats and journalists predictably are seizing on the Moore accusations. I don’t blame them. Anti-Trump Republicans/conservatives are blaming Trump for the Moore nomination, even though Trump backed Luther Strange, and are generally falling all over themselves to out-virtue-signal each other and to excoriate Trump supporters.

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.

Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that. Let’s hope that more evidence comes out that sheds light on who is telling the truth, and that it comes out before the election.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



“…but the only account (so far) of what Corfman says was in the WaPo article.”

That’s not quite accurate. A former boyfriend has related on video that Corfman told him about the incident some ten years ago, and that he considered her a truthful person.

It isn’t dispositive, but it is corroborative.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Ragspierre. | November 12, 2017 at 9:35 pm

    The quoted wording was in the context of Corfman’s interview being filtered through WaPo, we haven’t heard her directly. And the ex-boyfriend video is strange, he doesn’t actually state what she told him. I’ve been unable to find a longer version.

      The question was, “What do you think about her telling you that back then and now…it becoming public…”.

      The statement seems to be directly on point. The “that” really only has one contextual meaning in light of the story here. He was not being deposed.

      That, of course, may eventuate…

        William A. Jacobson in reply to Ragspierre. | November 12, 2017 at 9:56 pm

        Video doesn’t let us know what “that” was, that’s why it’s strange there isn’t a longer clip around.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 12, 2017 at 10:15 pm

        I can’t think of another “that” that could be referenced here.

        But we’ll agree as to ambiguity, though I think “strange” is a loaded term.

        We should watch and see…

        The question was, “What do you think about her telling you that back then and now…it becoming public…”.

        No, the question is “What do you think about him CLAIMING that she told him back then…” Because the only evidence we have that she told the boyfriend ten years ago is his word NOW.

        That and a buck fifty will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

    Matt_SE in reply to Ragspierre. | November 12, 2017 at 10:06 pm

    Nope, she’s lying. Prove me wrong (you know, since it’s actually YOUR responsibility anyway).

      Ragspierre in reply to Matt_SE. | November 12, 2017 at 10:11 pm

      I often credit you with MUCH more sense than you show here.

      It isn’t my job to “prove” you wrong. It’s my job to at least keep a nominally open mind and let information in.

      You obviously gave that up.

    MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | November 12, 2017 at 11:20 pm

    Lets rewrite this better:

    That’s not quite accurate. A former boyfriend has related on video that Corfman told him about the incident some ten years ago thirty years after the incident, and that he considered her a truthful person even though she has had mental issues (attempted suicide), financial issues, marriage issues (3 divorces) and drug issues .

    Maybe someone should go after the real sexual predators instead of wasting their time on this.

      Ragspierre in reply to MarkSmith. | November 12, 2017 at 11:29 pm

      Every element of her life is consistent with that of a child victim of sexual assault.

        MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | November 13, 2017 at 12:21 am

        That is not the question is it.

        The question is if Moore did it.

        It would be a good question for Corfman. Was she sexually abused in her home and by those her mother associated with?

        I need more that what you have put forward to make this case believable. It could change with good collaboration, but I have not seen it yet, but I bet the NeverMoore group can fabricate something soon.

          Ragspierre in reply to MarkSmith. | November 13, 2017 at 8:43 am

          Which, if Moore did as alleged, would explain why he targeted her.

          It’s also very suggestive that he mentions in his denial that he always ask for the mother’s approval. Apparently, he zeroed in on girls from broken families.

        Observer in reply to Ragspierre. | November 13, 2017 at 6:58 am

        Considering the fact that this girl was, by her own account, sneaking out of the house at age 14 to go off with 32-year old men, I’d say her problems started before this incident.

          MarkSmith in reply to Observer. | November 13, 2017 at 8:37 am

          And who knows if it was Moore she was sneaking off to be with.

          Close The Fed in reply to Observer. | November 13, 2017 at 1:10 pm

          I know many adults who were abused sexually as young children. The alleged conduct, at age 14, would not have caused the suicide attempt.

          Re: Observer:

          Something else happened to her, probably much earlier, and much more serious.

          And she may have never told her mother. And she probably wonders why her mother never noticed her change in behavior after it happened.

          Moms claim all the time they “had no idea.” The kids really resent that, because they find the claim unbelieveable.

    donavese in reply to Ragspierre. | November 13, 2017 at 12:10 pm

    I am a woman in my sixties and I don’t remember squat diddly when I was fourteen years old. Apparently Corfman did not have normal behavior (if that sounds cruel do not mean it to be) but if starts taking drugs at a young age how in heck can she remember 38 years ago? I think she is weaving memories and since it is questionable in my opinion at least give Moore benefit of the doubt. It is a shame how can he disprove this? He cannot. She has to be discredited and that is sad in itself. Moore has more credibility in his behalf, the timing is suspicious, and the Rinos in Congress spent a boat load of money trying to have Luther Strange elected. That is three very strong credibility issues for the entire stinky situation.

Dating young women above the age of consent establishes a pattern of respecting legal boundaries. The one exception to that rule is evidence of a courtship that was cut short following discovery.

If the senate does that without doing the same for Menendez- first- then every Republican senator will find a serious primary opponent.

This is a setup if I’ve ever seen one. Look at all the despicable RINOs lining up to condemn. Alabama voters see right through this Establishment smear as is evident in the latest poll showing Moore up by 10%.

“The allegations against Roy Moore as detailed in a Washington Post story on November 9 are serious, and should be taken seriously.”

I disagree, on both counts.
Allegations from 40 years ago without more evidence than “he said/she said” are not designed to be taken seriously. They are designed to convict someone in the court of public opinion.

Lending credence to allegations that everyone knows will be nigh impossible to prove is to be willfully obtuse.

Frankly, it’s the same sort of naivite that led Sessions to recuse himself, thereby precipitating all sorts of mischief. When responsible people throw up their hands and give up, that is all the invitation that evil people need. Knowing beforehand that this would be the result just compounds the blame.

    Observer in reply to Matt_SE. | November 13, 2017 at 8:58 am

    This is interesting:

    In the WaPo story, Corfman says that she remembers taking the call from Moore on the phone in her bedroom.

    But in a phone interview, Corfman’s mom says her daughter did not have a phone in her bedroom in 1979.

    So now we have to wonder what other parts of her story Corfman is mis-remembering.

      Ragspierre in reply to Observer. | November 13, 2017 at 9:15 am

      You left out the part of the report that corroborated the notion that this story came as the result of good reporting, and was divulged by a reluctant Corfman.

      And THAT’s the result of more good reporting.

        Observer in reply to Ragspierre. | November 13, 2017 at 9:52 am

        I provided the link to the article. What would be the point of repeating the entire article in my comment, when I provided the link to the article?

        In any event, how “good” was the reporting when the reporter didn’t even bother to ask the mother about details of the daughter’s story that she could confirm/refute, like whether or not the daughter even had a phone in her bedroom in 1979?

        I wonder if one of the crack Washington Post reporters had a phone in their bedroom when growing up.

          Close The Fed in reply to davod. | November 13, 2017 at 1:14 pm

          When I lived in west Georgia in the 70s, we only had 1 telephone and it was in the dining room – – – the very center of the house.

    Close The Fed in reply to Matt_SE. | November 13, 2017 at 1:56 pm

    I’m rather astonished no has suggested the following:

    Most agree that 3 of the girls were of age and what happened with them wasn’t noteworthy.

    As to the 4th girl, some say, “If true, he should step aside.” As the Judge has pointed out, from all his races, this is the only accusation with any degree of seriousness. (I’m not counting whatever “corpse” that fruitcake Allred has dug up.)

    So, if we say Moore DID do the worst accused, one time, do we believe that a man who has never done anything wrong in 40 years, isn’t entitled to continue with his life? If he didn’t make another mistake, he’s forever FROZEN as an unacceptable person? If he improved, if he corrected his behavior?

    If that’s your standard, you’re unreasonable. We all make mistakes, every damn one of us. I hope you’ve learned from yours, I hope I’ve learned from mine, and I hope we don’t remain stuck in permafrost from 40 years ago.

even though Trump backed Luther Strange

Yes he did. To the tune of much criticism.

Of course winning the primary is no great victory if the candidate doesn’t go on to win the election. The real opponent even in the primary was Jones, not Strange or Moore. The question for primary voters isn’t who they’d prefer in the Senate; it’s who can beat the Democrat.

Perhaps Trump’s not such a political naif after all.


Subotai Bahadur | November 12, 2017 at 10:13 pm

I do wonder, if the Republican Senate expels Judge Moore if the voters of Alabama come to the conclusion that the allegations are false; who does the Republican party expect to bother to show up to vote for them in 2018?

At least if we are to have a one-party state, it will be without further pretense.

Here is how this shakes out.

Legally, any criminality with regard to any “relationship” with this girl is going to be impossible to prove. Besides the extensive time between the alleged act and the date of report, some 36 years, corroborative evidence is going to be extremely difficult to fond and corroborate. “Witness” reports concerning what this girl “told” them are subject to all the problems normally associated with a lapse of 36 years. And, so far, none of these “witnesses” have produced any smoking gun revelations concerning what kind of relationship this girl had, or even any definitive identification of Moore as the man involved. Even if Moore had a romantic relationship with this girl, when she was 14 yoa, unless the acts which the girl alleges occurred can be corroborated, there is no case. So, this becomes a she said/he said situation, which is almost impossible to prove.

So, all of this revolves upon what kind of witness complainant is. Her bono fides have to be established, largely due to the timing of the allegations. Does she have an ulterior motive for making this complaint? How reliable is her testimony? This opens up her character and history to examination. Also, all of the corroborative witnesses now face the same hurdles.

It is unlikely that any of this will be pursued if Moore is elected. It has all been released now to forestall that possibility. There is not enough time for Moore to adequately respond to the allegation. And, the MSM is unlikely to delve too deeply into the complainant or her corroborative witnesses. This is all a guilt by innuendo campaign launched for political purposes.

    Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | November 12, 2017 at 10:44 pm

    Your first wordy and stupid paragraph is nonsense. There is no legal question here.

    “So, all of this revolves upon what kind of witness complainant is.”

    Well, no. Not since Moore decided to go on Hannity the other night.

    After that, it became very much a matter of how credible he was in denial. Many observers say, “Not very”.

    I’ll remind you, as I’ve often noted here, trials are won in “he said/she said” controversies every day across America. I won one just a few weeks ago.

      gonzotx in reply to Ragspierre. | November 12, 2017 at 11:31 pm

      I doubt it

      Well, now, I have to agree with the professor that there is definitely a question of criminality here, if the incident occurred as described. The young girl would have been under the age of consent and Moore’s reported actions would have constituted a criminal offense [as you, yourself, noted in a response]. There is NO law against a 30 year old man dating a high school girl, or even a junior high school girl [which is what the complainant would have been at age 14].

      And, this case is all about what kind of a witness the complainant and others, who are “recounting” their memories of the incident, are. Those “memories” are the ENTIRE basis for the allegations. If they are not accurate or, worse, fabricated, then the allegations become nothing more than vicious innuendo.

      As to Moore’s performance on Hannity, this means little in establishing his credibility. Moore has always been nearly inarticulate most of the time. He is vague and sometimes completely off-the-wall. I agree that Moore, being Moore, should not have attempted to defend himself in television. But, his performance is hardly indicative of guilt.

      He said/she said trials always come down to credibility of the plaintiff and witnesses and sometimes the defendant [except in a jury trial when it can all depend upon the credulity of the jury]. However, without real physical evidence such cases are simply a crap shoot. People’s memories are faulty. They very often interpret what they have witnessed through prisms of emotion and preconception which alters the observed reality. And, sometimes, they simply lie. Remember, the witnesses in this case would all have been junior high school girls at the time [except for Mom, who is claiming ignorance of the “affair” until a decade after it allegedly occurred]. Their age, at the time, would have made their memories of the events suspect and the time lapse makes this even more likely.

      These allegations are simply not supported by any credible evidence. This a trial by the MSM [and we know just how accurate and trustworthy they are] based entirely upon innuendo. But, the people jumping on the Moore is guilty bandwagon had best remember that the same thing could happen to them.

    randian in reply to Mac45. | November 12, 2017 at 11:00 pm

    The time element is exactly why the feminist push to eliminate the statute of limitations on sexual assault charges was a terrible idea. A murder accusation would be less damaging to the target than this.

    Marty in reply to Mac45. | November 13, 2017 at 7:37 am

    This whole thing stinks. Does anyone remember Herman Cain? The Trump dossier? The democrats have a M.O. When they don’t like someone, all of a sudden they come up with sexual allegations, usually when it’s too late to give a chance to prove those allegations false. Look at what the motives may be. A lady who worked with Clinton and Biden. A Democrat Hack? Something stinks to high heaven and I think the smell is coming from the demoncrats.

      davod in reply to Marty. | November 13, 2017 at 10:47 am

      Don’t forget the timely attack on John McCain. You know, the McCain who now says Moore should immediately excuse himself from the election

This is total slander and innuendo. The girl(s) , IF TRUE, were OF AGE! Plus, I’ve not read of ANYTHING but “petting”. No sexual acts.. no abortions… no 3 ways. No sleeping with young negro men. This is just stupid. It’s the seriousness of the charge! Sure it is. This is a political lynching and and pretty thin gruel too.

    Ragspierre in reply to RobM. | November 12, 2017 at 10:33 pm

    **I’ve not read of ANYTHING but “petting”.**

    Without getting technical, it would be sexual battery of a minor.

    And, despite the misuse by you and another poster, these is no “innuendo” here. There’s a straight up allegation. Different things altogether.

      MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | November 12, 2017 at 11:08 pm

      Actually it is a hearsay allegation right now. It has a long ways to go before it is straight up allegation. Any you call yourself a lawyer. No surprise.

        Ragspierre in reply to MarkSmith. | November 12, 2017 at 11:17 pm

        No, and your idiot is in full display. Hearsay is a legal concept under the rules of evidence, only applied in a legal proceeding. It has no application here whatsoever.

        It IS a full-on allegation, and that’s why Moore is reacting as he has.

          MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | November 12, 2017 at 11:59 pm

          You are right, it is not a legal case at this time.

          Full-on allegation… Wow, that is like double secret probation. Is it full-on or straight up? Since it is through a bias third party, is it is BS at the moment.

          You were more correct on “pet” could be considered sexual battery of a minor but that is debatable in this case.

          I assume Moore knows the law, so I would believe the States Attorney would need a lot more to prove a case beyond the hearsay BS that are being thrown around by you.

          Creditably behind the facts right now are in the judges favor. That could change, but as of today, judge gets benefit of doubt. So what if the Senate expels him. His replacement does not need to be Strange and the standard to expel others will bite the Senate in the ass.

          No. Hearsay is a description of a type of evidence. Either inside or outside the courtroom. Exclusion of hearsay except in certain cases is a legal concept.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 13, 2017 at 7:12 am

          “Jim, the boss said to move that over here.”

          “Dad, Mom says to pick up some milk on your way home.”

          That’s not hearsay. That’s conversation. Human communication.

          Hearsay is ONLY a legal concept.

          Reporting on this blog or in any newspaper is NOT hearsay. It’s just reporting.

          People who are using “hearsay” here are simply trying to find a hook to hang their biases on. They’re wrong in their use, and they’re wrong in their knee-jerk reactions to this story.

          What a shame. Like the body-politic in general, this blog has just become a tribal taboo circle.

          Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | November 14, 2017 at 8:32 pm

          “Jim, the boss said to move that over here.”

          “Dad, Mom says to pick up some milk on your way home.”

          Those aren’t hearsay at all. They’re direct testimony about what the boss or Mom said, and would be admissible in any courtroom. When Jim or Dad tell someone else what you told them the boss or Mom said, it becomes hearsay. If that third person questions whether the boss or Mom really said that, Jim or Dad can’t confirm it, because they didn’t hear it themselves.

          I think MarkSmith has the better of this argument. Hearsay is not a legal concept, it’s a general concept on the reliability of evidence, and has its proper place in any discussion that turns on that. It’s because hearsay evidence is less reliable that it’s not admissible in court, unless there’s a specific reason why it should be believed after all.

    VaGentleman in reply to RobM. | November 12, 2017 at 11:13 pm

    Innuendo is the Italian brand of Preparation H.

In Powell v. McCormack (1969)[], the Supreme Court decided that the chambers can judge only the qualifications set by the constitution, and not add new qualifications (like not being a polygamist or not having a financial scandal looming over one). Powell, by the way, was reelected in 1968 and seated in 1969.

    Milhouse in reply to davidfarrar. | November 13, 2017 at 1:13 am

    Irrelevant. Each chamber can expel its members by a 2/3 vote for any reason or no reason. The House could have voted by 2/3 to expel Powell, and it could have kept doing so every time he was elected. It chose not to.

      davidfarrar in reply to Milhouse. | November 13, 2017 at 9:43 am

      Nonsense. Congress can expel a member only when they break a law, not on a whim or allegation. We are a nation of laws, not innuendo.

        Milhouse in reply to davidfarrar. | November 13, 2017 at 10:39 am

        Try reading the constitution, rather than making up your own nonsense. We are indeed a nation of laws, and the law say that 2/3 of either chamber of congress can expel a member of that chamber just because they feel like it, without even alleging any wrongdoing. If the Ds ever get 2/3 of a chamber they can expel all the Rs, and vice versa. There would be no point in doing so, but they could do it.

“It’s creepy, and rightly would enter into the equation of how a voter views a candidate, just as lawful sexual activities of candidates have been brought up in campaigns.”

We can know the state of the law in Alabama, but unless we’ve lived there we can not say what the state of of society and what constitutes “creepy” behavior.

We can look back to 1979 and say Moore was a creep. But did Alabamans look at it that way? As has been widely reported the age of consent is now and was then 16. But in 1979, and at least until 2001, a girl of 14 was old enough to get married with her parents consent. Even to an adult as old as Moore was at the time. Sometime after 2001 they raised the legal marriage age to the age of consent, 16.

I’m told that while it may have been unusual, it wasn’t unheard of for a 14 y.o. girl to marry a 32 y.o. man back then. This may explain while other Alabama politicians who were Moore’s contemporaries at the time say that it was well known that Moore liked to date teenaged girls. It doesn’t sound like it as any big deal. And so far no one has even accused Moore of trying to engage in intercourse with any of the four women that the WaPo has dredged up. Including the three that could have legally consented to it.

Apparently the WaPo was trying to establish a pattern of conduct. All they did was establish the opposite. Only Ms. Corfman accused Moore of inappropriate touching which would have been criminal even in 1979. But that sort of behavior tends to be compulsive. If he really liked to strip down to his underwear along with a 14 y.o. girl and do that sort of thing, he would probably have tried it with the others. Moreover, that sort of behavior wouldn’t have stopped after he got married. He’s been married 30 years and so far there hasn’t been even a hint he engaged in that sort of activity.

I tend not to believe Ms. Corfman’s story, at least so far as her tale of inappropriate touching. I do believe he took her out and kissed her. But I’m also not going to engage in the kind of chronological and cultural arrogance that has us tearing down plaques dedicated to George Washington simply because he wasn’t an “enlightened” progressive SJW of the 21st century.

How was Moore supposed to know that what he was doing with the 14 y.o. in 1979 (assuming he and she didn’t strip down to their underwear and touch each other) was going to be outlawed and “creepy” in the 21st century?

As a corollary this is why I object to my communications being intercepted and recorded. A lot of people say, “I have nothing to hide because I’m not doing anything illegal.” Sure, today what you’re doing may not be illegal. But how do you know it won’t be illegal 20 years from now? And of course you can’t be prosecuted for it (unless you continue doing it). But those recordings can be used against you to “shock the conscience” of voters should you run for office ten years after the activity becomes illegal. They won’t remember that when you were doing it, not only was it perfectly legal it was morally and socially acceptable.

Arminius hits on a very important part in regards to repeated patterns of behaviour.

Look at all them democrats, Weinstein, Clinton, all them gay hollywood actors et al. They have ALL repeatedly sexually assaulted males an females through the years! They HAVE a trail of destruction behind them.

With Moore, you have nothing. With Weinstein, once that first allegation was made public it was like the flood gates had been opened up and suddenly you had dozens of women claiming to have been attacked by him!

Same for Clinton, made worse by the behaviour of his wife who enabled his sexual predatory behaviour and allowed it to carry on for DECADES while she mercilessly attacked his rape victims!

Ray Moore could very well be the final straw that broke the camels back. ALL of the Republicans who are calling for him to step aside and actively working against him should be very careful least they end up making their opposition to actual conservatives too well known.

    CaptTee in reply to mailman. | November 13, 2017 at 12:09 pm

    It appears that this story broke for the purpose of taking attention off of the Clinton’ss, Weinstein’s, etc. worse behavior.

Why do I feel like this is a situation of Lucy and Charlie Brown trying to kick the football?
“Romney paid no taxes and I have proof” lie.
John McCain had an affair” Lie.
The Russian Dossier. Lie
“If you want to keep your doctor…” Lie
The list goes on and on of fabricated accusations that turn out to be nothing, promises that were known to be garbage, and so forth, and yet every time another one is uttered, the public goes running about with their hair on fire because it simply must be true. Before accusations are to be made and believed, those making the accusations must have some sort of proof. The WaPo, NYT and others, now have a long track record of creating issues and facts from whole cloth so why should we believe them on this?

14 was NOT below the legal age of consent in Alabama 40 years ago.

    Ragspierre in reply to Granny. | November 13, 2017 at 7:18 am

    Yes, dear. It was too. THAT’S why you had to get parental consent to marry at 14. BECAUSE you couldn’t give it.

    That was not unique to Alabama, either. Several states followed that rule.

    And it has nothing to do with this matter. It’s just crap to cloud the issue.

    snopercod in reply to Granny. | November 13, 2017 at 7:52 am

    What would Jerry Lee Lewis say?

Stop it! Stop it! Stop it!

Or to put it another way:

The Moore incidents should be discussed, but not with this tone. Mitt the Dog Abuser Romney and John “Keating 5” McCain are bad enough.

Rumors have it that a station in Alabama tried to find a person whose vote was changed by the revelations to interview. Couldn’t find one. Also there are rumors that polls indicate an increase in support for Moore.

Now these are just rumors and the actual effects are murky, but I suspect they are positive otherwise the MSM would be screaming the numbers. If Alabama voters decide to pick Moore who are we to argue?

The people pick who represents them, not some clowns on the sideline who don’t like the representatives picked.

Section 5 and other such clauses are not there for when some group or another doesn’t like the people a group picks. They are there for when unforeseen circumstances crop up, like for example discovering that your candidate turns out not to be a natural born American, or tries to sell a Senate seat. It should be used rarely and extremely rarely when it would appear the voting populace would vote again for the same person. Guilty until innocent is not good enough to invoke such clauses. Anything else is usurpation of the peoples right to chose their representatives.

As for the charges themselves. Most are worthless. If the difference in ages were only four or five years, they would be insignificant. I’ve pointed out that we see in Susan Slept Here, a movie I watch about this time of year ( Debbie Reynolds at any age is hot, but young she is haught ) such a marriage is held up. They cite a rule in The Moon is Blue a wifes age should be half plus seven. Then there is Hatari ( if the Duke accepts it ) which is 1964, And the Rock Hudson/Paul Prentiss one. Not to mention George Clooney’s real marriage. Of course he is a movie star. Our rules don’t apply to him.

And worse, describing it as creepy. When some people are arguing for the legalization of marriages involving three women, two men, two horses, a cow, a pig and a dog.

That aside what is the rest? Offering an eighteen year wine with her dinner. Wow. It’s hardly the same as getting a keg for a teenage party.

That leaves a molestation charge. Very thin. Especially since the WaPo was trolling for a story. After they interviewed her six times so that she could get her story straight.

In the end, we’ve seen several major attempts at usurpation recently ( not to mention many more minor ones ).

People who did not want Thad Cochran’s opponent to win, convinced people who would never vote for him in a general election, to vote for him in a primary.

After Trump clinched the Republican nomination “they” tried to get his delegates to vote against him.

After Trump won the General Election “they” tried to get his electors to vote against him.

Now after Alabama votes in a Senator, “they” will try not to seat him.

I’ve heard some people actually talk about an armed rebellion. Who can blame them when they no longer have a say in the government? In fact there is a piece of paper which essentially says they should.

    Edward in reply to RodFC. | November 13, 2017 at 7:55 am

    We have the usual “The truth of the charge is immaterial, it is the seriousness of the charge that matters” Leftist mantra involved. We have the visceral hatred of Moore by many of the GOPe and we have Trump hatred by both Left and Right involved.

    I agree with Erick Erickson’s column (link below), I don’t know if the allegation if true, but the circumstances surrounding it are troublesome. The timing of the allegation a month after the ability to place another on the ballot and a month before the election is awfully convenient. The fact that the allegation did not surface for 38 years and through multiple statewide campaigns (in a state where nasty politics is something of a norm) and national notoriety involving Federal Judges leaves me wondering about the veracity of the allegation. I’ll take it as a fact that Moore dated at least a few teenagers. There is only one who makes the allegation of illegality of sexual contact while the others apparently deny any such actions (and the others were of legal age of consent at the time).

    Again, I don’t know if it is true. It it is true, Moore should get out. OTOH Moore is being told if it is true he should get out, but if it isn’t true he should get out so he can clear his name. How convenient for Democrats and his Republican enemies. As I told my wife the other day, it has a certain stench about it which makes me question.

buckeyeminuteman | November 13, 2017 at 6:09 am

I have also read that one woman claimed that a reporter offered her money to make a claim against Moore. Since it’s from the Conservative Tribune I would do some further research. Just as I wouldn’t believe anything in the WaPo without doing further research.

    That’s a trashy lie promulgated by trashblog “The Gateway Pundit.”

    ”The rightwing blog The Gateway Pundit pushed a single-sourced rumor from an anonymous Twitter account, @Umpire43, claiming that one of Roy Moore’s accusers was offered $1,000 by The Washington Post to go public with her claims.

    That rumor quickly made its way to InfoWars and the top of r/The_Donald, the most active pro-Trump community on the web. The pro-Trump cable station One America News Network even aired the news, citing a “report.”

    But the source for that viral accusation is a serial fabulist who has been using the identity of a Navy serviceman who died in 2007, records show.”

Why is this an issue in the senate? It’s not like they get much done anyway.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to natdj. | November 13, 2017 at 3:20 pm

    It is important to McConnell and the GOPe because if they can turn the seat Democrat, it will be one seat closer to losing control of the Senate and therefore not even having to pretend to try to fight the Democrats.

    Theoretical questions: Let us say that McConnell gets his wish and Luther Strange runs a write in campaign. Which will only take votes from Moore. How many Moore supporters will change votes to Strange? How many Moore supporters in Alabama will ever bring themselves to support any Republican again except possibly Trump? How many Republican voters will respond to seeing candidates being stabbed in the back by never supporting any Republican except possibly Trump?

    The GOPe lusts after death.

…why might GOP voters view this ultra-convenient revelation with suspicion? Here are some reasons:

A critical Senate seat is at stake, and this ancient news only dropped after it became impossible to replace him.
Moore denies it.
It is a uniquely deadly charge that cannot be refuted (or proven) except by believing one of the alleged participants.
We’ve seen many false sex crimes accusations.
We’ve seen Fusion GPS paid by Never Trumpers and/or the Democrats manufacture a fake dossier to falsely accuse the President of sex weirdness.
The Washington Post is a rabidly partisan liberal paper and part of a mainstream media whose members have, in the era of Trump, decreed that they are no longer to be objective put instead advocate for their partisan agenda.
We have not heard directly from the woman. Yes, the WaPo article contains alleged quotes, but those quotes are processed through the paper (Raise your hand if you’ve ever been misquoted – yep, that’s everyone). Her claims have not been subject to cross-examination. That makes her WaPo statements hearsay, which is traditionally viewed skeptically if admitted at all.
The WaPo did not reveal that one of the (legal age) girls worked for Hillary. That seems like a potentially relevant fact, right?
The WaPo found this woman when no one else – either in Alabama’s media or among opposition researchers over decades of Moore’s political life – did, no doubt via the extensive web of contacts that WaPo maintains in rural Alabama. Doesn’t that seem…odd? What’s the real story about how this all came out?

I don’t know if Moore is guilty – if he is, the hell with him and let’s replace him on the ballot a la Robert Torricelli – but I know that the facts around this claim should make any reasonable person want to know more before they judge. Except not among the GOPe. In 2017’s least surprising development, John McCain demanded Moore drop out simply because he was accused. Yet when the New York Times accused McCain – he says falsely – of an affair, well, the Blue Falcon didn’t drop out of anything. And Mitt Romney, who always reminds me of a talking weasel wearing a $5,000 suit, had to pipe up and do the same. This was the same Mitt who Harry Reid lied about regarding his taxes so effectively. You’d think they’d both be sensitive to the potential for left wing smears, but no. We have two Republicans who were both falsely accused demanding that we give up a Senate seat because of an accusation the accused says is false – an accusation made on the pages of one of our greatest enemies no less. Does that seem legit?

So what are GOP voters supposed to think when they note how these paragons of virtue signaling have not been demanding the resignation of Democrat Senator Bob Menendez, who is in the midst of a federal corruption trial – a case where there are hints their pal The Distinguished Gentleman from New Jersey cavorted with underage hookers? And the Adults In The Room wonder why their voters have nothing but contempt for them.

According to the story:
Mom & daughter show up at the courthouse because Mom has business there. Rather than wait inside in the waiting area, they elect to wait outside. An unknown man, apropos of nothing, walks up and introduces himself. Rather than bring daughter in with her while she does her business (which I guess was Plan A) Mom thinks it’s better to leave her 14-year-old daughter in the care of an older man whom she had only just met.

Yep. Totes believable.

    Ragspierre in reply to ss396. | November 13, 2017 at 8:52 am

    Rather than distort the account with your retelling, why not just quote the account?

    “Rather than wait inside in the waiting area…”

    What “waiting area”? In most courthouses, you either are in the court, or you’re out in the hall.

    As I explained the other day, there is NOTHING odd about leaving a kid in a very public hallway with an officer of the court. Or there shouldn’t be…

I’m not convinced by this statement from the article: “I certainly could understand why a childhood victim of sexual assault would not go public with the accusations against a powerful politician.” He got his law degree in 1977. What powerful politician? If it was a factor, what changed in the analysis since then?

Also. “Because the allegations involve events from 40 years ago, there is a distinct possibility that voters may be skeptical enough of the allegations to elect Moore nonetheless.” My baseline definitive skepticism would be the same even if the allegations (flimsy as they are) were from events occurring 40 days ago. 40 years just heightens everything.

Too funny. It is now being reported that GHW Bush was groping 16 year olds at 79. Obama was reported showing off that he had a hard-on on the plane and Biden seems to grope everyone.

Grope Gate has begun.

Oh, and lets not forget Paul Bonacci, child victim in the Franklin Scandal, identified Barney Frank as 1 of the politicians that raped him.

Time to take a good look at congress. Geez, is it a wonder where House of Cards gets it content.

Pedophile victim Paul Bonacci–kidnapped and forced into sex slavery between the ages of 6 and 17–told U.S. District Court Judge Warren Urbom in sworn testimony [pp.105, 124-126] on February 5, 1999: “Where were the parties?…down in Washington, DC…and that was for sex…There was sex between adult men and other adult men but most of it had to do with young boys and young girls with the older folks…specifically for sex with minors.

In his testimony before Judge Urbom, Bonacci specifically named Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) as having participated in the parties–also telling the judge he had “relationships with him” in Washington, DC and was flown to Massachusetts for sex in the basement of Frank’s Boston home. [2-5-1999, p. 126

Great balls of fire

What’s the age difference again between Macron and his teacher?

    MarkSmith in reply to Gwendolynn. | November 13, 2017 at 9:35 am

    21 years between his wife and him.

    Piper Laurie lays claim to losing it on Ronnie:

    “At first, it seemed like fatherly attention. I was, after all, playing his 16-year-old daughter, but it became obvious he had different intentions.

    “He did get permission from my Mom to take me out and I was looking forward to a glamorous, romantic night rather than hamburgers at his home.”

      MarkSmith in reply to MarkSmith. | November 13, 2017 at 9:58 am

      I meant to say the difference between McCain and his wife is 18 years. She was 26 and he was 44. On top of it, McCain was adulterating with Cindy before his divorce with Carroll.

      At least Moore has only been married once.

      Milhouse in reply to MarkSmith. | November 13, 2017 at 11:46 am

      Re: Piper Laurie & Ronald Reagan, even if the story is true it doesn’t reflect poorly on him. She was of age, it was fully consensual, and neither of them was married. That she had high expectations which weren’t fulfilled was hardly his fault. He wasn’t a mind-reader.

        MarkSmith in reply to Milhouse. | November 13, 2017 at 11:55 am

        Agree, old men “not married” and much younger women, Piper was supposedly 18, was not as uncommon as some want to make it.

If Moore wins, I say put him on the ethics committee. Revenge could be sweet. 10 Commandments and Pizza (gate) for all.

I don’t have a reliable crystal ball so I haven’t a clue as to what the truth of the matter is.

I find the timing concerning.

I wonder why after all the battles that Judge Roy Moore has fought against the left that suddenly these accusations come out.

I don’t know. I want something concrete on which to base an opinion.

So I have doubts. Reasonable ones. I suspect most reasonable people do too.

    Ragspierre in reply to Valerie. | November 13, 2017 at 10:19 am

    You mean a loose nut.

    That was always part of the story, and one of the things Moore apologists have been ranting about…that this accuser was all of a sudden willing to come forth.

    But, no. Not so much.

    Milhouse in reply to Valerie. | November 13, 2017 at 11:49 am

    How is it relevant?

    Trash from a trashblog.

    The rightwing blog The Gateway Pundit pushed a single-sourced rumor from an anonymous Twitter account, @Umpire43, claiming that one of Roy Moore’s accusers was offered $1,000 by The Washington Post to go public with her claims.

    That rumor quickly made its way to InfoWars and the top of r/The_Donald, the most active pro-Trump community on the web. The pro-Trump cable station One America News Network even aired the news, citing a “report.”

    But the source for that viral accusation is a serial fabulist who has been using the identity of a Navy serviceman who died in 2007, records show.”

This is nothing more than standard dirty politics — make accusations that can’t be proven, or disproven; find a few people who will lie to back them up; and count on the leftist news industry to promote them.

Moore is despised as much as Trump — Democrats hate him because he’s not a Democrat; the Republican establishment hates him because he’s not a member of their corrupt organization, and if elected would dilute their control of Congress; add his religious beliefs, and he’s hated more than Trump. The Republican leadership would rather have Democrats elected than Republicans they don’t control.

This is a troubling issue and onethat will NEVER be solved to everyone’s satisfaction. There is a good piece on this today where the author looks at the WaPo article as absolute fact and then goes through it piece by piece. He first establishes the fact of law in AL that the age of consent is 16 so the three other “Children” are all women in the eyes of AL. They also said that at no time did he act inappropriately with them. So the WaPo threw them in trying to establish a MO. That leaves one underage girl that has made claims that most likely will never be disproved no matter what comes forward. She has already been caught in one lie about having a phone in her room which her mother has disputed. She has had a terrible life without a father and many other struggles. I suspect that the one girl that Moore dated who is now a Demorat activist is behind this entire story. She is the one who has worked for hillary and Biden in their campaigns. If this tragic girl had made up a story early in her life to get attention then the rumor would still be floating around. Gadsden is a very small town and I can only imagine how something that was heard many years ago can now be embellished to suit the current needs of Mr. Jones, the Demorat opponent. There are several ways to at least check her story. What kind of car was he driving when he took her to his home? What did the house look like inside? She mentioned Mateus wine was offered to her. Was that wine readily available in that area? Why would she say she had a bedroom phone? What did they do when she said, “Get it over with and let me out of here”? Did he apologize or threaten her? There are a lot of things that come to mind that need to be filled in. As to the a$$hole McCain, he is an admitted adulterer and when he was running for president he demanded that the NYT retract their article claiming that he was having an affair but does not see fit for the judge to have the same courtesy. If this gets Jones elected we can expect that it will become the DNC’s MO from now on.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | November 13, 2017 at 10:56 am

Hugh Hewitt says that if Strange were to resign NOW, the governor could install a new temporary Senator and that would trigger a new special election.

He admits that is his interpretation of the ambiguous statute. It will surely end up in court. But at least it would give Republican voters a better option than staying home, voting for a Democrat, or voting for a Republican that has been stained with this ugly allegation.

It’s a mess. Hugh Hewitt may have the best solution.

    Do this and you allow the ratbags of all political stripes to win. It is amazing what brings the parties together.

    If only they spent as much time on legislation they might have had Obamacare, taxes, and the budget completed.

    voting for a Republican that has been stained with this ugly allegation.

    I don’t consider Dem dirty tricks a stain. Au contraire, they imply that the ‘Rats think the target is worth staining. Which is good enough to earn a vote from me.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to MaggotAtBroadAndWall. | November 13, 2017 at 7:48 pm

    Or more concisely, your route would leave Alabama voters with the choice of a Democrat, or a “Republican” who would vote as a Democrat, with no other options.

“It’s a serious accusation that the WaPo article treats seriously and in detail.”

Switching out Moore for another man would provide the details without making the story true.

How can you be sure at this point that another man was not using Moore’s identity to impress and have sexual contact with a 14 year-old girl?

Why is it assumed that a man having sex with a 14 year-old would positively identify himself instead of posing as a locally famous man to impress a 14-year-old?

I called it. Gloria Allred has announce she has the goods. I wonder how much she paid this one?

MADISON, N.Y. (WBMA) Attorney Gloria Allred has announced a news conference at 2:30 p.m. ET with a new Roy Moore accuser.

Something tells me that Moore was like the socially awkward 35 year old virgin. He is an easy target. Sadly, I think it is going to be like Zimmerman and take a year for everything to work its way through the system.

They did nothing to Ted “Swimmer” Kennedy, not even after we found out he’d tried to work with the Soviets against Reagan. They’ve done nothing against John “Hero of the Viet-Cong” Kerry.

And Senators are testilying about the “good character” of the patently corrupt Menendez.

A Democrat operative suddenly remembers something about a guy who’s been in public life for decades? And people grasp for “corroboration” in perfectly legal actions?

No wonder we no longer have a Republic. We don’t deserve one.

Gee will they unseat Senator Menendez,? he was indicted and on trial now ? Democrats indicated they would not.

If after the allegations are investigated and proven true., then deal with it , until then let the voters decide .

BREAKING: Gloria Allred To Present Second Alleged Roy Moore Underage Sexual Assault Victim

Okay, I was not convinced before but if scumbag Allred is involved, I really have serious doubts.

This is a new low for John McCain, himself a victim of smears. By the standard he set, one only needs to come up with a “serious accusation” to get rid of someone. And then I remember how when the swift boat veterans came out with multiple witnesses to John Kerry’s lies about his Vietnam service, McCain simply denounced them all, as if he knew the truth and he wasn’t even there.

Agree with Dr. Jacobson in hoping for clarity before the election, but ugh..such gutter politics. Given the timing and sources,
this is disgusting, unsubtle, dirty politics 101 and says more about those willing to roll in the mud and point fingers than it says about Roy Moore.

What a pathetic show this is.

    Close The Fed in reply to elle. | November 13, 2017 at 2:02 pm

    Dear Elle:

    I disagree. I’ll repeat what I wrote above:

    If this is the ONLY noteworthy allegation, I cannot condemn a man for a mistake he made once, 40 years ago.

    If not, at what point can you correct your behavior and move on with your life?

    Seriously, when?

    He’s married, no accusations of infidelity, etc. So for 35 years he’s been on the straight and narrow.

    Who are we to say, no one can learn from mistakes? Who do we think we are?!


      I don’t disagree with you, however, I’m not sure why you disagree with me.

        Close The Fed in reply to elle. | November 13, 2017 at 3:07 pm

        Dear Elle:

        Because you want clarity before the election. Even if what the woman says is true, it fully appears to be a one-time thing, and wasn’t rape, and at how long does it take to earn your way back to having a life for such an offense?

        Even if true, the man’s led an otherwise honorable life. Are we entitled to NO MISTAKES in life? Do you believe we should be equal to Jesus Christ? I sure ain’t. I don’t demand others be.


          It’s up to the people of Alabama to decide who will best represent them and the light of REAL truth is always a disinfectant.

          And no, I don’t think that stupid stuff done 40 years ago, which has not been repeated in the last 30, defines who a person is today. It is a standard that none of us could meet. However, as we can see, there are plenty here willing to throw the first stone.

One of my girlfriends was mad at me for three days because she had a dream that I cheated on her. My first girlfriend ever said she would never forgive me for making fun of her birth defect in 4th grade. I didn’t even know her. I didn’t even move to her state until we were in 7th grade and I never made fun of her. These are two examples that I personally experienced of false memories.

I heard that the Moore campaign says the the girl was 17 not 14. It seems a simple thing to clear this up. Why has no news organization confirmed the age of the girl in question?

In my old warped mind, I’d kinda like to see the Senate try the Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 gambit. The Senate is the epicenter of the swamp, and they are completely unresponsive to the will of the American voting public. They, after all, are smarter (and richer).

So, if Moore wins, and then the Senate fails to seat him—because of something alleged to have happened more than thirty years ago—we will see a firestorm of protests against that august body. As it is now, they do nothing and get away with it because there is no accountability. If the Senate, however, disenfranchises the people of Alabama, it’ll be hell to pay.

And fun to watch …

I find this whole mess incredibly comical.

Moore’s opponents are looking a gift horse in the mouth – the next Lion of the Senate is there for the electing, FGS.

Where is all our national outrage over the california women, almost 200 of them with sexual harassment claims not taken seriously, and yet not one democrat voice screaming for immediate resignations from those accused?

I’m just so surprised….(roll eyes gif).

Roy Moore is unfit to hold any elected office. He has violated the oath of office twice; he swore to uphold the US constitution and later flaunted it. He swore his oath with one hand on the bilbe so he lied to
god also….