Mother of Roy Moore Accuser Contradicts Key Detail of Daughter’s Sexual Misconduct Story

[thackney]

He also said per the Hannity interview "I don't deny it" or "I’m not going to dispute these things",  miss that part?

https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/11/11/in-call-with-us-lawmaker-roy-moore-doesnt-deny-kissing-teenagers-as-30-year-old/

See or read the whole interview.

Read the actual transcript of the interview, not the selective editing by the Washington Post.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/11/10/roy_moore_interviewed_by_hannity_generally_didnt_date_girls_in_late_teens_accusations_never_happened.html

HANNITY: At that time in your life...Let me ask you this you do remember these girls would it be unusual for you as a 32 year old guy to have dated a woman as young as 17? That would be a 15 year difference or a girl 18. Do you remember dating girls that young at that time?

MOORE: Not generally, no. If did, you know, I'm not going to dispute anything but I don't remember anything like that.

Not arguing the details is a far different claim than Not denying it.  He very specifically denied it multiple parts of the interview.

[Free Vulcan]

The charges are on the record and corroborated, and Moore himself admits their essence.   If Moore wins, it's because Christian conservatives in Alabama have decided the moral high ground is of no particular importance.  That's a real problem - for Christian conservatives, who risk the label of insincerity.   

What record? Cooberated how? By whom? The WaPo reporter? A woman with a criminal record, ties to the Dems, from a media source that regularly acts as the propaganda organ for the DNC?

One of her sources seems to be a serial accuser and financial grifter. The other a Dem party hacktivist. The third was legal but conveniently claims Moore plied her with alcohol at 18 when the drinking age was 19.

The only claim of sexual activity was by far from the most dubious accuser. Beyond that there's no proof he's done nothing wrong, yet you take moral issue with his dating choices.

Ironic considering you give full support to the LGBTQ lobby and call anyone bigots who question gays, transgenders, etc and so on.

[TomSea]

Read the actual transcript of the interview, not the selective editing by the Washington Post.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/11/10/roy_moore_interviewed_by_hannity_generally_didnt_date_girls_in_late_teens_accusations_never_happened.html

Not arguing the details is a far different claim than Not denying it.  He very specifically denied it multiple parts of the interview.

He doesn't dispute it either. We believe him? We might as well believe the girls as well.

[TomSea]

WaPo interviewed up to 30 people besides their being court documents.

No matter how much people talk about the swamp; Mike Lee has one of the most conservative voting records in the Senate.  Actually higher by any chart I see than Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

http://scorecard.organizeliberty.org/

So, I'm suppose to trust the girls or Moore over Mike Lee? It's not happening. These people know the law, he's not a part of the swamp, maybe he teamed up with Romney for a 1-2 punch, yes, they are both Mormons but so what?

[TomSea]

Moore may win, he may stay in the Senate but he will forever have to tone down his rhetoric because of this.

George Wallace capitalized on segregation but he probably really wasn't a racist but an opportunist in politics.

[Jazzhead]

What record? Cooberated how? By whom?

The girls are all quoted "on the record" - they give their names, they're not just anonymous "sources".   The WaPo quoted multiple girls,  showing a pattern.  That's "corroboration".   And Moore himself hasn't denied dating any of them, other than the 14-year old where a denial is essential to save his skin.   

The only claim of sexual activity was by far from the most dubious accuser. Beyond that there's no proof he's done nothing wrong, yet you take moral issue with his dating choices. 

It's not just me.  A pattern of an older man dating teens may not be "illegal",  but that's not the standard here.   It's skeevy, it's something most parents would strongly disapprove of. 

Ironic considering you give full support to the LGBTQ lobby and call anyone bigots who question gays, transgenders, etc and so on.

Huh?   Gays can be as morally bankrupt as anyone else.   The ones I defend are those that seek to marry and stay faithful to their partners.   What I advocate is the equal protection of the law.   Moore like a lot of Bible thumpers call such good folks perverts and worse, and demand they have no rights at all.   You expect me to defend him now that his hypocrisy has been revealed, just to hang on to a GOP seat?       

[Applewood]

The girls are all quoted "on the record" - they give their names, they're not just anonymous "sources".   The WaPo quoted multiple girls,  showing a pattern.  That's "corroboration".   And Moore himself hasn't denied dating any of them, other than the 14-year old where a denial is essential to save his skin.   

@Jazzhead

Corroboration does not consist of  several people telling similar stories of similar incidents they claim happened to them.  If one woman claims she was assaulted, she should have a witness who was present when she was allegedly assaulted.  That witness would corroborate her story.    Tangible physical evidence, such as the famous blue dress from Slick Willie's impeachment, would also be corroboration.  The statement from the mother who claims her then 14 year old daughter was assaulted by Moore is not corroboration either.  The mother was not present when the alleged incident occurred, so essentially,  her story is hearsay -- maybe..

Just because more than one woman makes a similar claim does not constitute a patern either.  How do we know they aren't just "piling on"  -- making similar claims without evidence ?   Maybe they have a hidden agenda -- looking for money or fame, or maybe they just don't like Moore and are out to get him. Or they were recruited by someone or some entity with a vendetta against Moore.

When is someone going to demand some real proof of these allegations?  Why isn't the party demanding an investigation? 

It's all suspicious to me.

[Free Vulcan]

The girls are all quoted "on the record" - they give their names, they're not just anonymous "sources".   The WaPo quoted multiple girls,  showing a pattern.  That's "corroboration".   And Moore himself hasn't denied dating any of them, other than the 14-year old where a denial is essential to save his skin.   

It's not just me.  A pattern of an older man dating teens may not be "illegal",  but that's not the standard here.   It's skeevy, it's something most parents would strongly disapprove of. 

Huh?   Gays can be as morally bankrupt as anyone else.   The ones I defend are those that seek to marry and stay faithful to their partners.   What I advocate is the equal protection of the law.   Moore like a lot of Bible thumpers call such good folks perverts and worse, and demand they have no rights at all.   You expect me to defend him now that his hypocrisy has been revealed, just to hang on to a GOP seat?       

Yet, if anyone finds gays or transgenders morally unseemly, they're bigots. So you think Moore is a bigot for being against the LGBTQ lifestyle, but criticize his dating choices as morally unseemly. Pure hypocrisy.

He did nothing illegal. Under your own rules you have have no right to judge him.

The WaPo reporter is the same one who did the hit piece on Rick Perry about a rock with a slur on it at their family campground. I'd call her dubious at best.

The accusers are also dubious, which you purposefully ignore. One is a serial accuser and financial grifter, one a Dem party hactivist, and one claims he plied her with alcohol one year underage at 18, though nothing sexual ever happened.

The only sexual claim is the most dubious accuser, who you seem to take at face value, and imply that it's true because Moore had to deny it.

You're obviously a bigot on this issue.

[INVAR]

Yet, if anyone finds gays or transgenders morally unseemly, they're bigots. So you think Moore is a bigot for being against the LGBTQ lifestyle, but criticize his dating choices as morally unseemly. Pure hypocrisy.

He did nothing illegal. Under your own rules you have have no right to judge him.

Exactly.

Absolutely no one on this board should regard a damn thing Jazzy has to say about matters of morality (or anything else for that matter).  He's an illustration of willful secular humanism and evil nestled in the mantle of a liberal SJW while disguising himself as a Conservative.

He's just a re-warmed DU troll playing you all for his own perverted kicks.

[sneakypete]

Right with you on that.  McConnell and McCain were the first out of the gate to demand that Moore "step aside".  Luther Strange was their golden boy - a lackey who was totally pro-establishment.  Moore represents the Tea Party kind of Conservatism McConnell told us should be forced to sit down, shut up or get punched.

I do not doubt for a second that the Oligarchy is working together from both parties to hand the seat to the Democrat, because they would rather have a Democrat in there than someone like Moore.

@INVAR

And there you have it,signed,sealed,and delivered.

[Applewood]

Moore may win, he may stay in the Senate but he will forever have to tone down his rhetoric because of this.

George Wallace capitalized on segregation but he probably really wasn't a racist but an opportunist in politics.

Why?  He has not been tried or convicted of anything.  I personally hope if elected, Moore becomes a pain in the butt to the rest of those lying, thieving, corrupt slugs in DC.

[sneakypete]

@Applewood

No one can discount that Republicans are involved, establishment or otherwise, I would point out though:

1. Why didn't they do this during the run-off about a month ago if Republicans did it.

2. What we do know is that whom published it, is the Washington Post. Enough said on that.

It certainly seems like if Mitch and the boys were behind this, it would have been a lot better to spring it on Moore while the alleged "Swamp" candidate Strange would have benefited.

@TomSea

Most likely because at that time they didn't think he stood a chance of winning the nomination,and thought he was a joke that would damage conservative candidates.

BTW,I do believe he is borderline insane,and WILL hurt conservatives if elected,but he can't possibly do more damage to the alleged Republican Party than the party insiders are already doing.

[sneakypete]

Strange is no lackey;  he's a solid conservative.  Just not the religion-fueled ol' boy rantin' on perverts that you wanted, INVAR.   

The election's in a month's time;  maybe Moore can eat some humble pie and convince the state of Alabama that he's their worthy representative.    Me,  I'd write in Mr. Strange and skip the shower.

@Jazzhead

If I lived there,I would write in the name of anyone that wasn't barking at the moon nuts before I would vote for Moore. The ONLY good thing that could be said about a Moore victory would be that it is proof the voters are fed up with both the alleged Republican Party People and the Dims. In that respect,a Moore victory is a victory for us all because he is bound to screw up to the point where he has no chance of being re-elected 6 years down the road.

[sneakypete]

Strange, the swamp candidate:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Luther_Strange.htm

But we know Moore would bring a lot of action to the Senate....

@TomSea

ROFLMAO! THAT is funny,in a way you probably didn't mean it.

Moore is a pompous ass who is also barking at the moon nuts. This doesn't bother you any more than Jihad bothers the typical Muslim because it happens to be a version of insanity that you subscribe to,although I have no doubt that if you had your way it would be a MUCH saner version.

None the less,it seems to me that it ain't just nutcase Muslims on a Jihad.

[sneakypete]

So you think we should all just accept the allegations against Moore as true and not question them at all?

@Applewood

What are the false allegations? Seriously. The worse and most damning things I have heard about him came from his own lips or are the result of his own actions.

Unless you are one of those nutcases that approves of un-Constitutional acts like placing the 10 Commandments in a courthouse?

[sneakypete]

We have to stop thinking we have two radically different parties with separate philosophies and agendas.  Because we don't.

Republicans make a lot of noise about gutting the Obama legacy (e.g. Obamacare), but the fact is that most of them want that agenda to remain.  They have a stake in seeing to it that government, any government, subjects us all and assumes absolute power over our entire lives.

@Applewood

I'm with ya 100 percent on that one.

[Fishrrman]

I posted this yesterday, but I'll repeat:

OK, folks, I'm gonna be blunt.

First take a peek at this URL and discussion from 2015:
https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/what-is-the-legal--age-of-consent--in-alabama--2252314.html

From the first reply in that thread:
The answer is age 16. Code of Alabama, 1975, 13-A-6-70 (c ). In Parks v. State, 565 So. 2d 1265 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990), the Court interpreted the language of the statute, declaring that “a female 16 years of age is technically not a “child,” but is one capable of consenting to sexual intercourse."

The "age of consent" in Alabama was back then -- and still is -- 16.

That means that as soon as a girl has reached her sixteenth birthday -- just one day "out of" 15 -- she is a legal adult insofar as matters sexual are concerned. She can give her consent to intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, anal sex, whatever she wishes to engage in and whatever her male friend can coax out of her. She is no longer "a girl", but a woman. Perhaps a younger woman, but a woman all the same.

With the exception of the [claimed] 14-year-old who Judge Moore denies ever knowing, the other women who claimed to have had relationships with him at the time say (at least in the reports I've read here, I would not dignify the Washington post by reading their piece) all Mr. Moore did was "kiss" them?

KISS THEM?
REALLY?
SINCE WHEN HAS IT BECOME A CRIME TO KISS A WOMAN ON A DATE?

And yes, insofar as the law of the state of Alabama is concerned, all those "young girls" were WOMEN, fully capable of giving their consent or saying "no".

So... some of Moore's colleagues thought it odd for him to go out with teenage gals, even though he was 31 or 32?
Heck -- I'd say MORE POWER TO HIM if he could attract 'em that young!

If all Judge Moore did was "kiss them", I'd say his behavior was pretty "courtly" in the old-time traditional usage of that term. Indeed -- quite the gentleman!

So to the prissies of this forum (I notice one gal seems to be absent in this discussion so far), my response when you cluck your tongues and call Mr. Moore's behavior back then to be "inappropriate" -- I say, kiss my [greasy] behind. (And I just turned my back to the screen -- here it is!)

These same democrats who attack Mr. Moore introduce books into grade school instructing kids on the proper ins-and-outs of anal sex.
And yet they're outraged that Judge Roy Moore at age 31 dated young ladies of legal age and KISSED them....?
C'mon -- who are you trying to kid?
What kind of b.s. is goin' on here?

I say, if you can get 'em young, well go on and get 'em!

A song for you to enjoy:
("Young Blood" by The Band, sung by the great Levon Helm)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3XoOB4DIoA

My 40 second video advice to Judge Moore can be viewed here:
https://1drv.ms/v/s!An3uN8X2AHdOgixuIc0TuouA0G2B

[sneakypete]

In Heaven wrote:
"Maybe, but they have such a small majority I would think they'd want an R in there to protect it."

On the contrary, if they were suddenly returned to "the minority", it would take all the pressure off of the Republicans and McConnell to actually DO SOMETHING to validate their majority.

Maybe,but that is assuming they even care what people like you or I think. I'm not so sure they give a damn what the serfs think.
In any case:

The attempt to force Judge Moore out of the race is a blatant attempt by the left to put the Republicans OUT OF having a majority, and by so doing thwart any attempt at passing ANY legislation of importance up until the 2018 elections. It would put an end to Trump's run of judicial confirmations as well.

Partial agreement on that one. Moore isn't going to be a factor at all if he gets elected. Pretty much everything he promotes will be as insane as pretty much everything he says,and he won't be able to find more than a handful of Senators to support him,if he gets any support at all.

He will have about as much influence on the US Senate as you or I have. Chances are he will vote for much of what the alleged Republicans in the Senate support in order to have anyone answer his calls,but he's not going to be a factor in anything.

[INVAR]

If Trump's election is regarded as Americans giving the Establishment Oligarchy Statism of the entirety of DC the big middle finger - Moore is a continuation of such a movement. '

Especially now after these miraculous 11th hour 'victims-come-forward' efforts that the GOP leadership was instantly out of the gates demanding Moore 'step aside' with.  The avalanche to continue until the Seat is owned by a liberal Democrat as we have another "victim" from NY under the tutelage of Gloria Allred that will cry for the cameras about the horrifying acts that will be levied and charged to Moore.

[Applewood]

@Applewood

What are the false allegations? Seriously. The worse and most damning things I have heard about him came from his own lips or are the result of his own actions.

Unless you are one of those nutcases that approves of un-Constitutional acts like placing the 10 Commandments in a courthouse?

[/b]

Ummmmmm...where did you get that from my question?  The subject here is the lack of evidence backing up all these claims against him. 

But if you really want to know -- I see nothing unconstitutional about the presence of the Ten Commandments in the courthouse.  However, I'm not a judge  -- jut a one-time legal secretary, now retired. So my opinion doesn't mean squat.  I will say this:  Thanks to these Ten Commandments rulings, we now have a bunch of anarchists going around trying to destroy our history by removing anything remotely related to historical figures and events.  The commies are winning. 

Now back to the subject:  what really did Moore say that was damming? I don't have it all in front of me, but I think he said something like, if these allegations are true, I don't remember the incidents in question.  I don't think he really admitted anything or incriminated himself. 

By the way, I'm not exactly a Moore supporter.  I barely know the guy.  But I don't like seeing someone accused of anything without hard evidence, especially where it doesn't look like the accusers intend to file suit or bring criminal charges against him. This whole thing smacks of a setup and until I see evidence, I'm going to take Moore's side in this matter. 

[Applewood]

@Applewood

I'm with ya 100 percent on that one.

Glad we agree on something.   

[sneakypete]

[/b]

Ummmmmm...where did you get that from my question?

 

I didn't,but that was always the area where the knees of the alleged Right started jerking.

But if you really want to know -- I see nothing unconstitutional about the presence of the Ten Commandments in the courthouse.

Then you must be happy to be wrong and un-American. We are a FREE PEOPLE,who don't have a national religion.

By the way, I'm not exactly a Moore supporter.  I barely know the guy.  But I don't like seeing someone accused of anything without hard evidence, especially where it doesn't look like the accusers intend to file suit or bring criminal charges against him. This whole thing smacks of a setup and until I see evidence, I'm going to take Moore's side in this matter.

I'm with ya 100 percent on that one. NONE of us can defend ourselves against bogus accusations that claim we did something 40 years ago that was never claimed or reported on back then.

It's nothing but a freaking 21st Century Witch Hunt.

[INVAR]

I'm with ya 100 percent on that one. NONE of us can defend ourselves against bogus accusations that claim we did something 40 years ago that was never claimed or reported on back then.

It's nothing but a freaking 21st Century Witch Hunt.

That it is.

Because it works, and the accused has no ability to defend against such an accusation whereby the accuser's word is Gospel and the Accused is automatically guilty.

[Smokin Joe]

Then you must be happy to be wrong and un-American. We are a FREE PEOPLE,who don't have a national religion.

Considering the Ten Commandments are acknowledged by all the various sects of Christianity, by Judaism, AND Islam, I would say their presence does not constitute an "establishment of Religion".  Consider it a monument to the most widely recognized 'law' known, by over 55% of the planet.

I'm with ya 100 percent on that one. NONE of us can defend ourselves against bogus accusations that claim we did something 40 years ago that was never claimed or reported on back then.

It's nothing but a freaking 21st Century Witch Hunt.

Yep. If they had something, the police would have taken him into custody, not a bunch of crap in the WaPo.

[sneakypete]

Considering the Ten Commandments are acknowledged by all the various sects of Christianity, by Judaism, AND Islam, I would say their presence does not constitute an "establishment of Religion".  Consider it a monument to the most widely recognized 'law' known, by over 55% of the planet.

That is  your religious biases showing. I am an agnostic,and you surely don't speak for me,or anyone else that doesn't follow your religious doctrines. Or that pretends to,anyway.

Yep. If they had something, the police would have taken him into custody, not a bunch of crap in the WaPo.

Taking him into custody immediately is the last thing the left wants. They want the accusations to float around and inflame the citizens,not having the charges dismissed due to the statute of limitations and the FACT there is no evidence at all and people in this country are NOT convicted on hearsay.

The goal was to float a stink that would cling to the entire Republican Party,not see legal charges placed against one old fool,and then dismissed.