The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on November 12, 2017, 02:58:49 pm
-
by Aaron Klein12 Nov 2017
Birmingham, ALABAMA — The mother of Leigh Corfman, who says that Alabama Senatorial Candidate Roy Moore tried to engage in a sexual encounter with her when she was 14, has contradicted a key detail of Corfman’s story.
Speaking by phone to Breitbart News on Saturday, Corfman’s mother, Nancy Wells, 71, says that her daughter did not have a phone in her bedroom during the period that Moore is reported to have allegedly called Corfman – purportedly on Confman’s bedroom phone – to arrange at least one encounter.
Moore strongly denies Corfman’s claims.
more
http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017/11/12/exclusive-mother-roy-moore-accuser-contradicts-key-detail-daughters-sexual-misconduct-story/
-
A pretty big contradiction.
-
A Fishrrman prediction:
It looks like Judge Moore is still doing ok in the most recent Alabama polls.
He still has a very good chance of winning, and because he does...
... within the next couple of weeks, be on the lookout for articles in the "heavy hitters" of the "mainstream" press to wit:
"If Roy Moore is elected, could the Senate deny him his seat?"
-
A Fishrrman prediction:
It looks like Judge Moore is still doing ok in the most recent Alabama polls.
He still has a very good chance of winning, and because he does...
... within the next couple of weeks, be on the lookout for articles in the "heavy hitters" of the "mainstream" press to wit:
"If Roy Moore is elected, could the Senate deny him his seat?"
Also. be on the lookout for members of Moore's own party to attempt to discredit him by planting more of these stories in the press.
I still say that Republicans are behind the current smear campaign, or they are in cahoots with those who are in charge. No, I don't have any proof, but why are so many prominent Republicans in such a hurry to distance themselves from him? If they really want to hold on to this seat, they should be defending Moore or at the very least, demand an investigation into the charges with a view toward forcing Moore's accusers to prove their accusations. Instead of supporting their candidate, they are beating a hasty retreat towards the exits. Their behavior sounds suspicious to me.
-
I still say that Republicans are behind the current smear campaign, or they are in cahoots with those who are in charge. No, I don't have any proof, but why are so many prominent Republicans in such a hurry to distance themselves from him? If they really want to hold on to this seat, they should be defending Moore or at the very least, demand an investigation into the charges with a view toward forcing Moore's accusers to prove their accusations. Instead of supporting their candidate, they are beating a hasty retreat towards the exits. Their behavior sounds suspicious to me.
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.
-
Also. be on the lookout for members of Moore's own party to attempt to discredit him by planting more of these stories in the press.
I still say that Republicans are behind the current smear campaign, or they are in cahoots with those who are in charge. No, I don't have any proof, but why are so many prominent Republicans in such a hurry to distance themselves from him? If they really want to hold on to this seat, they should be defending Moore or at the very least, demand an investigation into the charges with a view toward forcing Moore's accusers to prove their accusations. Instead of supporting their candidate, they are beating a hasty retreat towards the exits. Their behavior sounds suspicious to me.
@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.
-
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.
Yes, a lot better to do this while Moore is pitted against a Democrat than doing it when it might have made Luther Strange the candidate.
-
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.
-
@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.
My theory is that the liberal Republican hierarchy thought their guy, Strange, was going to win the nomination. But since this upstart country bumpkin did, they are now determined to get rid of him, even if it means a Dem takes the seat.
The two parties are in collusion. Liberals like McConnell don't really care which liberal from which party wins.
-
Yes, a lot better to do this while Moore is pitted against a Democrat than doing it when it might have made Luther Strange the candidate.
That certainly suggests that whoever's "behind" this, it's not likely Republicans with ties to the "establishment". To serve their interests, Moore would have been taken out before the primary.
-
My theory is that the liberal Republican hierarchy thought their guy, Strange, was going to win the nomination. But since this upstart country bumpkin did, they are now determined to get rid of him, even if it means a Dem takes the seat.
The two parties are in collusion. Liberals like McConnell don't really care which liberal from which party wins.
An EXCELLENT summation of the situation IMHO!
GOT to protect our precious swamp no matter what!
-
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.
I guess I just find it ironic that those who dislike Moore because of his supposed religious extremism, judge him from a very holy tribunal, over enlarged sense of their own personal quasi-theocratic morality, in a very pot.kettle.black scenario.
-
My theory is that the liberal Republican hierarchy thought their guy, Strange, was going to win the nomination. But since this upstart country bumpkin did, they are now determined to get rid of him, even if it means a Dem takes the seat.
The two parties are in collusion. Liberals like McConnell don't really care which liberal from which party wins.
OK, all the same, polls were showing for some time that Moore was the leader in the race. A big lead at that by almost 20 points.
Roy Moore has big lead on Luther Strange in Senate race, poll says
AL.com
By AL.com |
Posted: Mon 2:44 PM, Aug 21, 2017
U.S. Sen. Luther Strange will need a big comeback if he's to get the Republican nomination in Alabama's Senate special election.
A poll released Sunday said that Strange trailed Roy Moore, former Alabama chief justice, by 19 points.
The runoff between Moore and Strange is Sept. 26. The winner will face former U.S. attorney Doug Jones in the Dec. 12 general election.
http://www.wtvy.com/content/news/Roy-Moore-has-big-lead-on-Luther-Strange-in-Senate-race-poll-says-441317403.html
-
That certainly suggests that whoever's "behind" this, it's not likely Republicans with ties to the "establishment". To serve their interests, Moore would have been taken out before the primary.
Strange was hand picked by the establishment and proved during his short time in office what that was! Nothing more than a Mitch McConnell buttboy!
-
Are the 3rd party people now sticking up for Moore so much? Easy for them to criticize, sit out votes.
-
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, being agreeable on issues.
-
Strange is no lackey; he's a solid conservative.
He is no such thing. Moderate wing RINO.
-
Liberals like McConnell don't really care which liberal from which party wins.
Maybe, but they have such a small majority I would think they'd want an R in there to protect it.
Not that they plan to actually do anything with said majority, but it's nice to control those juicy committee positions and such.
-
Are the 3rd party people now sticking up for Moore so much? Easy for them to criticize, sit out votes.
So you think we should all just accept the allegations against Moore as true and not question them at all?
-
Maybe, but they have such a small majority I would think they'd want an R in there to protect it.
Not that they plan to actually do anything with said majority, but it's nice to control those juicy committee positions and such.
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.
-
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.
Right on! Right on! Right on...
-
The allegations are false as all coming from the democrats are as these have been proven to be by the fact they work for democrats and the dems have pulled this before it just is getting old now and no one believes them anymore. I love Roy Moore and he will win.
-
Strange was hand picked by the establishment and proved during his short time in office what that was! Nothing more than a Mitch McConnell buttboy!
I also find it funny that nearly the very day this story broke, Murkowski strolls up to the mic and says Strange should do a write-in campaign. Pathetically obvious.
-
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.
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.
-
I also find it funny that nearly the very day this story broke, Murkowski strolls up to the mic and says Strange should do a write-in campaign. Pathetically obvious.
Yes sir! Pathetically so indeed!
-
I also find it funny that nearly the very day this story broke, Murkowski strolls up to the mic and says Strange should do a write-in campaign. Pathetically obvious.
Ain't it though? :whistle:
-
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.
I've often equated our "representation" with the WWE (or the old Ralph and Sam cartoons). They put on an act in public, but they're buddies in private.
However, when their (not our) party is in power there are perks like prime committee slots where they can guide legislation for their constituents (donors first, then maybe voters). Therefore, I think that after reelection and personal graft, retaining party majority would be pretty high on their list.
-
Moore did not marry any of these women, bringing up marriage is as relevant as bringing up a number of other things, some not very savory.
@KingsX
Also, if we take Moore's words, let's take these girls' words as much.
It's sad, nobody is really taking up Moore's words, it's not just Mike Lee jumping ship. I sure wonder why Moore does not have more support. It's more than just saying "it's the swamp" because it's far reaching on those not supporting him, it just may not be as pronounced. My last words on this dreary subject until further developments.
-
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.
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.
You care about their nearly complete inaction. I care about their nearly complete inaction. But is anyone they actually care about applying any pressure?
-
To those that wonder Why Now, about Mitch and his dastardly NRSC, they couldn't have pulled this stunt during the primary, Moore probably would have dropped out and threw his support behind Meadow and he is just as much hated, if not more, than ol Judge Roy, himself.
-
I guess I just find it ironic that those who dislike Moore because of his supposed religious extremism, judge him from a very holy tribunal, over enlarged sense of their own personal quasi-theocratic morality, in a very pot.kettle.black scenario.
Jazzy considers my morality to be wholly evil and dangerous - and I consider his perverted morality in the same light.
So, we have absolutely no commonality whatsoever outside of being mortal enemies to everything important in life.
-
The allegations are false as all coming from the democrats are as these have been proven to be by the fact they work for democrats and the dems have pulled this before it just is getting old now and no one believes them anymore. I love Roy Moore and he will win.
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.
A couple of money quotes from Michael Brendon Daugherty writing in the current National Review:
Every social conservative who supports Moore is increasing the cynicism of American society and justifying widespread skepticism about the sincerity of Christian belief among conservatives. People are reminded frequently that Christian conservatives once demanded that Bill Clinton resign in shame for carrying on an affair with a White House intern. Now some of those supposedly godly men, or their sons, defend Moore’s predation of teenaged girls on the grounds that even a child predator is better than a Democrat. This instrumentalism will eventually make it impossible for social conservatives to defend any of their preferred policies.
[Then t]here’s an argument from good citizenship. You cannot be a good citizen of your country if your immediate political interests outrank every other good in the commonweal. And citizenship requires some self-abnegnation, even some risk. Advancing a man of Roy Moore’s character to the Senate worsens public life in obvious ways. He’s unethical. He flouts the law. And he is peculiarly holier than thou. Choosing the lesser of two evils is a fantastic way to prepare yourself to do worse and worse evils. In this political environment, the war metaphor can become the war reality. Telling yourself that “this is war, and in war you have to make less than ideal choices” is a great way to excuse the destruction of your charity and the lifting of restraint, with collateral damage to your integrity.
LINK - "Opt out of the Lesser of Two Evils" (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453661/roy-moore-republicans-dont-stand-lesser-evil) It's worth a click and a read, especially by those who think their cynicism has no consequences.
-
Also. be on the lookout for members of Moore's own party to attempt to discredit him by planting more of these stories in the press.
I still say that Republicans are behind the current smear campaign, or they are in cahoots with those who are in charge. No, I don't have any proof, but why are so many prominent Republicans in such a hurry to distance themselves from him? If they really want to hold on to this seat, they should be defending Moore or at the very least, demand an investigation into the charges with a view toward forcing Moore's accusers to prove their accusations. Instead of supporting their candidate, they are beating a hasty retreat towards the exits. Their behavior sounds suspicious to me.
That hasty retreat permits them to pull any and all funding which others might claim Moore was due as the GOP candidate. The GOPe won't be sending money to Moore to campaign with, I would wager. This just gives them an excuse.
-
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 vapid hog-wallow.
There are no charges - just unfounded allegations. Corroborated my ass. And what 'essence' has been admitted to? Last I knew, he FLATLY denied it.
And anyone voting for Tump can't be wrapping himself in morality now. Whar's come out of his own mouth about his own daughter is worse than anything alleged here. Grab em by the MEOW indeed.
What flaming hypocrisy.
-
What vapid hog-wallow.
There are no charges - just unfounded allegations. Corroborated my ass. And what 'essence' has been admitted to? Last I knew, he FLATLY denied it.
He's admitted dating teenagers as a 30-plus year old man. Would you want YOUR daughter dating a 30-plus year old man?
And anyone voting for Tump can't be wrapping himself in morality now. Whar's come out of his own mouth about his own daughter is worse than anything alleged here. Grab em by the MEOW indeed.
What flaming hypocrisy.
And some of us wouldn't vote for Trump or Moore. Because character ought to matter - especially for someone who claims to wear religion on his sleeve.
-
The charges are on the record and corroborated
What! How easily you slander. There are no "charges" and no crime has been
"corroborated". You should be ashamed of yourself.
-
He's admitted dating teenagers as a 30-plus year old man. Would you want YOUR daughter dating a 30-plus year old man?
Do you have a link for that? I found:
'I Dated a Lot of Young Ladies.' Roy Moore Says He Doesn't Remember Dating Teenagers
http://time.com/5019836/roy-moore-dating-teenagers-alabama-senate-sean-hannity/
Moore began his appearance on conservative pundit Sean Hannity’s radio show by saying, “These allegations are completely false and misleading.”
He then said, “After my return from the military I dated a lot of young ladies.” Four women have accused him of pursuing them when he was in his 30s and they ranged in age from 14 to 18. But Moore then changed his tune, saying “I don’t remember” dating women that much younger than him, and, “I don’t remember ever dating any girl without the permission of her mother.” And later he said “it would have been out of my customary behavior” to date women that young when he was in his thirties.
“This never happened, they know it never happened, and obviously you don’t wait 40 years to bring up something like this,” he said.
-
He's admitted dating teenagers as a 30-plus year old man.
So what? A 17/18 yo female is a grow woman and she can date who ever she wants.
No one has claimed he ever did anything sexual with his dates.
-
He's admitted dating teenagers as a 30-plus year old man. Would you want YOUR daughter dating a 30-plus year old man?
My mother was 17 when she married my dad in his very late twenties. Care to split that hair?
And some of us wouldn't vote for Trump or Moore. Because character ought to matter - especially for someone who claims to wear religion on his sleeve.
Character is all that matters, and Moore's is just fine.
-
What! How easily you slander. There are no "charges" and no crime has been
"corroborated". You should be ashamed of yourself.
But the charges ARE on the record and corroborated. Did you read the WaPo article? And as for Moore, his statement that dating teens wasn't part "of his customary behavior" is hardly a denial. Indeed, I read it as a tacit admission.
Why should I defend this man out of blind partisanship? What did you think of Daugherty's article, linked above?
-
But the charges ARE on the record and corroborated. Did you read the WaPo article? And as for Moore, his statement that dating teens wasn't part "of his customary behavior" is hardly a denial. Indeed, I read it as a tacit admission.
Why should I defend this man out of blind partisanship? What did you think of Daugherty's article, linked above?
The 14 year old stuff is BS. And a 17/18 yo female is an adult woman and can date who ever
she wants.
-
He's admitted dating teenagers as a 30-plus year old man. Would you want YOUR daughter dating a 30-plus year old man?
It isn't illegal. The guy was a West Point grad, had done two tours in the Army, and gone on to law school. My teenagers could still do a lot worse and end up hanging with some druggie with no job and a skateboard who bummed around town all day. At 17-18-19? At 17 I get a definite say, even nowadays. At 18, she can vote, she can enter into contracts, and though she is a "teenager" she is still legally an adult in every sense except the consumption of alcoholic beverages.
And some of us wouldn't vote for Trump or Moore. Because character ought to matter - especially for someone who claims to wear religion on his sleeve.
I find it amusing that those who practice evil cannot imagine what it is like to be good, thus projecting what they'd do in a situation on all else.
We've been over the ground about how dating differed in the '60s and 70s in the more rural South from the tinder fired hookup culture the Left and other amoral folks have built since then, but you are bloviating instead of looking at cultural differences.
-
But the charges ARE on the record and corroborated. Did you read the WaPo article? And as for Moore, his statement that dating teens wasn't part "of his customary behavior" is hardly a denial. Indeed, I read it as a tacit admission.
Why should I defend this man out of blind partisanship? What did you think of Daugherty's article, linked above?
What has he been charged with?
There are scandalous allegations, well hyped, from a source I often question, which have obvious political benefit for the folks that publication aligns with, but I don't see any charges.
-
There are court documents on this. What that means exactly, I don't know.
-
Do you have a link for that? I found:
'I Dated a Lot of Young Ladies.' Roy Moore Says He Doesn't Remember Dating Teenagers
http://time.com/5019836/roy-moore-dating-teenagers-alabama-senate-sean-hannity/
Moore began his appearance on conservative pundit Sean Hannity’s radio show by saying, “These allegations are completely false and misleading.”
He then said, “After my return from the military I dated a lot of young ladies.” Four women have accused him of pursuing them when he was in his 30s and they ranged in age from 14 to 18. But Moore then changed his tune, saying “I don’t remember” dating women that much younger than him, and, “I don’t remember ever dating any girl without the permission of her mother.” And later he said “it would have been out of my customary behavior” to date women that young when he was in his thirties.
“This never happened, they know it never happened, and obviously you don’t wait 40 years to bring up something like this,” he said.
He also said per the Hannity interview "I don't deny it" or "I’m not going to dispute these things", miss that part?
“If I did, I’m not going to dispute these things, but I don’t remember anything like that,” he added.
The statement likely didn’t do his embattled candidacy any favors—even though Moore did deny having been involved with a 14-year-old. And it turns out he couldn’t deny relations with underage women in a phone call with a US senator after the show.
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.
-
The statement likely didn’t do his embattled candidacy any favors—even though Moore did deny having been involved with a 14-year-old. And it turns out he couldn’t deny relations with underage women in a phone call with a US senator after the show.
According to three sources briefed on the call, Moore could not deny “kissing” or “dating” teenagers while in his thirties. The Republican senator encouraged Moore to drop out of the race, the sources said. A spokesman for Moore declined to comment on an account of the phone call.
https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/11/11/in-call-with-us-lawmaker-roy-moore-doesnt-deny-kissing-teenagers-as-30-year-old/
Here it depends on what underage means, even if one tosses out the 14 year old girl's statement; again, some will and others won't.
-
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.
So let's elect a pro abortion, pro open borders, pro carbon tax, pro homo, pro transgender democrat because 40 years ago Roy Moore dated 17/18 year old girls.
-
So let's elect a pro abortion, pro open borders, pro carbon tax, pro homo, pro transgender democrat because 40 years ago Roy Moore dated 17/18 year old girls.
I agree... but let this be a learning moment for the anti-Romneys or even anti-Trumps, they in turn would have enabled horrible things as well. That doesn't seem to bother them.
We may have a write-in campaign nonetheless.
-
Here it depends on what underage means, even if one tosses out the 14 year old girl's statement; again, some will and others won't.
And here I thought abortion was a big issue to you. But it seems like you're doing
all you can to see the pro life Moore lose to the pro abortion Jones. What's up
with that?
Under age means under 16 in Alabama.
-
We expect the democrats to raise a stink, they think strategically and stop at nothing to achieve their goals.
But, as always, their tactics are lost on many, many conservative Republicans.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
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
I'm with ya 100 percent on that one.
Glad we agree on something. :beer:
-
[/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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
It represents one of the earliest examples of law that isn't at ends with our code of jurisprudence.
Posting "an eye for an eye" might encourage people to take the law into their own hands.
And many of those Commandments are incorporated into secular law:
Thou shalt not Murder.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor (perjury).
Honor thy Father and mother (or be adjudicated as an "unruly child" and taken into State custody).
Keep the Lord's Day Holy (Blue laws, no matter how you feel about them, and with an admitted Christian bias of a Sunday sabbath).
So, like it or not, those Commandments still have a large influence on everyone.
-
So, like it or not, those Commandments still have a large influence on everyone.
Only in this country and they are rapidly evaporating and being replaced with a new morality of men, which is why we see corruption being institutionalized and why we are losing our liberty at such a rapid rate.
Because if we will not be governed by God and the morality in those commandments, we will be ruled by the tyranny of men who demand all power and authority to rule over you and create a morality that benefits them and their own pockets.
-
It represents one of the earliest examples of law that isn't at ends with our code of jurisprudence.
Posting "an eye for an eye" might encourage people to take the law into their own hands.
And many of those Commandments are incorporated into secular law:
Thou shalt not Murder.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor (perjury).
Honor thy Father and mother (or be adjudicated as an "unruly child" and taken into State custody).
Keep the Lord's Day Holy (Blue laws, no matter how you feel about them, and with an admitted Christian bias of a Sunday sabbath).
So, like it or not, those Commandments still have a large influence on everyone.
@Smokin Joe
You are not stupid,so you can't possibly believe those dictates were created by your religion. They are nothing more than common sense statements on how to live together in peace. They existed long before your "God" was created out of thin air.
The exception is the Blue Law insanity. That is nothing more or less than Christianity grubbing for money. People that are out shopping on Sunday aren't attending church and buying their acre in heaven.
-
Only in this country and they are rapidly evaporating and being replaced with a new morality of men, which is why we see corruption being institutionalized and why we are losing our liberty at such a rapid rate.
Liberty is contrary to organized religion,which always DEMANDS control.
Because if we will not be governed by God and the morality in those commandments, we will be ruled by the tyranny of men who demand all power and authority to rule over you and create a morality that benefits them and their own pockets.
Pure HorseHillary. People who are devoutly religious are nothing more than slaves of the tyrants over then that control them by granting or withholding "God's Love".
-
Liberty is contrary to organized religion,which always DEMANDS control.
I'm not an advocate for Popery - neither were the Founders. It is contradictory to scripture to begin with.
Pure HorseHillary. People who are devoutly religious are nothing more than slaves of the tyrants over then that control them by granting or withholding "God's Love".
Again, you are referencing Popery in it's myriad forms. I'm not an adherent or beholden to any man or system of men that arbitrates God's Love or it's withholding.
-
I'm not an advocate for Popery - neither were the Founders. It is contradictory to scripture to begin with.
Again, you are referencing Popery in it's myriad forms. I'm not an adherent or beholden to any man or system of men that arbitrates God's Love or it's withholding.
@INVAR
Good to hear! I firmly believe that as Americas we all have the right to believe any damn-fool thing we want to believe,but I object when any of them become slaves,even voluntary slaves,to those beliefs. When that happens it not only affects you,but affects us all as there is no such thing as a cult or cult leader that does not seek more power over more people.
-
Pure HorseHillary. People who are devoutly religious are nothing more than slaves of the tyrants over then that control them by granting or withholding "God's Love".
Gee...now whose bias' are showing? :whistle:
-
Not going to go back through four pages of stuff but I will say this...
Roy Moore is definitely getting the "Herman Cain" treatment.
If reporters were really interested I'd be willing to bet this dirty trick traces back to McConnell's office.
The WaPo reporters didn't just happen upon this story. They were led to it...they didn't find it on their own through crack research and investigative reporting.
If that were the case they'd have reported the fact that one of the so called "victims" is a huge Dem supporter and has pics with herself and Biden and other Liberals all over her FB page.
This is a smear job set up by McConnell and the establishment pure and simple.
-
Not going to go back through four pages of stuff but I will say this...
Roy Moore is definitely getting the "Herman Cain" treatment.
If reporters were really interested I'd be willing to bet this dirty trick traces back to McConnell's office.
The WaPo reporters didn't just happen upon this story. They were led to it...they didn't find it on their own through crack research and investigative reporting.
If that were the case they'd have reported the fact that one of the so called "victims" is a huge Dem supporter and has pics with herself and Biden and other Liberals all over her FB page.
This is a smear job set up by McConnell and the establishment pure and simple.
Yes indeed! And those of us who have actually been on the battlefields of politics recognized it for what it is day one!
-
Not going to go back through four pages of stuff but I will say this...
Roy Moore is definitely getting the "Herman Cain" treatment.
If reporters were really interested I'd be willing to bet this dirty trick traces back to McConnell's office.
The WaPo reporters didn't just happen upon this story. They were led to it...they didn't find it on their own through crack research and investigative reporting.
If that were the case they'd have reported the fact that one of the so called "victims" is a huge Dem supporter and has pics with herself and Biden and other Liberals all over her FB page.
This is a smear job set up by McConnell and the establishment pure and simple.
I find it very revealing that McConnell and the GOP Party leadership goes to bat by having Lindsey Graham appear in court to ask a judge to exonerate Democrat Bob Menendez from actual criminal charges of corruption and sex with underage prostitutes, but were immediate in their demands Moore "step aside".
-
I find it very revealing that McConnell and the GOP Party leadership goes to bat by having Lindsey Graham appear in court to ask a judge to exonerate Democrat Bob Menendez from actual criminal charges of corruption and sex with underage prostitutes, but were immediate in their demands Moore "step aside".
Birds of a feather...fellow traveler...you know how it goes.
-
Not going to go back through four pages of stuff but I will say this...
Roy Moore is definitely getting the "Herman Cain" treatment.
If reporters were really interested I'd be willing to bet this dirty trick traces back to McConnell's office.
The WaPo reporters didn't just happen upon this story. They were led to it...they didn't find it on their own through crack research and investigative reporting.
If that were the case they'd have reported the fact that one of the so called "victims" is a huge Dem supporter and has pics with herself and Biden and other Liberals all over her FB page.
This is a smear job set up by McConnell and the establishment pure and simple.
Exactly. Someone on this forum mentioned the possibility of the elites choosing who represents us. I'm afraid with this tactic, the liberal Republican hierarchy, with their buds in the Democratic party, are already making those choices.
It would give me great pleasure if the voters of Alabama realize what is going on and give the DC crooks the middle finger come election day. I will have to buy more popcorn and grab a ringside seat to watch the spectacle of McConnell, et al having massive coronaries when their shenanigans backfire on them big time.
-
exonerate Democrat Bob Menendez from actual criminal charges of corruption and sex with underage prostitutes
For the record, I don't think there are charges of sex with underage prostitutes.
Also, it seems very possible, the Democratic Party is doing to Menendez what people are accusing the Republican party of doing to Moore.
They don't like Menendez's foreign policy, not his anti-Cuban normalization attitude. If one looks at it, the sex smears are similar, were brought up against Menendez years ago and have never panned out so far.
-
Exactly. Someone on this forum mentioned the possibility of the elites choosing who represents us. I'm afraid with this tactic, the liberal Republican hierarchy, with their buds in the Democratic party, are already making those choices.
It would give me great pleasure if the voters of Alabama realize what is going on and give the DC crooks the middle finger come election day. I will have to buy more popcorn and grab a ringside seat to watch the spectacle of McConnell, et al having massive coronaries when their shenanigans backfire on them big time.
Personally, I don't take this kind of Alex Jones conspiracy view; McConnell has to an extent tried to pass Trump's agenda. He has failed and should be replaced, however, I am not sure if all of this paranoia is warranted.
Someone is behind this though, I think it is the Democratic party, not this great conspiracy that Republican leadership ignored the primary and then, only do this in the general election.
-
Exactly. Someone on this forum mentioned the possibility of the elites choosing who represents us. I'm afraid with this tactic, the liberal Republican hierarchy, with their buds in the Democratic party, are already making those choices.
It would give me great pleasure if the voters of Alabama realize what is going on and give the DC crooks the middle finger come election day. I will have to buy more popcorn and grab a ringside seat to watch the spectacle of McConnell, et al having massive coronaries when their shenanigans backfire on them big time.
Yup you're right.
Here's a simple idea...why not just let the votes of the State of Alabama decide next month?
It's really that easy LOL!
-
Exactly. Someone on this forum mentioned the possibility of the elites choosing who represents us. I'm afraid with this tactic, the liberal Republican hierarchy, with their buds in the Democratic party, are already making those choices.
It would give me great pleasure if the voters of Alabama realize what is going on and give the DC crooks the middle finger come election day. I will have to buy more popcorn and grab a ringside seat to watch the spectacle of McConnell, et al having massive coronaries when their shenanigans backfire on them big time.
I mentioned it because it's been happening for quite some time now and it's damned well time we stopped allowing them to do it!
EVERYONE on this forum professes to dislike what is going on in the federal government but, when push comes to shove, many here ALWAYS side with the status quo over any actual change!
-
exonerate Democrat Bob Menendez from actual criminal charges of corruption and sex with underage prostitutes
For the record, I don't think there are charges of sex with underage prostitutes.
Feds Say 'Corroborating Evidence' Backed Menendez Prostitution Claims (https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/08/24/feds-say-corroborating-evidence-backed-menendez-prostitution-claims)
The Department of Justice, in a court filing, later referred to “corroborating evidence” having been turned up to support the claims of underage prostitutes. The prostitution claims, first reported by The Daily Caller in 2012, suggested Menendez and his co-defendant on bribery charges, eye doctor and businessman Salomon Melgen, traveled to the Dominican Republic to have sex with prostitutes.
Also, it seems very possible, the Democratic Party is doing to Menendez what people are accusing the Republican party of doing to Moore.
The DOJ is the one levying the charges, not just some bimbos quoted by WAPO and appearing with Gloria Allred in front of cameras in NYC.
If one looks at it, the sex smears are similar, were brought up against Menendez years ago and have never panned out so far.
The DOJ wrote the following:
"As would be done in the normal course, the Government took responsible steps to investigate these serious criminal allegations, which were not so 'easily disprovable,' as the defendants suggest. Some eyewitnesses described a party attended by defendant Melgen in Casa de Campo—where defendant Melgen has a home and where defendant Menendez often visited—involving prostitutes. See Ex. 2 at 2; Ex. 3 at 1-2.. Furthermore, defendant Melgen has flown numerous young women from the United States and from other countries on his private jet to the Dominican Republic. Many of these young women receive substantial financial support from defendant Melgen. For example, defendant Melgen flew two young women—whom he met while they were performing at a South Florida 'Gentlemen’s' Club, see Ex. 4 at 1-2—on his private jet to his villa in Casa de Campo the day after paying one young woman $1,000 and the other young woman $2,000. See Ex. 5. Indeed, one of defendant Melgen’s pilots described 'young girls' who 'look[ed] like escorts' traveling at various times on defendant Melgen’s private jet. Ex. 6 at 9:7-16. Some young women who received substantial sums of money from defendant Melgen were in the same place as defendant Menendez at the same time. Moreover, when the allegations were first reported, defendant Menendez defended himself with public statements that are easily disprovable. Specifically, he repeated several times that he had only flown on defendant Melgen’s private jet on three occasions. That representation is demonstrably false. Confronted with corroborating evidence of such serious crimes, it would have been an inexcusable abdication of responsibility not to investigate these allegations."
While no criminal charges have been filed in that instance, those are of graver and more substantiation than what is being levied at Moore in the court of public opinion whereby your party is demanding Moore step aside, while at the same time Lindsey Graham goes to court to ask the Judge to exonerate Menendez because he is "an honorable man" according to Graham.
No such mercy from the GOP for Moore however, only for the Democrat.
-
Two wrongs make a right? Is that what you teach in Bible class, INVAR? *****rollingeyes*****
-
Two wrongs make a right? Is that what you teach in Bible class, INVAR? *****rollingeyes*****
Where's the evidence Judge Moore actually did anything?
-
Two wrongs make a right? Is that what you teach in Bible class, INVAR? *****rollingeyes*****
You believe hypocrisy should be allowed to stand?
-
Where's the evidence Judge Moore actually did anything?
You okay with 30-plus year-old men dating teenage girls? See nothing wrong or creepy there?
-
You okay with 30-plus year-old men dating teenage girls? See nothing wrong or creepy there?
If there was actually evidence of it and if they were underage...yes it would be creepy.
So far there is nothing there. Where's the proof?
-
You okay with 30-plus year-old men dating teenage girls? See nothing wrong or creepy there?
Moore is 70, not 30.
-
You believe hypocrisy should be allowed to stand?
Yes. Jazzhead is a sterling example of anti-Christian bigotry and hypocrisy.
The fact that the GOP leadership came out within hours to demand Moore step aside while they go to bat to exonerate Democrat Bob Menendez in court does not cross his test for hypocrisy at all.
Because Moore is a Christian and unfounded allegations dredged up by the media and political operatives 40 plus years after-the alleged incidents within a span of a week is concrete evidence to convict and execute.
However, DOJ criminal investigations against the Democrat are to be dismissed out of hand. It's Moore and the stupid rednecks in Alabama that voted for him that must be put in their place and their rulers chosen for them.
-
INVAR, you're becoming incoherent.
Moore? A bigoted hypocrite. No crime, but surely not worthy of being a U.S. Senator, as three Alabama newspapers denounced him today as "grossly unfit".
Menendez? I say lock him up.
-
INVAR, you're becoming incoherent.
Moore? A bigoted hypocrite. No crime, but surely not worthy of being a U.S. Senator, as three Alabama newspapers denounced him today as "grossly unfit".
If you say it is so, the opposite is true.
-
Moore is 70, not 30.
And the claim is this happened 4 decades ago and only came up now.
-
INVAR, you're becoming incoherent.
Moore? A bigoted hypocrite. No crime, but surely not worthy of being a U.S. Senator, as three Alabama newspapers denounced him today as "grossly unfit".
Menendez? I say lock him up.
I am relieved that the Founders trusted even their limited pool of voters more than the newspapers to elect people to office.
Historically, I do not see where being a bigoted hypocrite (even if the candidate did fit that description) has ever disqualified anyone from being a United States Senator.
-
Historically, I do not see where being a bigoted hypocrite (even if the candidate did fit that description) has ever disqualified anyone from being a United States Senator.
Actually I thought it was encouraged....
(http://admin.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2017-08/199985_5_.png)
-
Actually I thought it was encouraged....
(http://admin.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2017-08/199985_5_.png)
Yes. With he absolute silent approval and nod of the GOP leadership over all those decades.
Because you know.... decorum in the Senate and all that stuff.....
-
Gee...now whose bias' are showing? :whistle:
@txradioguy
Mine. I freely admit I have them,and they am justified to have them. I grew up surrounded by pious bible-thumping Holy Rollers who were mostly full of hate.
We ALL have biases. The only difference is some of us admit to them.
-
If reporters were really interested I'd be willing to bet this dirty trick traces back to McConnell's office.
They are not interested,and that's not something I would bet against.
The WaPo reporters didn't just happen upon this story. They were led to it...they didn't find it on their own through crack research and investigative reporting.
Truth to tell,that's what always happens. Somebody drops something at their feet,and if their editor thinks there is advertising to sell from reporting what was told,it gets published,and then followed up on if it gains any traction.
If that were the case they'd have reported the fact that one of the so called "victims" is a huge Dem supporter and has pics with herself and Biden and other Liberals all over her FB page.
I understand that is scheduled to happen on Feb 31st,2929,but may be called due to weather.
This is a smear job set up by McConnell and the establishment pure and simple.
Most likely. After all,what is the sense of having power if you don't use and abuse it?
-
Moore is 70, not 30.
@Restored
Yes,but he was 32 when this is alleged to have happened. He is trying to defend himself against charges over something he was alleged to have done 40 years ago. NOBODY can prove their innocence 40 years later because if you didn't do what you were charged with doing and just living a normal life,nobody can remember what they were doing "late on the third week of April 1970".
It's hard enough to prove you are innocent of doing something 40 days ago,never mind 40 years ago.
-
@Restored
Yes,but he was 32 when this is alleged to have happened. He is trying to defend himself against charges over something he was alleged to have done 40 years ago. NOBODY can prove their innocence 40 years later because if you didn't do what you were charged with doing and just living a normal life,nobody can remember what they were doing "late on the third week of April 1970".
It's hard enough to prove you are innocent of doing something 40 days ago,never mind 40 years ago.
Yep. That's why the burden of proof resides with the prosecution, and not the defense. Well, in theory, anyway. Looking around here, I'm not so sure any more.