Roy Moore’s Accusers’ Stories Getting Shaky, Moore Team Planning Lawsuit

[DB]

That has already occurred, and is linked somewhere hereabouts. More than one (though one named) employees of the diner in question tore huge holes in her story - to include that Moore in fact did not frequent the joint.

But all that will not catch the media, who 'merely' did their duty 'reporting'.

Yes, and his taking her to court promptly will force the media to take notice. So why isn't he?

[DB]

That has already occurred, and is linked somewhere hereabouts. More than one (though one named) employees of the diner in question tore huge holes in her story - to include that Moore in fact did not frequent the joint.

But all that will not catch the media, who 'merely' did their duty 'reporting'.

Dang... "event" was supposed to be "invent"... My writing has had a pretty high error rate lately...

[roamer_1]

Yes, and his taking her to court promptly will force the media to take notice. So why isn't he?

To my knowledge, his suit is toward the Dems/MSM - Disproving the story works against that end - And it is still but a week into discovery and rebuttal - Election aside (which is provided for by the rebuttal in the press, I would move very slowly and make certaain every single thing is nailed down for the suit. I have only been involved in one of major significance, and that one took 8 months before we filed anything other than papers making certain the other side's evidence was neutrally cared for (much as in this case)

[DB]

To my knowledge, his suit is toward the Dems/MSM - Disproving the story works against that end - And it is still but a week into discovery and rebuttal - Election aside (which is provided for by the rebuttal in the press, I would move very slowly and make certaain every single thing is nailed down for the suit. I have only been involved in one of major significance, and that one took 8 months before we filed anything other than papers making certain the other side's evidence was neutrally cared for (much as in this case)

You can file a suite tomorrow. Discovery comes later. He knows if he ever went to that restaurant and if he knew her there and signed her yearbook - he's already on the record saying he didn't, so either that is true or false. Due to an election coming up he can petition the court to expedite discovery, particularly whether she worked there at the time claimed and assigning an expert to evaluate the writing immediately. And even if not complete by the time of the election it gets the ball rolling showing strong doubt of the claims against him.

If someone is publicly making false claims about you and provides specifics that can be proven false - you go for it all in.

[Smokin Joe]

If you know you never signed the yearbook in question and that you've never been to the restaurant in question, which is basically what he's claiming then can you name a legitimate reason not to sue her with extreme prejudice ASAP? If she's lying she should be crushed by the court. This isn't open to interpretation, she's made very specific claims and either they are true or they are not. Claims that can be proven false if they are false.

In civil suits the standard is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but a preponderance of evidence. If a jury (always a crapshoot) decided the impassioned accounts of those who claim to be wronged outweigh the denials of a man, the decision can go the other way.

Just look at the people here who are more than willing to throw this man out the door on the basis of WaPo and other liberal outlets' hyperbole, and you get the picture of what a court case could become. It is little different than the court of public opinion without the ability to conclusively prove ones self innocent of alleged wrongdoings four decades ago. Proving a negative is difficult with recent events, but with events of four decades ago? Hard to do.

[DB]

In civil suits the standard is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but a preponderance of evidence. If a jury (always a crapshoot) decided the impassioned accounts of those who claim to be wronged outweigh the denials of a man, the decision can go the other way.

Just look at the people here who are more than willing to throw this man out the door on the basis of WaPo and other liberal outlets' hyperbole, and you get the picture of what a court case could become. It is little different than the court of public opinion without the ability to conclusively prove ones self innocent of alleged wrongdoings four decades ago. Proving a negative is difficult with recent events, but with events of four decades ago? Hard to do.

It isn't proving a negative. Either she worked there when she was 14/15 or she didn't. There should be records/witnesses that can confirm or deny that. A woman who did work there at the time said that no one less than 16 worked there and she never saw Moore there. Either Moore signed the yearbook or he didn't. Experts should be able to prove that with some certainty. Like I've said repeatedly, this is beyond she said/he said. Parts can be confirmed or exposed as a lie. It only takes one of her claims to be proven a lie and it all falls apart.

[Smokin Joe]

It isn't proving a negative. Either she worked there when she was 14/15 or she didn't. There should be records/witnesses that can confirm or deny that. A woman who did work there at the time said that no one less than 16 worked there and she never saw Moore there. Either Moore signed the yearbook or he didn't. Experts should be able to prove that with some certainty. Like I've said repeatedly, this is beyond she said/he said. Parts can be confirmed or exposed as a lie. It only takes one of her claims to be proven a lie and it all falls apart.

Even if it could be shown that she did work there and that he signed the yearbook (despite questions I have about that), that still does not prove that he did any more than visit the restaurant and sign the yearbook.

Yes, disproving the employment (especially) or the signature tend to indicate the rest of her story is bunk, but even the absolute refutation of those aspects does not address the base allegation. It becomes she said/he said, and despite her credibility being severely damaged at that point, there are still those who will believe her (partly because they want to). In order to prevail in civil court, he has to prove innocence, that he did not do what has been claimed, or show she has a good reason to falsify her account, one which the jury would find more credible and compelling than her claims of wrongdoing.

[DB]

Even if it could be shown that she did work there and that he signed the yearbook (despite questions I have about that), that still does not prove that he did any more than visit the restaurant and sign the yearbook.

Yes, disproving the employment (especially) or the signature tend to indicate the rest of her story is bunk, but even the absolute refutation of those aspects does not address the base allegation. It becomes she said/he said, and despite her credibility being severely damaged at that point, there are still those who will believe her (partly because they want to). In order to prevail in civil court, he has to prove innocence, that he did not do what has been claimed, or show she has a good reason to falsify her account, one which the jury would find more credible and compelling than her claims of wrongdoing.

She made specific claims. Moore made specific claims. One of them is lying. Some of those claims are provable as to being true or false. The one caught in the lie is done.

[edpc]

She made specific claims. Moore made specific claims. One of them is lying. Some of those claims are provable as to being true or false. The one caught in the lie is done.

But does he own Bruno Magli shoes?

[RetBobbyMI]

Yes. But she's made very specific claims with her yearbook as an example of more than "stranger on the street" contact. Like they knew each other and crossed paths frequently at a specific place she worked. Many of those details can be proven one way or the other in court. Did she actually work there when she was 14 or 15? Did Moore ever go to that restaurant? Is that actually Moore's signature? If Moore says its all lies he should go after her hard for making knowingly false serious claims against him. And many of the points can be determined with some accuracy on whether it is true or not.

This isn’t a made for TV justice that can be solved in 15 minutes of one episode. So what’s your rush to judgement?

[RetBobbyMI]

She made specific claims. Moore made specific claims. One of them is lying. Some of those claims are provable as to being true or false. The one caught in the lie is done.

In my opinion it’s probably best for Moore to let the drums die down and focus on the election first, then worry about the lawsuits. With all of the allegations now popping up about Democrats now, the heat is off him.

[thackney]

Those who are standing behind the ‘its not illegal’ line should ask themselves a couple questions.  What would your reaction be if a man twice their age asked to date your teenage daughter?  Would you vote for that man 30 years later?

The lines I would draw for:

1) Who I would chase away from my daughters,

2) Who I would vote for, and

3) Who I would demand not be allowed to run in an election.

Those are drastically different lines.  The criteria for one has almost nothing to do with the others.  It seems a strange thought to think they should be the same.

[edpc]

Those are drastically different lines.  The criteria for one has almost nothing to do with the others.  It seems a strange thought to think they should be the same.

Except for the fact you need to reconcile 1 and 2 in the case of Moore.

[thackney]

Except for the fact you need to reconcile 1 and 2 in the case of Moore.

No, the criteria for those lines are still drastically different for me.  Are they the same for you?

[skeeter]

Except for the fact you need to reconcile 1 and 2 in the case of Moore.

I have utterly no problem at all voting for a man who chased teenagers 40 years ago but by all accounts has remained a faithful husband ever since being married a quarter century ago. None.

[Silver Pines]

No, the criteria for those lines are still drastically different for me.  Are they the same for you?

@thackney

Seriously?  Why wouldn’t they be?

Remember back in those quaint days of yore, when conservatives insisted that politicians needed to have strong moral character?  Now it’s “Yeah, I might not trust him near my daughter but I think he’d be fine in a position of leadership.”

That can’t end well.  Anyone who thinks it can is desperately delusional.

[Silver Pines]

I have utterly no problem at all voting for a man who chased teenagers 40 years ago but by all accounts has remained a faithful husband ever since being married a quarter century ago. None.

@skeeter

So a man in his thirties hanging around malls to meet teenagers is normal.  A man in his thirties who hung around teen girls’ recitals—-no problem.  Okay, it seems you’ve accepted he did that, and that the accounts are true.

To believe that, and none of the rest, is just picking and choosing because you want to be able to justify supporting Moore. 

[Bigun]

@skeeter

So a man in his thirties hanging around malls to meet teenagers is normal.  A man in his thirties who hung around teen girls’ recitals—-no problem.  Okay, it seems you’ve accepted he did that, and that the accounts are true.

To believe that, and none of the rest, is just picking and choosing because you want to be able to justify supporting Moore.

@CatherineofAragon

Except that you have no proof that any of that actually occurred!  NONE!  All you have is rumor, innuendo, and media lies! 

BTW:  I personally doubt that you have ever voted for anything other than a Democrat in your life!

[skeeter]

@skeeter

So a man in his thirties hanging around malls to meet teenagers is normal.  A man in his thirties who hung around teen girls’ recitals—-no problem.  Okay, it seems you’ve accepted he did that, and that the accounts are true.

To believe that, and none of the rest, is just picking and choosing because you want to be able to justify supporting Moore.

I accept that which he's admitted to and nothing else.

And, since he's led a pretty much exemplary life in the decades since I would have no problem voting for him today.

That shouldn't bother you so much.

[edpc]

I have utterly no problem at all voting for a man who chased teenagers 40 years ago but by all accounts has remained a faithful husband ever since being married a quarter century ago. None.

Thirty years ago, I wouldn’t chase 16 and 17 year olds - and I was 19, not in my 30s.  You sure as hell wouldn’t have seen me at school recitals.

[roamer_1]

Thirty years ago, I wouldn’t chase 16 and 17 year olds - and I was 19, not in my 30s.  You sure as hell wouldn’t have seen me at school recitals.

I went to all kinds of dances and recitals my whole life long. And I frequented the mall when it was 'the thing', because that's where everybody was, not just young girls. If you're not in the bars here, there aren't that many other social forms of excitement.

In fact, it's still that way today.

[Right_in_Virginia]

So a man in his thirties hanging around malls to meet teenagers is normal.  A man in his thirties who hung around teen girls’ recitals—-no problem.  Okay, it seems you’ve accepted he did that, and that the accounts are true.

To believe that, and none of the rest, is just picking and choosing because you want to be able to justify supporting Moore.

[jpsb]

@CatherineofAragon
BTW:  I personally doubt that you have ever voted for anything other than a Democrat in your life!

I am inclined to agree.

I do not believe the Moore accusers, but even if I did, I'd still vote for him. We need
every vote we can get in the Senate.

[Free Vulcan]

@skeeter

So a man in his thirties hanging around malls to meet teenagers is normal.  A man in his thirties who hung around teen girls’ recitals—-no problem.  Okay, it seems you’ve accepted he did that, and that the accounts are true.

To believe that, and none of the rest, is just picking and choosing because you want to be able to justify supporting Moore.

You mean like he used to hang around the restaurant that Betty Young used to work for - except another woman working there at the time says he absolutely didn't?

If he didn't hang out there, I doubt he hung out at the mall either. It's a bogus narrative trying to portray that he had a creepy pattern of behavior, which is a typical liberal hit job tactic.

And you swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

[RoosGirl]

I am inclined to agree.

I do not believe the Moore accusers, but even if I did, I'd still vote for him. We need
every vote we can get in the Senate.

That is highly disturbing.