Moore Lemonade

N/A ^ | 12/13/2017 | Self

[davandbar]

If he is the plaintiff, I believe he does have to prove something in order to win the case.

[x]

He has to prove that they knew the story was wrong and that they acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth.

That's hard to prove.

The people who broke the story could say that they just related what the accusers told them.

The others in the media who repeated the story can say that they just relied on what those who broke the story already wrote.

[BTCM]

This 70 year old adolescent riding a pony and wearing a kids cowboy suit complete with a cap pistol is phonier than AT&T and Verizon combined. I detest democrats but surely we can do better than this lonny tune.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

How do you prove a negative? I don’t see how he could win in a court of law—even if he proved it was a forgery. The yearbook doesn’t “prove” sexual assault so I don’t see how it would “disprove” it either.

In the sense that a document which is altered after being signed is a forgery, we know that it’s forged. If I’m anywhere near correct in my understanding, the whole thing about two different kinds of ink having been admitted to as showing the division between what was written first, putatively in 1977, “Moore” was written later by the complaining woman - and that falls under any definition of “forgery.”

And, IMHO the jury is definitely still open on whether it was written by anyone named “Roy” or by someone named “Ray.” Altho I initially was dismissive of that theory, TigerClaws has me convinced. For not only is it true that it is not difficult to read the cursive written name either way, it would be just as easy to see the handwritten word “say” as “soy” if “say” did not make sense, and “soy” did.

And the kicker is that when you read the last word of the first line as “say,” and the signature as “Roy,” does the inscription as a whole actually make sense??? It reads clunky. But if you read the signature as “Ray,” suddenly the inscription, including the signature, is a rhyme. And coincidentally, the complainant had a classmate named Ray! I would sure like a handwriting analyst to see Ray’s inscriptions in other classmates’ yearbooks!

So, what do we have???? A published account that then-assistant DA Moore hit on a “child.” It does not matter that what was alleged would have been legal, it was hyped as “creepy." It is based on one woman’s word, of a putative memory from 40 years ago (itself inherently dubious), and buttressed by an unquestionably forged document. Oh, BTW, also buttressed by the one thing that really mattered - Moore’s side of the issue was stonewalled by all of the MSM. That’s “the dog that didn’t bark” in this case.

It was an anti-Moore propaganda campaign which is part of a pattern of anti-Republican - actually anti-mainstream American society - campaigns. Including the campaign which got “white hispanic” George Zimmerman put on trial for murder. And the white boys on the Duke Lacrosse team subjected to a hoax rape charge. Fundamentally these are “Man Bites Dog” stories because they allege that perpetration of evil by the demographic upon which society most depends - white men.

And the campaign gets most vociferous against conservative women (Palin) or blacks (Cain) precisely because such people cannot be allowed to exert their identity as cred to undermine the “white man him bad” narrative.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Republican candidates should find a woman to accuse the Dem first. Every race going forward should have sexual misconduct accusations leveled against the Dem.

That would backfire, for the simple reason that, even if true, the allegations would be stonewalled by “the MSM” just as surely as Roy Moore’s defense was. Think of what President Clinton got away with - and if you think that the Democrats have reversed course on sexual harassment and cannot turn back when it suits them, I’d like to interest you in buying my interest in the Brooklyn Bridge.

The Democrats’ advantage in propaganda power is crucial, and it is that which I propose to attack. Best case, it will never completely go away, but . . .

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

If you go back through history, our elections have been fraught with accusations that make Moore’s seem like a romance novel. He really wouldn’t have a leg to stand on, especially with the media because all they did is report what the ladies claimed. When you have 3 or 4 from the getgo, it’s sort of hard to not run with the story.

When you have a woman putting forward a forgery, and you do no due diligence, that has to be punished. As you say, there have been plenty of vicious allegations in the past - but at least in my memory (and I’m getting on a bit) it has always been directed at Republicans. With the notable exception of the Gary Hart “Monkey Business,” which was an internecine Democrat affair.

My whole point is that while Moore needs to vindicate his integrity by suing, we all need a champion who will take his or her case and generalize it to attack the whole MSM and its pattern of pro-socialist propaganda. Hillary won the nationwide popular vote after being “exonerated” by Comey’s speech which actually demonstrated conclusively that she belonged in jail. Without the propaganda campaign glossing that over, she shouldn’t have had a Chinaman’s chance in the general election.

[Yosemitest]

Don't for one second think that Judy Roy Moore lost that election !
Can't you see DemocRAT generated FAKE VOTES right in front of you ?

The information in the article Vote Fraud of Alabama from TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2017, deserves saving.

...

There is absolutely not any way that Roy Moore lost the Alabama election for United States Senate. This was a matter again of vote rigging in population centers.

Simply look at the massive margins which Doug Jones had to pile up in concentrated population areas. To put it plainly, Alabama is a state of 6 out of 10 voters are Republicans, in remembering this 60 to 40 percent margin, look at these numbers in percentages for Doug Jones.



 Bullock 80.4%
Macon 88.1
Montgomery 72.1
Dallas 74.7
Perry 79
Wilcox 76.7
Hale 87.6
Sumter 80.9
Jefferson 69.6
Mobile 57.2
Madison 56.9


One only sees numbers like this in Pyongyang, Tehran and Peking. In a state of 60% Republicans who were highly motivated for Roy Moore, while Doug Jones was getting Hillary Clinton no shows at his events, and we are to believe that in Macon County 90% of the voters voted for Doug Jones?


County


	Jones	Moore	Write-Ins	Rpt.
Jefferson	121,169	49,910	3,121	85%
Madison	65,664	46,313	3,446	100
Mobile	57,715	41,398	1,300	71
Montgomery	48,186	17,705	743	100
Shelby	27,251	36,424	1,718	100
Baldwin	22,131	38,445	1,699	98
Tuscaloosa	30,858	22,064	1,007	100
Lee	19,810	14,017	672	100
Morgan	10,901	19,187	668	100
Etowah	10,518	15,693	617	100
Calhoun	11,705	14,567	399	100
Limestone	9,606	14,298	515	100
Houston	9,107	14,796	285	100
Lauderdale	9,908	12,775	382	100
St. Clair	6,203	15,876	459	100
Elmore	7,711	14,411	338	100
Cullman	4,156	16,602	324	100
Talladega	9,967	9,698	223	100
Marshall	5,134	13,828	449	100
Walker	4,317	11,909	259	100
Colbert	6,865	7,762	171	100
Autauga	5,606	8,752	253	100
Blount	2,405	11,621	180	100
Dallas	10,492	3,485	60	100
DeKalb	3,559	10,097	234	100
Coffee	3,715	8,052	202	100
Tallapoosa	4,590	7,171	148	100
Dale	3,842	6,988	136	100
Jackson	3,328	7,316	154	100
Russell	6,761	3,622	55	100
Chilton	2,298	7,555	132	100
Covington	2,102	6,825	88	100
Escambia	3,640	4,985	87	100
Lawrence	3,028	5,314	61	100
Clarke	4,346	3,984	43	100
Pike	3,989	4,154	97	100
Chambers	4,247	3,308	75	100
Marengo	4,495	2,804	62	100
Geneva	1,289	5,431	93	100
Marion	1,311	5,268	68	100
Monroe	3,244	3,276	40	100
Macon	5,780	758	20	100
Barbour	3,680	2,699	41	100
Pickens	3,057	2,961	46	100
Franklin	1,770	4,214	48	100
Butler	2,914	2,756	41	100
Winston	911	4,680	67	100
Cherokee	1,525	3,996	110	100
Hale	3,894	1,691	32	100
Bibb	1,567	3,599	66	100
Washington	1,799	3,320	48	100
Henry	1,896	3,014	38	100
Randolph	1,692	3,229	23	100
Lowndes	3,779	988	13	100
Fayette	1,142	3,491	50	100
Sumter	3,527	814	18	100
Wilcox	3,344	999	16	100
Choctaw	2,273	1,949	17	100
Conecuh	2,259	1,815	18	100
Perry	3,138	821	11	100
Greene	3,340	462	9	100
Crenshaw	1,320	2,347	56	100
Lamar	779	2,847	29	100
Clay	985	2,586	44	100
Bullock	2,712	656	7	100
Coosa	1,414	1,867	30	100
Cleburne	594	2,465	30	100



I did an inquiry of the matrix and the numbers which returned were a long the lines of a month ago in Roy Moore won by 62% and Doug Jones lost in 28% of the vote.

This is what the deep state looks like when it steals an election. FOX comes out with a bogus poll to repress voting, but is more to prepare the Republicans for defeat, as Matt Drudge bashes the Alabama Citizens over the head for months, for the fag vote mafia.

What took place is e vote fraud, write ins, vote fraud and busing in voters. At one point Doug Jones somehow got 60,000 votes in a few moments.

...

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Maybe RICO is in order…

I have thought so, myself - but it isn’t necessary to go RICO in order to subject a violator of Sherman to triple damages, just as in RICO.

I linked to Transcript of Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890) - Free Republic in my article. I found it interesting because it is so short - really, a one-pager.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

He has to prove that they knew the story was wrong and that they acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth. That's hard to prove.

The forged yearbook is easily proved; she admitted she changed - added to - the inscription. Reckless disregard for the truth on any individual case is difficult, tho the WaPo did not do due diligence on the yearbook forgery.

The people who broke the story could say that they just related what the accusers told them.

They have an obligation to due diligence when they put forward their story as true. Failure to do that is reckless indifference to the truth.

The others in the media who repeated the story can say that they just relied on what those who broke the story already wrote.

That’s what they think. That is the advantage of the Sherman route - you charge them (quite accurately) with collusion while putting out the fairy tale that they are independent. You sue them as a single entity. That is what in fact they are. 

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

The anti-society, pro-government bias of journalism is "conspiracy against the public” predicted by Adam Smith when people of the trade of journalism “meet together” - not merely for "merriment and diversion” but precisely about what they agree is and what is not news.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Is Moore still contesting? The longer he holds out, even if he loses that keeps Strange in the Senate until the result is final, I assume.

[joesbucks]

Going back to the earliest days of our unio, news organizations were used as tools to spread rumor and innuendo. Some of it would make Moore’s seem tame. Let’s face it, Rush and Sean do it daily. The original women of the Post story were pretty well vetted. Its one reason why the fake lady hired by Project Veritas was exposed as a fraud. The lady with the yearbook, well she may be vulnerable.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Going back to the earliest days of our unio, news organizations were used as tools to spread rumor and innuendo. Some of it would make Moore’s seem tame. Let’s face it, Rush and Sean do it daily.

Frankly, I consider that statement itself to be a smear. I listen to both, and would not be doing so if I believed that. And granted that everyone is vulnerable to self-deception, FR is IMHO a very good venue for seeing through cons.

The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing.

The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors . . .

The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)

Here on FR we pool our (individually inadequate) “incredulity.” With the result that sometimes I read something which sounds sensible, but which is promptly skewered by the response of some astute fellow FReeper. Accordingly I have to respect the possibility that the same thing is about to happen here. But “do it daily” won’t do. I require examples. At least one example will do for starters.

the . . . lady hired by Project Veritas was exposed as a fraud.

Again, I need a link.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Ping.

[joesbucks]

You need a link because you didn't hear it on Rush or Sean.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/11/27/washington-post-catches-project-veritas-undercover-sting-meant-to-discredit-roy-moore-reporting

[davandbar]

I agree with everything that you are saying, but when he is the one filing the lawsuit, he must prove something (in this instance—that he did not assault them?). How exactly does he prove that?

If he filed suit against them, what exactly would the charge be? I guess that’s what I’m not understanding here.

If it’s something like Defamation/Slander, would proving the yearbook is a forgery actually prove anything? The yearbook caption doesn’t make any claims of assault so how would it prove anything either way? Sure, a forgery would help to make the accuser less believable, but her claim of an assault is strictly a “he-said, she-said” account. To me, it’s the same reason why defendants (who win their cases) don’t turn around and sue witnesses who testified during their trials. The witnesses may have had their stories wrong or were unbelievable, but that doesn’t rise to the level of Defamation/Slander.

If he was defending himself, it would be a no-brainer—there is no evidence that he assaulted them so that would be easy to win. But since he would be the accuser, he has the burden of proof.

[PGalt]

Thanks for all of your work, c_I_c. Right in your wheelhouse. BUMP!

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

If he was defending himself, it would be a no-brainer—there is no evidence that he assaulted them so that would be easy to win. But since he would be the accuser, he has the burden of proof.

He has the burden of proof, but - unlike the situation in the election campaign - he doesn’t have to disprove everything. He needs to disprove something, and defend - as you point out is eminently possible - against everything else.

That would only get you so far, if you were only suing on your own behalf, and against the complaining woman and WaPo alone. The strategy I propose is to generalize the tort and to generalize the defendant. Moore suing only on behalf of Moore can do little. Moore suing as lead plaintiff in a class action against the whole MSM (which is pretty much coextensive with “the Associated Press and its membership”) does require more proof, but things like the Zimmerman acquittal, the exoneration of the Duke Lacross Three, and the demolition of Rathergate by Buckhead and those following him, are essentially proven.

You prosecute the pattern of behavior of journalism. You do not prosecute everything they do, but you place the MSM in the position of needing to prove that it is zealous for the truth rather than zealous for an anti-society, pro-tyrrany agenda. The absence of anti-Democrat errors - of commission or omission - from the public record is the dog that didn’t bark.

And remember, SCOTUS has already found against the AP as a monopoly (albeit on different grounds than I propose) back in 1945. So in some sense the AP would have to overcome a presumption of guilt left over from the that finding. In that case the alleged tort, and therefore the remedy requested and granted, were more limited than in this proposed suit. Point being that, altho SCOTUS found the AP in violation of Sherman back then, there is no reason for SCOTUS to presume that the remedy imposed on the AP back then actually caused the AP to stop being “a conspiracy against the public.”

"The freedom . . . of the press" under the First Amendment is predicated on the existence of serious competition of ideas among newspapers, which was the air that journalism breathed before the AP had been in place for a few decades. Newspapers notoriously did not agree on much of anything, and you chose your paper (where competition existed) based on your appreciation for the take your preferred printer took on the news. That was the defense of the AP in the Nineteenth Century: “We consist of inputs from many papers, who don’t agree on anything much - so the AP itself is objective.” That argument prevailed, but the ideological diversity on which it was predicated has long since been eroded to the vanishing point. Precisely by the homogenizing effect of the AP (and any other wire service for that matter).

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Interesting. WaPo says it caught a Veritas sting, but O’Keefe doesn’t admit it but goes on the offensive.

[joesbucks]

Well did you think he’d rollover. He’s gonna spin this to save embarrassment.