Posted on 12/06/2017 8:53:07 PM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
Apparently, the GOP is now the party of CHILD MOLESTATION! At least the media tell me that's the meaning of President Trump's endorsement of Senate candidate Roy Moore.
Are we allowed to mention that Moore denies the charges?
It's hard to disprove accusations from 40 years ago -- that's why we have statutes of limitations -- but, despite that, there are a surprising number of problems with the allegations against Moore.
One accuser has been called a liar by her own stepson, who says he's voting for Moore. Another neglected to mention that Moore sent her brother to prison.
In defense of one of Moore's accusers, Gloria Allred produced a yearbook allegedly signed by Moore, apparently in two different inks and giving his title as "D.A." He was not the district attorney and didn't sign his name that way. Allred refuses to produce the yearbook for handwriting analysis or to deny that it's a forgery.
Contrary to what you have heard one million times a day on TV, there aren't "multiple accusers." There are two, and that's including the one with the fishy yearbook inscription whose stepson says she's lying.
The other "accusers" claim he dated them when they were 16 to 19 years old and Moore was in his early 30s -- or younger than Jerry Seinfeld was (39) when he dated 17-year-old Shoshanna Lonstein.
That would also make Moore 15 years younger than Bill Clinton when he had a 22-year-old intern performing oral sex on him in the Oval Office. Moore's date "accusers" say he did nothing more than kiss them.
The media throw the dating claims in with the molestation claims so they can keep howling about "multiple accusers." In fact, only two women are alleging anything that, if true, would merit national attention.
TV anchors think it's very clever of them to ask anyone who isn't bowled over by the claims of Moore's (two) accusers: So you're calling the women "liars"?
Checkmate!
There's a lot of room between HE'S A CHILD MOLESTER and THE WOMEN ARE LIARS.
They could be misremembering. They could be confusing Moore with someone else. They could be suggestible. They could be delusional. They could have repeated the story to themselves so many times that they believe it. They could be really, really disgusted with Jerry Seinfeld.
The main accuser has gotten a lot of her facts wrong, such as where she was living at the time (she moved to another town 10 days after meeting Moore); the corner where she allegedly met Moore for their liaisons (she named a corner more than a mile away from her house, across a busy intersection); and when she began to get into trouble with boys and alcohol (it was before meeting Moore, not after).
It was 40 years ago! But it's just weeks before the election and that's the media's favorite time to produce wild accusations against Republicans.
Four days before the 1992 presidential election, Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh dropped an indictment of Reagan's defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger, which seemed to implicate President George H.W. Bush in a lie. Bush lost the election, and about a month later a judge threw out the indictment.
In the middle of the 2004 presidential campaign, CBS's Dan Rather produced forged documents allegedly proving that President George W. Bush had shirked his National Guard service decades earlier.
In September 2006, just before the midterm elections, the media released GOP congressman Mark Foley's creepy emails to House pages. No physical contact was alleged. The corpus delicti was that Foley told pages they looked "hot" in their soccer shorts.
The entire GOP was crucified by the media for not having discovered this "pedophile" in its midst. Republican congressmen who had never met Foley lost their seats because of the media's timing of the email release.
More than 20 years earlier, a Democratic congressman, Gerry Studds, who had actually buggered a 17-year-old page, indignantly defied his House censure and proudly stood for re-election. His outraged Massachusetts constituents elected him six more times. Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy denounced the "witch hunt" against Studds, saying his critics wanted "to torch the congressman for his private life."
When Studds died in 2006, The Washington Post's headline on his obituary was: Gerry Studds; Gay Pioneer in Congress. The New York Times' headline was, Gerry Studds Dies at 69; First Openly Gay Congressman.
I supported Rep. Mo Brooks in the primary, but Alabamians would be crazy to let the media vilification of Moore affect their vote. Moore's real crime is that he's a believing Christian who goes around wantonly quoting the Bible on sodomy. Journalists react to that like Linda Blair in "The Exorcist."
The media say that Republicans support Moore just because they want another GOP vote in the Senate. I support Moore just because I hate the media.
Like our Ann, my first choice was Mo Brooks, but I’ll be crawling over broken glass to vote for Roy Moore next Tuesday.
Not to mention that the normalization of paedophilia is a near-term objective of the DemoncRAT Party.
I am firmly in “THE WOMEN ARE LIARS” camp, and not in the least shy about saying so.
Keep reading. Try not to trip over the first sentence of Ann's arguments.
Just when I’ve given up on Ann, she totally redeems herself.
btt
“I wish there were a way to convict people for bringing false charges like this, to protect the innocent, but it would be a difficult thing to manage.”
There is. It is called fighting fire with fire. But because we are good and moral human beings, we don’t stoop down to that level. It’s why Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals is so important to us. It lets us see the left’s playbook. From what I have seen over the last 375 days, it appears Trump keeps a pocket copy right next to his pocket copy of the Constitution.
The guy was focused.
Have you ever met a woman?
Are you aware that three different people have come forward to contradict her claims? Two waitresses and a regular customer at "the old hickory house" have said they were there at the time, and they never saw Roy Moore in the establishment, and what's more, they don't recall seeing Beverly Nelson there either.
They also contradict other parts of her story.
Not quite. Not only is Beverly Nelson's story inherently contradictory (door locks) other people who were present at the Hickory House in 1977 back up Moore's claim that he never went there.
There are three people who say that not only did they never see Moore there, they don't recall Beverly Nelson working there in 1977. They also point out incorrect statements in other parts of her stories.
The weight of evidence currently demonstrates that Beverly Nelson is lying.
In September, the trial judge reversed the jury verdict and decided for Simon, saying that it was Simon's company that was defrauded, not the plaintiff who sued him.
Simon went on to lose to Davis 47.3% to 42.4%. In 2006, a California appeals court upheld the trial judge's reversal, but the damage was done.
-PJ
Not true.
Moore graduated high school in 1965 and went straight to West Point. He graduated in 1969 and went straight into the Army, did a rotation in Georgia and then Germany before being deployed to Vietnam. After the war ended, Moore was discharged by the army in 1974, when he went back to Alabama and enrolled in law school.
Up to this point (age 27), it is highly unlikely that Moore was dating at all, especially in a war zone.
Moore graduated law school in 1977 and went back to Gadsden. This is the likely starting point for Moore's dating. He met his wife in December 1984, and they married in 1985.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Moore was only dating from 1977 through 1984 when he met his wife, or only at most seven years.
-PJ
Dating back then was going to the movies, the drive-in, bowling or to the local park where 100's of cars left their tracks every night. The cops would come at 10 PM and kick everyone out.
In later years, my little children could never figure out why so many cars at the drive in were empty.
I imagine you are far more grounded than the caliber of women we’re talking about here.
I’ve often been quite taken aback by women who can’t understand the indifference of others who do not spend their time pondering “the wonder that is me.”
I think she has Marfans!
With what has come out, I am too.
I was willing to give them a listen, but there are some pretty pronounced problems with his accusers’ stories.
Yes, I understand what you’re saying.
I agree that it’s not the thing to do.
When we would do that, the other side would simply say everyone does it. It would be true.
I had heard of the waitresses, and there was also a problem with the vacant lot she said was there. It wasn’t vacant at the time. Still isn’t.
You’re right. These women have major problems.
As for Franken et al, I really don’t know. I don’t hear him denying those things happened.
It’s entirely different.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.