Posted on 11/16/2017 6:11:24 AM PST by markomalley
Almost the only way to do so in a "he said, she said" situation is to provide documentary, incontrovertible proof that each and every allegation is false. If accuser "A" states that Moore grabbed her breast on 8/15/1979 at approximately 9 PM CDT, Moore could prove that he was giving a speech in St. Louis at that date and time, providing physical proof that he couldn't be there. The character assassins could, of course, then discount victim "A", but what about Accuser "B" through Victim "H"? As he continues to provide incontrovertible proof that he could not possibly have been there for each accusation, they'll keep dragging "victims" out ("Victim" "I" through "Victim" "ZZ99") until they find one with a date and time that Moore cannot account for.
Fortunately, the people of Alabama are smart enough not to fall for this trap. But, still, I would question dragging character witnesses out...
Yes, but that yearbook. /s
I agree.
Perfect example. See MSNBC's reaction to the yearbook possibly being dubunked:
MSNBC Panel Tears into Gloria Allred for Possibly Tainting Accusations
That yearbook is so obviously fake it’s hard to believe it was put out as “proof”.
BS to your statement.
“Sending out character witnesses like this is typically a sign of weakness”
This is soft evidence supporting him. The evidence against him is also soft.
The 12 women supporting him are believable and paint a picture of a decent man.
Here’s the difference-—these 12 women would give the same statement under oath.
The 7 accusers will NEVER do so.
The statement that women must be believed about accusations is baloney. These statements like any another statements should have proof. Waiting almost forty years and then making the accusation right before an election is ludicrous and should cast doubt about the validity!!!
Sadly, that's exactly correct. The MSM will have no problem with utterly discounting it and will smell chum in the water and double down.
You know one of the reasons that Trump won last fall despite that unprecedented onslaught of attacks against his business, his family, his character?
He didn't take the normal Repubican playbook and get defensive. He fought back and fought back twice as hard.
You didn't see him trotting out lines of character witnesses, he "counterpunched." (Yes, character witnesses came out, but they came out on their own and weren't paraded, either in person or in writing, by the campaign)
True, but frankly, irrelevant as there would never be a trial.
Trump has taught all of us that the only way to deal with this type of sliming is to hit back and hit back harder.
This press release by the Moore campaign was a weak thing to do. Far stronger was the counterpunch by Moore's attorney attacking the credibility of the "yearbook signature" and demanding to have it made available for investigation...and then the coup-de-grace was pulling out the 1999 divorce proceedings showing that Moore was the presiding judge over the case. Gloria Allred was utterly flummoxed when she was confronted with this points by, of all people, Wolf Blitzer.
If the Moore campaign would've wanted to trot out these character witnesses, they should've had them independently contact friendly reporters. Similar to the former Gadsden Mall manager being "found" to refute the claim that Moore was banned from the mall. Had the Moore campaign put out his information as a press release, it would've been weak. But since the media "found" the mall manager directly without intervention from the Moore campaign, it is virtually impossible to refute (ignore, sure...refute, no way).
The audience for these statements was not us.
It was the people of Alabama, to whom character still matters.
And it will be effective there.
The loud voices of those with a megaphone who have taken every opportunity to vilify Judge Moore with unproven and unsubstantiated charges of sexual and/or inappropriate behavior have to be countered with voices from those who actually have a positive experience with the same man who is being maligned. I know of no basis for the assertion that presenting character witnesses for Moore is a sign of weakness for him or any other case of character assassination. In fact, the lack of honest people speaking out for Moore will be used as a negative to bolster the unproven charges made by a series of females with nobody coming forth to support their claims.Judge Moore is certainly being used to show all politicians what can and will happen to them if they do not tow their party line. And explains in large measure why we have our current corrupt govt.
Whoa, this will make the lead item of newscasts and above-the-fold front page headlines of newpapers...NOT!
If you had been charged, you would need character witnesses. It’s a sign of fighting back, an attempt to put a counterweight on the scale. Men do it all the time when charged with sexual harassment.
In other words?
Young girl, get out of my mind
My love for you is way out of line
Better run girl
You’re much too young girl...
With all the charms of a woman,
you hid the secret of your youth;
you led me to believe you’re old enough to give me love
and now it hurts to know the truth...
Judge Moore, is that how it happened?
The 7 accusers will NEVER do so.
Has that challenge been issued? And would a RAT backer flinch at lying under oath? Look at the precedent set by one of their glorious leaders!
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.