Woman says Roy Moore initiated sexual encounter when she was 14

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Phage

How would he know, either way?

How do you?

TheRedneck

How do I what?

Know if he did it or not? I don't, but I find the women (and the back story) more credible than him.

Hannity is now giving Moore 24 hours to give a better explanation or to drop out.

Steve Bannon is starting to turn too.

When your biggest supporters are losing faith... it won't be long now.

a reply to: Aazadan

A better explanation than "I always asked their mothers?" Didn't he say something like that to Hannity?

originally posted by: Aazadan
Hannity is now giving Moore 24 hours to give a better explanation or to drop out.

Steve Bannon is starting to turn too.

When your biggest supporters are losing faith... it won't be long now.

Will his departure affect much of what the Senate is working on?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Phoenix

step-son says she's lying about Roy Moore.

How would he know, either way?

Because he has 10,000% more actual exposure to this woman's character and history than you, I, media and court of public lynching.

Plus he was willing to put it on video that his family member is a liar without lense of media insulating him from his word.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Aazadan
Hannity is now giving Moore 24 hours to give a better explanation or to drop out.

Steve Bannon is starting to turn too.

When your biggest supporters are losing faith... it won't be long now.

Will his departure affect much of what the Senate is working on?

He's not in the Senate right now, so no. If the Democrat in the race gets to effectively run unopposed because Moore drops out though, it will effectively give the Democrats (plus Flake and McCain) majority control of the Senate until the midterms.

a reply to: Phoenix

Because he has 10,000% more actual exposure to this woman's character and history than you, I, media and court of public lynching.

There's no such thing as 10,000% but don't you wonder about what kind of a relationship they may have and how that (and his politics might) affect his opinion? Because, after all, that's all it is. Right? His opinion?

Plus he was willing to put it on video that his family member is a liar without lense of media insulating him from his word.

Yes. He, like us, can express his opinion freely.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: knoxie

Actually, I withheld judgement until he admitted it.

TheRedneck

Oh, what about creepy Moore?

MOORE: I do not remember speaking to civics class. I don't remember that. I do not remember when we...I seem to know or remember knowing her parents...that they were friends. I can't recall the specific dates because that's been 40 years but I remember her as a good girl. But neither of them have ever stated any inappropriate behavior. She didn't say anything. They said about me...

HANNITY: But do you remember ever going on a date with her? She said that you asked around out on the first of several dates but nothing progressed beyond kissing.

MOORE: I don't remember specific dates. I do not and I don't remember if it was that time or later. But I do not remember that.

HANNITY: But you know hard but you never dated her ever? Is that what you're saying?

MOORE: No but I don't remember going out on dates. I knew her as a friend. If we did go on dates then we did. But I do not remember that.

Hmm, yes, friends with a 17yr old high school girl as a 34yr old district attorney.

HANNITY: What about Gloria Thacker Deason says she was an 18 year old cheerleader when you began taking her on dates that included bottles bottles rosé wine. She's 18 at the time. The Alabama drinking age at the time is 19. Did that ever happen?

MOORE: No. Because in this county is a dry county. We would never would have had liquor. I would never... I believe this she said that she believed she was under age and as I recall she was 19 or older and that just never happened. I never provided alcohol, beer or intoxicating liquor to a minor. That'd be against the law and against anything I would have ever done. And I seem to remember her as a good girl or I seem to remember I had some sort of knowledge of her parents, her mother in particular.

Another 'good' high school girl, to his 32yr old attorney self.

There's 'legal' and then there's 'creepy as hell' - note the slip in this one, where he says 'we' - no denial that he went on a date with this lady when she was still in high school and he in his thirties - it is an admission that he did date girls in that age range.

Clearly, then-Democrat Roy Moore was dating high school girls. The closest he gets to denial of that is:

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.

Him going after a 14 or 15 year old when he's 32 to 34 at the time isn't so far afield when hes already going after 17 or 18 year old girls, and allegedly cruising a local mall for teenagers; though the slight difference in age makes the difference between illegal and legal, it's no less creepy that he was hitting on high school girls while in his thirties.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Greven

The Senate can vote to expel its members. It's happened. It's possible they could interview witnesses under oath. Nelson has said she would testify under oath.

Political dynamite. C4 maybe. Probably nuclear, actually.

There is that, but you've seen in this thread how that would be considered 'treason' warranting anyone voting for his expulsion to be executed:

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Any Senator who votes to expel Moore should be convicted of treason and placed in front of a firing squad... and that includes Democrats, Republicans, even Richard Shelby himself.

Oh yes; because Alabama deserves Moore, you see.

a reply to: Greven

Really? Thread's too long to dig through, but really?

I wonder if the other (very rare) cases of expulsion were also "treasonous."

a reply to: Phage

But his opinion is suspect, to be discounted, disparaged and minimized.

When not fitting a particular agenda such as it is,

Right?

I happen to believe actual evidence shows Nelson is not truthful - high probability of forged notation on one piece of so-called evidence offered to back her claim.

None of narrative makes bit of sense when simple logic is applied.

But in order to believe Nelson over her stepson and Roy Moore one must start making exceptions to logic, excuses for document discrepancies in order to keep serving that all important agenda - a political agenda.

If that's what you have to do, credibility is shot pertaining to Ms Nelson and her veracity.

A political agenda interfering in an Alabama election which is vis a vis interfering in my rights.

You can wordsmith and mind bend logic all you may but cold hard truth.

a reply to: Phoenix

But his opinion is suspect, to be discounted, disparaged and minimized.

Suspect, yes.
Discounted, no.
Disparaged? Did I do that?
Minimized? Did I do that?

None of narrative makes bit of sense when simple logic is applied.

I disagree. There is more information which supports the claim than the converse. The claims that Roy liked, pursued, and dated young (very young) women are quite numerous and come from a variety of sources. The others...well, there's just one. Roy. But he always asked their mothers.

Patterns of behavior show that the claims cannot be discounted, as you put it.

a reply to: Phage

Ok, Moore was Deputy District Attorney 77-82, DDA not DA at time supposed encounter took place. That's an important point of title as misrepresentation of position could get repercussions on a young up and coming lawyer - I logically conclude he'd not do so.

Logic says easy mistake for for forger to make though.

Any counter?

a reply to: Phage

Not just one, two and thousands of others Alabama voters of course.

Minimizing again?

Suits the agenda!

a reply to: Phoenix

Not just one, two and thousands of others Alabama voters of course.

Their opinions are no more indicative of the actual events than yours or mine. I wasn't talking about opinions.

Ok, Moore was Deputy District Attorney 77-82, DDA not DA at time supposed encounter took place.

The signature is dated when?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Phoenix

Not just one, two and thousands of others Alabama voters of course.

Their opinions are no more indicative of the actual events than yours or mine.

Ok, Moore was Deputy District Attorney 77-82, DDA not DA at time supposed encounter took place.

The signature is dated when?

So basically it's right back to "he said/she said" which after forty years is indicative of .....nothing.

So that also leaves us with a political lynching based on "nothing" but an agenda that's politically driven.

Your other question "when" I believe April 77' for DDA and forgery in yearbook indicates 12/22 twice, which raises another anomaly, Nelson said Moore at restaurant "every evening"

New DDA's don't have time to hang about restaurants "every evening" as their to busy writing briefs and dealing with caseload - no life of luxury there. The claim defies logic yet you and ilk believe due The Agenda.

a reply to: Phoenix

Well, not exactly "he said/she said". It's more of "he said/they said" as far as the women go. There is also, like I said, testimony (including his own) which lends support to the claims.

I'm not sure it can be purely attributed to politics, though it can't be denied that it has political impact there seems to be a groundswell building which goes beyond politics. As it should.

April '77, ok. The signature says Christmas '77. Doesn't it? How does that invalidate it?

New DDA's don't have time to hang about restaurants "every evening" as their to busy writing briefs and dealing with caseload - no life of luxury there.

Is that right? Are you speaking from experience? Hanging out at a restaurant is the life of luxury? Maybe, if you like 'em young.

a reply to: Phage

In 77' not common to eat out every day and besides BBQ get old very quickly eaten "everyday"

Speaking of "old" not "olde" don't you suppose a West Point Graduate, Officer in Military and Lawyer would at least get name of establishment correct if actually writing it.

Correctness is drill in that school, military officers and lawyers.

Defies logic again even and especially on details.

However easy to see how document forger could make that mistake as well as many others readily apparent.

a reply to: Phoenix

In 77' not common to eat out every day and besides BBQ get old very quickly eaten "everyday"

How about pie and coffee? When you like the looks of the waitresses?

Correctness is drill in that school, military officers and lawyers.

Right.
Man admits to sex abuse of girls

More:
www.nytimes.com...
charlesclymer.blogspot.com...

a reply to: Phage

Don't take my word for it,

According to the American Prosecutors Research Institute, however, many prosecuting attorneys are logging between 10-30 hours of overtime on a regular basis. This is common practice across most jurisdictions as many prosecutors receive multiple felonies and high crimes as part of their workload, requiring extended work hours during the week and possible work over the weekend.

To recap, 10-30 hours overtime, a common practice nationally, work extended hours and many weekends.

Man that Roy just had nothing but time on his hands to hang about a restaurant and boy did he like BBQ everyday.

Yup that's just so logical it boggles my mind.

But I'm sure you have some smarmy excuse why Roy defied it.

link