Woman says Roy Moore initiated sexual encounter when she was 14

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: carewemust

I thought you would be happy about that. When I heard the lawyer mention it, I immediately thought of your post.

TheRedneck

I've been posting it all over the place...hoping that someone who watches crime shows would pick it up. But, if Gloria All Red won't release the year-book, we have (gulp!) SEVEN women accusing Moore of doing something inappropriate with them.

But, that's still far shy of the 16 haters and gold-diggers who were after candidate Trump's hide. Moore knows (like everyone in America) that Trump preserved through the fake claims/accusations, even when top Republicans were telling him to quit the race. Moore would be a fool to let himself be drummed out, if he knows he's innocent.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yup been though there six - seven times past year going between Oxford/Anniston and Huntsville area.

Probably go two more times on holidays coming up, have to take harder look on way through.

a reply to: carewemust

I have no concerns about instate Alabama Republican support,

GOP Chair Warns Republican Office Holders

“It would be a serious error for any current elected GOP official or candidate to publicly endorse another party’s candidate, an independent, a third party or a write in candidate in a general election as well,” Lathan said. “I have heard of no GOP elected official or candidate that is even considering this option.”

Lathan added, “Here is the Party rule on denying ballot access:”

“Denying Ballot Access: This Committee reserves the right to deny ballot access to a candidate for public office if in a prior election that person was a Republican office holder and either publicly participated in the primary election of another political party or publicly supported a nominee of another political party. The provisions of this Rule shall apply for a period of six years after such person so participated. (This rule does not include all of the reasons for denying ballot access.)”

This applies to any, including national office candidates wanting on Alabama Republican ballot for 6 years.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
So he has announced that the signature in the yearbook is from his divorce papers from the past including the paralegal's initials...If this is true this would throw more focus on it being more political attack than anything else.

I think this is a really big deal if true!

This is rich, you go Wolf Blitzer -

“Well, all I’m saying is, we will permit an independent examiner of the writing…We will allow all of this to be asked and answered at the hearing,” Allred said.

“But that’s not a flat denial, Gloria,” Blitzer said.

“Well, all I’m saying is, we’re not denying, we’re not admitting, we’re not addressing,” Allred said. “We will not be distracted.”

Blitzer asked why Allred needed a Senate hearing and would not just permit an independent handwriting expert to take a look.

“Well, uh, all I can say is we want it done in a professional setting to the extent possible, that’s the only setting in which people can testify under oath,” Allred said.

Link

Gloria is being dodgy on CNN and flubs it.

She can go to any venue she wants first thing in morning and get her client put under oath what a load of BS.

a reply to: Phoenix

Well it seems real simple to me.

All of the establishment people know Moore is guilty.

So they should have no problem demanding this yearbook be analyzed asap.

Unless this is not about rather he is guilty or not, but is instead about keeping an anti establishment person out of Senate.

If this is a forgery, the woman should be arrested and locked up.

Sadly, if that's the case and any of the other accusers of Moore are telling the truth, they will be viewed with the same suspicion.

The whole thing is a mess, and shows why politicizing accusations like this is a terrible idea.

But I am sure all of the people in ats screaming that Moore is guilty and elsewhere would fully support analyzing this yearbook asap.

a reply to: Grambler

Yes it's simple,

Whoa! wait! just saw a flying pig out the window, moving so fast no way to get photos - sorry ats.

Any fair minded individual would acknowledge the questions about yearbook siggy and call for immediate review by forensic writing experts.

Not to do so says agenda driven rather than concerns with just results.

a reply to: Phoenix

That's going to not sit real good with Alabama voters. She has a chance here to prove, once and for all, that Roy Moore has lied about knowing Nelson. All she has to do is let experts analyze the yearbook. Moore's attorneys have asked to have it analyzed. If they're wrong, and the writing is not a forgery and the ink is all 40 years old... well, that's it! Moore is disgraced and loses, chances are Doug Jones will be the next Senator, Nelson will be a hero, Alabamians might start relaxing their opinion of Allred... where's the downside?

On the other hand, if it is analyzed and found to be a forgery, Moore is vindicated and wins the Senate, Allred is disgraced, Nelson may well be run out of the state, and the rest of the accusers would do well to hide for a few years. Maybe that's the downside?

But the third option is almost as bad. If Allred does not allow the yearbook to be examined openly, the voters will reject Nelson's claims as well as the other accusers, and Moore's lead over Jones will hit landslide status.

Personally I will side with Spineless Sean Hannity and his comments tonight. Governor Kay Ivey has the right and power to delay the special election. I think she should do so, perhaps for 3-6 months, to allow the charges to be investigated and Moore's name to either be cleared or proven guilty. The voters need to know.

TheRedneck

pushing the yearbook forgery hard I see. lol

your darling Ivanka has come out in support of the women.

god, I hope he wins.

originally posted by: knoxie
pushing the yearbook forgery hard I see. lol

your darling Ivanka has come out in support of the women.

god, I hope he wins.

So what are you saying?

It seems you think he is guilty.

Great, all the more reason to prove it by having the year analyzed.

What possible reason would there be for not wanting it analyzed if it's legit?

a reply to: TheRedneck

Can't say I'm in favor of #3 as it plays into uniparty plans of disrupting Trumps successful implementation of policy goals and risks deadlock or loss control of Senate - not good at all.

4th option, proceed full steam ahead. If and it's big IF someone can PROVE illegality on Roy Moores part or even PROOF that he's indeed lying then we deal with when and IF we come to that bridge.

I do not feel bad about that at all considering decades of democrat inaction on much more serious matters within their own house covered up, ignored and in some cases glorified - the hypocracy is beyond the pale here. That they have backdoor support from across the aisle pissed me off no end right now.

The Senate deserves to get Roy crammed down their throats for the shenanigans.

Right now it's public lynching driven by uniparty, special interest groups and all around scoundrels that give me no reason to compromise at all one little iota.

By way, I wrote Hannity off long ago as an actor playing loyal opposition part on mostly peripheral issues. Haven't even watched a show in better than two years. When it matters he folds everytime.

a reply to: Phoenix

Yes let's not forget that Menedez is on trial for sleeping with underage hookers, and yet it's crickets from the dems and their media pals.

As we learned with Bill clinton, they will feign outrage about sex crimes only when it's politically convenient for them.

As for me, I want no sex criminals in office.

If Moore is guilty, I hope he is prosecuted to the fullest extent.

Analyzing the yearbook seems like a good first step in proving that, so why the hesitation from allred?

a reply to: Grambler


have they said they no?

I seriously doubt they're worried, WAY too many corroborating stories. have you read them all? geez, the guy was monitored when he went to the mall because of his history of preying on teens. it's not at all inconceivable that he wrote in this girls yearbook.

anyway, I hope he wins!! the fine folks in Alabama should get who they voted for!

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: Grambler


have they said definitely they won't?

I seriously doubt they're worried, WAY too many corroborating stories. have you read them all? geez, the guy was monitored when he went to the mall because of his history of preying on teens. it's not at all inconceivable that he wrote in this girls yearbook.

anyway, I hope he wins!! the fine folks in Alabama should get who they voted for!

Yes we get it, you are a political shill that is more concerned with helping your team than finding the truth.

Its simple, this yearbook being real would remove any doubt that Moore lied.

So if it's real, the accuser will immediately release it.

If it's not, then it's clear that at least some of the accusations against Moore are politically motivated.

If the accuser does not release it, this shows me she is more concerned with politics than getting the truth out.

a reply to: Grambler



have they said no?

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: Grambler



have they said no?

Allred said they would only do it in front of a Senate hearing where Moore was under oath.

She is stalling for political reasons.

But fine, we shall see.

They have no reason not to release it asap.

So If it doesn't happen in the next week or so, it's clear they are playing a political game.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Phoenix

Analyzing the yearbook seems like a good first step in proving that, so why the hesitation from allred?

I do agree with TheRedneck that doing so and having it proved as forgery has HUGE downside not only for uniparty and hacks, her client but also All Red would be permanently disgraced and most likely face sanctions of her own.

Somewhere as a lawyer she forgot that the Senate is not venue for civil case matters but would have us all believe she's just waiting and waiting and waiting for the Senate to take up her case - meanwhile public left in limbo till after the election of course.

Like I said earlier she could go multitudes of venues for client and material to be examined under oath via deposition or other legal vehicles available right now.

If someone going to attack another's reputation then they also must be ready to immediately and forthrightly defend the attack - not play coy games.

It a thing called honorability - sorely lacking of late.

a reply to: Phoenix

I feel Moore may very well be guilty of some of these things.

I honestly have no idea.

So here we have actual physical evvidence that can speak to that guilt, not just hearsay.

So why would the accuser not get it analyzed immediately?

The truth is because even if the accusations against Moore are true, the powerful people pushing it like the establishment media and politicians don't care about the women at all, they just want to use this as political leverage.

And that is disgusting.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Phoenix

Yes let's not forget that Menedez is on trial for sleeping with underage hookers, and yet it's crickets from the dems and their media pals.

As we learned with Bill clinton, they will feign outrage about sex crimes only when it's politically convenient for them.

As for me, I want no sex criminals in office.

If Moore is guilty, I hope he is prosecuted to the fullest extent.

Analyzing the yearbook seems like a good first step in proving that, so why the hesitation from allred?

Sorry but hes a scum bag and shouldnt be in the senate. Hes had opportunity to explain he was interviewed and his testimony was creepy. Like where he said the mother encouraged it while denying it didnt happen. As well as his statement where hes generally against dating minors,but i guess generally there is exceptions. His own testimony convicted this fool.

a reply to: Grambler


they want him underoath - makes sense to me..

"i ddin't have sexual relations with that woman!" bill is a creep, but he looks like a peach compared to this fool.