Woman says Roy Moore initiated sexual encounter when she was 14

a reply to: dragonridr

Sure then the yearbook will prove his guilt.

Oh, and why has their been so much outrage over moore, and almost none over Menendez?

Because as I said above, the establishment doesn't care about these victims, they only want to score politocal points.

a reply to: Grambler

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.

BS....

Obviously Moore didn't care about the women except to get in their pants. He brought this all down upon himself.

originally posted by: knoxie
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.

Sorry it makes no sense.

"I have physical proof this man is a liar and he did assault me, but I won't release it unless a Senate holds a hearing and he's under oath"

I am not saying Moore is innocent, but the only explanation for not having the yearbook analyzed is political gamesmanship.

a reply to: olaru12

Proof?
Charges?

Allegations and public opinion sentiment are very weak.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Grambler

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.

BS....

Obviously Moore didn't care about the women except to get in their pants. He brought this all down upon himself.

What did my statment have anything to do with Moore?

Why the outrage over moore but silence over menedez?

I guess these media people and politicians only feel white girls assaulted are worth our outrage,

The underage Dominican ones that Menendez assaulted atent worth mentioning.

The selective outrage is sickening.

Moore's interview with Hannity blew up in his face. Even Hannity could see thru that pedo's BS.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: dragonridr

Sure then the yearbook will prove his guilt.

Oh, and why has their been so much outrage over moore, and almost none over Menendez?

Because as I said above, the establishment doesn't care about these victims, they only want to score politocal points.

Sean Hannity played audio today of the Media's reaction to Bill Clinton's (alleged) woman abuse, compared to Roy Moore's (alleged) woman abuse.

The SAME Anchors and Congressmen who portrayed Bill Clinton's accusers as loose, attention-seeking scoundrels, in 1997, are still alive, and casting Roy Moore as a predator of poor, naive, females.

Just to piss them off, I want Senator Moore to stay in the race and win BIGLY.

a reply to: Phoenix

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.

Well, that's in the hands of Gloria Allred now. The election is in just over three weeks. Her decision will be made by December 12th, whether she wants it to be made or not... unless the election is postponed.

The way I'm looking at it, there wasn't even supposed to be a special election this year. Whoever gets the nod will have to run again in 2018 if memory serves. This is essentially a race for a one-year term.

The backstory for anyone not familiar: When Sessions accepted the Attorney General position, he vacated his Senate seat. Then-Governor Robert Bentley appointed Luther Strange, who was the Alabama Attorney General, to the seat instead of calling for a special election. Bentley was ousted over sexual impropriety allegations (that was the official reason, but he had become extremely unpopular due to political shenanigans) and the Lieutenant Governor, Kay Ivey, took over. Ivey called for a special election.

So if the election is postponed, Luther Strange keeps his seat until the 2018 midterms. Nothing changes politically. I do not trust Strange (never have), but so far he has not been terrible. I like his stated positions but he's as slow as a Senator.

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.

That's sort of where we're at. Roy Moore will not back down; he's proven that over and over. He's literally been removed from office for not backing down and still maintained his position, more than once. That's where his popularity lies. We don't like wimps in Alabama.

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

Amen, Sister! Testify!

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.

I had written him off at one time as well, for being too loose with the truth and too easy to swap sides when it benefited him. I considered him Rush Limbaugh Lite. I hadn't watched or listened to him in years; I was a CNN watcher. When CNN came out with Billy Bush's little expose, I abandoned CNN as completely unreliable and there was nowhere to go but Fox. I started liking him again. My bad.

I actually wrote him an email today and let him know exactly what I thought of his position. I addressed him by my new nickname for him, Spineless Sean Hannity. So far he hasn't had the backbone to respond. Not really a surprise.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Grambler

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

I think he might be 'guilty' of liking younger women. I have to use quotes because that's not a crime, and certainly wasn't a crime back then. I believe his wife is quite a bit younger than he is, but then again they have been married 33 years and have grandchildren. That's not exactly a bad thing to do to a younger woman... she seems happy with Roy. By all accounts, she has led a very good life.

I don't believe he is guilty of forcing himself on women, or of dating an underage girl. I think those claims are outrageous and require proof.

In any case, I am not electing a preacher... I am electing a Senator. As long as his actions are not felonious, they have no bearing on my decision. I like his spunk, his tenacity, and his adherence to his moral center. And like Phoenix said so well, his fiery adherence to what used to be simple decency will drive the Senate insane.

I want to see Warren's head literally explode like the alien in Men in Black...

TheRedneck

I'll probably have some idiot totally misinterpret or twist ideas but this has been bugging me about this whole thing.

I'll call it the Roy Moore paradigm.

But forget Roy for a moment and in general terms,

Are we as a society now not only defining age of consent but now a loosely codified age difference limit of let's say for discussion purposes 5 years? 10 years? 1 year? I mean what is it, when is it, how is it or is it some ambiguous thing that's OK for some but not others. It's a serious question that apparently needs definition.

Seeing picture of Jerry Seinfeld at 31 dating a 17 year old and not one whimper of complaint from anyone made me think of many others with celebrity or fame that had huge age differences when dating girls same age as what we're debating last few days.

So are all those people also guilty and to be condemned or is it double standard that some can and some can't get away with.

I ask that because many here are virtually accusing as if crime were committed but don't apply same standard to others.

So I ask again what are the limits not only for consent but also age differential and does it apply to everyone?

Oh and before ya go there 14YO was debunked as 17YO so please don't waste everyone's time on that disinformation.

But seriously if everyone is gonna play the outrage card or accuse criminal activity please d fine actual parameters so that subjectivity is not in play nor politics just define parameters and how they apply everyone past, present and future.

Define away,

a reply to: dragonridr

he said the mother encouraged it while denying it didnt happen.

I addressed this earlier... maybe you missed it.

It used to be that it was considered 'proper' to ask the parents permission to date their daughter, especially if the daughter still lived at home. I had to talk with my wife's father before I dated her, and she was 24 years old when we met! Roy Moore was not asking for permission to assault anyone or even to have sex with them; he was asking permission to date them, just as a gentleman did at that time.

Last time I checked, sexual predators don't ask parents for permission to date their daughter.

He denied he knew Corfman, not the other girls who said they had dated him. Only Corfman was under legal age at the time, and only Corfman claimed unwanted or improper sexual contact.

Nelson was a later accusation, and Moore has denied knowing her at all. If the yearbook is not a forgery, Moore has lied and his credibility is shot. If the yearbook is a forgery, Nelson has lied. That does not mean other complaints are unfounded, but it does cast doubt on them and shows at least Nelson's claim was likely a political ploy.

Without the yearbook examination, we have "he said, she said" and the only thing that gets accomplished is a shift in the polls which may or may not (I think not) be sufficient for Jones to defeat him.

Thus, the only conceivable reason to stall release of the yearbook is to accomplish a purely political agenda. Anyone who supports the delay is admitting they are more interested in politics than in the truth.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phoenix

You forgot George Burns... old as Methuselah, but he had young girls in tight clothing around him everywhere he went... and everyone loved him!

Say goodnight Gracie.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Grambler

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.

I don't know about that. I mean, sure it helps politically but Allred could make the claim that it must be preserved until the trial in order for the defense to make a convincing case.

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: Grambler

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.

I don't know about that. I mean, sure it helps politically but Allred could make the claim that it must be preserved until the trial in order for the defense to make a convincing case.

The Yearbook won't be mutilated due to testing. The Shroud of Turin (burial cloth of Jesus) has been tested many times, using methods far more invasive than what we have today.

Gloria All Red can be right there, while the impartial, mutual testing is done.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: Grambler

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.

I don't know about that. I mean, sure it helps politically but Allred could make the claim that it must be preserved until the trial in order for the defense to make a convincing case.

The Yearbook won't be mutilated due to testing. The Shroud of Turin (burial cloth of Jesus) has been tested many times, using methods far more invasive than what we have today.

Gloria All Red can be right there, while the impartial, mutual testing is done.

But is their a case to be made for the public integrity considering no panel has yet been set?

originally posted by: Greven

How strange. Moore said he never knew her, yet here he is claiming to have been a judge over her divorce proceedings.

Whoops. Gonna tie your tongue in knots at this rate, Judge.

I don't know...as a Judge does he remember every case? What does a professional setting got to do with his statement?

a reply to: Aazadan

HAH!
Now you are KIDDING yourself OR deluded
THEY don't FOLLOW ANY laws if their PARTY doesn't WANT it.
ALL the accusations accused of Trump .BILL CLINTON HAS ALREADY DONE FOR 30 YEAS AND STILL IS.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: knoxie
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.

Sorry it makes no sense.

"I have physical proof this man is a liar and he did assault me, but I won't release it unless a Senate holds a hearing and he's under oath"

I am not saying Moore is innocent, but the only explanation for not having the yearbook analyzed is political gamesmanship.

Of course it was political this information was released when it did the most damage. But that doesnt change the fact hes a scum bag and shouldnt be in the senate. Hes used religion his entire life claiming to use it as a moral compass and as we see that was false as well. So regardless of why this came out it did and hes shown hes a lying pedophile. Not the kind of people we need in congress. Tobe honest their is probably others their hopefully we can remove them as well

Two more accusers tonight, at least this time one of them wasn't a teenager.

www.slate.com...

It seems that one of Moore's moves when a girl wouldn't give him her number, was to call the school and have them pull her out of class and put her on the phone.

www.slate.com...

originally posted by: Grambler
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?

I'm all for analyzing it. I have no doubt it's true. My only concern is that so many people deny reality, that they won't believe it, or they'll say it's not good enough because the analysis wasn't done by someone chosen by Moore's defense team.

Edit: Forensic science isn't how it's portrayed in TV. There's a couple tests that can be used here. Carbon dating, which is basically useless here. A dryness test that can only confirm if the ink was used recently, and a chemical formulation that can look to see if the formulation was in use in the 70's as ink manufacturers often change the formulation. Of course, not all inks use the same formulation, so what one brand may have used in the 70's, another might have used in the 80's, creating a very wide range with this test.

So, for any rabid supporters, even testing the ink doesn't rule out explanations like, this woman wrote this down a couple years ago just to screw with Moore if he ever ran for office again.

One more, since this is a conspiracy board and all. Roy's wife Kayla is no stranger to forging documents, she just forged that pastor letter afterall. She was also high school classmates with this girl with the yearbook, perhaps they were even still friends. What if she arranged all of this with a forged signature, on the idea that it would eventually be discovered (how would Allred even find this woman?) in order to discredit all of the accusers.

Oh, and it's 8 women now.
abcnews.go.com...