Woman says Roy Moore initiated sexual encounter when she was 14

a reply to: Aazadan

Oh, and it's 8 women now.

The DNC must have gotten in some new donations.

The good news is this is going to stimulate the economy in Gadsden.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

www.cnbc.com...

Now it's nine.

The only thing we're missing at this point is Chris Hansen coming out and telling Moore to take a seat.

Quote the Keurig: Never Moore.

Oh, and we're up to 1 for Al Franken... too bad, I liked him before this
thehill.com...

If that one is true, which it almost certainly is I think he should step down.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: TheRedneck

www.cnbc.com...

Now it's nine.

Oh, and we're up to 1 for Al Franken... too bad, I liked him before this
thehill.com...

And now you don't like Franken because of what someone said he did and a picture that could be in very poor taste but not proof of anything.
I choose not to like him because of his political views and voting record. Hearsay and the court of public opinion aren't going to convince me to cast my vote to burn him at the stake.

a reply to: primus2012

Had the hysteria with Moore not become so over the top, I would be questioning Al Franken's accuser too. But since the rules of the game apparently are that whoever shouts the loudest wins, I reserve the right to play by the rules those trying to destroy Moore chose to play by.

I have no problem with Moore being investigated; it's a serious charge. But I have a major problem with him being tried, convicted, and sentenced in the court of public opinion by outsiders even before any evidence is offered.

If we're playing that game, I expect Franken to be expelled from the Senate before Monday.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: primus2012
And now you don't like Franken because of what someone said he did and a picture that could be in very poor taste but not proof of anything.
I choose not to like him because of his political views and voting record. Hearsay and the court of public opinion aren't going to convince me to cast my vote to burn him at the stake.

Franken addressed it right away. He said it happened, admitted fault, apologized, and called for an ethics investigation into himself. The woman he took advantage of, for her part accepted the apology and it doesn't sound like she's after anything further.

Considering the woman in question accepts the apology and isn't after any other restitution I don't think there's anything more to the story. If the ethics investigation finds him worthy of keeping his Senate seat so be it, and if not... I'm fine with that too. If you asked me before this story broke I would have said that I think Franken would make a good President, but I don't see that in his future anymore. He's probably still a worthy Senator though unless there's a pattern of him being ethically compromised.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I have no problem with Moore being investigated; it's a serious charge. But I have a major problem with him being tried, convicted, and sentenced in the court of public opinion by outsiders even before any evidence is offered.

Then what court should Moore be tried in? The statute of limitations on these charges has expired. They're never going to see a courtroom.

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Greven

I guess you must've found the getty image link most inconvenient and chose not to discuss.

Yes I do take Moore Attorney at his word about "DA" being secretary intials when signing on behalf of Moore because such a fact misrepresented would be all to easy to discredit factually - that no one has says something.

Certainly has much more weight than inking documents in two differing colors, how stupid.

What's there to discuss?

The colors are very close, even in spite of compression, lighting, and potential for differential aging. What's distorting the color is the contour of the page and the background coloration. Here, I zoomed in on it and picked roughly the darkest color I could see in most of the words:


That's being generous to you, of course - that you are simply mistaken - given that you believe implicitly what his formerly-disbarred lawyer says with no evidence that Deborah Adams ever existed at the law office.

Go do the same thing I did, the colors are extremely close, even if the Moore and date and Olde BBQ House appears 'bluer' than the rest of it - the Roy is color is even closer to the rest of it.

Roy Moore’s Evidence Against Accuser Was a Lie

The evidence Roy Moore’s lawyer offered Wednesday evening to attempt to discredit a sexual-misconduct accuser turns out to have not been correct. In addition to suggesting Moore’s signature in accuser Beverly Young Nelson’s 1977 yearbook was fraudulent, the Alabama Republican Senate nominee’s lawyers claimed Nelson had lied about never contacting Moore following an alleged rape attempt because Moore had presided over her 1999 divorce case. As it turns out, all of the initial proceedings were overseen by a different district judge, W.D. Russell, and the only connection to Moore was that his office rubber-stamped a document requesting a dismissal of the case. Moore never actually had contact with Nelson.

Here is proof Moore's lawyer lied

originally posted by: Xtrozero

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?

What professional just outright claims he didn't know her without checking whether or not he had, even though it's quite possible that he had met her one or multiple times while serving as a judge?

a reply to: Willtell

Color me shocked. Good find.

a reply to: Aazadan

Then what court should Moore be tried in? The statute of limitations on these charges has expired. They're never going to see a courtroom.

You just answered your own questions. Judge Roy Moore is innocent of any charges against him legally, due to the Statute of Limitations. The Senate Ethics Committee can investigate his case if they want, but legally there is nothing that can be done.

Which means this is not about him supposedly breaking a law. It's about people from other states not wanting him in the Senate, or in other words, foreign interference in an election.

I find your other post more telling, though...

Franken addressed it right away. He said it happened, admitted fault, apologized, and called for an ethics investigation into himself. The woman he took advantage of, for her part accepted the apology and it doesn't sound like she's after anything further.

Considering the woman in question accepts the apology and isn't after any other restitution I don't think there's anything more to the story.

Roy Moore is accused without evidence of a crime from 40 years ago, denies it, and you call him everything from 'pedo' to 'creepy' while demanding that he should drop out of his Senate race.

Al Franken is accused of similar crimes from 11 years ago, with evidence, admits it, and you say all is well and he should be allowed to keep his Senate seat.

No, no, no... you are pure pundit, pure political partisan, and pure illogic on this issue, by your own admission.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Willtell

None of this would be needed if Moore could simply examine the evidence. Allred is withholding it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

That's not how the Statute of Limitations works.

It's simply the validity in charging someone with a crime. It doesn't mean that they are innocent of the crime. It means charges cannot be filed for a crime committed after some period of time.

a reply to: TheRedneck

And what do you make of Moore's lawyer lying about what 'DA' meant?

a reply to: Greven

Well......That's some purdy circles added over the distinctly differing ink colors seems to accentuate the black from the blue.

My link to Getty images was undoctored whilst many copies presented in media had the "blue" ink doctored to black.

Why you suppose that was?

a reply to: Greven

Legally, if one cannot be proven guilty, one is innocent of the crime. I am not going to state at this point that he is truly innocent, only that he is legally innocent. I believe he is truly innocent.

If I were to state that he is absolutely innocent of any wrongdoing without any evidence to support my claim, I would be as bad as you, placing myself in a position of mob-rule judge.

And what do you make of Moore's lawyer lying about what 'DA' meant?

And how do you know it was a lie? Are you playing mob-rule judge again?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: TheRedneck

That's not how the Statute of Limitations works.

It's simply the validity in charging someone with a crime. It doesn't mean that they are innocent of the crime. It means charges cannot be filed for a crime committed after some period of time.

Why are there Statues of limitations on crimes?

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: TheRedneck

That's not how the Statute of Limitations works.

It's simply the validity in charging someone with a crime. It doesn't mean that they are innocent of the crime. It means charges cannot be filed for a crime committed after some period of time.

Why are there Statues of limitations on crimes?

To prevent people from making up crap decades later when their jealous of someone.

Every state has different thresholds, and each crime has a different threshold. After that deadline, you can't charge someone.

That's why Hillary can get away with 90% of the crimes she's committed since 1902.

a reply to: DanDanDat

While carewemust's point is valid, the real reason is that certain crimes are not deemed serious enough to chase someone for life. Murder, for example, has no Statute of Limitations in Alabama; you kill someone, you can't outwait the charge. Most lesser crimes do have a Statute of Limitations, meaning if you can go long enough after the crime without committing another one, it's just not worth it to prosecute you because you're not a present danger to the community.

In the case of Roy Moore, the Statute of Limitations is so far gone it is literally ridiculous.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Greven

Well......That's some purdy circles added over the distinctly differing ink colors seems to accentuate the black from the blue.

My link to Getty images was undoctored whilst many copies presented in media had the "blue" ink doctored to black.

Why you suppose that was?

Check it yourself. I used YOUR LINK's image.
I literally just use the eyedropper tool on what looked like the darkest spot of the word, then circled the word with the color from the eyedropper. Some of it is lighter, some of it is darker. I picked the darker, as ink (and recall this when people used those fancy fountain pens a lot more commonly than now) might be thicker or thinner.
I dare you to check it yourself, given that you are essentially calling me a liar. Clearly you don't care about facts if your first instinct is to accuse me of ignoring you, and your second is to respond thusly.

Here's one for you:

The words are a single color, if you take the eyedropper tool to it you will see that.