Let's talk Moore

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Blueskye2 said:

others are their own best admirers.

Did I ever tell you how wonderful and handsome I am? No? Well, it's out there.

[Blueskye2]

32 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Did I ever tell you how wonderful and handsome I am? No? Well, it's out there.

?

 

 

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The trouble with your shots at McConnell et al, is that I wasn’t  talking about “establishment Republicans” who show selective outrage at accusations of sex abuse.  I was talking about the party hoi polloi.  It was  pretty well-settled on the right that Clinton and Kennedy were guilty; hearings or not.  In fact, Republicans were pretty quick to accept that Menendez himself had hired underaged prostitutes in the Dominican Republic five years ago when the story first broke—even though the witnesses there later admitted they had been paid to lie.  But put one of your darlings in the line of fire, and all of a sudden it’s “well, yesh, yesh, we have procedures for that sort of thing, and those procedures take time to play out.” 

It’s quite a delicious irony:  the Trump/Moore/Bannon wing of the GOP got to where they are by misrepresenting the GOP leadership’s emphasis on procedural integrity, as a sign of apathy/betrayal of core conservative principles.  And now here they are, playing the same game.  This newfound admiration for procedural niceties is indeed heartwarming; perhaps they can be housebroken after all!  Welcome to the establishment, guys—now please, don’t grope the help.

And speaking of groping—yeah, I’ve heard the Trump/Bush video.  And if you’re going to defend Trump again with phony-baloney Gatewaypundit articles that invented false facts and omit key details in their efforts to absolve the guy—well, we’ve trod that path already. 

 

 

Except that I was the one that brought up GOPe.  And you responded to it.  So if you didn't mean GOPe and meant some other definition of establishment then you should say you don't mean GOPe then we can talk about the same thing.

And no, Trump can defend himself.  Quite ably.  Bigly.  Like I clearly stated - which as a lawyer you wouldn't miss - "just out of curiosity".

Edited November 18, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

One other thing:  it’s pretty rich for someone who was fully on board with Trump’s accusing Rafael Cruz of complicity in the Kennedy assassination, to suddenly get all concerned about the possibility of the Republican party bench being eviscerated by untrue, politically-rooted attacks on personal character.  

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Are you talking about me?

There was no reference.

[Just_A_Guy]

On 11/17/2017 at 6:41 PM, anatess2 said:

Except that I was the one that brought up GOPe.  And you responded to it.  So if you didn't mean GOPe and meant some other definition of establishment then you should say you don't mean GOPe then we can talk about the same thing.

And no, Trump can defend himself.  Quite ably.  Bigly.  Like I clearly stated - which as a lawyer you wouldn't miss - "just out of curiosity".

Not really.  You were trying to take the possibility that one of your hero’s flunkies may be a creepy pervert (like unto other creepy pervert who sits in yon’ White House, for whom some in this forum have been making excuses over the past year and a half), and re-cast it into some sort of Establishment-versus-Common-Man nonsense with the nefarious Establishment conspiring with liberal rags to pull these accusers out of thin air to smear a good and godly man.  And I called you on it, by showing that even your beloved “common-man” Trump-lovers were giving Moore a degree of leeway he hadn’t earned and that they would never have granted to anyone who wasn’t a member of their in-group.

And Anatess, you are sufficiently accomplished in the English language to know that the phrase “just out of curiosity”, in a debate such as the one we have been having, rarely arises out of a sincere and innocuous desire to learn a previously-unknown fact.  

On 11/17/2017 at 6:44 PM, anatess2 said:

Are you talking about me?

There was no reference.

I can’t claim to apply this principle perfectly; but in general I find it more profitable to consider whether something is true about me, rather than dwelling on whether it is supposed to refer to me.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

40 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Not really.  You were trying to take the possibility that one of your hero’s flunkies may be a creepy pervert (like unto other creepy pervert who sits in yon’ White House, for whom some in this forum have been making excuses over the past year and a half), and re-cast it into some sort of Establishment-versus-Common-Man nonsense with the nefarious Establishment conspiring with liberal rags to pull these accusers out of thin air to smear a good and godly man.  And I called you on it, by showing that even your beloved “common-man” Trump-lovers were giving Moore a degree of leeway he hadn’t earned and that they would never have granted to anyone who wasn’t a member of their in-group.

And Anatess, you are sufficiently accomplished in the English language to know that the phrase “just out of curiosity”, in a debate such as the one we have been having, rarely arises out of a sincere and innocuous desire to learn a previously-unknown fact.  

I can’t claim to apply this principle perfectly; but in general I find it more profitable to consider whether something is true about me, rather than dwelling on whether it is supposed to refer to me.

Sigh.  Never Trumpers and their blinders. 

Carry on.

[Just_A_Guy]

6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Sigh.  Never Trumpers and their blinders. 

Carry on.

Sure; my NeverTrump blinders are the reason I think people who elected one sex predator for the sake of political expediency are about to elect another.  :rolleyes:

Edited November 21, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[JoCa]

Any takers on an "I'm sorry, I was stupid and I was wrong on this issue?"  Anyone, anyone . . . Bueller??

I'm sure this is just campaign spin right?  If that's campaign spin . . .that's a lot of lying (and it's pretty specific detailed lying to, I guess). 

Can I just say that I was right and told ya so?

-----------------------

The three statements from former mall employees quoted in the Moore press release:

• "In my 26 years working at Gadsden Mall, I never heard anything about Roy Moore being banned from the mall or any other mention of issues concerning him. As the Operations Manager overseeing Mall Security, I would have been aware of something like that." - Johnny Adams, employed by the Gadsden Mall for 26 years and was the Operations Manager for 14 years, overseeing mall security.
• "As an employee of the Gadsden Mall for Morrison's Cafeteria Corporation from the late 1970's through the mid-2000's, I would like to put forth a statement in regards to the allegations against Judge Roy Moore. During my time at the Gadsden Mall, I formed many lifelong relationships including one with Barnes Boyle and his wife, Brenda. Barnes Boyle was manager of the Gadsden Mall and Brenda was my manager at Morrison's Cafeteria for many years. Because of this relationship, I was abreast on the latest situations that happened throughout the Gadsden Mall during that time period. There was a prominent man of Etowah County, whom is now deceased that was banned for reasons such as the allegations against Judge Moore. However, due to respect for the family, I decline to reveal his name. Despite allegations against other patrons of the mall, I never heard of Roy Moore's name come in conversation with any such misconduct against women or a supposed banning from the Gadsden Mall." - Johnnie V. Sanders, employee of Gadsden Mall from late 70's to mid-2000's.
• "We did have written reports and things. To my knowledge, he {Moore} was not banned from the mall." - Barnes Boyle, Former Manager of the Gadsden Mall (1981-1986).

"A few things stuck out to me. First, Nelson said she was 15 years old when she started working there but you had to be 16. I don’t remember her from my time there, and I don’t remember any 15 year olds working there at all.

"Second, Nelson said the restaurant closed at 10 p.m. but I know the earliest it closed was 11, though I believe it was midnight. I’m certain of that because Goodyear employees came in to eat after their shift ended at 10:00 p.m., so there’s no way we would have closed at that time.

"Third, the area wasn’t dark and isolated as she described. Rather, the building was right off the busy four-lane highway and people and cars were always around. The restaurant had a wrap-around porch, like the ones at Cracker Barrel restaurants, and there were lights all around the sides of the building. So it wasn’t dark and anyone in the parking lot was visible from the road.

"Fourth, the dumpsters were to the side of the building, not around back and there sure wasn’t room to park in between the building and the dumpsters. People from the kitchen would take trash out of the side door and throw it right into the dumpsters. We were always told to park on the side of the building, because there just wasn’t much room behind it. I don’t remember there being an exit from the back of the parking lot, there would barely have been enough room to turn a car around.

"I came forward because from what I’ve seen, the media is only interested in reporting one side of this story. In fact, Dixon Hayes from WRBC in Birmingham asked for former employees to contact him but never responded when I told him I never saw Roy Moore come into Olde Hickory House during the three years I worked for. Two other news outlets in the state asked to interview me and I agreed, but neither one has aired my interview and I have to wonder why they don’t think the people of Alabama deserve to hear anything that counteracts the accusations against Judge Moore. It’s not for me to say whether or not something happened, I can only tell the truth about factual details that I know for sure. I think all Alabamians deserve to have all of the facts so they can decide for themselves what the truth is. Despite what the national media and people in DC might say, Alabama voters are intelligent and have common sense. We don’t need anyone to tell us how to vote or to explain to us what really happened. We will make that decision and I just wanted to do my part in sharing the truth on some of these important facts. I, like all Alabama voters, want any and all information that can shed light on the truth.”

Johnny Belyeu, Sr. is a former police officer with over two decades of experience with the Etowah County Sheriff’s Department and the Gadsden Police Department. He said in a statement, “I was an officer with the Etowah County Sheriff’s Department in the 1970s which means I worked in the courthouse and knew who Roy Moore was since he was the Deputy District Attorney at the time. I was a regular customer at Olde Hickory House, and I never once saw Judge Moore come in there. If he had I would have immediately recognized him. I also never met Beverly Nelson during any of the many times I frequented the restaurant, and I can’t say that she even worked there.”

Renee Schivera of Huntsville, Alabama stated, “I was a waitress at the Olde Hickory House during the summer of 1977, before my senior year of high school. When I heard Beverly Nelson’s story the first thing that stuck out to me was that I don’t remember Roy Moore ever coming into the restaurant. I also don’t remember her working there. The other thing that struck me as odd is that from my best recollection, the dumpsters were to the side of the building. I just know they were visible from the road, and not back behind the building. But the main thing is that if someone came in almost every night we knew who there were, and I never saw Roy Moore there. As a Christian woman, I wouldn’t lie for anyone and I am only sharing what I know because it’s the truth.”

"The days of unbiased reporting are over," Moore Campaign strategist, Brett Doster said. "The liberal media will dodge any source and refuse to air any interview that doesn't square with their effort to land a liberal Democrat in the senate seat. The Moore Campaign is committed to presenting factual truth to the people of Alabama and looks forward to victory on December 12."

https://www.roymoore.org/Press-Releases/127/Nelson-Story-Busted%3a-Liberal-Media-Fails-to-Report-the-Truth

https://www.roymoore.org/Press-Releases/126/National-Media-Bias-Debunked%3a-Key-Witnesses-Refute-that-Judge-Moore-was-on-Mall-Ban-List

[JoCa]

For some reason in today's society, all it takes is 1 single female with an axe to grind and your reputation is lower than dirt . . .no matter what else you have done in life and no matter if the accusations are false b/c in the end it's he said, she said and in today's feminazi world she always wins.

----

Now, I say this knowing full well there are a lot of scumbags out there, in hollywood, politics, etc. If there is true remorse on the part of the elites then they will be opening up the whole ball of wax . . . including ditching the plethora of actual true pedophiles in hollywood and politics and that stuff goes way deeper than most people want to even think about. 

[JoCa]

Now that Gloria Allred's story has fallen completely apart . . . they have to trot out the first 14 year-old accuser and put her on USA Today to tell her "story" . . .yeap a wopper of a story all-right.

I think Corfman may be a pathological liar.  In the interview she says when her kids were junior high/high school she in essence polled the kids as to whether she should come out publicly against Moore.  Okay, let's get this straight at 14 you were too young to know what was happening but later in life you decided to involve your teenage kids in the decision to not make statements all b/c you worried about their social connections and standings . . .yeah right.  

What a coward, you throw the decisions of your action to not come forward on your teenage kids!!!  Coward . . . .blame them for not doing what should have been done (if it were true).

Then the Washington Post sought her out and she told them she wouldn't tell her story unless there were additional stories . . . so what does the Washington Post do . . .go find more "stories" of course!

Still any takers?? Bueller??

Edited November 21, 2017 by JoCa

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, JoCa said:

Now that Gloria Allred's story has fallen completely apart . . . they have to trot out the first 14 year-old accuser and put her on USA Today to tell her "story" . . .yeap a wopper of a story all-right.

I think Corfman may be a pathological liar.  In the interview she says when her kids were junior high/high school she in essence polled the kids as to whether she should come out publicly against Moore.  Okay, let's get this straight at 14 you were too young to know what was happening but later in life you decided to involve your teenage kids in the decision to not make statements all b/c you worried about their social connections and standings . . .yeah right.  

What a coward, you throw the decisions of your action to not come forward on your teenage kids!!!  Coward . . . .blame them for not doing what should have been done (if it were true).

Then the Washington Post sought her out and she told them she wouldn't tell her story unless there were additional stories . . . so what does the Washington Post do . . .go find more "stories" of course!

Still any takers?? Bueller??

Well, golly gee willikers—in your book, even if she’s telling the truth, your knee-jerk reaction is still to publicly demonize her.  Whyever might a woman choose not to subject herself to your brand of bile?

I don’t know whether she’s telling the truth or not.  But frankly, I find it easier to believe her claims to have been the object of Moore’s ham-fisted seductions; than it is to believe that a woman who had actually been the victim of a sexual assault would choose to stay married to someone who holds the views that you have professed.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[JoCa]

13 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Well, golly gee willikers—in your book, even if she’s telling the truth, your knee-jerk reaction is still to publicly demonize her.  Whyever might a woman choose not to subject herself to your brand of bile?

I don’t know whether she’s telling the truth or not.  But frankly, I find it easier to believe her claims to have been the object of Moore’s ham-fisted seductions; than it is to believe that a woman who had actually been the victim of a sexual assault would choose to stay married to someone who holds the views that you have professed.

Reported for personal attack.  You're a jerk.

[JoCa]

13 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 But frankly, I find it easier to believe her claims to have been the object of Moore’s ham-fisted seductions

Falling apart faster and faster.  Are you ready to eat humble pie JAG?   . . .crickets (silence).

Never one to let facts get in the way of a good story.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/21/court-documents-raise-significant-questions-leigh-corfmans-accusations-roy-moore/

The Post failed to tell readers that at that February 21, 1979, court case Wells voluntarily gave up custody of Corfman to Corfman’s father, Robert R. Corfman.  The two had been divorced since 1974.  The custody case was amicable and involved a joint petition by both parents.

The Post further did not tell readers that as a result of the joint petition to change custody, the court ordered the 14-year-old Corfman to move to her father’s house starting on March 4, 1979.  Court documents show the father’s address in Ohatchee, and not in Gadsden, where her mother lived and where Corfman says the meetings with Moore took place.

This would mean that from the court hearing on February 21, 1979, until Corfman was ordered to move to her father’s house, Moore would only have had 12 days, including the day of the court hearing, to have repeatedly called Corfman at her mother’s Gadsden house, arrange two meetings, and attempt another.

The Post failed to mention that the very reason for the February 21, 1979, court hearing where Moore allegedly met Corfman was because, according to the court documents, Corfman had exhibited “certain disciplinary and behavioral problems.” In other words, Corfman evidence behavioral problems prior to the alleged encounters with Moore.

Indeed, those stated “disciplinary and behavioral problems” were cited in the joint petition to change custody as the cause for both Wells and Corfman’s father agreeing that Corfman would be better served living with her father.  The parents signed a “consent decree” going along with the change in custody.

[JoCa]

13 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Well, golly gee willikers—in your book, even if she’s telling the truth, your knee-jerk reaction is still to publicly demonize her.  Whyever might a woman choose not to subject herself to your brand of bile?

If a woman has been sexually assaulted, I fully support her getting full restitution and prosecution for the individual who has assaulted. 

No my knee-jerk reaction isn't to demonize sexual assault victims. . .it is to demonize woman who seek 15 min. of fame b/c they can claim sexual assault and get away with tarnishing men's reputation.  We as a society should look, very, very carefully at individuals who seek 15 min. of fame with their "metoo!!!" story.

To do less, actually demeans, destroys and makes what my wife went through of little to no value; b/c yes my wife did suffer something horrific, much more so than "oh I'm a dumb broad who absolutely had no clue that when Harvey Weinstein invited me to his hotel room and I went that he wanted a little action, oh poor innocent little me . . .I just had no idea that was going to happen".  Please, spare me.

When someone actually attacks you in a place where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy (i.e. your home, dorm room, etc.) that is quite different than oh I went to a bar, got drunk and I'm not sure what happened but I'm pretty sure I said no and now I'm in some dude's house.

Obviously, you don't have anyone very close to you who has actually been attacked. 

[JoCa]

13 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

if she’s telling the truth, your knee-jerk reaction is still to publicly demonize her.  

No, someone who has actually been attacked doesn't do what she claims she did . . .period.

Edited November 22, 2017 by JoCa

[Just_A_Guy]

@JoCa, I am managing a case right now where a female juvenile in rehab fled from her group home, traveled 150 miles to the nearest urban center, and was induced into having sex with a complete stranger; in about a three-day period.  Don’t presume to hector me about how long it would have taken to woo Corfman in one breath, and then talk about what an incorrigible tramp she was in the next breath—you can’t have it both ways.  Behaviorally challenged kids often make the best victims, since they generally have fewer supports (like a protective father) and are less likely to be believed if/when they do come forward.  I suggest you take some time watching interviews of sex offenders outlining how they chose their victims; I suspect you’d find it both enlightening and chilling.

Moreover, Breitbart doesn’t tell *you* what any divorce attorney knows:  that even in a “sole custody” scenario, the kid is still shuttling back and forth between parents’ homes on weekends for visitation/parent time.  So Moore wasn’t even confined to a twelve-day window; Breitbart’s just building straw men.

(By the way, remember when conservatives thought it was just *awful* that Barack Obama, in a state-level campaign, had obtained and released a political opponent’s private divorce records?  Good times, that . . .) 

Moore couldn’t categorically deny having dated sixteen-year-olds in his Hannity interview.  His own wife, per Moore’s own writings, was fifteen when he first “noticed” her.  Our good buddy Royboy likes ‘em young; there’s just no getting around that.  The question here is whether, having gone as low as sixteen and being attracted to girls as young as fifteen; his dropping one more rung down the ladder is completely outside the realm of possibility.

I’m sorry you dislike being put under the same sort of scrutiny that you apply to Corfman.  But the fact is, from all of our perspectives, you are a random guy on the internet:  no more deserving of deference than Corfman is, and maybe less so given a) your false assertion that Corfman’s accusations were anonymous (see below); b) your claim to have done a “lot of research” underlying the assertion above; and c) your wild claims about how rape victims are *supposed* to act which fly in the face of everything most of us have seen in media and our various life experiences, which include the things I’ve seen professionally and the experiences related by another member of this forum who claims to have actually BEEN a rape victim.

I’ve been blunt with you, yes; but I think overall I’ve treated you far more charitably than you’ve treated Corfman.

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[JoCa]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/roy-moore-high-school-cheerleaders_us_5a1586e8e4b025f8e932c45f?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

More dominos.  From the police officers own words:  "At the time I didn't think the rumors meant he liked 14-15 year old girls" . . .but they were told to "watch him at games and to keep him away from the cheerleaders".

More lies . . .so at the time you thought the rumors just meant he liked younger adult women but you put in place protocols to keep him away from teenage cheerleaders.  So which is it liars??

Edited November 22, 2017 by JoCa

[JoCa]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

@JoCa, I am managing a case right now where a female juvenile in rehab fled from her group home, traveled 150 miles to the nearest urban center, and was induced into having sex with a complete stranger; in about a three-day period.  Don’t presume to hector me about how long it would have taken to woo Corfman in one breath, and then talk about what an incorrigible tramp she was in the next breath—you can’t have it both ways.  Behaviorally challenged kids often make the best victims, since they generally have fewer supports (like a protective father) and are less likely to be believed if/when they do come forward.  I suggest you take some time watching interviews of sex offenders outlining how they chose their victims; I suspect you’d find it both enlightening and chilling.

Moreover, Breitbart doesn’t tell *you* what any divorce attorney knows:  that even in a “sole custody” scenario, the kid is still shuttling back and forth between parents’ homes on weekends for visitation/parent time.  So Moore wasn’t even confined to a twelve-day window; Breitbart’s just building straw men.

(By the way, remember when conservatives thought it was just *awful* that Barack Obama, in a state-level campaign, had obtained and released a political opponent’s private divorce records?  Good times, that . . .) 

Moore couldn’t categorically deny having dated sixteen-year-olds in his Hannity interview.  His own wife, per Moore’s own writings, was fifteen when he first “noticed” her.  Our good buddy Royboy likes ‘em young; there’s just no getting around that.  The question here is whether, having gone as low as sixteen and being attracted to girls as young as fifteen; his dropping one more rung down the ladder is completely outside the realm of possibility.

I’m sorry you dislike being put under the same sort of scrutiny that you apply to Corfman.  But the fact is, from all of our perspectives, you are a random guy on the internet:  no more deserving of deference than Corfman is, and maybe less so given a) your false assertion that Corfman’s accusations were anonymous (see below); b) your claim to have done a “lot of research” underlying the assertion above; and c) your wild claims about how rape victims are *supposed* to act which fly in the face of everything most of us have seen in media and our various life experiences, which include the things I’ve seen professionally and the experiences related by another member of this forum who claims to have actually BEEN a rape victim.

I’ve been blunt with you, yes; but I think overall I’ve treated you far more charitably than you’ve treated Corfman.

 

Blah, blah, blah.  You are a hypocrite and you know it.

I told you above, no matter what evidence comes out that he didn't do it (i.e. sexually assualt women) you will continue to hold to the belief that he did.  You are proving my point that I made several pages ago.

As to the bold, I don't care, I'm not the one who is grandstanding in public trying to take down someone . . .I just want the truth.  And the fact that you continue to deny that this is a political hit and that their are no basis of actual fact in this is just the height of hypocrisy.

For someone who claims they are lawyer, I'd expect better. I don't know you . . .maybe you just pretend to be a lawyer-I can play that game too.  

Just remember, you are the one who elevated it from attacking content to personally attacking me.  You took on the persona that an attack on Corfman was an attack on you.  Pretty petty IMO.

Just face it. . . you aren't smart enough to discern between truth and BS.

As an FYI an actual apology about disparaging my wife, her experience and her relation to me would be nice, but it would not be expected.  I'll back down and retract anything personal if it is forthcoming.

Edited November 22, 2017 by JoCa

[mordorbund]

Just curious, @JoCa, did you used to have the handle @yjacket?

[prisonchaplain]

I'm going to ask my might be a ridiculous question--two actually. Concerning POTUS, it has been my understanding that he bragged of sexually assaulting female entertainers, and they were good with it because of his money. He apologized for what he said, and claimed it was locker room talk. I'm not aware that POTUS has admitted to actually doing any criminal or assaultive acts, and of course such charges would not likely be litigated while he serves in office.  Am I missing anything here?

As for Moore, he's admitted to soliciting barely-18-year old women for dates while he is in his 30s. He adamantly denies molesting minors.

In both cases, the accusations against these two--especially if a voter leans towards believing them--might be enough to sway a vote away. It may be enough to lead one not to vote.  I would not blame anyone who voted based on their discernment concerning these allegations.  On the other hand, in neither case do we have verified criminal activity.  Do I have this right?

Edited November 22, 2017 by prisonchaplain

[Just_A_Guy]

29 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I'm going to ask my might be a ridiculous question--two actually. Concerning POTUS, it has been my understanding that he bragged of sexually assaulting female entertainers, and they were good with it because of his money. He apologized for what he said, and claimed it was locker room talk. I'm not aware that POTUS has admitted to actually doing any criminal or assaultive acts, and of course such charges would not likely be litigated while he serves in office.  Am I missing anything here?

As for Moore, he's admitted to soliciting barely-18-year old women for dates while he is in his 30s. He admittedly denies molesting minors.

In both cases, the accusations against these two--especially if a voter leans towards believing them--might be enough to sway a vote away. It may be enough to lead one not to vote.  I would not blame anyone who voted based on their discernment concerning these allegations.  On the other hand, in neither case do we have verified criminal activity.  Do I have this right?

I think there are sixteen-odd accusers against Trump, and I no longer recall enough of the details offhand to parse out the illegal from the merely goonish.  I do remember that some years ago Ivana swore out a written affidavit including an anecdote of a night where Trump had had forcible, nonconsensual sexual relations with her; but when the affidavit went public (after the divorce was finalized and the settlements paid) she blanched at using the “r” word while still standing by the substance of her story.

As for Moore - I think it is only Corfman whose story would have constituted an illegal act by Moore (not counting an 18-year-old who said Moore gave her alcohol, in a jurisdiction where the drinking age was 19, which strikes me as pretty weak sauce from a secular standpoint).  Several other “accusers” were 16-17, which would have made them technically “minors” but also over the age of consent; and Moore tacitly acknowledged in his Hannity interview that as a thirtysomething he wasn’t above dating girls that young.  And it should be stressed that there was nothing illegal about that.

 I think at least one of the accusers’ stories just doesn’t add up (the yearbook girl); and the fact that Moore turned out to be kind of a gamma male who could only work up the courage to make passes at teenaged girls—and awkwardly and unsuccessfully, at that—isn’t enough to make me vote Democrat.  But the partial corroboration of Corfman’s account by her mother and by court records, the disingenuity and red herrings deployed in Moore’s defense against that particular allegation, and the sheer savagery of some of his leading apologists; lead me to believe that there’s probably a kernel of truth to Corfman’s story.  More generally, some of the “witnesses” Moore has deployed to rebut other allegations sound so incredible (multiple teenagers who worked in a restaurant forty years ago being able to testify that a particular, faceless assistant prosecutor *NEVER* came into their restaurant?) that I think we’re seeing a scenario where the Moore campaign is willing to tell lies to bury what it believes/perceives/hopes to be an even bigger lie; a page taken from the Trump playbook.  

If Moore had just said “yeah, I dated teenagers—that’s just the way I swung, and it was legal; and as for Corfman, as gosh is my witness I thought she was sixteen”—I’d be poking a lot of fun at the guy, and hoping for a primary challenger; but when push came to shove I’d probably encourage a vote for him over his current Dem opponent.

That coverup, though . . .

Edited November 22, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

Thank you @Just_A_Guy. I was not aware POTUS had so many accusers, and am surprised media did not give them much more exposure during the campaign. Then again, without proof positive, I wonder how many would have voted differently, or just not voted. What a mess.

As for Moore, shame on him and his campaign. At the same time, I'm guessing most Alabamans believe that these charges are bogus, timed so they can create doubt, with not enough time to litigate one way or the other.  Yeah-what a mess.

[Grunt]

20 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Thank you @Just_A_Guy. I was not aware POTUS had so many accusers, and am surprised media did not give them much more exposure during the campaign. Then again, without proof positive, I wonder how many would have voted differently, or just not voted. What a mess.

As for Moore, shame on him and his campaign. At the same time, I'm guessing most Alabamans believe that these charges are bogus, timed so they can create doubt, with not enough time to litigate one way or the other.  Yeah-what a mess.

Whether it is legal or not is irrelevant to me, personally.  Many things that are legal I find immoral.

[zil]

5 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Whether it is legal or not is irrelevant to me, personally.  Many things that are legal I find immoral.

An ethical person ought to do more than he's required to do and less than he's allowed to do.
-- Michael Josephson, quoted in "Bill Moyers' World of Ideas"

ETA: I have no idea who Michael Josephson is, but the quote is good.

Edited November 22, 2017 by zil

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, zil said:

An ethical person ought to do more than he's required to do and less than he's allowed to do.
-- Michael Josephson, quoted in "Bill Moyers' World of Ideas"

ETA: I have no idea who Michael Josephson is, but the quote is good.

I don't know if you just called me a fool or agreed with me.