For Roy Moore’s insistent defenders: Here’s why now.

[Mach]

Yes by lib-tards trying to excuse the suspicious timing.

Yeah, like how it's suspicious timing when you go in for a checkup and the doctor finds something. VERY SUSPICIOUS that he only finds it when you go in to the office. He had years to find it before that...makes you wonder!

(no, not really).

 

[Manc Skipper]

Accusations mean nothing.I can accuse you of giving hand jobs to farm animals.It doesn't make it true. Even if I got a couple dozen people to say you give handjobs to farm animals it still doesn't make it true. Until you confess to it or there is video of giving a hand job to farm animals just an accusation and nothing more.

When several people give similar accounts and other people independently confirm such events were known about at the time, it's not looking good for a candidate who was dubious in the first place. Being banned from malls, and having cops asked to keep you away from cheerleaders isn't a good look.

 

[iguanaman]

Just because the accusations came up doesn't mean they happened.



No it just means it likely never happened. Because if Moore never ran for office the accusation would have never came up.

LOL Talk about putting the cart before the horse. The abuse could have happened regardless of whether it was reported or not. It just becomes a national issue when a Senate seat is involved.

 

[jamesrage]

When several people give similar accounts and other people independently confirm such events were known about at the time, it's not looking good for a candidate who was dubious in the first place.

People giving similar stories doesn't equate proof.

Being banned from malls, and having cops asked to keep you away from cheerleaders isn't a good look.

You got the actual documentation to prove this? Not what someone alleges to have happened.

 

[jamesrage]

LOL Talk about putting the cart before the horse. The abuse could have happened regardless of whether it was reported or not. It just becomes a national issue when a Senate seat is involved.

It is suspicious because the accusations were made literally a month before a political race happened.

 

[blackjack50]

"Why was it important? Presumably*because*of the timing.*Because*now."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FghEMAw&usg=AOvVaw3jDUF4jlkEpEC4OIfd8oul&cf=1

"The point of asking 'why now' is not usually a good-faith effort to understand why the interactions only just came to light. It is usually simply meant to raise uncertainty about the women’s stories and, therefore, about the allegations against Moore. It is up to the voters of Alabama to decide if the allegations against Moore are a reason to oppose his candidacy; they may decide that they are not. The Post’s role is simply to bring the stories to light."

Wapo addresses (again) two important topics within the overall story.

The timing of the article is not suspicious unless a person wants it to be. There are limited reasons why a person would want the timing of the story to be suspicious.

The "prove him guilty or not guilty" argument does not hold much water for Roy Moore because he has not been charged with a crime nor will he appear before a judge and jury.

The question at this point is simply whether or not the Republican party and voters can nominate a suitable, respectable replacement for Moore's US Senate candidacy.

Have not weighed in nor do I really care about the topic. I'm trying to ignore politics. But I have this to say about the statement...asking why now is really important. Just like cui Bono. It gives some idea as to motives. Especially into why the accusations are all of a sudden important or newsworthy. Is it now important because it was handled and now is just being used to slam the candidate? Is it important because it is ongoing and now the person is running? Were charges conveniently never filed or even mentioned until this person ran?

The fact is...someone IS innocent until proven guilty and bringing up charges on someone alone makes them look "suspicious." Based on your statement you seem to think it is unfair to call into question the validity of statements leveled against someone...seems like a double standard. If it is fair to look at someone who is not proven guilty...as suspect for accusations made by someone...it is fair to look at that person as suspect if the timing is suspicious.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Have not weighed in nor do I really care about the topic. I'm trying to ignore politics. But I have this to say about the statement...asking why now is really important. Just like cui Bono. It gives some idea as to motives. Especially into why the accusations are all of a sudden important or newsworthy. Is it now important because it was handled and now is just being used to slam the candidate? Is it important because it is ongoing and now the person is running? Were charges conveniently never filed or even mentioned until this person ran?

The fact is...someone IS innocent until proven guilty and bringing up charges on someone alone makes them look "suspicious." Based on your statement you seem to think it is unfair to call into question the validity of statements leveled against someone...seems like a double standard. If it is fair to look at someone who is not proven guilty...as suspect for accusations made by someone...it is fair to look at that person as suspect if the timing is suspicious.

I agree that asking, "Why now?" is important. It was asked and answered.

I never made a case that Moore is guilty or not. I said he is unfit to take a seat in the US Senate.

 

[Manc Skipper]

People giving similar stories doesn't equate proof.


You got the actual documentation to prove this? Not what someone alleges to have happened.

Don't be so silly. You have the word of a now retired cop. It was common knowledge what a creep he is, but back then it was accepted far more than now.

 

[iguanaman]

It is suspicious because the accusations were made literally a month before a political race happened.

How many times do you need to be told that vetting someone seeking national office is the job of our free press. It is not a coincidence or a CT. It is the way a free country must behave to stay that way.. I think that is what you object to...freedom. It is quite concerning that tribalism is becoming the norm. It conflicts with the most basic tenets of our free society.

 

[Manc Skipper]

It is suspicious because the accusations were made literally a month before a political race happened.

So while someone might have settled for getting on with their life despite what he did, the realisation that he was standing for the Sentate (FFS!) Combined with the revelations about Weinstein gave them the confidence to know that they would be heard after all this time... You can't have it both ways.

 

[jamesrage]

How many times do you need to be told that vetting someone seeking national office is the job of our free press. It is not a coincidence or a CT. It is the way a free country must behave to stay that way.. I think that is what you object to...freedom. It is quite concerning that tribalism is becoming the norm. It conflicts with the most basic tenets of our free society.

More like making up dirt or exaggerating the truth is what the press does for politicians they don't like while ignoring the bad **** that politicians they like do.

 

[jamesrage]

Don't be so silly. You have the word of a now retired cop..

Oh because he says so that gives credibility to his statements. sarcasm.

It was common knowledge what a creep he is, but back then it was accepted far more than now

Saying it was common knowledge doesn't make it actually common knowledge.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Oh because he says so that gives credibility to his statements. sarcasm.
Saying it was common knowledge doesn't make it actually common knowledge.

How common does it have to be? Cops kids colleagues all remember him being a weirdo, hanging with young girls at the mall or the football... There's no evidence you'll accept, because of your politics. If it was a Democrat, you'd be calling for the death penalty.

 

[vesper]

It's standard procedure for the national press to investigate candidates when they run for national office. This has come up now because nobody went looking for it before.

But how far did the press do its job to investigate the allegations?

It turns out Leigh Corfman's alleged story has several holes in it just from records that could be obtained at the courthouse.

In Leigh Corfman's account she said she was at the courthouse in early 1979 with her mother for a custody hearing. She claims that is when she met Roy Moore and gave him her phone number.

It turns out that both parents were there at the courthouse requesting a custody change of their minor daughter. The document states the mother could no longer handle the daughter's out of control behavior and the parents both agreed the father that had remarried would be a stronger personality for controlling the daughter. The judge granted the change in custody on that day.

So my question is when a judge changes custody of a child from one parent to another does that take hold immediately, matter of a couple of days, hours? Would she have left the courthouse with her father? Her father didn't live in Gadsden or Rainbow City suburb as Corfman stated. According to the court records he lived in O'hatchee 22 miles away.

According to Corfman, Roy Moore called her and she took the call in her bedroom. According to the mother in a phone interview, Corfman never had a phone in her room. She also stated she met Moore around the corner of her mother's house but the location she gave was over a mile from her mother's house and would of had to cross a major thoroughfare to get there.

For me learning that both parents signed a request to have custody changed at the same time of year that Leigh Corfman says she was at the courthouse and that the judge granted it on the same day raises a lot of questions.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Oh because he says so that gives credibility to his statements. sarcasm.
Saying it was common knowledge doesn't make it actually common knowledge.

So Moore has credibility; and his word is good enough for you. Dozens of other people lack credibility; and their corroborating statements must be dismissed. The underlying partisan motive for such an anti-intellectual position is obvious.

It's common knowledge not because a DP poster said it's common knowledge but because dozens of people shared in common contemporaneous information.

 

[jamesrage]

So Moore has credibility; and his word is good enough for you. Dozens of other people lack credibility; and their corroborating statements must be dismissed. The underlying partisan motive for such an anti-intellectual position is obvious.

Until Moore is tried in a criminal court of law and found guilty or a tape surfaces of him groping teenage girls or or on audio tape admitting it then he is innocent till proven guilty. I don't know if he molested those women who accuse him, neither do you. We do know that when it comes to politics people will use every dirty trick to help their side win.

It's common knowledge not because a DP poster said it's common knowledge but because dozens of people shared in common contemporaneous information.

People claiming it was common knowledge doesn't make it so.

 

[jamesrage]

How common does it have to be? Cops kids colleagues all remember him being a weirdo, hanging with young girls at the mall or the football...

A handful of people claiming this and that doesn't make it true. When Bill Clinton was president the republicans used to say oh it was common knowledge that Bill Clinton preyed on women in Arkansas.

There's no evidence you'll accept, because of your politics.

I'll accept video tape of him molesting a girl, guilty conviction in criminal court, audio tape of Moore admitting to molesting the woman as a young teenager,or even authenticated paperwork banning Moore from the mall because of complaints of him going after young teenage girls.

If it was a Democrat, you'd be calling for the death penalty.

No I wouldn't
https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...rray-child-sexual-abuse-5.html#post1067625762

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...murray-child-sexual-abuse.html#post1067624682

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Until Moore is tried in a criminal court of law and found guilty or a tape surfaces of him groping teenage girls or or on audio tape admitting it then he is innocent till proven guilty. I don't know if he molested those women who accuse him, neither do you. We do know that when it comes to politics people will use every dirty trick to help their side win.



People claiming it was common knowledge doesn't make it so.

I never talked about a criminal trial standard of guilt. Since there will never be a criminal trial, your point is irrelevant.

What I have said repeatedly is that voters need to make an ethical decision (not a legal one -- there is a big difference) about whom to elevate to the Senate. In my informed opinion, Moore is not qualified. I'm not talking about jailing him. I'm talking about sending a better candidate than he to the Senate.

I noticed that you consider audio and video tapes evidence. I wonder how the current president was elected if that is the case and if you would truly accept such evidence in Moore's case or just Trumpsplain and disregard it a la Access Hollywood.

Lots of people claiming the same knowledge is the definition of common knowledge. Wow.

 

[jamesrage]

I never talked about a criminal trial standard of guilt. Since there will never be a criminal trial, your point is irrelevant.

What I have said repeatedly is that voters need to make an ethical decision (not a legal one -- there is a big difference) about whom to elevate to the Senate. In my informed opinion, Moore is not qualified. I'm not talking about jailing him. I'm talking about sending a better candidate than he to the Senate.

I think its more to do with you being a liberal and Moore not being a liberal why you don't think Moore is a better candidate.

I noticed that you consider audio and video tapes evidence. I wonder how the current president was elected if that is the case and if you would truly accept such evidence in Moore's case or just Trumpsplain and disregard it a la Access Hollywood..

I did not vote for Trump. THe tape doesn't mention any of the women by name. So we don't know if he was BSing or confessing.

Lots of people claiming the same knowledge is the definition of common knowledge. Wow

We don't know if they had this was actually "knowledge" before or after the election and molestation story came out or if people were saying these things for decades. So no it doesn't make it common knowledge.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

I think its more to do with you being a liberal and Moore not being a liberal why you don't think Moore is a better candidate.


I did not vote for Trump. THe tape doesn't mention any of the women by name. So we don't know if he was BSing or confessing.



We don't know if they had this was actually "knowledge" before or after the election and molestation story came out or if people were saying these things for decades. So no it doesn't make it common knowledge.

Why would you make that first statement? Pretend for a moment that I didn't publish my lean as liberal. What in the world would give you reason to believe what you just said?

It's common knowledge because more than thirty people independently claim contemporaneous knowledge. You saying it isn't so doesn't matter.

 

[Manc Skipper]

A handful of people claiming this and that doesn't make it true. When Bill Clinton was president the republicans used to say oh it was common knowledge that Bill Clinton preyed on women in Arkansas.



I'll accept video tape of him molesting a girl, guilty conviction in criminal court, audio tape of Moore admitting to molesting the woman as a young teenager,or even authenticated paperwork banning Moore from the mall because of complaints of him going after young teenage girls.


No I wouldn't
https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...rray-child-sexual-abuse-5.html#post1067625762

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...murray-child-sexual-abuse.html#post1067624682

Yet set an impossible barrier of proof as someone who believes the Clintons guilty of all sorts. Trump has paid off several accusers, why would an innocent liar/man do that?

 

[jamesrage]

Why would you make that first statement? Pretend for a moment that I didn't publish my lean as liberal. What in the world would give you reason to believe what you just said?

It is the fact that almost everyone who says he is guilty is a liberal why I would have reason to believe that is why you think he is guilty and why you don't think Moore is the better candidate.

It's common knowledge because more than thirty people independently claim contemporaneous knowledge. You saying it isn't so doesn't matter.

We don't know if they actually independently made that claim or got together or heard about the story being written and decided to make up **** to derail Moore's chances of winning.

 

[jamesrage]

Yet set an impossible barrier of proof as someone who believes the Clintons guilty of all sorts. Trump has paid off several accusers, why would an innocent liar/man do that?

https://www.debatepolitics.com/poll...ts-congress-made-public-3.html#post1067892277

Some people just want the problem to go away the cheapest and what they think is the most effective way of legally making it go away. Some people settle out of court because fighting it in court even though they may be victorious might cost a lot more than just settling out of court. Its why some people may confess to a crime they didn't do. Its why husbands tell their wives they are right even though they aren't or no that dress doesn't make you look fat even though she is.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

It is the fact that almost everyone who says he is guilty is a liberal why I would have reason to believe that is why you think he is guilty and why you don't think Moore is the better candidate.


We don't know if they actually independently made that claim or got together or heard about the story being written and decided to make up **** to derail Moore's chances of winning.

I'm not sure how many times I have to tell you that I am not declaring Moore guilty before you understand the words. I don't think he should have a seat in the Senate. The distinction between those two things should be pretty clear.

You think that more than forty unassociated people got together to derail Moore's Senate campaign? If you really are such an irrational serial denier, then we have no basis for maintaining a productive dialogue.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

https://www.debatepolitics.com/poll...ts-congress-made-public-3.html#post1067892277

Some people just want the problem to go away the cheapest and what they think is the most effective way of legally making it go away. Some people settle out of court because fighting it in court even though they may be victorious might cost a lot more than just settling out of court. Its why some people may confess to a crime they didn't do. Its why husbands tell their wives they are right even though they aren't or no that dress doesn't make you look fat even though she is.

You mean like John Conyers.