Roy Moore the Pedophile

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know that no one who supposedly knew about this never reported a thing.

Why wait until 30 days before a heated election?
That's not even enough time for an investigation.

Something fishy about that.

Dude he admitted to everything except the 14 year old saying that he always got permission from the teenagers moms before dating them.

He admitted to knowing at least two of them. He won't say it didn't happen just, "I don't recall" and "I dated a lot of young women"

Exactly. So what's going on here is liberals don't like that an older man dated women of legal dating age, and asked their mothers for permission? 38 years ago? How many men in Hollywood are married to much younger women? It doesn't matter if you think it's skeevy, even for 38 years ago. What matter is if it's LEGAL. Timeframe and location matter, as do norms sat the time of the alleged 'crime'.

Is there any concrete proof, aside from 'word of mouth' that Moore knew the 14 year old was actually 14, not 16? And didn't he ask her mother as well? And if so, why did they not say "she's only 14?" and if they said they did, where is the concrete proof of that?

1. He told her mother he would watch her daughter while the mother went into the hearing. Does that sound like he didn't realize she was a minor?

2. I grew up in the 70's and a 32 year old hittting on a teenager would have been considered gross and inappropriate.

3. Would you be fine with a 30 something year old dating your 16 year old (much less your 14 year old)?

1) Let's start with the fact that this is a one-sided accusation and that's what the mother SAYS happened. I would imagine the mother was expressing concern about leaving her daughter outside in a hallway while she went through court hearings, and he was answering that concern.

2) I am 56. Graduated in '79 up north. This was not unusual even up there, though northerners DID raise their eyebrows at it more. The south is a different place

3) If my daughter was of legal age, what I thought would only matter on a moral level, not a legal level. The problem here is that in order to make the accusations fit, it HAS to hinge on Moore KNOWING this girl was 14. I have no concrete proof that is true. And I don't believe in destroying ANYONE without concrete proof.

The proof is that he didn't come to the front door to "court" her. He had her sneak out behind her mother's back.

That is what you are being told. Perhaps she did that because she told him she was 16 and her mother KNEW she was only 14 and she didn't want to be stopped. Perhaps that's not what happened at all. There are plenty of teenagers that have lied about their age and snuck out of their homes.

Again, you don't KNOW what the truth is. You only know what they are SAYING is true. If this were any democratic candidate, you would be destroying this woman! In fact, it's been done....

Sorry you don't believe women. You are the very reason we don't speak up when harassed and molested.

I don't believe women all the time, no. There was just a woman in NY who claimed to have been harassed by men who lied and pled guilty. She lied because she didn't want her parents to find out what she was really up to. There was a woman who lied about being raped in college and the man was expelled and his name was trashed. There was a MAN in Atlanta blamed for a bombing who was actually a hero. There was another woman who lied and trashed the reputations a bunch of Lacrosse players at Duke.

That has nothing to do with women who have been molested and everything to do with the fact that yes, some women lie.

Four of them, who don't know each other? And then they got multiple friends and even elderly mothers to go on record to back up their stories? And the one who was 14 - her ex boyfriend just came out and said she had told him the story when they were dating. Is he lying too? She must be something to be able to convince people to lie like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know that no one who supposedly knew about this never reported a thing.

Why wait until 30 days before a heated election?
That's not even enough time for an investigation.

Something fishy about that.

Dude he admitted to everything except the 14 year old saying that he always got permission from the teenagers moms before dating them.

He admitted to knowing at least two of them. He won't say it didn't happen just, "I don't recall" and "I dated a lot of young women"

Exactly. So what's going on here is liberals don't like that an older man dated women of legal dating age, and asked their mothers for permission? 38 years ago? How many men in Hollywood are married to much younger women? It doesn't matter if you think it's skeevy, even for 38 years ago. What matter is if it's LEGAL. Timeframe and location matter, as do norms sat the time of the alleged 'crime'.

Is there any concrete proof, aside from 'word of mouth' that Moore knew the 14 year old was actually 14, not 16? And didn't he ask her mother as well? And if so, why did they not say "she's only 14?" and if they said they did, where is the concrete proof of that?

... says the person who was absolutely convinced Hillary Cilnton was running a child sex ring from the basement of Comet Pizza.

Actually I thought that was ridiculous. But there you are, assuming I feel a certain way. My point is proven - liberal lie.

A lot of your kind most certainly did.

Were Denny Hastert's accusers lying? Mark Foley's? How about Larry "Wide Stance" Craig? Ok, the Craig thing didn't involve minors, but still, what is it with Republican "family values" politicians and their peculiar sexual perversions?

I believe the women. If you don't find the Post credible, there's literally something wrong with you. And you don't dare get to impugn the Post -- you loved their reporting last week about Donna Brazille, didn't you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair to Moore, the 14 year old was unusually tall, probably looked closer to 16-18 when he did it. And the age of consent in Alabama is 16. And the dating pool is/was quite shallow as most women in the 70s in Alabama were married by their late teens. My grandmother was married at 17, the week after she graduated from high school.

Facts don't matter to liberals. Put a bunch of teens in a lineup and I guarantee you that most liberal men would guess their age incorrectly. Furthermore, these idiots are deliberately 'forgetting' that almost 40 years has gone by and that it was a southern state where women did marry quite early. My very liberal MIL was pregnant with her first at 19, and that was in Ohio, never mind AL.

Why would a mother, at the courthouse for a hearing, need someone to watch a 19 year old? Especially if way back in the olden times in the south a 19 year old was practically an old maid? Something fishy about that story. Oh maybe it's because her daughter was actually 14 and still looked on as a minor.

I said my MIL was 19. This girl could easily be mistaken for 16. You know that, and that's why you are shifting the goalposts.

Doesn't matter how old your MIL was. If teenagers were practically brides back then why would the mother have needed supervision for a daughter if she was 16? Needing supervision implies she was still a minor needing protection from an adult. Is that what you call hitting on her?

Wasn't she going in for some sort of custody hearing? I would imagine that would make any mother paranoid to leave her daughter. Furthermore, I would have felt uncomfortable leaving my daughter at 14, 16, even 18 alone for a long period of time in a court setting, given the types of people that show up in courtrooms. There's a reason why I can't bring my knitting to jury duty, to pass the time. You are in no position to judge the motives of a mother going through marital issues in a court of law 38 years ago, when single mothers were more frowned upon

Yes of course. And probably if you were uncomfortable leaving you teenager daughter alone in that situation you the last thing you'd have wanted is a 30 something year old man making the moves on her when he was entrusted to chaperoning her.

Again, all you have is emotion here. I want to know what provable fact is. I don't believe in destroying anyone over how I - or anyone else feels.

You are impugning on a middle aged woman and her 71 year old woman and her friends who have backed her up saying they aren't trustworthy. Why do you think they would lie and make this up? Would you be able to convince your mother and your friends and your ex boyfriend to go on record to the nation and lie about something like this? We already know Roy Moore is capable of lying because he has a track record of it. The simplest story is usually the true one, and it is much easier to believe a proven liar is lying than to believe 30 some people who don't all know one another are all lying.

Yes, I am. Because I am given no hard fact, just their statements. And I don't believe anyone on face value. People lie for many reasons. And given the political background of one of the 'victims', and given the WaPo endorsing the opposition, there are two hard FACTS that give me doubt.

Did you believe the accusations against Harvey Weinstein? Mark Halperin? Do you believe them about Kevin Spacey? How about anyone on this list: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/10/us/men-accused-sexual-misconduct-weinstein.html?_r=0

In every single case on that list -- 21 names -- the fact pattern was very similar to Moore's situation, where multiple accusers came forward with corroboration. In every single instance, it was true and the perp has suffered some consequence.

But, you have Roy Moore -- a disreputable charlatan with no personal or professional integrity before running for higher office -- and suddenly you're not sure if you should believe the four women who independently confirm this happened to them and have 30 corroborating witnesses who confirm they knew about it when it happened?

Hell, even Moore's defenders seem to acknowledge it's true -- they're just saying stupid things to justify it like Mary was married to Joseph (it's actually literally blasphemy to defend child molestation in this way, but I digress). So, which is it -- you believe it's true but can justify it, or you're just not sure it's true?

[Anonymous]

She isn't lying. He did this. Stop supporting pedophilia. So gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FUN FACT: Dem Menendez is on trail for corruption which included sex with underage girls in the DR.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: Dem Wiener is in jail for sexual advancements towards a teen.

And they are both done in politics as they should be

Exactly. If they're pyaing the consequences, then Roy Moore should be, too.

[Anonymous]

Wow, GOP bible thumper turns out to be a hypocritical pedophile.

This story is as old as the hills, folks. It’s who the GOP are.

[Anonymous]

Welp, Barbara Comstock says Moore needs to GTFO. I don’t agree with her on much, but she’s right in this case.

[Anonymous]

We coastal elites just don't get it, do we? It's perfectly fine for adults to make sexual advances at children. After all, the little tarts are asking for it.

/s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Welp, Barbara Comstock says Moore needs to GTFO. I don’t agree with her on much, but she’s right in this case.

It will be interesting to watch Comstock come to terms with the realization that she is done in Congress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FUN FACT: Dem Menendez is on trail for corruption which included sex with underage girls in the DR.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: Dem Wiener is in jail for sexual advancements towards a teen.

And they are both done in politics as they should be

Show us links to quotes of democratic senators condemning menenedez... doesn’t exist!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair to Moore, the 14 year old was unusually tall, probably looked closer to 16-18 when he did it. And the age of consent in Alabama is 16. And the dating pool is/was quite shallow as most women in the 70s in Alabama were married by their late teens. My grandmother was married at 17, the week after she graduated from high school.

Facts don't matter to liberals. Put a bunch of teens in a lineup and I guarantee you that most liberal men would guess their age incorrectly. Furthermore, these idiots are deliberately 'forgetting' that almost 40 years has gone by and that it was a southern state where women did marry quite early. My very liberal MIL was pregnant with her first at 19, and that was in Ohio, never mind AL.

Why would a mother, at the courthouse for a hearing, need someone to watch a 19 year old? Especially if way back in the olden times in the south a 19 year old was practically an old maid? Something fishy about that story. Oh maybe it's because her daughter was actually 14 and still looked on as a minor.

I said my MIL was 19. This girl could easily be mistaken for 16. You know that, and that's why you are shifting the goalposts.

Doesn't matter how old your MIL was. If teenagers were practically brides back then why would the mother have needed supervision for a daughter if she was 16? Needing supervision implies she was still a minor needing protection from an adult. Is that what you call hitting on her?

Wasn't she going in for some sort of custody hearing? I would imagine that would make any mother paranoid to leave her daughter. Furthermore, I would have felt uncomfortable leaving my daughter at 14, 16, even 18 alone for a long period of time in a court setting, given the types of people that show up in courtrooms. There's a reason why I can't bring my knitting to jury duty, to pass the time. You are in no position to judge the motives of a mother going through marital issues in a court of law 38 years ago, when single mothers were more frowned upon

Yes of course. And probably if you were uncomfortable leaving you teenager daughter alone in that situation you the last thing you'd have wanted is a 30 something year old man making the moves on her when he was entrusted to chaperoning her.

Again, all you have is emotion here. I want to know what provable fact is. I don't believe in destroying anyone over how I - or anyone else feels.

You are impugning on a middle aged woman and her 71 year old woman and her friends who have backed her up saying they aren't trustworthy. Why do you think they would lie and make this up? Would you be able to convince your mother and your friends and your ex boyfriend to go on record to the nation and lie about something like this? We already know Roy Moore is capable of lying because he has a track record of it. The simplest story is usually the true one, and it is much easier to believe a proven liar is lying than to believe 30 some people who don't all know one another are all lying.

Yes, I am. Because I am given no hard fact, just their statements. And I don't believe anyone on face value. People lie for many reasons. And given the political background of one of the 'victims', and given the WaPo endorsing the opposition, there are two hard FACTS that give me doubt.

So 30 of your coworkers who don't all know each other come to you and tell you about some creepy behavior your boss has engaged in. Your boss hears about it and says, no I did not. Turns out he was at the place at the time one of the accusers says he was. And turns out you know your boss has lied in the past - let's say he told the IRS he didn't get overtime pay, but you've seen the paperwork and sure enough he did.

You are telling me you wouldn't believe your coworkers because they don't present "hard facts"? They're ALL lying, 30 of them??

I'm sorry but most of us, given a situation where we have to decide whether 30 people are lying vs. just one, it's much more likely that one is lying especially if he has a track record of lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FUN FACT: Dem Menendez is on trail for corruption which included sex with underage girls in the DR.

ANOTHER FUN FACT: Dem Wiener is in jail for sexual advancements towards a teen.

And they are both done in politics as they should be

Show us links to quotes of democratic senators condemning menenedez... doesn’t exist!

That's a fair point. So, I suppose, then, that you would agree that since this is a comparable situation that Roy Moore should be on trial for child molestation, right?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, I am. Because I am given no hard fact, just their statements. And I don't believe anyone on face value. People lie for many reasons. And given the political background of one of the 'victims', and given the WaPo endorsing the opposition, there are two hard FACTS that give me doubt.

Don't you claim to be a victim of sexual abuse yourself? Moreover, don't you frequently use your claim to support your political positions? Would you apply the same sort of thinking you demonstrate in this post to yourself?

[jsteele]

The lawyer for one of the victims has released the following statement:

http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2017/11/one_of_roy_moores_accusers_roy.html

On behalf of Gloria Deason, please accept this additional statement on her behalf:

This statement is being given due to the public falsehoods and defamatory remarks being made by Roy Moore, many Alabama Republican officeholders and leaders, and Steve Bannon, regarding the motivations of Ms. Deason in describing her former relationship with Moore. She did not seek public exposure on the events described in The Washington Post article. She was contacted by the Post reporters several weeks ago. After careful consideration, and fully understanding that her character and veracity would be viciously attacked, she nonetheless agreed to go on the record and tell the truth.

Ms. Deason confirms that the The Post accurately reported the substance of her interviews with them. She does not know the other women named in the article. She is no longer a resident of Alabama. She is a registered Republican, but has no affiliation with the RNC and has not been contacted by the RNC or any Republican leaders at any time. The same is true for the DNC and Democratic leaders. She does not know Doug Jones, has not been contacted at any point by him or anyone associated with his campaign nor made any financial contributions to him.

There is nothing about being public regarding her relationship with Roy Moore that will enhance Ms. Deason's life. She did not seek the limelight. No glory, no financial compensation, no justice. But she stands firmly on the truth. No one can take that away from her. No one.

And Roy Moore knows the truth. Notably, he has not denied knowing Ms. Deason, or pursuing and dating her when she was 18 and he was in his mid-thirties. He has not denied plying her with alcohol knowing in his position as a district attorney that she was younger than the legal drinking age. He has not given a press conference or opened himself up to questions on his relationship with Ms. Deason or the other women named in the article. He appears to be in hiding while issuing incendiary statements about the women, calling them "evil" and accusing them of bribery and conspiracy with the DNC. He has also sent emails to his supporters using this as a reason to request more financial contributions for his campaign.

It is reprehensible that so many Alabama Republican officeholders and leaders of their party have rejected wholesale the magnitude of evidence reported in The Post. Worse yet, they claim that even if they believed the statements of pedophilia and sexual assault, specifically against Leigh Corfman (the 14 year old), to be true, they don't find it to be illegal or immoral conduct by Moore. A 14 year old cannot legally give consent for sex. In short, these leaders don't care. This is a stunning admission that the GOP is not a party of family values, certainly not in Alabama. And Steve Bannon's ridiculous statement that Moore's misconduct is akin to "locker room talk" deserves no response. It fails on its face.

For those critical of these 4 women for not voluntarily coming forward earlier, ask yourselves what difference it would have made. Republicans in Alabama, the Christian conservatives of the Deep South, are saying that they don't care if Roy Moore's predatory sexual child pursuits are true. It's no big deal to them that Moore abused his position of power as a district attorney and committed crimes against teenage women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, GOP bible thumper turns out to be a hypocritical pedophile.

This story is as old as the hills, folks. It’s who the GOP are.

Yup. The left prosecutes perverts. The right elects them.

Speaking of prosecute, I'm even more skeeved out to learn he worked for the district attorney's office while he was cruising the courthouse for targets.

The more pushback on this story, the more convinced I am that there's something much worse that hasn't come out yet.