Roy Moore the Pedophile

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, no blanket condemnation of Moore from the right?

Underaged girls aren't off limits?

I would like some proof before condemnation.
All it takes is an allegation to destroy someone. And, the Dems know that.
All these years, and this person never spoke up? #notbelievingit

four people, not one person. four people who don't know each other.

i feel pretty confident we will be hearing from more once this floodgate's breached.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than it looks bad to you, I'm sorry to say, not too many people will find it objectionable.

So he likes girls on the young side. They were all 16 to 18, certainly an age where girls date and have sexual relationships without raising eyebrows. If they were 12 or 13, that's another story. But 16+...meh. None of them reported forced contact or sexual relationship. So...what's the big deal? He couldn't have known he'd become a public figure. I get that you think a 30-year old should not be dating 16-year olds, and that's certainly a prudent point of view. But as far as I'm concerned, nothing criminal took place.

One of them was 14. So it would have been illegal at the time. The statements from the women who were older simply provides credibility to the other claim. And, AFAIK, he has denied ALL the accusations.

The article is behind a paywall for me. If one of them was 14, that changes the deal completely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than it looks bad to you, I'm sorry to say, not too many people will find it objectionable.

So he likes girls on the young side. They were all 16 to 18, certainly an age where girls date and have sexual relationships without raising eyebrows. If they were 12 or 13, that's another story. But 16+...meh. None of them reported forced contact or sexual relationship. So...what's the big deal? He couldn't have known he'd become a public figure. I get that you think a 30-year old should not be dating 16-year olds, and that's certainly a prudent point of view. But as far as I'm concerned, nothing criminal took place.

The central figure in the story was 14. I guess that's in a grey area for you? 16 is fine but 12-13 is problematic... so where do 14-15 fall on your spectrum?

A 32 year old coming on to someone he KNEW was 16 is pretty gross too.

And he came onto the 14 year at the courthouse when her mother was there in the court having a child custody hearing. That's predatory in the way that priests abuse vulnerable children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than it looks bad to you, I'm sorry to say, not too many people will find it objectionable.

So he likes girls on the young side. They were all 16 to 18, certainly an age where girls date and have sexual relationships without raising eyebrows. If they were 12 or 13, that's another story. But 16+...meh. None of them reported forced contact or sexual relationship. So...what's the big deal? He couldn't have known he'd become a public figure. I get that you think a 30-year old should not be dating 16-year olds, and that's certainly a prudent point of view. But as far as I'm concerned, nothing criminal took place.

The central figure in the story was 14. I guess that's in a grey area for you? 16 is fine but 12-13 is problematic... so where do 14-15 fall on your spectrum?

A 32 year old coming on to someone he KNEW was 16 is pretty gross too.

And he came onto the 14 year at the courthouse when her mother was there in the court having a child custody hearing. That's predatory in the way that priests abuse vulnerable children.

I responded only to the posted abstract. I can't access the whole article. If one of them was 14, that changes things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than it looks bad to you, I'm sorry to say, not too many people will find it objectionable.

So he likes girls on the young side. They were all 16 to 18, certainly an age where girls date and have sexual relationships without raising eyebrows. If they were 12 or 13, that's another story. But 16+...meh. None of them reported forced contact or sexual relationship. So...what's the big deal? He couldn't have known he'd become a public figure. I get that you think a 30-year old should not be dating 16-year olds, and that's certainly a prudent point of view. But as far as I'm concerned, nothing criminal took place.

One of them was 14. So it would have been illegal at the time. The statements from the women who were older simply provides credibility to the other claim. And, AFAIK, he has denied ALL the accusations.

The article is behind a paywall for me. If one of them was 14, that changes the deal completely.

Every other new outlet has excerpted it. It's there in full text on the al.com site. Read it--it's horrifying and very thoroughly reported.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liberal projection. So transparent

Whenever I use a projector, I like to make sure there is a transparency. What does this have to do with Roy Moore?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/woman-says-roy-moore-initiated-sexual-encounter-when-she-was-14-he-was-32/2017/11/09/1f495878-c293-11e7-afe9-4f60b5a6c4a0_story.html

This changes the entire campaign. And, my guess, is that Jones knew about it through his contacts in various prosecutors offices.

Of course it’s all true! It’s amazing how Hollywood has been framed by Trump and co

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Curious this is coming out now. Very curious.

And the same things Dems have done! Isn’t that so amazing ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than it looks bad to you, I'm sorry to say, not too many people will find it objectionable.

So he likes girls on the young side. They were all 16 to 18, certainly an age where girls date and have sexual relationships without raising eyebrows. If they were 12 or 13, that's another story. But 16+...meh. None of them reported forced contact or sexual relationship. So...what's the big deal? He couldn't have known he'd become a public figure. I get that you think a 30-year old should not be dating 16-year olds, and that's certainly a prudent point of view. But as far as I'm concerned, nothing criminal took place.

One of them was 14. So it would have been illegal at the time. The statements from the women who were older simply provides credibility to the other claim. And, AFAIK, he has denied ALL the accusations.

The article is behind a paywall for me. If one of them was 14, that changes the deal completely.

Here you go - no paywall on WTOP: https://wtop.com/government/2017/11/report-moore-accused-of-sexual-contact-with-14-year-old/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than it looks bad to you, I'm sorry to say, not too many people will find it objectionable.

So he likes girls on the young side. They were all 16 to 18, certainly an age where girls date and have sexual relationships without raising eyebrows. If they were 12 or 13, that's another story. But 16+...meh. None of them reported forced contact or sexual relationship. So...what's the big deal? He couldn't have known he'd become a public figure. I get that you think a 30-year old should not be dating 16-year olds, and that's certainly a prudent point of view. But as far as I'm concerned, nothing criminal took place.

One of them was 14. So it would have been illegal at the time. The statements from the women who were older simply provides credibility to the other claim. And, AFAIK, he has denied ALL the accusations.

The article is behind a paywall for me. If one of them was 14, that changes the deal completely.

Every other new outlet has excerpted it. It's there in full text on the al.com site. Read it--it's horrifying and very thoroughly reported.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/359636-roy-moore-accused-of-sexual-encounter-with-14-year-old-girl-when-he-was-32

The GOP's favorite to win Alabama's Senate race next month is being accused of inappropriate sexual conduct with a 14-year-old girl in 1979, according to an explosive new report in The Washington Post. 
 
Leigh Corfman, now 53, said she met GOP candidate Roy Moore when he offered to watch her during her mother's child custody hearing. Moore, at the time, served as an assistant district attorney.

Corfman said Moore asked for her phone number, and that the two met on two more occasions. On the first, the two kissed. During the second, she said Moore removed his clothes, took off her shirt and pants, and touched her over her bra and underpants, according to the account in the newspaper.
  

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If liberals really believed this and that it would affect the outcome, they would want Moore to stay in the race.

Either they don't believe it or think it is not going to make a difference in the result. Seriously, unless there is tape of him doing something when she was 14, most Alabamans would believe that this is fake news whether it is or not. The timing is too suspect for one thing.

Keep telling yourself that. The moral depravity that makes up the GOP base wants nothing more than to victimize these (now) women for a second time. WWMD? What will McConnell do?

Alabamans are not going to believe this story that has been conveniently timed to come out right before the election.

Whether it is true or not, a story from the WAPO does not carry any credibility in Alabama.

Oh, so when was a convenient time to out Roy Moore as a pedophile? i didn't realize for-profit media companies were required to align strategies with political parties.

Attraction to 16 to 18 year olds does not count as pedophilia. I get that you don't like the idea of a 30-year old dating 18-year olds, but they were all over the customary age of consent to kissing.

Thanks for the Breitbart POV.

[Anonymous]

Seems like a good day to donate to Doug Jones.
https://dougjonesforsenate.com/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than it looks bad to you, I'm sorry to say, not too many people will find it objectionable.

So he likes girls on the young side. They were all 16 to 18, certainly an age where girls date and have sexual relationships without raising eyebrows. If they were 12 or 13, that's another story. But 16+...meh. None of them reported forced contact or sexual relationship. So...what's the big deal? He couldn't have known he'd become a public figure. I get that you think a 30-year old should not be dating 16-year olds, and that's certainly a prudent point of view. But as far as I'm concerned, nothing criminal took place.

One of them was 14. So it would have been illegal at the time. The statements from the women who were older simply provides credibility to the other claim. And, AFAIK, he has denied ALL the accusations.

The article is behind a paywall for me. If one of them was 14, that changes the deal completely.

Every other new outlet has excerpted it. It's there in full text on the al.com site. Read it--it's horrifying and very thoroughly reported.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/359636-roy-moore-accused-of-sexual-encounter-with-14-year-old-girl-when-he-was-32

The GOP's favorite to win Alabama's Senate race next month is being accused of inappropriate sexual conduct with a 14-year-old girl in 1979, according to an explosive new report in The Washington Post. 
 
Leigh Corfman, now 53, said she met GOP candidate Roy Moore when he offered to watch her during her mother's child custody hearing. Moore, at the time, served as an assistant district attorney.

Corfman said Moore asked for her phone number, and that the two met on two more occasions. On the first, the two kissed. During the second, she said Moore removed his clothes, took off her shirt and pants, and touched her over her bra and underpants, according to the account in the newspaper.
  

That is so unbelievably sleazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Debbie Wesson Gibson says she was 17 when Moore spoke to her high school civics class and asked her out on the first of several dates that did not progress beyond kissing.

Wonder how much Dems paid for their lies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone remember the Franklin Files in 1988? The very first vast conspiracy? The supposed victim got 4.5 years in jail for perjury. That case’s orgins are interesting. I understand why Weinstein came out when it did. I totally understand why Spacey came out when it did. Moore? If he’s guilty, he’s gone. Pure and simple. If it is a fraudulent charge, we’ll see.

Why say "if"?

There is as much or more proof in this story as Spacey, Weinstein and trump.

Oh, I see the pattern.

Weinstein and Spacey checked themselves into sex rehab.