Roy Moore the Pedophile

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dreaming is great, PP, isn't it?
The "fall" of the Republican Party?

We are witnessing the party being torn in two: traditional principled conservatives versus the Bannon wing where principles don’t count for anything in the quest for winning with the ultimate goal of destroying the federal government..

Let's be honest. Both parties have divisions.
Nothing new there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it so hard to follow the 18-and-over rule?

It is when the legal age was 16, 38 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it so hard to follow the 18-and-over rule?

It is when the legal age was 16, 38 years ago.

She was 14.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dreaming is great, PP, isn't it?
The "fall" of the Republican Party?

We are witnessing the party being torn in two: traditional principled conservatives versus the Bannon wing where principles don’t count for anything in the quest for winning with the ultimate goal of destroying the federal government..

Let's be honest. Both parties have divisions.
Nothing new there.

Really? Because usually governments who control the Supreme Court, the House, the Senate, and the presidency can get things done. Right now Republicans are paralyzed by their own divisions and have accomplished exactly nothing.

[Anonymous]

There seems to be a contradiction between mother and daughter....no surprise...



Citing Corfman, the Post reported:

After her mother went into the courtroom, Corfman says, Moore asked her where she went to school, what she liked to do and whether he could call her sometime. She remembers giving him her number and says he called not long after. She says she talked to Moore on her phone in her bedroom, and they made plans for him to pick her up at Alcott Road and Riley Street, around the corner from her house.

Corfman clearly claimed she spoke to Moore on what she said was “her phone in her bedroom” on at least one of those occasions. The Post did not specify whether the second or third alleged calls purportedly took place on a bedroom phone.

When her mother was asked whether or not her daughter had a phone in her room, this was the reply:


Wells, Corfman’s mother, was asked by Breitbart News: “Back then did she have her own phone in her room or something?”

“No,” she replied matter-of-factly. “But the phone in the house could get through to her easily.”

It's details like this that trip up stories - this is why police often question people multiple times in multiple ways - they want to see the inconsistencies that appear. Those inconsistencies are what leads an officer to break open a case.

What this is going to do is cause liberals here to me suppositions: "I bet she stretched the phone cord" or "Perhaps the cord was long enough for her to take the phone in her room?"

And those will just be 'perhaps' and 'maybes' and 'I bets'. That's it. That's all.

[Anonymous]

^^ make suppositions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it so hard to follow the 18-and-over rule?

It is when the legal age was 16, 38 years ago.

She was 14.

There is no concrete proof that Moore knew of that, if in fact the encounter occurred. None. Nada.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a contradiction between mother and daughter....no surprise...



Citing Corfman, the Post reported:

After her mother went into the courtroom, Corfman says, Moore asked her where she went to school, what she liked to do and whether he could call her sometime. She remembers giving him her number and says he called not long after. She says she talked to Moore on her phone in her bedroom, and they made plans for him to pick her up at Alcott Road and Riley Street, around the corner from her house.

Corfman clearly claimed she spoke to Moore on what she said was “her phone in her bedroom” on at least one of those occasions. The Post did not specify whether the second or third alleged calls purportedly took place on a bedroom phone.

When her mother was asked whether or not her daughter had a phone in her room, this was the reply:


Wells, Corfman’s mother, was asked by Breitbart News: “Back then did she have her own phone in her room or something?”

“No,” she replied matter-of-factly. “But the phone in the house could get through to her easily.”

It's details like this that trip up stories - this is why police often question people multiple times in multiple ways - they want to see the inconsistencies that appear. Those inconsistencies are what leads an officer to break open a case.

What this is going to do is cause liberals here to me suppositions: "I bet she stretched the phone cord" or "Perhaps the cord was long enough for her to take the phone in her room?"

And those will just be 'perhaps' and 'maybes' and 'I bets'. That's it. That's all.

Everybody used to have one or two house phones back then. Many people used to have had a long cords that could reach to bedrooms or closets. Totally normal. If that’s all you got, you are losing this argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a contradiction between mother and daughter....no surprise...



Citing Corfman, the Post reported:

After her mother went into the courtroom, Corfman says, Moore asked her where she went to school, what she liked to do and whether he could call her sometime. She remembers giving him her number and says he called not long after. She says she talked to Moore on her phone in her bedroom, and they made plans for him to pick her up at Alcott Road and Riley Street, around the corner from her house.

Corfman clearly claimed she spoke to Moore on what she said was “her phone in her bedroom” on at least one of those occasions. The Post did not specify whether the second or third alleged calls purportedly took place on a bedroom phone.

When her mother was asked whether or not her daughter had a phone in her room, this was the reply:


Wells, Corfman’s mother, was asked by Breitbart News: “Back then did she have her own phone in her room or something?”

“No,” she replied matter-of-factly. “But the phone in the house could get through to her easily.”

It's details like this that trip up stories - this is why police often question people multiple times in multiple ways - they want to see the inconsistencies that appear. Those inconsistencies are what leads an officer to break open a case.

What this is going to do is cause liberals here to me suppositions: "I bet she stretched the phone cord" or "Perhaps the cord was long enough for her to take the phone in her room?"

And those will just be 'perhaps' and 'maybes' and 'I bets'. That's it. That's all.

Everybody used to have one or two house phones back then. Many people used to have had a long cords that could reach to bedrooms or closets. Totally normal. If that’s all you got, you are losing this argument.

Except the girl clearly said it was HER phone in HER room. So you have to suppose and make things up. That's my exact point. You are embellishing her story to make it fit your narrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it so hard to follow the 18-and-over rule?

It is when the legal age was 16, 38 years ago.

She was 14.

There is no concrete proof that Moore knew of that, if in fact the encounter occurred. None. Nada.

Look up statutory rape sometime. It doesn’t matter what he knew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Which is worse - the last minute fake news bombshell or the concerted effort of both the left and never trumpers that is obvious?

All you people who are questioning the timing—seems like you want to prevent Alabamans from hearing about Roy Moore before they send him to the senate for 6 years. You make everything sound like a conspiracy but basically you want to keep Alabama residents from hearing any negative news.

The WaPo’s endorsement of the opposition can before the story. And they drum up an activist at random?

Link or it didn't happen.

Google is your friend. That little fact is no secret, nor surprise, given WaPo's bias.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dreaming is great, PP, isn't it?
The "fall" of the Republican Party?

We are witnessing the party being torn in two: traditional principled conservatives versus the Bannon wing where principles don’t count for anything in the quest for winning with the ultimate goal of destroying the federal government..

Let's be honest. Both parties have divisions.
Nothing new there.

No. Not like this. And this isn't "divisions" - this is your party being hijacked by the worst people on earth.

Anyway, enjoy your last hurrah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a contradiction between mother and daughter....no surprise...



Citing Corfman, the Post reported:

After her mother went into the courtroom, Corfman says, Moore asked her where she went to school, what she liked to do and whether he could call her sometime. She remembers giving him her number and says he called not long after. She says she talked to Moore on her phone in her bedroom, and they made plans for him to pick her up at Alcott Road and Riley Street, around the corner from her house.

Corfman clearly claimed she spoke to Moore on what she said was “her phone in her bedroom” on at least one of those occasions. The Post did not specify whether the second or third alleged calls purportedly took place on a bedroom phone.

When her mother was asked whether or not her daughter had a phone in her room, this was the reply:


Wells, Corfman’s mother, was asked by Breitbart News: “Back then did she have her own phone in her room or something?”

“No,” she replied matter-of-factly. “But the phone in the house could get through to her easily.”

It's details like this that trip up stories - this is why police often question people multiple times in multiple ways - they want to see the inconsistencies that appear. Those inconsistencies are what leads an officer to break open a case.

What this is going to do is cause liberals here to me suppositions: "I bet she stretched the phone cord" or "Perhaps the cord was long enough for her to take the phone in her room?"

And those will just be 'perhaps' and 'maybes' and 'I bets'. That's it. That's all.

Everybody used to have one or two house phones back then. Many people used to have had a long cords that could reach to bedrooms or closets. Totally normal. If that’s all you got, you are losing this argument.

Except the girl clearly said it was HER phone in HER room. So you have to suppose and make things up. That's my exact point. You are embellishing her story to make it fit your narrative.

Hmmm. Minor irrelevant detail versus 30 sources. You are really defending this guy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Which is worse - the last minute fake news bombshell or the concerted effort of both the left and never trumpers that is obvious?

All you people who are questioning the timing—seems like you want to prevent Alabamans from hearing about Roy Moore before they send him to the senate for 6 years. You make everything sound like a conspiracy but basically you want to keep Alabama residents from hearing any negative news.

The WaPo’s endorsement of the opposition can before the story. And they drum up an activist at random?

Link or it didn't happen.

Google is your friend. That little fact is no secret, nor surprise, given WaPo's bias.

All sources are biased. What matters is the accuracy of the reporting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a contradiction between mother and daughter....no surprise...



Citing Corfman, the Post reported:

After her mother went into the courtroom, Corfman says, Moore asked her where she went to school, what she liked to do and whether he could call her sometime. She remembers giving him her number and says he called not long after. She says she talked to Moore on her phone in her bedroom, and they made plans for him to pick her up at Alcott Road and Riley Street, around the corner from her house.

Corfman clearly claimed she spoke to Moore on what she said was “her phone in her bedroom” on at least one of those occasions. The Post did not specify whether the second or third alleged calls purportedly took place on a bedroom phone.

When her mother was asked whether or not her daughter had a phone in her room, this was the reply:


Wells, Corfman’s mother, was asked by Breitbart News: “Back then did she have her own phone in her room or something?”

“No,” she replied matter-of-factly. “But the phone in the house could get through to her easily.”

It's details like this that trip up stories - this is why police often question people multiple times in multiple ways - they want to see the inconsistencies that appear. Those inconsistencies are what leads an officer to break open a case.

What this is going to do is cause liberals here to me suppositions: "I bet she stretched the phone cord" or "Perhaps the cord was long enough for her to take the phone in her room?"

And those will just be 'perhaps' and 'maybes' and 'I bets'. That's it. That's all.

Everybody used to have one or two house phones back then. Many people used to have had a long cords that could reach to bedrooms or closets. Totally normal. If that’s all you got, you are losing this argument.

Except the girl clearly said it was HER phone in HER room. So you have to suppose and make things up. That's my exact point. You are embellishing her story to make it fit your narrative.

Hmmm. Minor irrelevant detail versus 30 sources. You are really defending this guy?

The Post is claiming to have 30 sources. They did not list them or name them. You simply believe the Post. I believe nothing until proven otherwise. And I don't take anyone out without definitive proof of wrongdoing.