Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore accused of statutory rape

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Silentpony:
Okay so help me with reasonable doubt, because I'm struggling as to when its applied, for lack of a better term. I'm assuming it means there is enough evidence to doubt that a crime took place. Fair enough.

But can you convict someone without evidence, only by showing there is no reasonable doubt? As in 'no reason to think they didn't do it' without any evidence that they did?

What's confusing you here is the double negative. The prosecutor doesn't have to put forward evidence that there is no doubt. Doubt is the absence of certainty, so for the prosecutor to prove that there was no doubt, he would have to prove that there was no absence, which is basically proving a negative - like asking someone to prove that the entire universe is not made of cheese. Even if it were true, in order to prove it you'd have to examine the entire universe and determine whether it was or was not made of cheese. In law, asking someone to prove a negative is generally considered an unacceptable burden.

So it's not the prosecutor's job to put forward evidence that proves the absence of doubt. He has to put forward evidence that proves the crime occurred and was committed by the defendant, and he has to do it to such a degree that it would be unreasonable to doubt him. (The time-travel scenario would be a good example of unreasonable doubt.) The task of the defence is simply to create such reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury. For witness testimony, that's easy; say the witness is lying.

To connect to your last statement; no, you cannot convict someone with no evidence. This is partly because the definition of "evidence" is super broad - it's literally anything relevant to the case, not just the smoking gun; that would more properly be termed an exhibit - and partly because, logically speaking, you cannot prove something beyond reasonable doubt without any evidence because you cannot prove anything without evidence. Evidence is how we prove things.

By this logic, what would be needed to convict him, or at the very least, what would most likely to convince a jury such.

Conversely how would the guy defend himself?

Potential Statute of Limitations aside, right now the fool has put himself in a corner, with the alleged victim having had a consistent story over 6 interviews.

Unfortunately, unless you have a rape kit from 30 years ago or a preponderance of witness evidence and a sympathetic jury, you won't get a criminal conviction. Civil conviction would be much easier, but civil cases like this wouldn't be paid for by the state, so that could get expensive.

On the other hand, outside of Kasich, I'm seeing a lot of the GOP deciding to "reluctantly" voted for the guy even if everything is true. I guess pedophiles are better than Democrats in their view.

altnameJag:
Unfortunately, unless you have a rape kit from 30 years ago or a preponderance of witness evidence and a sympathetic jury, you won't get a criminal conviction. Civil conviction would be much easier, but civil cases like this wouldn't be paid for by the state, so that could get expensive.

On the other hand, outside of Kasich, I'm seeing a lot of the GOP deciding to "reluctantly" voted for the guy even if everything is true. I guess pedophiles are better than Democrats in their view.

For the purpose of reducing your taxes-- the one holy purpose of legislation-- of course they are.

bastardofmelbourne:

Silentpony:
Okay so help me with reasonable doubt, because I'm struggling as to when its applied, for lack of a better term. I'm assuming it means there is enough evidence to doubt that a crime took place. Fair enough.

But can you convict someone without evidence, only by showing there is no reasonable doubt? As in 'no reason to think they didn't do it' without any evidence that they did?

What's confusing you here is the double negative. The prosecutor doesn't have to put forward evidence that there is no doubt. Doubt is the absence of certainty, so for the prosecutor to prove that there was no doubt, he would have to prove that there was no absence, which is basically proving a negative - like asking someone to prove that the entire universe is not made of cheese. Even if it were true, in order to prove it you'd have to examine the entire universe and determine whether it was or was not made of cheese. In law, asking someone to prove a negative is generally considered an unacceptable burden.

So it's not the prosecutor's job to put forward evidence that proves the absence of doubt. He has to put forward evidence that proves the crime occurred and was committed by the defendant, and he has to do it to such a degree that it would be unreasonable to doubt him. (The time-travel scenario would be a good example of unreasonable doubt.) The task of the defence is simply to create such reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury. For witness testimony, that's easy; say the witness is lying.

To connect to your last statement; no, you cannot convict someone with no evidence. This is partly because the definition of "evidence" is super broad - it's literally anything relevant to the case, not just the smoking gun; that would more properly be termed an exhibit - and partly because, logically speaking, you cannot prove something beyond reasonable doubt without any evidence because you cannot prove anything without evidence. Evidence is how we prove things.

I guess my problem is that as long as one person is willing to make allegations and testify in court, and have a second person willing to back-up their testimony, anyone can be found guilty of anything, because the accused has to prove they didn't do something, because two people are willing to, without anything other than oral testimony, claim the accused did something.

I still don't get, with the presumption of innocence, why I said he did X, and he says he didn't do X, the court sides with me, when the physical evidence is 50/50, ie none.

Silentpony:

I guess my problem is that as long as one person is willing to make allegations and testify in court, and have a second person willing to back-up their testimony, anyone can be found guilty of anything, because the accused has to prove they didn't do something, because two people are willing to, without anything other than oral testimony, claim the accused did something.

Two witness statements are highly unlikely to be sufficient evidence to make something beyond reasonable doubt.

Well this will probably go nowhere, GOP voter were okay with voting for someone who brag about sexually assaulting women, they don't give a crap about this stuff. And the GOP will just side with him causes religious people would vote for satan himself so long as he was against gay marriage.

Oh the justice thing, it's pretty scary to think that if just 1 person with good enough acting skill accuse you of something you could potentially end up in jail. Jury system is messed up and I can't wait till we just have AI replace them.

Silentpony:
I guess my problem is that as long as one person is willing to make allegations and testify in court, and have a second person willing to back-up their testimony, anyone can be found guilty of anything, because the accused has to prove they didn't do something, because two people are willing to, without anything other than oral testimony, claim the accused did something.

You're exaggerating the risk there. It's very simple for a defence lawyer to create reasonable doubt regarding witness testimony. He simply has to say "they're lying," and then start attacking their credibility. For a good lawyer, this is basic shit; pointing out discrepancies between their accounts and the factual record, luring the witness into contradicting themselves, bringing up otherwise-irrelevant personal details that put the character of the witness on trial.

This is fundamentally the reason why rape and sexual assault trials are so difficult for the victims. The victim is typically the only witness, their testimony is typically the only substantial piece of evidence, and the defence responds by trying to tear them to pieces on the stand. She's had one-night-stands before. She wasn't as drunk as she said she was. Why'd she wait to file charges? Why didn't she fight back? Why was she dressed like that?

Now, that's the defence lawyer's job, so it's hard to fault him for it, but it's awful for genuine victims of rape to have to go through that. With other crimes, there is irrefutable physical evidence. Murders leave a body. Assault leaves wounds. Theft leaves...well, theft doesn't leave stolen objects, because they are stolen, but you get the point. The closest parallel for sexual assault is a rape kit, and all that really does is prove that sex occurred, not that it was non-consensual. For a rape victim to give testimony means they have to open themselves up to the kind of interrogation we normally reserve for the perpetrators of a crime, not the victims of one.

Silentpony:
I still don't get, with the presumption of innocence, why I said he did X, and he says he didn't do X, the court sides with me, when the physical evidence is 50/50, ie none.

They often don't. Unless the witness' character is unimpeachable, or the defendant is notorious for lying, there is often no real reason for a jury to be swayed to believe one person's word over another's.

For a prosecutor, this is where you bring up circumstantial evidence. You present a motive for the crime. You create a narrative of what occurred that establishes the defendant's guilt. You almost-but-not-quite ask certain questions, leaving the implication hanging in the jury's mind. You make it sound ridiculous that the defendant wasn't guilty. And it's a hard ask, because "reasonable doubt" is super easy for the defence to establish, which is why it's such a high bar for the prosecution and why it's used for criminal convictions where the defendant's guilt must be 99% certain.

And if you still think that standard isn't high enough, well...go talk to a public prosecutor about it. Let them tell you about all the times when they've caught a guy by the balls and he is so guilty but he got off because the defence made a key witness look like a liar. If the bar was any higher, it would be impossible to convict anyone of anything.

How would you even raise it? "Beyond unreasonable doubt?" Your honour, the defendant was clearly being framed by robot doppelgangers from the future. And if he isn't, then the CIA is trying to cover up a mind-control conspiracy. We can't know for sure whether the victim even exists, because our reality is merely a psychological construct built from our brain's interpretation of sense-data that can be falsified with neuroelectrical stimulation. Clearly, the defendant is an innocent 13-year-old in the body of a 70-year-old man, and therefore cannot be tried as an adult.

Didn't see this linked yet, but looks like former deputy DA that worked alongside Moore said that 'it was common knowledge that Moore dated highschool girls'. No corroboration on the specific allegation that he sexually assaulted a 14 year old, but I think it adds some context here.

Jux:
Didn't see this linked yet, but looks like former deputy DA that worked alongside Moore said that 'it was common knowledge that Moore dated highschool girls'. No corroboration on the specific allegation that he sexually assaulted a 14 year old, but I think it adds some context here.

WaPo's initial investigation was supposedly prompted just by chasing up old rumours, which suggests that this was an open secret for a while now.

altnameJag:
Moore's going to be fine:

I want to disagree with you - there are polls that show the race as tied or even in favour of Doug Jones - but this is Alabama we're talking about here. It would take video footage of Moore sexually penetrating a dead donkey while denouncing Christ for his supporters to abandon him.

All I can conclude out of all this is Jesus Christ, American politics is dumb.

If Moore does win that Senate race, it may end up being a Pyrrhic victory for the Republicans. Think about it. Whether or not they personally denounced him, the Senate Republicans will still have to caucus with Roy Moore, a fucking child molester. A man who has been removed from office twice for refusing to do his job, has a history of vile bigotry that is well-documented, and is a fucking child molester who got banned from the mall in Gadsen, Alabama because he kept cruising for underage pussy there. How can anyone maintain a moral high ground when they have to caucus with that?

BeetleManiac:
If Moore does win that Senate race, it may end up being a Pyrrhic victory for the Republicans. Think about it. Whether or not they personally denounced him, the Senate Republicans will still have to caucus with Roy Moore, a fucking child molester. A man who has been removed from office twice for refusing to do his job, has a history of vile bigotry that is well-documented, and is a fucking child molester who got banned from the mall in Gadsen, Alabama because he kept cruising for underage pussy there. How can anyone maintain a moral high ground when they have to caucus with that?

Republicans do have precedent for claiming the moral high ground despite all evidence. This would be an extreme version of the same old.

BeetleManiac:
If Moore does win that Senate race, it may end up being a Pyrrhic victory for the Republicans. Think about it. Whether or not they personally denounced him, the Senate Republicans will still have to caucus with Roy Moore, a fucking child molester. A man who has been removed from office twice for refusing to do his job, has a history of vile bigotry that is well-documented, and is a fucking child molester who got banned from the mall in Gadsen, Alabama because he kept cruising for underage pussy there. How can anyone maintain a moral high ground when they have to caucus with that?

I'm glad someone brought up the Gadsen Mall (and also the YMCA/Y) thing. Even if people want to claim that the (now) 5 Women are 'lying' (and they have no reason to lie), him being banned from several major areas of Gadsen due to harassing women (specifically teenaged women) would paint him as a bad person regardless.

Also, the Senate appears to be on the verge of completely banning Moore over this: McConnell has declared that he supports the Women and that Moore should step down period, several Members of the Senate are planning on looking for a Write In Candidate (including current Attorney General, Jeff Sessions), and several other Members are saying he should be kicked out if he wins.

But considering these facts that have now surfaced, I can't see Moore winning anymore; I know there are a lot of jokes about Alabama and how die-hard Republican and Evangelical it is, but with all of this information being released about how awful Moore is, and with how he treated women in the 70's and 80's, only the most die hard of either group would support Moore anymore. Polls are showing Jones starting to take the lead, and if Moore is actually arrested over any of these incidents (and, keep in mind, Alabama doesn't have a Statute of Limitations, and the police have to file reports on these incidents), Jones' lead will just expand. Moore can't win anymore, he's as good as done.

Of course, because these revelations have now been revealed, the Republicans can continue their self-destructive path, ignoring this electoral failure as the fault of Moore and not having anything to do with how bad Republican Policies are with average Americans, and not realizing how bad things are until 2018, but that will simply be to the benefit of the Democrats, and the detriment of the Republicans and their voters.

A fifth woman has come forward, alleging that Roy Moore sexually assaulted her when she was 16 after offering her a ride home from work. This allegation is much more serious than the others before it because it alleges a violent crime, and because the accuser gave her testimony in an emotional, live-streamed press conference.

The victim, Beverly Nelson, corroborated her account with her sister, mother, and husband, all of whom confirmed that she had told them the story years ago - well before the Washington Post had published its investigation and well before Moore was a candidate for US Senate. She also had possession of a yearbook with Roy Moore's signature, which she says Moore signed a few days before the assault.

The text of the signature reads "To a sweeter more beautiful girl I could not say 'Merry Christmas.' Christmas 1977. Love Roy Moore DA, 12-22-27 Old Hickory House." 'Old Hickory House' was the name of the restaurant at which Nelson was employed in 1977, and Moore was reportedly a regular customer there up until the alleged assault.

Now, I'm not going to presume guilt here. But for this story to be the conspiracy smear-job that Moore alleges it is, that means the Washington Post has bribed five unrelated women, all of whom had coincidentally met with Roy Moore when they were teenagers, and also bribed those women's families and friends to corroborate their accounts, and also forged Roy Moore's signature in a high-school yearbook. And maybe also bribed dozens of people in his hometown. And the owners of a local mall.

Roy Moore's response to the allegations has begun and ended with "fake news." He has not even attempted to provide alibis for any of the alleged incidents, nor have any of his work colleagues at the time spoken out in his defence. In fact, one of his ex-colleagues told CNN that it was common knowledge that Moore dated high school girls. The inhabitants of Moore's hometown of Gadsden also confirm that it was an open secret in town.

So, yeah. He's looking pretty goddamn guilty right about now. Naturally, Breitbart is doing the right thing and attacking the credibility of his accusers. Because, you see, Corfman said that Roy Moore called her at her house, but she didn't have a phone in her bedroom! She had...a phone elsewhere in the house, like most households in the 70s. That...that isn't exactly a slam dunk, Steve.

BeetleManiac:
If Moore does win that Senate race, it may end up being a Pyrrhic victory for the Republicans.

Rejoice, ye prophets, because Mitch McConnell has defied the cold, unfeeling blood of his snake-person ancestors and announced that he's taking the women's word over Moore's.

Why is that important? It basically means that Mitch McConnell, who has never once worked with a Democrat when he could strangle a Republican into doing it instead, has conceded that Doug Jones would be easier for him to work with than Roy Moore. There is even the possibility that they might vote to expel him even if he does win, because it turns out the Senate works on the same principles as a schoolboy's treehouse.

There's also still the distant possibility of a write-in campaign for Luther Strange, which even I would consider an acceptable result at this stage. Essentially, there are three or four possibilities; Republicans stage a write-in campaign for Strange and he wins, Republicans stage a write-in campaign and split the GOP vote to the point where Doug Jones wins, Republicans don't stage a write-in and Doug Jones wins...or the worst case scenario, where Republicans don't do a write-in and then Moore wins anyway, because Alabama is slipping into an alternate reality where up is down, left is right, and child abusers are good Christians.[1]

[1] But white is still white. Black will never be white in Alabama.

Dumbest people on the planet.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/13/16643884/sean-hannity-keurig-boycott

The latest frontier in the Roy Moore scandal: Keurig coffee makers.

The company pulled its ads from Fox News talk show host Sean Hannity's program after he appeared to defend Republican Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore. Now Hannity's supporters are boycotting - and wrecking - the pod-coffee machines.

Exley97:
I mean, who among us *hasn't* gotten banned from our local malls for creeping on underage girls, am I right?

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/locals-were-troubled-by-roy-moores-interactions-with-teen-girls-at-the-gadsden-mall
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/gadsden_residents_say_moores_b.html#incart_m-rpt-2

Heh ... I find it funny that evangelicals are now rushing to defend his slimy, sordid, known background of kiddy-fiddling and yet then pretend that the Bathroom Bill he was zealously dog whistling about has some basis of being sound.

Hell, I think I saw some reverend defending Roy Moore's actions because 'Mary was only 14 when she were married' ...

Now there's setting the bar low... I can see it now ... child brides in the Western world because of religious freedom.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Exley97:
I mean, who among us *hasn't* gotten banned from our local malls for creeping on underage girls, am I right?

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/locals-were-troubled-by-roy-moores-interactions-with-teen-girls-at-the-gadsden-mall
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/gadsden_residents_say_moores_b.html#incart_m-rpt-2

Heh ... I find it funny that evangelicals are now rushing to defend his slimy, sordid, known background of kiddy-fiddling and yet then pretend that the Bathroom Bill he was zealously dog whistling about has some basis of being sound.

Hell, I think I saw some reverend defending Roy Moore's actions because 'Mary was only 14 when she were married' ...

Now there's setting the bar low...

... That was a legal representative not a reverend.

CheetoDust:
... That was a legal representative not a reverend.

I thought it was a reverend! Wow ... so was this his legal counsel?

Well, that's a certainly interesting defence platform to take if it's his rep. So he really is going the whole nine yards religious exemption angle?

Addendum_Forthcoming:

CheetoDust:
... That was a legal representative not a reverend.

I thought it was a reverend! Wow ... so was this his legal counsel?

Well, that's a certainly interesting defence platform to take if it's his rep. So he really is going the whole nine yards religious exemption angle?

My mistake, it was a state auditor.

CheetoDust:
My mistake, it was a state auditor.

Why the hell would the state auditor wade into the discussion? Moreover why would the state auditor want to take a pulpit and defend an accused kiddy-fiddler? Moreover whywould a state auditor even make a Biblical comparison in the first place? State auditors are merely comptrollers of the treasury.

I would say it would have been million times better if he just said; "I have no comment on issues unrelated to my duties."

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Why the hell would the state auditor wade into the discussion? Moreover why would the state auditor want to take a pulpit and defend an accused kiddy-fiddler? Moreover whywould a state auditor even make a Biblical comparison in the first place? State auditors are merely comptrollers of the treasury.

I would say it would have been million times better if he just said; "I have no comment on issues unrelated to my duties."

As some of the commentary circuit have pointed out, the Republicans are more or less (and in some cases literally) saying that anything is better than electing a Democrat. I'd like to make a joke about that, but I'm not that fucking funny.

bastardofmelbourne:

Rejoice, ye prophets, because Mitch McConnell has defied the cold, unfeeling blood of his snake-person ancestors and announced that he's taking the women's word over Moore's.

Why is that important? It basically means that Mitch McConnell, who has never once worked with a Democrat when he could strangle a Republican into doing it instead, has conceded that Doug Jones would be easier for him to work with than Roy Moore. There is even the possibility that they might vote to expel him even if he does win, because it turns out the Senate works on the same principles as a schoolboy's treehouse.

Thats cause Moore isnt president.

McConnell pretends he is one of the good Republicans, but he just yells into air but doesnt DO anything about it.

bastardofmelbourne:

Rejoice, ye prophets, because Mitch McConnell has defied the cold, unfeeling blood of his snake-person ancestors and announced that he's taking the women's word over Moore's.

Undoubtedly Moore's (alleged) proclivities were well enough known within relevant circles. They always are. Those circles are happy to leave the issue dormant, because there's no point discarding a useful tool.

The tool gets dumped, however, when it ceases to be useful. And the stance taken on allegations by people in the know usually tells us a lot about the credibility of those allegations.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Exley97:
I mean, who among us *hasn't* gotten banned from our local malls for creeping on underage girls, am I right?

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/locals-were-troubled-by-roy-moores-interactions-with-teen-girls-at-the-gadsden-mall
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/gadsden_residents_say_moores_b.html#incart_m-rpt-2

Heh ... I find it funny that evangelicals are now rushing to defend his slimy, sordid, known background of kiddy-fiddling and yet then pretend that the Bathroom Bill he was zealously dog whistling about has some basis of being sound.

Hell, I think I saw some reverend defending Roy Moore's actions because 'Mary was only 14 when she were married' ...

Now there's setting the bar low... I can see it now ... child brides in the Western world because of religious freedom.

Team Moore's defense has moved well beyond moralizing his alleged actions and now constitutes doxxing and attacks on the alleged victims as well as various smears and unsubstantiated rumors on Gateway Pundit about both the victims and the press, in particular the Washington Post ("It's a grand conspiracy! The Post paid the victims to lie!!!").

Again, the moral rot at the center of the GOP has been laid bare for everyone to see, but it still won't stop the right wing lifers from either arguing it's all fake news (as if something of this proportion could be faked and covered up) or that having a underage creeper/harasser in the Senate is better than having a liberal.

Exley97:
Team Moore's defense has moved well beyond moralizing his alleged actions and now constitutes doxxing and attacks on the alleged victims as well as various smears and unsubstantiated rumors on Gateway Pundit about both the victims and the press, in particular the Washington Post ("It's a grand conspiracy! The Post paid the victims to lie!!!").

Again, the moral rot at the center of the GOP has been laid bare for everyone to see, but it still won't stop the right wing lifers from either arguing it's all fake news (as if something of this proportion could be faked and covered up) or that having a underage creeper/harasser in the Senate is better than having a liberal.

The refusal to let go. Of pride, of held trust, of tradition, identity...the conservatism runs deep enough for some to look for any justification. With their media intent on painting anyone threatening the status quo as 'smug (Hollywood? Elite? What?) liberals' only strengthens the stubbornness if only to avoid validating such despicable smugness.
I wonder if certain networks are starting to regret letting Milo go, now they know they can pretty much roll with child abuse.

So now it appears that letter with 50 pastors endorsing Moore after the scandal broke was not on the up and up.

After the letter was published on AL.com, Tijuanna Adetunji of the Fresh Anointing House of Worship in Montgomery, said she was not contacted about the letter and did not give permission for her name to be used. "I was not asked about this story or allegations," Adetunji said.

The letter appears to be a version of one already posted on Moore's campaign website. That letter, posted prior to the primary, contains all the same wording as below but with three extra paragraphs at the top, including a sentence referencing the Aug. 15 vote.

Pastor Thad Endicott said he was not contacted about the most recent post from Kayla Moore. "The list that has recently circulated was evidently copied and pasted from the August endorsements without checking to see if I still endorsed Moore," said Endicott.
Endicott, pastor at Heritage Baptist Church, asked that his name be removed from the Moore endorsement.

A pastor from middle Tennessee said he was never asked to sign the original letter. Dr. George Grant of Parish Presbyterian Church in Franklin, Tenneessee told WSMV he hadn't had contact with Moore personally in a decade and hadn't spoken to the Senate nominee's campaign since before the election. Grant said he has no desire to play a role in Alabama politics. "Not my state. Not my issues," he told the news channel.

Xsjadoblayde:

I wonder if certain networks are starting to regret letting Milo go, now they know they can pretty much roll with child abuse.

Well, the Daily Caller hired him for a weekly column (great job, Tucker!) and then immediately cut ties with him after his first column (on Kevin Spacey, LOL...) and claimed they didn't actually really and truly hire him, it was just a one-time thing. So I guess we're not quite there yet, but hey....give it time!

BeetleManiac:
So now it appears that letter with 50 pastors endorsing Moore after the scandal broke was not on the up and up.

Apparently, Roy Moore's Wife, Kayla Moore, who is currently looking for dirt on the women bringing up Roy's sordid past, was the one who reposted this Pre-Primary letter as if it were brand new.

Talk about dirty and desperate. Also, why are priests from Tennessee being touted as a Positive thing for an Alabama Candidate?

Mr.Mattress:
Apparently, Roy Moore's Wife, Kayla Moore, who is currently looking for dirt on the women bringing up Roy's sordid past, was the one who reposted this Pre-Primary letter as if it were brand new.

Talk about dirty and desperate. Also, why are priests from Tennessee being touted as a Positive thing for an Alabama Candidate?

It really speaks to an ugly side of American Christian culture. People like the Moores don't care how many laws they break, what taboos they transgress, who they hurt. What matters is that they are able to hang onto or expand their power. Christianity in America is especially hierarchical, and the more conservative the church, the more likely they are to subscribe to a pseudo-Calvinist idea that people in power deserve to be powerful and those out of power deserve to be marginalized. It is the right of the powerful to exploit the disempowered. The right of the disempowered is to suffer in silence.

Roy Moore has made a career out of being a professional martyr. He snuck a Ten Commandments monument into the courthouse and fought tooth and nail when higher judiciary authorities told him he was in violation of Establishment Clause. He later got back into government work and started spreading birtherism while claiming that Christians were being unfairly persecuted and that religious freedom only applied to Christians because he only believes the Biblical story of Genesis. When the Obergefell decision came down, he refused to comply and demanded no other judicial employee of Alabama obey the federal ruling. Once again, he got removed from office and claimed it was because he was just too damn Christian for all those godless sinners and faggots in Washington.

And now, here he is again, trying to get Jeff Sessions' Senate seat running on a platform that seems to consist almost entirely of screaming about his God at anyone who wanders into his field of vision. With the allegations against him, he's once more playing the victim card and fundraising off of it. Meanwhile, the evidence mounting against him paints the picture of a self-righteous predator who sees himself as entitled to ever greater seats of power. This is a man who, upon being given power and authority, his first instinct is to abuse it. He's not an isolated case. He's exactly what we've come to expect out of this particularly toxic side of Christianity: the product of a broken system.

It keeps getting worse: a number of Alabama residents have reported receiving a robocall that purports to be from a Washington Post reporter, offering a cash reward for any women "between the ages of 54 to 57 years old willing to make damaging remarks about candidate Roy Moore."

Needless to say, the Washington Post is not responsible for that robocall. It would be insane to even allege them of doing that because of how stupid it would be - they can't simultaneously orchestrate a massive, politically motivated frame-up and also be dumb enough to send out recorded audio incriminating themselves.

To make matters worse, there was an anti-Semitic undertone; the robocall claimed to be from a reporter named Lenny Bernstein, and the recording spoke with an exaggerated, nasal New York accent. There is a real Washington Post reporter named Lenny Bernstein, but he sounds nothing like that.

So, I wanna make this clear; Roy Moore, or people associated with his campaign, sent out a provably false robocall intended to discredit the Washington Post's investigative reporting - which has since been confirmed by independent Alabama newspapers and which was an admirably well-sourced piece of work to begin with - by resorting to stereotypes about Jews in media. Stay classy, Alabama.

"Did you know that before 1992, when a lot of this was going on, that Judge Moore was a Democrat?" Limbaugh said on his radio show. "Nobody said a word."

"When he supposedly was attracted to inappropriately-aged girls - he was a Democrat," Limbaugh added.

I just can't keep up with their internal logic. Is he implying being a democrat and acting on sexual urges to minors is related, but being republican means he's now above such things?
Urgh, these people are surely just some of the worst the human race has yet produced.

Kwak:

?Did you know that before 1992, when a lot of this was going on, that Judge Moore was a Democrat?? Limbaugh said on his radio show. ?Nobody said a word.?

?When he supposedly was attracted to inappropriately-aged girls ? he was a Democrat,? Limbaugh added.

I just can't keep up with their internal logic. Is he implying being a democrat and acting on sexual urges to minors is related, but being republican means he's now above such things?
Urgh, these people are surely just some of the worst the human race has yet produced.

I can't keep up with it either. I could care less if he was of the Bull Moose Party, much less the two current dominant ones. I am,

The fact is:
1. It was common Knowledge he went after girls that were described as "High School" in age.
2. By the common usage of the term, he is a Pedophile. Legally, he is most likely a Hebephile (Someone sexually attracted to someone between the ages of 11-14, or early adolescence), and at best largely a Ephebophile (someone sexually attracted to teenagers between 15 and 19).
3. Even by the legal age of consent in that state, 16, he is still a pedo.

In a day and age where the reputation and careers of actors and filmmakers are going down the drain, people who I might add are largely making entertainment, should we not hold our leaders to a higher standard?

Annnd now Sean Hannity has given Moore "twenty-four hours" to come up with a satisfactory explanation for the discrepancies in his accounts of the incidents.

I'll reiterate: Sean Hannity is on the verge of dropping Roy Moore. Am I reading this right? Sean Hannity, everybody, is drawing a line in the sand (twenty-four hours from now) which he will not cross. Sean Hannity is Taking A Stand.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but here goes; good on you, Sean Hannity. I know you're still a turd-person who sleeps inside a used condom, but seriously, good on you for finally drawing a line. I mean, sure, first you accused the women of lying, accused both the Democrats and Mitch McConnell of manufacturing a frame-up, and started a bizarre feud with a coffee machine manufacturer. But eventually, you saw the light, and that's what really matters; having the strength of moral character to break out from the cocoon of hardened bullshit you constructed over your long and despicable career as a professional bullshitter and say "No more. No more! No Moore."

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here