:shrug: it's irrelevant. It's like demanding to know the color of the car Ted Kennedy drove Mary Jo Kopechne into water with, as if that was the issue, v the fact that he left her there to die.
Allred is a publicity hound. But the woman was fairly clear that Moore signed the book, and she added the date/place.
I also find it ironic that you would accuse anyone else of wanting to avoid answering questions when I have asked you to explain how one particular part of the conspiracy functioned twice now - and that was the
whole of my quote - and you refuse to do so (likely because you know it breaks credulity and physics).
If this is all a grand conspiracy by the WaPo to find women willing to accuse Moore and pay them off to do so, how did they manage to get the women to travel
backwards through time to get their younger selves to tell the
exact same story to others years and decades ago?
Not really, because her doing so
has no impact on whether or not he signed her yearbook, which, again, is hardly on what this case hangs in the first place.
No less than
nine women have now come forward outlining a consistent pattern of behavior by Moore
which he partially admits to and then denies, and they are backed by the testimony of
dozens of others who say their stories have been consistent for
decades. I realize why you want so desperately to ignore all that and shrink it down to a yearbook inscription - it's because the rest of it is so damming for your man, and you are a partisan creature - but the evidence is stacked up pretty high against ole Roy Moore on this, and it's to the shame of anyone who sells their intellectual credibility to defend him.
