Who would you vote for in Alabama?

Southern Dad said:

You are wrong. All the things that he is accused of are well beyond the statute of limitations. Decades beyond actually. Which is why he is not charged with anything. It's all people coming out with things that they remember ever so clearly from 40 years ago. Things that they did not bring charges for back then. Things that they did not mention in his 8 previous campaigns. Only now when he is in a pivotal Senate seat election has this come up. The only one with physical evidence, a yearbook inscription, seems to be forged.

Click to expand...

I thought I had read somewhere that one of the allegations against him was an act against a minor, and that such an act against a minor has no statute of limitations under Alabama law, thus making charges possible.

I'm having a hard time finding it though, so I'm now wondering if the information I heard previously was wrong.

Edit: I think this may have been the story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...f60b5a6c4a0_story.html?utm_term=.df983c95324e

And if it could be proven, which seems like it would be hard to do after...38 years?
Then the crime itself might (depending on what it was) have no SOL under Alabama law, so he could be charged.

But finding enough evidence to prove such a thing after 38 years would probably be very difficult.

I think that last is based on this: https://www.legalmatch.com/law-libr...imitations-for-sexual-abuse.html?redesigned=1

Which seems to say:

Although the civil SOL is very short, Alabama gives prosecutors a lot of time to file violent or childhood sexual abuse charges. The criminal statutes of limitations vary depending on the severity of the offense. The criminal statutes of limitations include:

• No statute of limitations: rape, violent sexual abuse, sexual abuse with the threat of violence, and any sexual abuse of a victim under the age of 16,
• Other felony sexual abuse: three years, and
• Misdemeanor abuse: one year.

Click to expand...

Edit again: But it's not completely clear that WP story describes something which could be prosecuted, and even if they tried it has been almost 40 years so it'd be hard if not impossible to prove.

Which is in some ways more disturbing, because if any of the accusations are true, he got away with some sick ****.

Hebephiles have no place in American Democracy.

Glen Contrarian said:

And why would you do so?

Click to expand...

Jones, and Moore's dilly-dallying has absolutely nothing to do with it. Moore DQ'd himself long ago with his lack of respect for the rule of law.

Glen Contrarian said:

And why would you do so?

Click to expand...

Just common sense says you would vote for Doug Jones. Democrats couldn't get a better gift going into the mid-term election cycle that Alabamaians electing Roy Moore. Add Trump to that ticket--and every Republican across this country is going have a target on their seats.

These 4 girls, now women will be the poster girls of the DNC--and all holy hell is going to break loose.



So if you're a Democrat you probably should be rooting for Roy Moore. If you're a Republican you should be very worried about Roy Moore winning this election.

Politics 101

Marco Montana said:

So are you calling your Senator and telling them to remove Al Franken and Conyers? because if you're not you would be a hypocrite?

Click to expand...

Your rightwing fears are unfounded over there.

Ship 'em all out I say.

And if Moore gets elected the Senate would need to toss him and especially so. The precedent in the Senate for the action is having a senator of "improper character." The standard is not justiciable and it is under the Constitution what the Senate decides it to be in each particular case.

As a point of reference in the instance of a Potus, Impeachment is what the House says it is. It does not need to be a crime. The Senate acting on impeachment of a Potus to convict is based on what the Senate decides is the justification for removing a Potus. The matter of impeachment and conviction is also not justiciable.

These are matters the Constitution places with the Congress per se and exclusively based on its own judgement, perceptions, actions. Period. In the actuality of Moore and the crackpot Republican party of 2017 I doubt seriously the Republican controlled Senate has the nads or the brains or the proper character to do it.

You do of course share these views ne c'est pas.....

Moderate Right said:

So, if I get this straight, you accuse me of asking questions when I already have my own answers ahead of time and yet you have your own answers ahead of time. Typical left wing hypocrisy. What in my post you quoted is not factual?

Click to expand...

You didn't.

Of course.

Asking questions as a dependent technique is a poor approach. A salient question is one thing while constantly putting questions is quite the crutch.

Rightwhingers do tend to go off the deep end so it's no surprise. You are a particularly active one so keep persisting. I like it whenever I spot a rhetorical bull's eye on a hard driven rightwhinger.

Tangmo said:

You didn't.

Of course.

Asking questions as a dependent technique is a poor approach. A salient question is one thing while constantly putting questions is quite the crutch.

Rightwhingers do tend to go off the deep end so it's no surprise. You are a particularly active one so keep persisting. I like it whenever I spot a rhetorical bull's eye on a hard driven rightwhinger.

Click to expand...

In other words, you have an excuse for not answering my questions while you expect me to answer yours.

ObamacareFail said:

They do not have a high opinion of the GOP establishment either.

Click to expand...

That is true. Judge Roy Moore isn't GOP establishment. Hell he was a Democrat until 1992. Trump supported his rival in the primary.

The Mark said:

I thought I had read somewhere that one of the allegations against him was an act against a minor, and that such an act against a minor has no statute of limitations under Alabama law, thus making charges possible.

I'm having a hard time finding it though, so I'm now wondering if the information I heard previously was wrong.

Edit: I think this may have been the story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...f60b5a6c4a0_story.html?utm_term=.df983c95324e

And if it could be proven, which seems like it would be hard to do after...38 years?
Then the crime itself might (depending on what it was) have no SOL under Alabama law, so he could be charged.

But finding enough evidence to prove such a thing after 38 years would probably be very difficult.

I think that last is based on this: https://www.legalmatch.com/law-libr...imitations-for-sexual-abuse.html?redesigned=1

Which seems to say:


Edit again: But it's not completely clear that WP story describes something which could be prosecuted, and even if they tried it has been almost 40 years so it'd be hard if not impossible to prove.

Which is in some ways more disturbing, because if any of the accusations are true, he got away with some sick ****.

Click to expand...

No, the Statute of Limitation in 1979 has already run. The SoL has been changed now but the SoL at the time of the alleged crime are what matters. Judge Roy Moore cannot be charged for anything that has been accused. They are all well beyond the Statute of Limitations.

Moderate Right said:

In other words, you have an excuse for not answering my questions while you expect me to answer yours.

Click to expand...

Wrong again.

My my, this seems to be a habit. Shame shame.

Because my policy in posting is to ask one question of the right in each 1000 posts I make. Not more if that many -- an actual question. For example: Was Barack Obama born in the United States? That is the only kind of question I ask of youse guyz on the far right.

My policy is conscious and consistent -- and long term. The reason I rarely ask a direct and hard question is that youse guyz have your own answers or evasions. Even when the question is exact and precise. So youse make asking real questions futile and a complete waste of time. It is my policy in posting and it has always been my policy in posting to the rightwhinge.

So you'd need to identify my non existent question to you that you did not answer because I did not ask one of you. Or find thx the non existent question I did not ask of anyone over there on the extreme right. It would need to be more than the rhetorical ne c'est pas rhetorical statement I make on occasion -- which I haven't presented to you anyhow.

I announce my long standing policy to you so you can know. It is my hope that you can thus have at least one obvious rough edge removed from your standard hard driving posts from over there on the determined far right. In sum here, your dogmatic and hard driving campaign to arbitrarily assign hypocrisy to the people whose politics you do not like fails.

Southern Dad said:

No, the Statute of Limitation in 1979 has already run. The SoL has been changed now but the SoL at the time of the alleged crime are what matters. Judge Roy Moore cannot be charged for anything that has been accused. They are all well beyond the Statute of Limitations.

Click to expand...

Ah, that might do it, I hadn't considered that.