Roy Moore campaign refuses to substantiate claims about accuser

[Thelion]

She just put it in there more recently. She didn't write this in 40 years ago. Don't you find that suspicious and too convenient to put that stuff in there, in the least bit? For a case like this that, it would be seen as altering evidence. Also, if this was a full blown criminal investigation, she could get into serious legal trouble for doing that. We don't even know what she said about the rest of the writings are actually Moore's. Even for a political campaign, she still could get hit hard with accusations of false testimony.

The point is that MOORE wrote and signed the inscription forty years ago.

 

[Herkamer63]

The point is that MOORE wrote and signed the inscription forty years ago.

We don't know that. No one knows that, except Moore and this woman. I'm beginning to believe that she, or someone else, put it in there. I could be wrong, but the fact that she put in the date and the place IS a problem, and gives plenty of reason to believe he never had a relationship with this woman. So I'd say let a private investigator look into this and determine whether or not she's telling the truth about the rest of it.

 

[j-mac]

The DNC must be the most amazing organization in the history of the world. They not only managed to find these woman, agree to get them to make accusations against Moore, fed them all their stories and talking points (except that little mistake they made letting one of them write the date and name of the restaurant in her yearbook), they also paid off many dozens of people all over Alabama to back them up, even going so far as saying they heard it from the accusers way back in the late 70s and early 80s when it happened. And not a single leak of this gigantic, and presumably very expensive, DNC conspiracy has happened to date. There had to be dozens of people involved, in coordination with the Washington Post, too. Dozens of people, and not even a hint from all of these people in on the conspiracy between the DNC and Wapo.

Sounds like the DNC is pretty damn efficient.

Don't know why you would think it had to be that intricate....Like I have said before, These women are accusers, and need to be heard, but they also have some onus of proof...Now, you can put up the yearbook if you want, but it is showing to be forged....As far as the so called corroborating witnesses, don't you wonder why we are not hearing from them? Why they are being questioned, or looked into?

It doesn't have to be a huge conspiracy Tres, all you need is one or two democrat women to put out a story, then others that don't want to see Moore elected will make up their own **** for their 15 seconds of fame...But, I know right, we must automatically believe everything we are told about 40 year old allegations because well, they're women after all...right? BS.

Prove it happened. Bring out the same intellectual investigative journalism that would be used against the enemies of the liberal media machine to prove this thing....How many have filed civil suit? 0. How many went to the authorities at the time? 0.

Moore denies any of it, and in this country, even though you may not like it is presumed innocent.

 

[j-mac]

George Soros knows his ****!

I never said it was Soros behind this Governess, now did I? You think these things are true? Prove it.

 

[Herkamer63]

Don't know why you would think it had to be that intricate....Like I have said before, These women are accusers, and need to be heard, but they also have some onus of proof...Now, you can put up the yearbook if you want, but it is showing to be forged....As far as the so called corroborating witnesses, don't you wonder why we are not hearing from them? Why they are being questioned, or looked into?

It doesn't have to be a huge conspiracy Tres, all you need is one or two democrat women to put out a story, then others that don't want to see Moore elected will make up their own **** for their 15 seconds of fame...But, I know right, we must automatically believe everything we are told about 40 year old allegations because well, they're women after all...right? BS.

Prove it happened. Bring out the same intellectual investigative journalism that would be used against the enemies of the liberal media machine to prove this thing....How many have filed civil suit? 0. How many went to the authorities at the time? 0.

Moore denies any of it, and in this country, even though you may not like it is presumed innocent.

The Left is hoping and praying to their Barack Obama and Crazy Bernie that investigators don't get their hands on any of this so called "proof." I am, however, still open to the idea that maybe Moore did something (and if he did, get him out of the race), but it seems that the stories the accusers have told are not solid enough (if not, at all). The Left will say that "oh the Right is falling apart. They're desperate. They defund rapists and child molesters. They're immoral." And the list goes on from there. However, look at them defending Gropin' Franken right now. They're shaming the one chick that released the photo of her being groped by saying "well, you had it coming. He's a comedian. That's just how they are." Or look at how they're trying help Weinstein make a come back by pointing out what he has done. Both of them have solid evidence against them It floors me how much they love and protect the perverts on their side, so long as they remain true to the cause of advancing Marxism and bringing down the US.

This is why you just can't take the word of accusers. Now, I'm not saying some of them say is false (because just don't know), but the fact that when there's evidence out there suggesting that the accused didn't do anything, it should come out. In this case, it was a matter of time before one of the accusers were about to crack and admit that some of what they're admitting to is a flat out lie, and makes you wonder if the rest of what she said is even true at all. I wouldn't be surprised if it was false. This whole matter's main objective, however, is getting rid of Trump through one of his supporters. It's sick and dirty, but it's really one of the last major things, at this point in time, they can use to do such that. That and the farce that is the Mueller investigation. Both very well may fall flat on their faces.

 

[tres borrachos]

Don't know why you would think it had to be that intricate....Like I have said before, These women are accusers, and need to be heard, but they also have some onus of proof...Now, you can put up the yearbook if you want, but it is showing to be forged....As far as the so called corroborating witnesses, don't you wonder why we are not hearing from them? Why they are being questioned, or looked into?

It doesn't have to be a huge conspiracy Tres, all you need is one or two democrat women to put out a story, then others that don't want to see Moore elected will make up their own **** for their 15 seconds of fame...But, I know right, we must automatically believe everything we are told about 40 year old allegations because well, they're women after all...right? BS.

Prove it happened. Bring out the same intellectual investigative journalism that would be used against the enemies of the liberal media machine to prove this thing....How many have filed civil suit? 0. How many went to the authorities at the time? 0.

Moore denies any of it, and in this country, even though you may not like it is presumed innocent.

If the DNC is behind it, and you think these women are all lying, it's a vast conspiracy. Vast. You've posted in the wrong forum. It is right up there with the thousands of people paid off to make the Sandy Hook conspiracy,

Moore denies any of it, and that's all you need to know. I, like most people, believe the dozens of people who have supported the accusers' stories.

I don't support men who cop feels through training bras.

 

[tres borrachos]

She just put it in there more recently. She didn't write this in 40 years ago. Don't you find that suspicious and too convenient to put that stuff in there, in the least bit? For a case like this that, it would be seen as altering evidence. Also, if this was a full blown criminal investigation, she could get into serious legal trouble for doing that. We don't even know what she said about the rest of the writings are actually Moore's. Even for a political campaign, she still could get hit hard with accusations of false testimony.

Who said she wrote it in there 40 years ago?

If it's not true, let Moore file defamation suits against her and all of them, like Harold Ford just did when he was accused by someone. He could have done it already, but he didn't.

You believe him. People with critical thinking skills don't. There are too many accusers and too many others who corroborate their stories. Go on supporting the pervert if it makes you happy.

 

[Hatuey]

Who said she wrote it in there 40 years ago?

If it's not true, let Moore file defamation suits against her and all of them, like Harold Ford just did when he was accused by someone. He could have done it already, but he didn't.

You believe him. People with critical thinking skills don't. There are too many accusers and too many others who corroborate their stories. Go on supporting the pervert if it makes you happy.

No, no. He is being objective! Only democrats can be accused of doing horrible things to women. Republicans? Locker room talk, just being boys, innocent ***** grabbing without asking.

Oh well!


Sent from Donald's hair using Putin's Blackerry.

 

[tres borrachos]

No, no. He is being objective! Only democrats can be accused of doing horrible things to women. Republicans? Locker room talk, just being boys, innocent ***** grabbing without asking.

Oh well!


Sent from Donald's hair using Putin's Blackerry.

Everyone is guilty. EXCEPT Donald Trump (who bragged about sexual harassment) and Roy Moore. Isn't America great?

 

[Herkamer63]

Who said she wrote it in there 40 years ago?

If it's not true, let Moore file defamation suits against her and all of them, like Harold Ford just did when he was accused by someone. He could have done it already, but he didn't.

You believe him. People with critical thinking skills don't. There are too many accusers and too many others who corroborate their stories. Go on supporting the pervert if it makes you happy.

He very well might file something. The fact she put it in there recently is proof enough that this woman's accusation has loss credibility because it strengthens the case that she, or someone else, may have forged the rest of it. What I'm beginning to believe is someone(s) put not only this woman up to making up her accusation, but all these women, for political purposes. That someone(s) might have been the Jones campaign and the Democrat party down there. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a media outlet(s) that originally done it. Either way, whoever it was paid them a good sum of money to do it (if someone in fact put them up to it). The fact still remains that this way too convenient timing and the amount of time that the accusations against what Moore supposedly did took 40 years to come out. As I said before, it's a bad idea to just to take the word of the accuser, or the accused for that matter, without looking at any evidence. You can draw conclusions, but ultimately, we won't know for sure until something concrete comes out. Otherwise, the accusers word is only as good as the accused.

BTW, I never said I fully believed Moore. In fact, I said I'm still open to the possibility that he may have done something. He very well might have done something sexually with someone that is younger, and someone found out about it (although it may not have been what people think it is). However, I also said I'm believing him more because these stories, like this forgery one, are seeming more and more unlikely. So don't put words in my mouth.

 

[tres borrachos]

He very well might file something. The fact she put it in there recently is proof enough that this woman's accusation has loss credibility because it strengthens the case that she, or someone else, may have forged the rest of it. What I'm beginning to believe is someone(s) put not only this woman up to making up her accusation, but all these women, for political purposes. That someone(s) might have been the Jones campaign and the Democrat party down there. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a media outlet(s) that originally done it. Either way, whoever it was paid them a good sum of money to do it (if someone in fact put them up to it). The fact still remains that this way too convenient timing and the amount of time that the accusations against what Moore supposedly did took 40 years to come out. As I said before, it's a bad idea to just to take the word of the accuser, or the accused for that matter, without looking at any evidence. You can draw conclusions, but ultimately, we won't know for sure until something concrete comes out. Otherwise, the accusers word is only as good as the accused.

BTW, I never said I fully believed Moore. In fact, I said I'm still open to the possibility that he may have done something. He very well might have done something sexually with someone that is younger, and someone found out about it (although it may not have been what people think it is). However, I also said I'm believing him more because these stories, like this forgery one, are seeming more and more unlikely. So don't put words in my mouth.

"Convenient" timing.

There is nothing convenient for a 50+ year old woman to come out and say she was molested by a dirty old man when she was 14. In fact it's the opposite. It was brutal to do that.

And if you want to discount this woman's accusation, go ahead. I'll still pay heed to the original one from the woman who said he was feeling her through her bra and underwear when she was only 14 - and other women have said she told them at the time it happened. You can give him a pass on that one. I can't.

If he was going to file suit, he would have done it by now. He hasn't, because he knows damn well the accusations are true.

 

[Herkamer63]

"Convenient" timing.

There is nothing convenient for a 50+ year old woman to come out and say she was molested by a dirty old man when she was 14. In fact it's the opposite. It was brutal to do that.

And if you want to discount this woman's accusation, go ahead. I'll still pay heed to the original one from the woman who said he was feeling her through her bra and underwear when she was only 14 - and other women have said she told them at the time it happened. You can give him a pass on that one. I can't.

If he was going to file suit, he would have done it by now. He hasn't, because he knows damn well the accusations are true.

No, he hasn't done it because he's in the middle of a US Senate race, so he's not going to do it right away. I asked someone else on here the exact same question I'm going to ask you (with updated information), but he didn't answer the question and I want to see if you even will (I doubt it, but I hope I'm wrong):

Let's say instead of Roy Moore, it was you, same deal. You're running for a political office during a special election. Now, you win your party's nomination and have started to run against the opposing party. All of the sudden, a woman comes up and says you had groped her when she was younger, and then a group of other women started to accuse you of the same thing. One of them says at the place that she worked and the other says at the place that YOU work. The media, the opposing party, and some within your own party that were never for you to begin with, start exploiting the situation to the point, and want you to drop out. Now, just for this example, you didn't do any of what you're accused of and you begin to deny all the allegations that have been brought against you. The same people that are anti-you bring forth what they calling evidence to try and convince others that you did the dirty deeds. One of them is an activist lawyer who says she has a yearbook claiming she has your handwriting in it, and another woman who is also making the same claim. However 2 things:, the lawyer has been called to release this yearbook but doesn't do it for reasons unknown. The other woman said that she forged notes into her yearbook, one of which she inserts the date and the place she worked at, but still is claiming the rest of the writing is you (but has yet to reveal it to authorities for closer inspection on proving if the writing is legit). Now, given everything brought against you, knowing full well you didn't do it but haven't filed anything yet against these people, do you want your innocence to be proven by authorities so the accusers, the opposing party, the media, and members of your own party stop coming after you, or do you just simply let it happen, knowing what these people are saying is a lie and you have to live with it the rest of your life?

Forget politics for a moment because this case has nothing to do with it. We should all be living by innocent until proven guilty. No one knows what happened in this case. Not you nor me, or anyone else on here. Whatever we think, we still have to leave the possibility open that the opposite happened. So you think Moore's guilty as sin, which is fine and dandy (I don't agree with your assessment at all), but you should leave the possibility open that he didn't do anything. And vice versa with me. But it's foolish just to assume because X, Y, and Z without the authorities proving anything. I've seen good people get accused and burned over something someone else said they did, but they never did it. So that's why I'm saying further proof needs to be presented and proven by authorities. Otherwise you could be condemning an innocent person who didn't commit the crime. So what's your answer.

 

[Mason66]

Don't know why you would think it had to be that intricate....Like I have said before, These women are accusers, and need to be heard, but they also have some onus of proof...Now, you can put up the yearbook if you want, but it is showing to be forged....As far as the so called corroborating witnesses, don't you wonder why we are not hearing from them? Why they are being questioned, or looked into?

It doesn't have to be a huge conspiracy Tres, all you need is one or two democrat women to put out a story, then others that don't want to see Moore elected will make up their own **** for their 15 seconds of fame...But, I know right, we must automatically believe everything we are told about 40 year old allegations because well, they're women after all...right? BS.

Prove it happened. Bring out the same intellectual investigative journalism that would be used against the enemies of the liberal media machine to prove this thing....How many have filed civil suit? 0. How many went to the authorities at the time? 0.

Moore denies any of it, and in this country, even though you may not like it is presumed innocent.

Considering how much teenage girls like to take pictures, you would think there would be at least one picture of Moore with one of these girls out there. I mean at least one.

 

[Superfly]

She added a date and a restaurant name.

Your evidence that she forged Moore's inscription is...what?

Well, ****, y'all. I mean -- Fox News, Breitbart, and the end-all, be-all of reputable news sources, Reddit, said she was lyin', y'all, so she fer sure must be lyin', and that good church goin' man Roy Moore ain't ne'er dun nuthin' wrong.

Dum ass ole' librul communist ijits. Dang.

 

[Superfly]

Everyone is guilty. EXCEPT Donald Trump (who bragged about sexual harassment) and Roy Moore. Isn't America great?

It used to be.

 

[Superfly]

"Convenient" timing.

There is nothing convenient for a 50+ year old woman to come out and say she was molested by a dirty old man when she was 14. In fact it's the opposite. It was brutal to do that.

And if you want to discount this woman's accusation, go ahead. I'll still pay heed to the original one from the woman who said he was feeling her through her bra and underwear when she was only 14 - and other women have said she told them at the time it happened. You can give him a pass on that one. I can't.

If he was going to file suit, he would have done it by now. He hasn't, because he knows damn well the accusations are true.

One word will explain why he will never file suit: Discovery. Same reason Trump hasn't filed suit, despite the fact that he said he would do so the moment he became president.

Guess he's too busy passing laws and ****. Oh wait....

 

[Thelion]

Considering how much teenage girls like to take pictures, you would think there would be at least one picture of Moore with one of these girls out there. I mean at least one.

This was the late 70's, y'know?

 

[Superfly]

Considering how much teenage girls like to take pictures, you would think there would be at least one picture of Moore with one of these girls out there. I mean at least one.

???

You do know that 40 years ago, there were no cell phones with cameras? No "selfies," so to speak?

Most girls don't lug around large cameras when they are working at the mall.

 

[Dittohead not!]

It's always amazing to see just how far the Trumpeteers will go to support not only Trump, but some sleaze bag that he has endorsed. If Trump is for it, it must be good. Conyers and Franken resigned. So should Trump, for the same reason. Moore should have not a ghost of a chance of being elected, especially by "good god fearing" people.

 

[Mason66]

This was the late 70's, y'know?

I know. Cameras did exist back then, in case you were not alive back then to know that.

 

[Mason66]

???

You do know that 40 years ago, there were no cell phones with cameras? No "selfies," so to speak?

Most girls don't lug around large cameras when they are working at the mall.

The claim is that he dated a couple of these girls for months at a time.

No pictures from any of them.

Not all girls live at the mall, you know.

In case you do not remember back then, not all cameras were large. There were a lot of hand held cameras.

 

[Superfly]

The claim is that he dated a couple of these girls for months at a time.

No pictures from any of them.

Not all girls live at the mall, you know.

In case you do not remember back then, not all cameras were large. There were a lot of hand held cameras.

Not really. The first smaller camera didn't even come out until, I believe, the late 70s, and they were probably pricey.

Besides, girls who date guys that their parents might not approve of would definitely not be taking pictures. What teenage girl would be stupid enough to take a picture with a 32 year old man, put heart stickers all over and stick it on her bedroom mirror?

Do you think that the cheerleaders that the police were tasked in keeping him away from, kept cameras hidden in their pompoms?

You are really, really stretching here.

 

[DiAnna]

Considering how much teenage girls like to take pictures, you would think there would be at least one picture of Moore with one of these girls out there. I mean at least one.

Thirty years ago, most teenagers didn't even own a camera, let alone carry one around in their pocketbook.


Edit: Never mind. I see you have already been appropriately schooled on the issue.

 

[DiAnna]

"Convenient" timing.

There is nothing convenient for a 50+ year old woman to come out and say she was molested by a dirty old man when she was 14. In fact it's the opposite. It was brutal to do that.

And if you want to discount this woman's accusation, go ahead. I'll still pay heed to the original one from the woman who said he was feeling her through her bra and underwear when she was only 14 - and other women have said she told them at the time it happened. You can give him a pass on that one. I can't.

If he was going to file suit, he would have done it by now. He hasn't, because he knows damn well the accusations are true.

Besides which, at last count there were almost 40 witnesses ready to testify against him.

 

[Taylor]

Not really. The first smaller camera didn't even come out until, I believe, the late 70s, and they were probably pricey.

Oh, not at all.

Kodak manufactured film (e.g. 126, 110) dedicated for compact, inexpensive cameras going at least as far back as the 60's. 110 cameras were popular and widely available in the 70's. You could even buy little $1 cameras in the supermarket toy aisle that were basically plastic shells that snapped onto the film cartridge, with a button for the shutter and a rotary dial to advance the film.