2018 Senate (& House)

You dont think party affiliation has anything to do with the media coverage?

Moore is attempting to make a similar argument in his defense

 

1. I think Menendez's trial is boring compared to the Moore story. It has the workings of "elected representative took vacations on a private citizen's dime and then helped pass lege that was pro-pharmacy" and he sure seems guilty of it. If Mike Enzi from WY had done the same thing (red senator from a red state with no recognition), it'd be getting the same coverage. Menendez isn't a household name, didn't have controversial statements in a hotly-contested primary, and isn't in line to replace a controversial AG. So no, I don't think party affiliation has as much to do with it as you think it does.

2. Moore is defending himself from accusations of sexual assault. Menendez isn't. If Moore was involved in a corruption scandal (and based on his relationship with some evangelical groups, that might be right around the corner), and blasted the opposition party for bringing underage girls into it, then it would be a similar defense.

 

The current parade of sexual assault claimers only strengthens the skepticism of allegations of illegal actions by Moore.

Our time is as ripe as it has ever been for these accusations and it's proven those motivated to embellish will face zero consequences.

People are already abruptly handing out punishments based off claims without due process or evidence of illegal behavior.

It's the ideal environment for Dems to latch onto his creepy legal dating past, then dig up a few willing past acquaintances to make false illegal allegations.

It's the same gameplan they used on DT. A sexual assault hit parade, which oddly seems to have disappeared now he is POTUS. Hmmmm.

Women who have legit claims are feeling encouraged, yes. So are others who have an ax to grind or have been influenced to fabricate unprovable (innocence or guilt) allegations.

With Moore all it takes is hanging him in the court of public opinion, which was the plan all along if the illegal claims are fabricated, which seems likely.

 

Two things.

1. HIs "creepy" dating history is disqualifying and is past creepy. It's disqualifying. I mean his peers thought it odd. The mall security people kept an eye on him. WTF?

2. DJT was on audio saying that he does the EXACT things that 16 women claimed that he did to them. Talk about a smoking gun. Luckily, 45 minutes after that tape was released Wikileaks released the Podesta emails.

 

The difference? The accusers aren't the ones saying that they were paid $ to make false allegations. I think this long after the fact is probably too long to make it criminal. That said, we're talking the SENATE, that's different. It's one of the top 120 most important spots in our Republic and this fool's actions should have an impact. The bad news is that his opponent is only former federal prosecutor who's convicted terrorists including the KKK. Such a snowflake...

 

Here is Anna Wintour encouraging Meryl Streep to run for office
This would be great

 

I heard part of Mark Levine's show yesterday. He was ranting about a California congress woman who says Congress is well aware of current members who have committed sexual harassment. Low and behold, they have different rules than citizens. As I have stated before, hopefully all of them are thrown out - Repubs and Dems.
https://www.google.com/amp/thehill....-15-million-on-behalf-of-sexual-harassers?amp

 

The timing is certainly suspect

Also curious is the way the media has used this to finally address what Bill Clinton did. 20 years too late, of course. Now that's it safe for them to do so, and has no real meaning. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...t=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

See if you can note a pattern

Republicans said Bill Clinton should resign.
The media/left dismissed it as a witch hunt. "It's just sex," they all said.
Now, two decades later, they admit they were wrong.

Romney said Russia was a threat.
The media/left mocked him.
Years later admit they were wrong.

Obama said ACA would lowers premiums and let people keep their doctor.
Republicans said this was clearly false.
The media/left sided with Obama.
Now they admit it was false.

These after the fact admissions now are too conveniently self-serving for them to actually matter. They are irrelevant to anything, unless they lead to the media/left changing their tendency to immediately dismiss Republican arguments at the time. Media/left admissions (or honesty to perhaps be more precise) only become relevant if they change how they react at the time of the actual debate.

Admissions, like the VOX/Yglesias one above, cannot be taken seriously. Everyone knows that VOX/Yglesias will react the same exact way the next time -- involving the next Bill Clinton and the next Obama. This double-standard is dragging us all down.

 

In 1960's Alabama it wasn't as 'creepy' as you guys are dramatizing. Certainly not disqualifying of office 40 years later.

Guess you missed the fact I pointed out Miss January 1958 posed for Playboy at 16 years old. And her age was known at the time.

I'm sure countless grown men whacked it to Miss January and thought nothing of it. The same as many do to 18 year olds in porn in modern times.

I doubt it was hard to get a few more people to make up claims they kicked Moore out of the mall or kept an eye on him. Where's the evidence of that? Hit parade tactics at its finest.

Apparently you've never been falsely accused of something awful and illegal you did not do. I have and it does real damage. Psycho ex's are no picnic.

As for what DT said when BB was prodding him, gimme a break. Only cuck Dems have never heard guys make phony macho sexual claims in private.

I've heard plenty of guys say much worse and even women say equally harsh things. It happened plenty in the locker rooms I was part of.

Hell the whole country laughed at Porky's when the guy put his wang through the bottom of the popcorn so his date would grab it without knowing.

It's funny how you guys scream DT is a lying blowhard who exaggerates constantly. But somehow accepted his words to the letter in a tape goofing around with another guy prodding him about how chics flock to him.

Not to mention all your Hollywood assaulter friends were appalled by DT's words. Demanding he be disqualified. Then they went to the office and continued actually groping kids.

 

I think the best thing for the Dems would be for Moore to win and to bring down the whole house of cards. It would play very well in the 2018 elections and that's what Mitch McConnell sees. Kind of like a final four that leaves out an unbeaten Wisconsin. That crap leaves a mark.

I would agree with you on the "locker room talk" in general but for the fact that 16 women allege that he did things to them and they were all called liars by Trump and his sycophants. Many of them reported THE EXACT THINGS HE BRAGGED ABOUT. Again, thank the dark lord for wikileaks. Much like "we never talked to the Russians about anything" and then the emails pop up about the Crown Prosecutor having information on Hillary that DJTJr. sent to Manifort, Kushner, et al. The issue isn't really the opposition research as it is the complete lies. Nixon went down for obstruction of justice when everyone did the math that his continued role as POTUS was going to hurt them in the mid terms.

 

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/gadsden_residents_say_moores_b.html

Also, your defense of Moore sounds eerily familiar to Harvey's "apology". He was from a different time. I'm 50. We had a few divorcees floating around our town when I was in my teens. None of them dated high school kids or even swam in the same waters. Most seemed to naturally follow the general rule that, apparently, Jesus sent down as an addendum to the 10 Commandments - 1/2 age + 7.

 

Here's how those ages play out.

32 - 23
30 - 22
28 - 21
26 - 20
24 - 19
22 - 18
20 - 17
18 - 16

 

Bingo. Trump exaggerates and boasts (as usual) on tape. Tape is released and soon after hit claims of doing said illegal behavior start flying in.

WAPO discovers Moore dated consent aged teens, then the hit claims come flying in manipulating the known behavior into illegal acts.

It's the clear as day Dem attack strategy. There are no consequences for false allegations and the recently exposed narrative is used to support public opinion of the manipulated claims of illegal behavior.

As for the AL seat, I have no clue how that will turn out or what would be the ideal outcome for Reps. All I know is the Dems must not be allowed to swipe it. A successful hit job flipping the seat would embolden future MSM hit jobs to new levels. Then again, even removing Moore probably accomplishes that.

 

Many of the allegations were in the news prior to the tape, by the by. After the tape was released others confirmed with a "hey, that's what he did to me too!"

 

At least one of the cases against our POTUS is moving forward in the courts. Not surprisingly, his legal counsel is trying delay any subpeonas or legal actions until after his term.

 

For all the threats of litigation by DJT, he has yet to file a single defamation lawsuit against any of his accusers. This Wikipedia entry does a pretty balanced job at detailing each alleged incident, including contrary information for some of the claims. The Summer Zervos, an Apprentice contestant, is the lawsuit that continues to move forward.

 

The notable thing here is that an Okie can do math.

 

Frivolous (and I mean the delay tactic, not the lawsuit itself).

 

Ho

How about 49-22?

 

As a 50 year old, I'm ok with it... in the short term.

Who's the example from?

That said, there's a bit of a generation gap there that would make anything outside of the boudoir a little different and my 21 and 20 year old daughter's would probably not appreciate it much.

 

Notice I only did the easy ones. :|

 

Slick Willie and Monica Lewinsky.

 

Never voted for him. Also, I give him more credit for Al-Q than I give to Bush. His pecker was in the way and the right had him treed and his hands were tied so that any military action he took was going to be be treated as a "wag the dog" scenario.

 

Moore's attorneys held a somewhat odd news conference today but it did reveal some interesting possibilities.

They demanded the yearbook be produced for inspection by handwriting specialists.

They also claimed the accuser lied by saying she never had no further contact with Moore after the supposed events took place.

He presided over her divorce case in the 90's. Which directly links to their claim the yearbook inscription was altered to include the "Love, Roy Moore D.A." part.

They said "Roy Moore D.A." was photocopied into the yearbook inscription from the divorce court order. I assume they are insinuating someone forged the word "love" above it.

Moore was assistant D.A. at the time the yearbook inscription took place. Plus his assistant verified the signature on the divorce court order by writing his initials D.A. next to Moore's name.

The lawyers handed out copies of the 90's court order to the media supposedly matching the "Roy Moore D.A." inscription in the yearbook.

 

Here's what the lawyer said about the inscription...

“Judge Moore says he can’t remember ever signing his name with DA after it. But he had seen it before. You know where he had seen it? When he was on the bench, his assistant whose initials are capital D. A. Deborah Adams would stamp his signature on a document and put capital D. A. That’s exactly how this signature appears on the divorce decree that Judge Moore signed dismissing the divorce action of Beverly Nelson.”

Jauregui raised more questions about other elements of the yearbook inscription.

“Look at the 1977 after Merry Christmas. Look at those two sevens. And then look below at the 77. I want to ask you. Do you think it was written by the same person? I want you to look at ‘Old Hickory House,’ which they say Judge Moore wrote. Judge Moore says there is no way in the world that that is his handwriting.”

Moore's attorneys are drafting a letter to Allred demanding she produce the yearbook for a neutral handwriting specialist to submit their findings.

I guess it'll speak volumes if Allred ignores or denies it. If it's really something he signed there'd be no reason not to have it verified and prove beyond a doubt his counter claims are lies.

 

I thought the handwriting looked very similar to the handwriting that they showed with 20 years of difference. I guarantee you my handwriting has migrated a little in 20 years.

You're grasping.

I love the lawyers explanation of Roy Moore ALWAYS asking for mom's permission before he dated these teens...as if that made it OK.

 

Regardless of who's telling the truth. I have a better chance at winning the gold medal in women's gymnastics than that yearbook has of voluntarily being turned over to an independent handwriting expert. In litigation it would be, but is Gloria Allred a real trial lawyer who litigates cases? And what would she be suing Moore for? I'm sure the limitations period on this has lapsed.

 

There are lots of artivles popping up now like this Vox piece. Clearly, libs feel like they have to deal with their past transgressions in order to pile on sexual deviants now. They are attempting to cleanse their palates. 20 years too late, as I wrote above. I doubt they will ever get that taste out of their mouths.

This situation is entirely of their own creation. The left was furious they were not able to get rid of Trump by calling him a rapist. Now anyone who is accused of "sexual misconduct" must have his head presented on a platter. Moore is the immediate target but this will not end with him. Libs' own people are being caught up in this and it will be more of their own people going forward.

 

Here is a writer at the Federalist dealing with same --

".... . Let’s just say that discarding the Clintons when they’re no longer politically useful to retroactively grab the higher moral ground isn’t exactly an act of heroism.
* * *

In The New York Times, for example, Michelle Goldberg spends around 75 percent of her column titled “I Believe Juanita” rationalizing why it was okay not to believe Juanita Broaddrick, who credibly accused Bill Clinton of rape decades ago. You won’t be surprised to learn that Goldberg claims the politics and conspiracy-mongering of conservatives provoked skepticism among liberals — excuses that will be awfully familiar to anyone following the justification of Roy Moore’s supporters.

One of the problems with Goldberg’s contention is that the Broaddrick allegation was uncovered by NBC News, not Richard Scaife. Well, specifically, it was uncovered by NBC News after the network sat on the story throughout the impeachment proceedings against the president. According to the network, the story had to be put through an arduous factchecking process that included figuring out where Clinton had been the day of the alleged rape — something that had been worked out in a few days’ time.

Then again, the myth that most of the media was enthusiastic about uncovering damaging stories relating to Clinton’s background persists today. The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times, for example, both had their hands on Broaddrick’s rape allegation in 1992 but dropped the story. It’s also worth remembering that Michael Isikoff was fired after fighting with his editors at The Washington Post after they dragged their feet on the Paula Jones story in 1994. Again in 1998, Isikoff’s reporting on Monica Lewinsky for Newsweek was shelved until The Drudge Report brought it to the public’s attention. Only after that point did the reporting take off...."​

 

I would be fine with Sessions replacing McConnell

In seriousness, this move by McConnell may have violated the Hatch Act -- by creating an affirmative duty for Sessions to reject the write-in campaign.