THE POLITICS OF BELIEVING: IN WASHINGTON AND HOLLYWOOD, ETHICS IS STRICTLY A MATTER OF TIMING

225px-Bill_ClintonBelow is my column in the Hill newspaper on the ever-increasing list of politicians and celebrities accused of sexual assault or harassment.  The latest news cycle has brought more instances of strategic belief or non-belief.  When Clinton was accused in his first term, many of us wondered how Democrats would ever be able to regain their credibility on future sexual harassment cases. The solution is simple. You delay your believing until it no longer costs you politically or personally.

President Donald Trump indicated that it was better to elect Roy Moore over a liberal to guarantee a majority in the Senate.   Trump’s advisor KellyAnne Conway also made highly controversial comments that appeared to dismiss the allegations against Moore as less relevant than the loss of his vote on the tax bill.  It is one thing to say that you simply do not believe the allegations and quite another to want to secure this vote at any moral cost.  As I have previously stated, I found the allegations of these women (who are largely Republican, Trump voters with no partisan axe to grind) to be highly credible.  It is not enough to simply dismiss the allegations as “unproven” or (as noted by President Trump) denied by the accused.  Even if the statute of limitations had not run, there would be no time for a trial before the election.  Voters have to reach their own conclusions based on the credibility of women and their allegations.  That is what many voters (and President Trump) did in finding the accusers of Clinton credible despite Clinton’s denials.  Many struggle to ignore the large number of women alleging a pattern of abuse by Moore — accounts supported by an array of neighbors and former colleagues (including a police veteran who came forward yesterday to say that she was told to keep Moore away from teenage cheerleaders).  It is still an inconvenient time to believe alleged victims despite the different standard applied to Clinton’s controversies.

What is striking is that some do believe these women but still insist that the need to secure a GOP vote takes priority over the concerns that Moore is a possible pedophile or even a rapist.  These people are selling their ethics (and the ethics of Republican Party) quite cheaply.  It is not everyday that one is able to establish your specific price on ethics. In this case, it is a vote on a tax bill.  For others, there is no choice but to draw a line in the sand . . .with Moore on the other side.  Indeed, when so many politicians are standing on principle in Washington, you know that there is no real alternative.  If you find these women credible, there is no principled way to vote for Roy Moore. I find them quite credible.

Here is the column:

In Washington and Hollywood, principle, like politics, is always a matter of timing. With a constantly growing list of politicians and celebrities accused of sexual harassment or assault, many long silent figures are suddenly calling for action. Democrats are now saying, more than 20 years too late, that they believe that Bill Clinton raped a woman and sexually assaulted others.

In Hollywood, celebrities and politicians who once fawned over producer Harvey Weinstein have come forward to say that they now stand with his accusers, after decades of his well-known abuse of women. In Alabama, numerous people are coming forward to discuss former Alabama chief justice and Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore’s creepy and possibly criminal penchant for very young girls.

Many in Washington put their ethics on layaway during the Clinton presidency and that bill is suddenly due. Despite his denials, Clinton did little to hide prowling for women throughout his career and, like Moore and Weinstein, multiple women accused him of a strikingly similar pattern of sexual assault and even rape. At the time, however, the White House and Congress was at stake and no one was prepared to believe anything that would threaten political control.

Now, a poll found 53 percent of those who voted for Hillary Clintonbelieve the allegations of sexual assault and rape against Bill Clinton, allegations that the former first lady herself once dismissed as just new “bimbo eruptions.” While it has become more and more difficult not to “believe” the many victims coming forward in the various scandals, there remain sharp differences in what believing means in a modern scandal.

Public figures often accept blame or cast blame when it no longer threatens personal costs for them to do so. The key is to suspend your belief in victims until your believing is beneficial. One of those proclaiming that she now believes Clinton’s accusers is Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), a long Clinton defender and the person who took the seat in the Senate once occupied by Hillary Clinton, apologized and said that Bill Clinton should have resigned after the Monica Lewinsky scandal. She has been joined by some other reluctant Democrats who now say that they were wrong.

The sudden epiphany of ethics from long silent politicians and commentators has left Clinton diehards with only a type of transactional ethics. Former Hillary Clinton adviser Philippe Reines reminded everyone that, once bought, you are supposed to stay bought. Reines tweetedangrily in response to Gillibrand that for more than 20 years she “took the Clintons’ endorsements, money, and seat. Hypocrite.” Reines does not offer a denial of Bill Clinton’s conduct, only an objection to selling out and then trying to cash in.

It is also possible to believe victims while supporting the victimizer. Take Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, who left many scratching their heads last week when she announced that she had “no reason to disbelieve” any of the women accusing Moore of acts ranging from sexual assault to sexual harassment to the pursuit of young girls at malls. But she still said that she would vote for Moore because “we need to have a Republican in the United States Senate to vote on the things like Supreme Court justices.”

The public admission that she would vote for a presumed sexual assaulter of young girls on a blind party basis is almost refreshing in its honesty, if it were not completely devoid of any moral foundation. Ivey is saying that she is willing to put a man in the Senate who was allegedly barred from malls as a danger to young girls because he is “our” alleged sexual predator. Few politicians are willing to be that honest in expressing a completely amoral viewpoint. It is particularly curious when you are saying that you will vote for a presumed immoral man who is fraudulently running on a moral platform because you want to support good morals.

Lena Dunham recently showed the flipside of calculated belief. Sometimes it is beneficial to believe even if you actually do not believe accusers. When Murray Miller, writer for the HBO series “Girls,” was accused of sexual assault by actress Aurora Perrineau, Dunham and executive producer Jenni Konner issued a statement in support of Miller. While noting other worthy claims of assault and harassment, they said this was the “wrong target” and that “our insider knowledge of Murray’s situation makes us confident that sadly this accusation is one of the 3 percent of assault cases that are misreported every year.”

Despite revealing their “insider information” about the claims as the basis for their letter, they were quickly denounced for not standing by the accuser regardless of such information. Nevertheless, “What We Lose” author Zinzi Clemmons called Dunham a “hipster racist,” writing that she was quitting Dunham’s weekly online newsletter and that it is “time for women of color, black women in particular, to divest from Lena Dunham.”

Dunham quickly issued an apology and promised to believe the accuser despite saying that she did not believe there was an assault, tweeting, “I naively believed it was important to share my perspective on my friend’s situation as it has transpired behind the scenes over the last few months. I now understand it was absolutely the wrong time to come forward with such a statement and I am so sorry.”

Recently, the New Hampshire Democratic Party held its annual Kennedy Clinton Dinner. Faced with calls for the party to drop Bill Clinton’s name from the dinner due to the sexual assault allegation, New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Raymond Buckley used a classic Washington side step and said, “I think it would be an interesting conversation right after we see the resignation of Donald Trump.”

In other words, you do not have an obligation to act ethically because it is right, but rather you can wait to act when others are acting ethically. It is akin to saying that you did nothing on sexual harassment because other people didn’t do anything. This is the same spin used by Hillary Clinton in refusing to release her Wall Street speeches until Trump released his taxes. The result is that both parties get to refuse to address ethical questions while waiting for the other do so.

Strangely, in this motley crew, Ivey’s approach of “I choose party over ethics” comes strangely the closest to a consistent ethical position. In American politics, that is what passes for principle. It is also why it is not the absence but the pretense of principle that is so maddening among our ethically challenged leaders.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He testified in the Clinton impeachment hearings. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

240 thoughts on “THE POLITICS OF BELIEVING: IN WASHINGTON AND HOLLYWOOD, ETHICS IS STRICTLY A MATTER OF TIMING”

  1. It would be nice if the conversation could became a dialogue instead of two competing monologues. I’ll be the first one to say that if Roy Moore did the things they say he did, then he needs to go – potentially to prison.

    I am also, apparently, the only one to demand that we examine the Moore allegations in an intellectually honest way. To date, why has no one asked:

    – What did the 14 year-old’s parents say to then 30-something Roy Moore when he called the girl at home on the telephone?

    – Why was the yearbook signed in December?

    – Who was “DA”?

    – Why won’t they release the yearbook for forensic examination?

    – Why did one woman say she hadn’t seen Moore since the late 1970s when he presided over her divorce case in 1999?

    – How much did Washington Post pay to cover the cost of two reporters on assignment in Alabama for two weeks to find these allegations, and does that cost completely match travel and living expenses for the two reporters?

    – Why haven’t we learned that one of the two Washington Post reporters was once prosecuted for forging checks in three states?

    – Why are these allegations only emerging now and didn’t surface during Moore’s previous campaigns?

    1. andrewworkshop asked, “Why was the yearbook signed in December?”

      Here’s the answer from Beverly Young Nelson’s statement to the media:

      “I turned 16 on November 14, 1977. About a month later I received my yearbook from Southside high school where I had spent my freshman and sophomore years. I happened to bring my yearbook to work with me to the restaurant on December 22, 1977. I put it down at the end of the counter. Mr. Moore happened to notice it and asked if he could write in your yearbook. I felt flattered and I said ‘yes’.”

      Ms. Nelson transferred to another high school for her junior and senior years. That’s why she didn’t receive the yearbook from her previous high school until December of 1977.

      1. Diane – we all got our yearbooks in the late spring of the year. That is the oddest explanation I have ever heard.

        1. Did all of your yearbooks come in the mail? Or were your yearbooks handed out to you at school? Suppose the latter option. Now suppose you weren’t there at that school to receive yours. What would your yearbook committee have done with your copy of the yearbook? Are those suppositions truly the oddest ever?

          1. Diane – so far, it is the oddest ever explanation for a late yearbook I have heard. What is the oddest you have heard?

            1. Paul asks, “What is the oddest [explanation] you have heard?”

              I have not yet heard any of Moore’s defenders offer a counter-explanation for Nelson’s late yearbook. I strongly suspect that none of Moore’s defenders have a counter-explanation for Nelson’s late yearbook. Because the only plausible counter-explanation that would do Moore any good would be that it was supposedly NOT Nelson’s Southside High School yearbook from her freshman and sophomore years but the yearbook from the other high school she attended for her junior and senior years. Notice: We already know that’s not true.

              1. P. S. There’s a few more wrinkles in the missing counter-explanation for the late yearbook that could be smoothed out if only any of Moore’s defenders were foolhardy enough to go there.

              2. Diane – Allred bluffed with the yearbook and her bluff was called. The best she could come up with was to pretend to turn it over to a Congressional committee that would be investigating Moore. She has already lost this and all other rounds until she submits the yearbook for examination.

                1. Paul, andrewworkshop wants to know why the yearbook was signed in December. He seems to harbor suspicion against Nelson on that count. Perhaps andrewworkshop thinks the date in the yearbook inscription, 12-22-’77, is significant for some reason that he has yet to explain. As far as I can tell, neither Moore nor his lawyer have raised the issue of the date in the yearbook inscription.

                    1. Paul, you mean the date in the yearbook inscription is minor side issue; don’t you? You’re not suggesting that the allegations of sexual assault are a minor side issue; are you?

                      Personally, I think the date in the yearbook inscription, 12–22–’77, is best explained on the theory that Beverly Young Nelson did not forge anything in that yearbook inscription. If you’d care to propose a alternative theory for the date in the yearbook inscription, then I’m prepared to entertain it.

                    2. Diane – I am not sure it is even her yearbook, much less his signature. I want the original before a document examiner before I take a stand one way or the other. Right now, I am neutral, but leaning against Allred and the supposed yearbook and its signature.

                    3. Well I’ll be darned, Paul. I hadn’t considered the possibility of studiously disbelieving every last word that came out of Beverly Young Nelson’s mouth at her press conference with Allred. I have to hand it to you, your skepticism is truly extreme. Are you sure you’re not just dreaming the whole thing? Why would you go so far as to dream up my posts as well?

        1. If the allegations of forgery that Moore’s lawyer leveled against Nelson lack foundation, it might help us all to make a better-informed decision regarding the allegations of forgery that Moore’s lawyer leveled against Beverly Young Nelson.

          1. Why not forensically examine the signature? If Nelson’s story is accurate, then forensic examination supports her case and renders Moore’s position even weaker than it already is. If Nelson’s story is a lie, then forensic examination exposes that lie.

    2. andrewworkshop asked, “Why did one woman say she hadn’t seen Moore since the late 1970s when he presided over her divorce case in 1999?”

      Here’s the answer from an article at ThinkProgress:

      “The documents do show that Nelson, then Beverly Harris, filed a divorce action against her then-husband in May of 1999. All of the initial documents, however, were signed by a different district judge, W. D. Russell. On May 25, 1999, Judge Russell scheduled the first hearing for the case for June 16.

      But that hearing never took place. In June, before the scheduled hearing was set to take place, she filed for a motion to “continue” (delay) the hearing because she and her husband “are going to counseling and are attempting to reconcile.”

      A month later, she filed a motion to dismiss the case. That appears to be the only document Moore signed, and given there was no hearing, there is no reason the divorce action would have required her to enter the courthouse or have contact with Moore.

      Moore’s attorney acknowledged that he didn’t even personally sign this document. Rather, it was a routine filing where his name was stamped by an assistant. Nelson did eventually file for divorce again, but it was five years later, and a different judge, District Judge Donald W. Stewart, oversaw and signed the final divorce papers.

      The only explanation for Jauregui claiming “there was contact” between Moore and Nelson because of this divorce action is to undermine Nelson’s credibility. In doing so, he only further undermined Moore’s.”

      Ms. Nelson never appeared before Judge Roy Moore. Judge Roy Moore did not “preside” over Nelson’s divorce case in 1999. Roy Moore did not personally sign the dismissal document for Nelson’s divorce complaint. Moore’s administrative assistant rubberstamped Moore’s signature. The rubber stamp signature features Moore’s middle initial “S.” Moore’s handwritten signature does not include his middle initial. The signature in the yearbook does not include Moore’s middle initial. Moore’s own lawyer provided samples of Moore’s handwritten signature to the press from the time when Moore was Deputy District Attorney that include the abbreviation “D. A.” for District Attorney.

      Now who is it, exactly, who is “. . . the only one to demand that we examine the Moore allegations in an intellectually honest way”? Not andrewworkshop.

      1. “DA” was the initials of Moore’s assistant in 1999, not in the late 1970s.

        We could solve the yearbook puzzle very easily – subject the ink to scientific examination. Why hasn’t that happened?

        I know questions like these challenge your preferred narrative. They must be explored though in the name of intellectual honesty.

        1. Moore was an Assistant “D. A.” in the late ’70’s, not in 1999. The rubberstamped Roy Moore signature has his middle initial “S.” Moore’s own lawyer alleges that Nelson supposedly copied the rubberstamped Roy S. Moore signature from the court document she received in 1999 which has Moore’s middle initial “S” in it. The signature in Nelson’s yearbook does not have Moore’s middle initial “S.” There’s no foundation for Moore’s own lawyer’s allegation of forgery against Beverly Young Nelson.

          I know answers like these challenge your “intellectual honesty.” But your preferred narrative is unfounded.

          1. A) No. As you will note. I asked a series of questions that do date have not been addressed. That means I have no source, other than open and honest observation of the topic.

            B) While it is ever so clever of you to try and hide the bias of your source by asking a question instead of answering mine, you still have answered mine. So Judd Legum. Who did he work for? I’ll give you a hint. She has blonde hair and an unhealthy affinity for $1500 pantsuits.

            1. andrewworkshop said, “. . . I have no source, other than open and honest observation . . .”

              So you openly and honestly have no idea whatsoever exactly how the questions you posed even occurred to you in the first place??? Fascinating. Here’s a hint: Each and every last one of your questions was raised by Breitbart News–operated by Steve Bannon, who openly and honestly supports Roy Moore.

              This means, necessarily, that, on this topic, L4D knows the source of andrewworkshop’s thoughts better than andrewworkshop does. Unless, of course, andrewworkshop is lying about his own ignorance of the source for his own open and honest observation. But why would he lie about that? It makes no sense.

              BTW, four out of the eight questions you posed have been answered, repeatedly. If you don’t like the answers, then why ask the questions–repeatedly??? Maybe the answers will change tomorrow. Or not. Maybe someone could nudge the phonograph needle past the little piece of Breitbart schmutz that keeps the broken record replaying the same old questions over and over, again and again–ad nauseum. Or not.

              1. I guess you read more Brietbart than I do. I simply ask the questions that come to mind. If as you say, 4 of my 8 questions have been answered, why don’t you make yourself useful and answer the remaining 4? I eagerly await your answers to those questions.

    3. andrewworkshop asked – “What did the 14 year-old’s parents say to then 30-something Roy Moore when he called the girl at home on the telephone?”

      The girl’s name is Leigh Corfman. Her parents were divorced at the time of the alleged incident. She was living with her mother at that time. She and her mother first met Moore outside a courtroom waiting for a hearing to determine which parent would retain custody of Leigh.

      Your question presumes that one of Leigh’s parents must have answered the phone or otherwise have heard Leigh talking on the phone to somebody they somehow knew to have been Roy Moore. That’s an awful lot of assumed facts not in evidence, andrewworkshop. Or do you also presume that a14 year-old girl would somehow be incapable of having a clandestine telephone conversation unbeknownst to her mother?

      Or are you suggesting that Leigh’s mother gave Moore permission to date her daughter? If so, then be advised that neither mothers nor fathers can give permission to anyone sexually to assault their daughters.

        1. There you go again assuming facts not in evidence. What in the world makes you think the mother answered the phone when it rang? I’ll concede the possibility of the mother answering the phone, if you’ll deny the necessity for the mother answering the phone.

  2. Vinegart, when one takes a facetious argument at face value, one tends to lose face. Try rereading McMullen’s diatribe as a refutation by analogy to “The Feminine Mystique,” by Betty Friedan, instead.

    Be advised, however, McMullen’s analogy is extremely weak and, therefore, fails rather miserably as a refutation of Friedan. But if you conduct the thought experiment anyway, you might eventually get a better idea than taking McMullen at face value.

  3. Ole lady Clinton (Hillary, not Chelsea) sure has been silent about all this. Odd. She’s a loud mouth. Never stops yammering about stuff. Yet on this topic, she’s been quiet. Granted, Hillary has never, ever, not once in her public life, led on any given issue – she’s always waited until everyone else gave their $0.02 before releasing her focus-grouped and poll-tested response. She hasn’t said “boo” about this though.

  4. Darren, Olly
    According to Dr. Dean, colloidal minerals, such as marketed in solution or found naturally in food & water, are near perfectly absorbed, while mineral supplements are virtually worthless because they are not colloidal and cannot be absorbed easily. Colloidal magnesium is very expensive, however, Epsom salt is dirt cheap and efficiently absorbed when in bath water or foot soak. We use concentrated magnesium chloride (magnesium crystals, more expensive than Epsom salt), which we mix 50/50 with water and put in spray bottles (everyone in the family has a spray bottle with magnesium). There’s no better way to relax or get an excellent night’s sleep than by saturating your body with magnesium, never mind the benefit of having seven or eight hundred bodily functions operating at peak efficiency. In other words, even if magnesium doesn’t resolve tinnitus caused by blunt sound, it certainly can resolve or prevent many other health issues, assuming one is among the 9 out of 10 who are magnesium deficient.

    1. David, hard to believe, but there are decent people in DC because they want to serve. Unfortunately, how boring would a positive comment be?

  5. When Reagan came to Washington, Hollywood came to Washington, and America went to hell in the handbasket. Ethics?
    Send lawyers, guns and money! The shit has hit the fan!

    1. What a ridiculous argument – that Reagan somehow caused this. I could say the same thing about John F. Kennedy. I could make a more valid argument by observing that unlike any previous President, Bill Clinton was the first pop culture candidate and then POTUS. (His aborted 1988 Presidential campaign is quickly forgotten. He had to play sax on Arsenio Hall as part of his reinvention).

    2. Don’t blame this on Reagan! He pulled us out of a deeply disappointed citizenry. No apologies for philandering, no stories about grabbing or squeezing. Eight years after he was elected we lived in a much better place.

  6. JT, I love your work but you are 1,000% wrong on this one. The reason people support Roy Moore is that there are serious flaws in the allegations against him. It’s a shame you aren’t willing to explore those flaws. Additionally, it’s a no-brainer that Trump – or anyone else – wouldn’t want a leftist to take a Senate seat. When was the last time Obama or any given Democrat begged for a conservative Republican to take one of their long held Senate seats?

    What I’d like to know is why now? Why in the fall/winter of 2017 are all these allegations emerging? What was the tipping point?

          1. Harvey’s Ace in the hole, his “stay out of jail card” that made him untouchable,the Clinton’s, are now losers and powerless. That’s why the MSM went after him, although NBC could have had the scoop but weasled out. All the male sh!tbirds are soiling their undies. Hetero men are screwed. But the Gay Mafia are still fighting dirty and the floodgates have yet to open on them. Ask Terry Crews.

          2. swarthmoremom wrote: “I don’t know but the floodgates have opened.”

            Before “the floodgates…opened.”

            “”Silence is the enemy of justice, and these powerful men know that,” Spillar said. “I think this is going to start an avalanche, I really do.”

            http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-harvey-weinstein-sexual-harassment-20171007-story.html

            Excerpt:

            “But outside Hollywood, some were saying that this could be the start of a major cultural shift.

            “Kathy Spillar, executive director of the Feminist Majority Foundation, said she’s been reminded of what happened with Anita Hill’s 1991 testimony against Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. He may have gotten onto the court anyway, but Hill’s allegations spurred many women to come forward with their own stories of sexual harassment — many who hadn’t even realized that what they were experiencing from their bosses was actually illegal.

            “”Silence is the enemy of justice, and these powerful men know that,” Spillar said. “I think this is going to start an avalanche, I really do. And we all know this behavior is not limited to Cosby, Ailes, O’Reilly and Weinstein.””

            1. I’ll be more convinced of “the floodgates” being opened when we get to learn who Janice and Jessica were, why they were on a chartered plane with Clinton and Epstein, and why Clinton traveled with them at least five times without Secret Service protection. I’d also like to know what went on during the flight with Kevin Spacey.

        1. I can’t help but think of the film, Awakenings, based upon a true story, where an entire ward of catatonic patients, in that state, for decades, come back to life. . .

  7. In light of the unfolding capitol hill sexual harassment settlements, the citizens of Alabama might perceive Moore as an upgrade in that corrupted institution.

    Congress has no human resources department. Instead, congressional employees have 180 days to report a sexual-harassment incident to the Office of Compliance, which then leads to a lengthy process that involves counseling and mediation, and requires the signing of a confidentiality agreement before a complaint can go forward . . . after this an employee can choose to take the matter to federal district court, but another avenue is available: an administrative hearing, after which a negotiation and settlement may follow.

    In this case, [the staffer] was offered a settlement, in exchange for her silence, that would be paid out of Conyers’s taxpayer-funded office budget. His office would “rehire” the woman as a “temporary employee” despite her being directed not to come into the office or do any actual work, according to the document. The complainant would receive a total payment of $27,111.75 over the three months, after which point she would be removed from the payroll, according to the document.

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/john-conyers-congresss-secret-history-of-sexual-harassment-is-about-to-explode

        1. Millions have been wasted on this hush money. There are lots of nervous men in congress right now. Write to your congressman and ask for this practice to be stopped .I repeat what i said though that the very worst molest minors.

      1. If the yearbook is not Moore’s writing, not just signature, but the whole thing and it proves a forgery, It would be the end if Allred. This is what we had all through last year’s election. This revelation, that revaluation, on and on. Jones is a conservative’s nightmare. Late term abortion is fine. There are more, but I can’t remember them. Is McConnell going to kick Franken out of the Senate also? Voters are being played.

    1. Perhaps this is why his wive divorced him in 2015. Hmmm, isn’t Conyers the one who first suggested the MLK Jr. federal holiday? My, my.

  8. Is law and justice so perverted now that we can have all these conflicting opinions and everyone believes they are right? Of course it is. Is it fixable? I doubt it. We’ve become the secular version of the Sunni’s and the Shiites; with the terrorism angle to boot.

    It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

    What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.

    In the first place, it erases from everyone’s conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.

    No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

    The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are “just” because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.

    To prove that last point; those that deny natural law must conclude all rights come from man. To hold that position means a culture and their government can make anything lawful and unlawful depending on the whims of those in power.

  9. Sorry, but there is no settling for ‘credibility of the accuser’ when counsel Gloria is out there publicly choking over the veracity of her ‘evidence’. Only solution left >have Gloria release the yearbook. If it is genuine – poof! – no Moore. Otherwise no credibility.

    1. Not being from Alabama, I’d like to know when the first accusation was made against Roy Moore. I thought someone said the decision not to pursue any charge by a young girl against Moore was made by her parents, Wrong? I’ve watched men’s careers suffer from allegations that weren’t true. Now this Allred client crying a river with a yearbook Ms. Allred will not let others see. I don’t like these last minute discoveries with no time to pursue their validity. My solution, if Moore wins McConnell must seat him. Not to is unfair to his state. The ladies make their complaints via suit and the issue go through the court system. The Washington Post has gone beyond reporting to having an impact on an election. Are they any different than the Russians, who have been charged with interfering in the election of 2016.

      Democrats have gone overboard. And now have Conyers and Franken to defend. They’ve defended Clinton so long they should be able to do it. If Moore loses or McConnell defeats his own party, how many other Dems will be accused? They have some arrogant Senators who might be nervous.

      More important than all of this is this slush fund set up to pay off accusers of inappropriate behavior of Representatives OR THEIR STAFF! Tell me I heard that wrong.

    2. Correct! And the fact that Allred REFUSES to release the yearbook is, on its face, proof that her entire case against Moore is PURE BS! If the yearbook were genuine, why wouldn’t she release it to prove that she’s correct. You Know the answer to that! The yearbook is as phony as a $3 bill. Just like JT.

          1. Riddle me this:

            – What were the 14 year-old’s parents telling then 30-something Roy Moore when he called her house and they picked up?

            – How come the date on the yearbook signature is December? Yearbooks aren’t issued in December.

            – Who was “DA”?

            – Why did the lady with the yearbook say she hadn’t seen Moore since the late 1970s when he presided over her divorce?

          2. YNOT – no I don’t have my h.s. diploma, however, both my college diplomas are on the wall of my office. Not sure that is any help. Never bought any of the college yearbooks, so I am not even sure I show up in them.

            1. Yearbooks. I’m surprised they are even a thing anymore. But anyway:

              – Who was “DA”?

              – Why did Moore allegedly sign the yearbook in December?

              – Why did the woman with the yearbook claim she hadn’t seen Moore since the late 1970s when he presided over her divorce?

              – Why not subject the yearbook to forensic science?

              – What were the 14 year-old’s parents telling Roy Moore when they anwered the phone and he asked to speak with their daughter?

              1. andrewworkshop – I think current yearbooks are on CDs, making them a little hard to sign. 😉
                Moore just rubberstamped a motion to dismiss her divorce proceedings. She got divorced under another judge a couple years later. Either the secretary or Moore did that, but usually because it has been left by a ‘runner’ from a company that specializes in serving process. The runners go to each of the lawyers’ offices each day to pick up new stuff for the courts and drop off old stuff. I used to be a runner when I was in community college. 🙂 Then I moved on to be a process server. Then the top paid process server in the county. However, enough of my sordid past. I spent enough time in judges’ offices waiting for them to sign an emergency document for me or just to drop off a document and pick it the next day. Some signed them, some had their secretaries sign them (especially if I left it overnight).

                1. Yearbooks on CDs. That’s sad. Kind of alleviates the mystique. Why, I can remember back in the 1980s eagerly hoping “she” would sign it then going on summer break and wondering how “she’d” be as the next grade commenced. There was no Facebook, Twitter, et al to track her every action. It seems technology replaced innocence in our society, doesn’t it. No wonder our society is so f’d up.

                  Still, I never had anyone sign any of my yearbooks in December. What’s up with that?

                  So, do you know factually that Moore rubber-stamped her divorce proceedings?

                  Either way, why not submit the yearbook to forensic science?

                  And still, when then 30-something Roy Moore was calling a 14 year-old, what were mom and dad saying to Roy when they picked up the phone?

                  1. andrewworkshop – I never saw a judge’s signature stamp that did not look like his/her exact signature. Allred is reporting that the judge’s secretary rubber-stamped the motion to dismiss, which is automatic. However, she is also reporting a size difference between the rubber-stamp signature and Moore’s real signature, hence her client could not have ‘forged’ the signature in the yearbook.

                    I do not know the yearbook is hers. No one carries their yearbook around in December. And he signed it with his official signature, supposedly. I want to see the yearbook. I want to know what she was doing in December of that year. She evidently remembered he signed her yearbook. I can only remember one person who signed mine and it was an insult, which is why I remember it. 😉

                    Right now there are just too many holes in this, led by the 4 in Allred.

                    1. I agree. There are a great many holes in the Moore allegations. Yet, no one in the media or these forums seems intellectually honest enough to discuss them.

                      Were I a conspiracy theorist, I’d say that Hollywood is unloading theirs to rehab and Congress theirs to ethics committee hearings in order run an Alinsky against Moore and somehow, by extension, Trump.

                      That’s if it I were a conspiracy theorist.

                      Yet, Harvey Weinstein and Spacey seem to be enjoying “rehab” nicely. I wonder what sex rehab at a luxury spa involves? Large pictures of fat women with admonitions not to masturbate? Isn’t that objectifying obese women?

                      As for Congressional ethics hearings…they maintain a slush fund. It’s records are anonymous. The proceedings or hearings are glacial. If you are an ass man in Congress and get caught, you’ve won the lottery when an ethics committee investigation investigates you. The time lines allow it all to blow over. The reporting mechanisms omit everyone’s identity. You’re golden.

    3. Poof, no Moore? He may have signed the book if asked. But the note, maybe not. Just remember, we need Trump to straighten the business aspect of our country and more attention to the military. Trump needs Republicans in the Senate. I think we will see more and more sexual harassment claims. We may have to have C-span put an R rating on the screen.

  10. A classic line in this article from a classic BS Leftist Conman: “As I have previously stated, I found the allegations of these women (who are largely Republican, Trump voters with no partisan axe to grind) to be highly credible. It is not enough to simply dismiss the allegations as “unproven” or (as noted by President Trump) denied by the accused.”

    BS #1: JT finds the allegations “highly credible.” But he does NOT disclose the REAL reason he finds the false statements credible. The REAL reason is that he wants a LOWLIFE LEFTIST to defeat a conservative.

    BS #2: JT claims that the women “are largely Republican” and have “nonpartisan axe to grind.” And what does he base this false assumption on? Zero, zilch, zip, nada–unless, of course, you consider fake news published by Leftist rags to be a source of information. How does JT know that the women AREN’T Leftists? He doesn’t. There is zero evidence that the women hold any conservative views whatsoever. Zero.

    BS #3. JT says it’s not enough to dismiss the allegations as “unproven.” In other words, in JT perverted, lying, retarded mentality, facts and evidence are irrelevant. A person’s false statements are to be believed SOLELY because the lying person’s objective is to harm a conservative and thereby advance his Leftist cause.

    Any more BS from JR? I’m sure there will be more. There is an endless supply of BS from Leftist Lowlifes with a blog.

    1. I’m stunned by JT’S willingness to so easily accept, without question or investigation, the accusations as being credible. To accept the accusers as being credible. Unless he has access to information, not readily accessible to the masses, he knows no more than the rest of us. A baffling and bizarre holding from, of all people, an esteemed law professor. A law professor who, whether he realizes it or not, walks a very tenuous and shaky line, each and every single day, when he teaches at a university. All it takes is a few vindictive students, upset with their less than perfect semester grades, to wage war against him. Wage war against someone they perceive as ruining their GPA. Wage war against someone who just ruined their class ranking, which is critical for law students. Accuse him of everything and anything. It has happened before to others. Not pretty. Would he want fake and false accusations, against him, by individuals, with an ax to grind, to be so readily accepted by us? Believed? Given credibility? No. Of course, not. He would cry for justice. . .an investigation. . .the benefit of the doubt. Funny, how he is unwilling to want to know more about the accusers and their respective backgrounds, reserving his opinion until he has a better grasp of what might have, in fact, occurred, so many decades ago. Instead, the accusers are to be given immediate credibility. Careful what you wish for, JT. Careful.

      1. BB, JT doesn’t really “accept, without question or investigation, the accusations as being credible.” He knows that the accusations are PURE BS, but, as an ardent Leftist, he can’t admit to that. That’s why JT doesn’t call for the so-called YEARBOOK “evidence” to be released to a third-party independent study. JT KNOWS there are scientific tests to determine the age of the ink used in the passage written in the Yearbook, so this doesn’t come down to a matter of judgment of handwriting experts. It’s PURE FORENSIC SCIENCE. This is how you can be 100% CERTAIN that JT is lying BS con-artist. If JT had even 0.00000009% integrity or decency, he would be arguing for such a test to settle once and for all whether Moore’s Leftist opponents are correct or not. But he doesn’t not because he wants to lies to continue–as ALL Leftists do. They LOVE lies, deceptions, canards, and frauds and the HATE facts and evidence with a passion.

        1. Ralph, if you ask me, the whole yearbook brouhaha, is a red herring. It means, nothing. It proves, nothing. Perhaps, if the yearbook has, indeed, been forged, it proves, beyond a doubt, that the accuser is a liar. That’s all it proves. Perhaps, if the signature is, in fact, legitimate, it merely proves that the accuser had Moore actually sign the yearbook. Beyond that, the only thing, which is relevant, is whether or not Moore molested underage girls–girls who were, due to their age at the time, incapable of giving consent. A yearbook, with best wishes scrawled on it, doesn’t prove or disprove that in any way.

          1. That’s a very good point BB. Introducing the yearbook as evidence of Moore’s guilt, if proving not to be a forgery, proves only that he is guilty of signing her yearbook.

            1. Yes, Olly and BB, but put yourselves in Allred’s shoes. Wouldn’t you like to be able to prove that Moorse signed the Yearbook if you could? Sure, you would. That would mean guilt by association and the Mainstream Media would blast Moore calling the Yearbook the equivalent of a smoking gun for their otherwise unfounded claims.

              But Allred does NOT agree to let the Yearbook be tested–and, understandably so. She KNOWS it’s BOGUS. Nor does the Mainstream Media call for the Yearbook to be tested either–and for the same, identical reason.

    2. It is disappointing to read JT’s excuses for these attacks. No one knows who these “Trump voters” voted for. The Mall says there was never any ban. As a woman who had a tongue shoved in my mouth by my manager, I didn’t want to deal with anything that might have hurt my job. Shall I go find the guy and sue him, of course not! Has it clouded every day of my life, of course not! I’m not slobbering as I write this, promise. These women went on with their lives. Why they are putting themselves and their families through this I don’t know. Or is someone handing money around. And ladies, that’s what people will think. Otherwise why now? This could have, and perhaps should have, happened at another time. But it sat there for decades. Everybody wants Moore gone. Now everybody wants Franken gone. We elect people because they represent our views. So Alabama may not get the representation they want. Franken’s State may lose someone they elected for their views. Now thousands of voters are potentially going to lose their vote.

      I hope no Repub had anything to do with the Franken story. I know Dems are responsible for the Moore story. Dirty politics from the Swamp. Will it ever get clean?

  11. It’s not just Demos versus GOPs. There is the moderate consitutional centrist independent faction to consider. The ones that took 40% of the vote in the last election. Given a choice between Moore and a Progressively Regressive Leninist who do you think is going to win. After that it’s up to the Senate but there is the Adam Clayton Powell syndrome. Once elected he’s elected and it isn’t up to the Federales as the people of New York pointed out they just elected Powell the second time. Sure he was sidelined except for votes.

  12. Just watched the documentary “The Red Pill” – found it both enlightening and disturbing. To be sure women have suffered abuse by men — but the reverse is also true. I feel the pendulum has swung too far. For example, a few weeks ago I tripped on an uneven curb and fractured the knee cap on one leg and the foot on the other. Walking with both a brace and a boot was hard to balance and a week ago I fell again – this time bruising my face and fracturing the bone in one arm. I am black, blue, yellow and green. I’m pretty sure if I called the cops and told them my husband was responsible he’d be hauled off. IMO it’s not right that people can make allegations with no evidence,

    http://theredpillmovie.com/

        1. Autumn – what is the prognosis of your healing? Or are we praying for a miracle? 😉 Glad you are back though.

          1. Greetings Paul, a few more weeks with the knee/foot – x rays next week will reveal if the bones are where they should be. The arm is more complicated as the break is near the shoulder – so at least 6 more weeks and several months. I am hoping to avoid surgery so am immobilized. So glad we have netflix & amazon! Been diverting myself with films and documentaries =) I am glad to be back – missed y’all!

          2. Paul, I sent you a reply but it has disappeared (Darren can you find it?) And typing with one hand is tiresome =) short answer – x rays next week will indicate if bones are healing.
            And I have missed y’all!

                  1. Sorry to hear you had a stroke Paul. Glad it did not affect you intellectually – you are one of the folks who drew me to the blog.

                    1. Autumn – I just cannot feel the tips of three of my fingers on my right hand and two on my left, besides numbness in other parts of my body. It is annoying, but not the end of the world. 😉

                    2. I had the ulnar nerve by my right elbow constricted and had to have an operation to remove it. The sensation in my ring and little finger returned but there remains a slight effect that I don’t notice. That is, until I read about such things as your condition. You’re right, it’s not an issue now. The ringing in my ears from tinnitus is more annoying.

                    3. Tinnitus can be caused by osteoporosis of bones in the skull, a condition that is becoming more common because magnesium has been depleted from soil. 90% of the U.S. population is now deficient in magnesium, which is a cofactor in hundreds of bodily functions, including calcium absorption. In other words, you can eat all the calcium-rich foods in the world but it won’t keep your bones from thinning unless you have plenty of magnesium. A-fib is another symptom of magnesium deficiency, although your cardiologists, unaware of the real cause, will probably suggest an expensive surgical ablation to slow your heart, when in fact a simple foot soak in Epsom salt will do the trick every time. Anyone interested in avoiding the lethal dangers of the healthcare system today will not want to be without the wealth of information that Dr Carolyn Dean has to offer. Her advice about saturating your body with magnesium can resolve several health issues simultaneously, assuming one is not a junk-food junkie, alcoholic or drug user.

                      https://drcarolyndeanlive.com/2017/11/06/take-magnesium-for-your-bones-carolyn-dean-md-nd/

                    4. Thanks for the advice vinegart. I’ll give it a try for a month and see what happens. Mine was caused by gunfire so I don’t know if there is an osteoporosis element but at least it is something to investigate.

                    5. Thanks as well for the tip. My Tinnitus was caused by a multiple of things all related to shipboard life in the Navy.

                    6. Olly – I have some tinnitus caused by working on a large printing press for 3 years. The rest of it is selective hearing. 😉

    1. Get well soon! I only broke an arm and got some bruised ribs a year ago next week. That was painful enough. I can’t imagine how you feel right now, Autumn. Gute Besserung!

          1. Not better Paul – just different – for example in Germany they use various supplements, herbs,etc and are
            (generally) more hesitant to do surgery. Part of their FDA is devoted to these alternatives. I have
            discovered here it’s hard not to be prescribed drugs – even the dentist has offered oxy!

            so I got a list of supplements and homeopathic cream to reduce bruises and swelling – mt left hand looks like a purple catcher’s mitt. Also a remedy to reduce pain and increase circulation.

          1. Nick, thanks for your encourgement – a few days ago I was ready to give up as the pain seemed never ending but I kept telling myself “this too shall pass” and sure enough I feel much better.

  13. Principled people in Washington D.C.? Less chance of that the the turkey imitiating a cow. So question? On what do you base your belief in their truthfulness? Certain threshold in numbers? Witnesses? Is it a case of ‘revenge is a dish best served cold?’ So far alledge does not mean facts and certainly not ‘facts in evidence.’ What is a fact is our Constitution guarantees ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ Without that ethic the rest is moot.

  14. When we talk about ethics, how do you feel about JFK? In 1962 I opposed him a an immoral man. History has proved me right.

      1. Hey, hey, hey. . .some respect. If this person, was into politics in 1962, you gotta give him/her some credit for even being capable of getting onto the computer and voice his/her opinions.

          1. Both wrong.; It’s displaying or explaining or any other of the marvelous and accurate words in our language.

            voice
            vois/
            verb
            gerund or present participle: voicing

            1.
            express (something) in words.
            “get teachers to voice their opinions on important subjects”

            synonyms: express, vocalize, communicate, articulate, declare, state, assert, reveal, proclaim, announce, publish, publicize, make public, make known, table, air, vent;

            Notice thee are over a dozen correct choices in Standard American English. PC and Slanguage excluded.

            Just expressing my opinion as I silently type this post.

        1. My first computer was a KayPro CPM machine with 64K ram and two 360 floppy drives. Did your experience start with Windows Ten or Vista?

      2. About half the population and certainly the more experienced half and without doubt that contains the more educated one fourth. In those days the schools did teach history and civics and we went through the Constitution article by article. The next year I graduated high school and Kennedy was no more. That’s when we witnessed one of the top five most immoral people ever to sit in the Oval Office and near 60,000 of us paid a second blood price for that assassination. .

  15. ‘selling your ethics so cheap’…. So when did this start? ——- Does anyone forget how close Anthony Weiner was to real power? All it took was a teenager to twitter him with a message. He was a blackmail target 101. He had classified documents on his computer that could be thumb drived in an hour to a black-mailer.

  16. CV Brown – as you know I am a firm believer that Allred should give up the yearbook NOW. I am not saying that they are comparable cases, just that they are using the same argument on both sides. Actually, Franken is going to help Moore win. BTW, with Franken we have three photos, two new ones with Huffington where he is grabbing her breasts in a photo shoot.

Leave a Reply