Moore: Sexual Allegations Are The Work Of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgenders, and Socialists

Judge_Roy_MooreRepublican Senate candidate Roy Moore in Alabama has faced a large and broad spectrum of accusers over his alleged pursuit of girls aged 14-16 while a prosecutor in his 30s. The allegations have come from multiple women, including one who says that she was sexually assaulted at age 14.  There are also an array of neighbors, former colleagues, and security officers who have come forward to detail Moore’s reputation as a menace for young girls.  The women accusing Moore are Republican and Trump supporters.  They describe a similar and chilling pattern of a man who was reportedly on a watch list at the local mall as well as cheerleading events.  While denying the sexual assault, Moore avoided any substantive national interview.  Now, however, Moore appears to entered a delusional and deranged realm in blaming the allegations on a conspiracy of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender persons, and socialists.


As I have stated before for the record, I have been a critic of Moore’s for over a decade as someone who rejects the basic tenets of legal process and core protections of individual rights.  He was thrown off the Alabama Supreme Court not by lesbians and transgenders and socialists but by fellow Republicans who remained faithful to their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

This latest effort to brush aside credible allegations is part of an effort to give voters an excuse, any excuse, to ignore the obvious moral hazard presented by Roy Moore.

Moore told his followers at the Magnolia Springs Baptist Church in Alabama Wednesday night that the people behind the attacks are really just “pushing a liberal agenda” and asked “When I say they, who are ‘they?'”

“They’re liberals. They don’t hold conservative values. They are the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender who want to change our culture. They are socialists who want to change our way of life and put man above God and the government is our God. They’re the Washington establishment … who don’t want to lose their power.”

It is hard to believe that anyone would buy this low-grade conspiracy spin. However, people will often work very hard to avoid doing what they know is the right thing . . .  in this case withdrawing support from Roy Moore.

His remarks parallel equally unhingded comments earlier this month from Orthodox Rabbi Noson Shmuel Leiter.  Leiter declared that “Democratic and Republican homosexualists” were attacking Moore because he is standing up to “homosexualist gay terrorists” and “the LGBT transgender mafia.”  I am still trying to get my mind around the Rabbi’s obsession with “homosexualist gay terrorists,” which are not exactly a common category of suspects for Interpol.

182 thoughts on “Moore: Sexual Allegations Are The Work Of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgenders, and Socialists”

  1. Allan:

    BFM conflates certainty with proof. Certainty is an absolute as in moral certainty. Absolute proof is one such certainty and is unqualified. Sadly most standards of proof exist in the realm of uncertainty such as “more likely than not,” or “preponderance of evidence,” or “beyond a reasonable doubt.” No quantum of proof save one excludes all doubt and is thus an unqualified statement. BFM wants us to engage on the plain of certainty where he has the advantage. Statistics can be elements of proof and we sometimes get to use them in court when they are deemed reliable. That reliability does not involve absolute certainty just probability of being accurate. And to what degree of probability is the decision of the law of that type of case. BFM wants to take us down every rosy path to conclude that proof isn’t the foundation of reasonable belief. It’s the same justification that the religious ideologue uses to justify all manner of crazy beliefs (we can’t know so I go by my feelings or the colors of the leaves or whatever). The bottom line is that if BFM was presented a choice (like diving into a dark pool of water) between an evidence-based decision and one based on a hunch of personal observations the preference for an evidence-based decision increases as we go along a continuum showing the increase in the importance of the decision. BFM is a smart guy and knows better. That’s why I didn’t engage.

  2. If meritorious politicians (now there’s a contradiction) were instead in office we wouldn’t suffer these dramas and perhaps some actual benefit might be afforded the citizenry.

  3. “We have to reach reasoned and objective conclusions on the credibility of allegations”
    is false when we have evidence as in both the Moore and Franken cases. We have to reach reasoned and objective conclusions based on the evidence. Sadly the evidence in the Moore case is bottled up by the ego of a counsel who wants to involve the US congress to go it her way or hit the highway. That counsel choked (in affirming the veracity of her client’s evidence) on multiple occasions in public. Credibility goes out the window. And it’s a contradiction to assert the credibility of the accuser based on the evidence (as Allred has done) and then turn around (after choking in regard to that evidence) to then base the credibility of the evidence on the credibility of the allegation (which Allred has also done).

    As for the credibility of Corfman –

    and since there is no limitation on sexual attack on underage children in Alabama – why does she not go to the police (who according to a certain Faye Gray have been waiting for years for such a complaint – without success mind you-) but only to WaPo?

    “Criminal Statute of Limitations

    No status of limitations for sexual offenses against victims less than 16 years old. If older than 16, most sexual offenses are classified as felonies and generally have a 3 year status of limitations. Very few sexual offenses are classified as misdemeanors which have a 1 year statue of limitations.”


      1. Jacques,…
        I think Alabama changed the statute of limitations for those offenses in about 1985, after the alleged offenses by Moore.
        My understanding is that the original ( expired) statute of limitations applies to Moore…,that he can’t be now be prosecuted under the revised statute of limitations.
        The Supreme Court ruled on this in 2003 ( Stogman v. California).

          1. Thanks for the clarification on that issue ( I am not a lawyer obviously). I stand corrected on that and withdraw that particular question.

            Thanks again,

            1. Jacques,..
              -I wasn’t sure how it worked when a statute of limitation was changed or eliminated after the original statute of limitationexpired.
              Your statement motivated me to check to see if there’d ever been a SCOTUS ruling.
              The Stogner decision was 5-4, and the main basis for it seems to be that retroactively applying a different SOL to earlier offenders violated the Ex Post Facto clause.
              I don’t know if Moore could still be sued in civil court…..some of the settlements with the Catholic Church and others are based on offenses that are 40-50-60 years old.

              1. Based upon my scant reading – which itself may be flawed ( – I was under the impression the Civil suit was not a possible option.


                1. Jacques,…
                  If there is any possible way of monetary gain via a civil suit against Moore, I’m sure that Allred will find it.

    1. There’s an old country saying that I’m sure many of the hillbilly yokels who support Moore are familiar with: “if the people call it a horse, go buy a saddle.” The same thing applies here: “if nine women, former coworkers, mall security guards and local cops call him a child-molesting pedophile, keep him away from your kids.”

      This is to “let’s give chomos a chance” Jacquie

      1. Marky Mark Mark – if he was, as you say, a child molesting pedophile (redundant), then those cops should have arrested him and gotten him off the streets. What I don’t see is anyone blowing the whistle when he was supposedly doing this child molesting. So, they are co-dependents of his behavior, assuming that behavior is what you say it was. They are accessories after the fact and chargeable.

        The mall manager says Moore was never banned from the mall, there is an issue as to whether Nelson ever worked at Olde Hickory and if Moore ever went there. Stories are falling apart as local papers are doing the investigation that national papers should. The longer Allred hangs on to that yearbook the weaker her case. At this point, I don’t think the yearbook is an issue in AL any longer. Allred screwed the pooch on this one. Although one poll has Jones up by 3 it is heavily weighted towards Democrats. The last legitimate poll had Moore up by 6 and there are two major rallies coming up for Moore.

        The voters of AL will decide who to sent to the Senate, not you or I. CV Brown gets a vote and he is voting for Moore. I do not think between now and election day that is going to change.

  4. I’ll see your alleged “reputation as a menace for young girls”

    and raise you a “rape in the first degree.”

    Until you charge and convict Bill and Hillary Clinton, Franken, Conyers, and the entire Obama Gang,

    you won’t have any credibility versus the patriotic, great American, Judge Roy Moore.

    Looks like corruption and indecency are a push and not worth losing an election over.

          1. Diane – doesn’t make any difference, especially if you are teaching someone to play. I have seen people play with pretzels. The problem is you keep munching on your winnings. 😉

Comments are closed.