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. Prof Turley,

    I’m glad to see the old dying media a few still watch is in complete collapse.

    “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
    “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” is the ninth of the Ten Commandments, which are widely understood as moral imperatives by Jewish scholars, Catholic scholars, and Post-Reformation scholars. ”

    ” For one, her two sons were known drug dealers. In fact, one is now dead and the other has spent time in prison. Even worse yet, her brother was in the same illegal business and had personally faced Roy Moore as his prosecutor in court.”

    http://madworldnews.com/latest-roy-moore-accuser/

  2. Even without all the allegations from the various women, Moore is a complete ass. Ans when all is said and done, the people of Alabama will get the representation they deserve.

    1. All Alabamians are “complete asses,” eh? How about all Arkansans? All sexual abusers? All Californians are pedophiles or serial killers? I guess all we Virginians can pitch a silver dollar across the Potomac, too. I do love a glittering generality. It reveals so much about the intellectual rigor of the speaker, generally that is. LOL

  3. Has Mr. Turley gone on the record before if he finds the sexual misconduct allegations against the POTUS credible?

  4. Let’s grant Moore that the horrifying godless hordes of LBGTQs are on the rampage and talking about the allegations! This would be the equivalent of a group of liberals claiming the Koch brothers said this or that so therefore it must be untrue. But that’s a logical fallacy. Even if the Koch brothers say it, it can still be true. Just so, even if the ravening hordes of homosexuals say it, it can still be true.

    Moore is obviously counting on the christian base not to think things through. He’s feeding them red meat so they won’t look at what is actually happening. You can do the same things to many liberals just by saying: “Koch brothers”. I suggest we all stop being so easy to manipulate.

    There are real allegations and there is back up evidence for the claims. Make your decision on evidence, not the steak thrown in your face by a miserable manipulator.

    Also I see that few people are bothered by young women being assaulted when the assault is done by their guy. This is really depraved. People with no ethics are so easy to manipulate.

    1. “Also I see that few people are bothered by young women being assaulted when the assault is done by their guy.”

      That seems to be true on the left, but on this blog, I haven’t noted any on the “right” that aren’t bothered by the possibility of such assaults. They seem to be concerned with the law and the Constitution. That is a good thing.

      1. They seem to be concerned with the law and the Constitution. That is a good thing.

        What’s interesting in this blog is how situational ethics are applied as an acceptable standard. In the absence of moral absolutes, the only thing we have to rely on is the constitution and rule of law. Conservatives and Liberals (not of the progressive ideology) seem to differ in one very consequential way from Progressives; the former tend to respect the constitution and rule of law regardless of whether they are in the majority or minority. Progressives on the other hand tend to only respect it if they are in the minority.

        1. When morality becomes too flexible morality ceases to exist. Many on the left are amoral.

          1. Many on the left are amoral.

            And many on the right are hypocrites. The difference is in transparency. With both groups being amoral, which would you trust more?

            1. Olly, it depends on who you include in the respective groups. I am not terribly impressed with most politicians on either side, but I believe at the present we are a lot safer with the so-called right than the so-called left. We live in a binary political world so our choices are very limited. We need to be a bit pragmatic which can cause the purist a lot of angst.

          2. Allan – I would go so far as to say those on the left who are not amoral are immoral. 😉

            1. PAUL:
              It’s Post-moral. They’re well above any pedestrian notions of right and wrong and penitence. They’re self-actualized, you see. Sort of like those higher beings who once populated Sodom and Gomorrah

              1. The moral predicament is undeniable for all humans except the mentally ill. And we’re not so sure about them, either. Meanwhile, the three necessary conditions for morality of which I am aware are uncertainty, fallibility and care. If you’d care to ferret out a few more necessary conditions for morality, I’d love to read all about it.

                1. If you read Nietzsche on the topic, you’ll find the only prerequisites for morality are a ruling class and
                  a Subservient class with society’s moral foundations being the sentiments of the former. That makes a lot more historical sense to me than some obscurantism about uncertainty, fallibility and caring.

                  1. Nietzsche is sarcasm on steroids. You’re not supposed to take his jibes about the “slave morality” of The Old Testament or The New Testament seriously, not even if said slave morality comports with the historical record reasonably well enough.

                    As for obscurantism . . . If one has no doubt about the morality of one’s own action, then how is one in a moral predicament? If one’s own actions were not morally fallible, then how would one be in a moral predicament? And if one frankly doesn’t give a damn about the moral dimensions of one’s own actions, then how is one in a moral predicament?

                    Those conditions are hardly sufficient, but they are necessary.

                    1. Late 4 D,..
                      I think Nietzsche was serious about his views on “slave morality/master morality.
                      He presented the Old Testament as representative of master morality, where power of the key OT characters was exalted.
                      And he sharply criticized Christianity as representative of slave morality, because of its New Testament views on the meek, the poor, and its de-emphasis on having wealth and power in this world.
                      I think Nietzsche also admired the religions of the Greek and Roman gods for their glorification of earthly wealth, power, and domination.

                    2. Tom Nash, Nietzsche deserves some credit for having thoroughly mastered The Gorgian Figures as well as for restoring The Gorgian Nihilism to something approaching academic respectability–though technically only academic popularity. Once one wraps one’s mind around The Gorgian Nihilism, one ought properly to remain on guard against pretty much anything that any Gorgian Nihilist writes or says. It is the antithesis of philosophy (a.k.a. extreme skepticism). In the interest of disclosure, here it is:

                      Nothing exists.
                      If anything exists, then we could never know it.
                      If ever we could know that anything exists, then we could never communicate to one another our knowledge of that existence.

                      BTW, that last premise is the gist of the argument.

                    3. Diane – your inabilty to form a cogent argument is all part of Gorgian philosphopy then. Now, it all makes sense. You do not exist.

                    4. Hard to accept that Nietzsche believed that he couldn’t communicate his ideas on slave morality to us given the fact that he wrote three books on the topic.

                    5. Mespo, there are two known instances of sincerity in Nietzsche’s works, both from his essay Nietzsche Contra Wagner: First, Nietzsche’s opposition to anti-Semitism; second, Nietzsche’s opposition to nationalism, in general, and German nationalism, in particular. The overwhelming majority of Nietzsche’s aphorisms are parodies of statements made by other writers including, especially philosophers.

                      Meanwhile, the third premise in The Gorgian Nihilism has traditionally been construed as stating that we are somehow constrained to be both sincere and sarcastic with respect to one and the same belief when regarded at two or more different times. For instance:

                      That which does not kill us makes us stronger.
                      Hangnail does not kill us.
                      Ergo hangnail makes us stronger.
                      Or laughter does not kill us (no matter how many comics claim the contrary).
                      Ergo laughter makes us stronger.

                    6. Dialne – enduring pain makes us stronger and laughter heals. So, where was he wrong?

                  2. Mespo said, “If you read Nietzsche on the topic, you’ll find the only prerequisites for morality are a ruling class and a Subservient class with society’s moral foundations being the sentiments of the former.”

                    Mespo, your stated prerequisites for morality traditionally go by the names of dogma and orthodoxy. It’s hard to accept that Nietzsche was “sincerely” advocating “moral dogma and moral orthodoxy.” It seems far likelier that Nietzsche was sarcastically skewering “moral dogma and moral orthodoxy.” But then, perhaps Mespo is also being sarcastic in his embrace of “ruling class mores” on the theory that sincere moral beliefs are only for the servile, sarcastic moral beliefs, for the masterful.

                    1. Diane – I have never read Nietzsche as sarcastic. He always seemed deadly serious to me.

                    2. Actually, the morality of the masterful was quite fluid especially when applied to themselves so “dogma” and “orthodoxy” don’t quite capture it. The masterful have traditionally set moral beliefs whether they were called church or king or ruling class. The more modern “slave morality” Nietzsche illuminates is the morality of resentment masquerading as compassion for some. Neither are optimal systems but the battle between the two is fascinating.

                  3. Mespo said, “Hard to accept that Nietzsche believed that he couldn’t communicate his ideas on slave morality to us given the fact that he wrote three books on the topic.”

                    A Mad Man walks into a village loudly announcing that ‘God is dead. And we killed Him.’ Should the author of that story be regarded as sincere or sarcastic? Before you answer, consider that that same author was also fond of Speaking as though he were Zarathustra; and that he most famously proclaimed the arrival of Critics and Free-Spirits who would remake the world in just such a way as to get Beyond Good and Evil.

                    Now reconsider the sincerity versus the sarcasm of the author of this statement about the left:

                    “It’s Post-moral. They’re well above any pedestrian notions of right and wrong and penitence. They’re self-actualized, you see. Sort of like those higher beings who once populated Sodom and Gomorrah.”

                    1. Schulteacher said, “. . . enduring pain makes us stronger and laughter heals. So, where was he wrong?”

                      Sometimes suffering makes one stronger; and other times suffering makes one weaker. There’s nothing “magical” about suffering, Paul. Besides, how many things are there that do not kill us AND do not make us stronger? Or, if one prefers, how many specks of dust are there in the known universe AND how many of those specks of dust make us stronger?

                      You might want to consider the possibility that Nietzsche’s blather about “passionate intensity of experience of existence” may have been a sarcastic parody of The Romantics. For, once upon a time, passion meant suffering. And suffering was held to result from desire (a.k.a. appetite). But then a particular Man was crucified; and His followers were filled with joy at His sacrifice for the sake of their salvation. And that is how suffering became joy. But then, much later on, and around the same time as the discovery of opiates, by the way, The Romantics cleverly refashioned joy into a form of suffering; such that, the commercial advertisers have ever since been deep in the throes of “passion” for such mundane things as gardening and interior decorating–just to name two.

                    2. Diane – stick to the topic. Even the pain we feel in healing our bones helps us. The only pain that doesn’t is that which actually kills us.

  5. I am very disappointed in Turley’s reasoning. It sounds as if Turley’s opinions regarding the politics of Moore and his actions outweigh the rightful choice of the people of Alabama.

    He writes, “Do I find the scope and details of these allegations credible? Yes. Does that mean that Moore is guilty? No, but the burden has shifted to him” I find that statement to be outrageous and totally the opposite of innocent until proven guilty. Not only that, but Turley has not taken into account the mores of time and place with regard to something that happened 30 years ago where nothing illegal may have happened if anything happened. Additionally, no one has demonstrated moral failure in the years since though politically Turley is very much against this individual.

    I personally don’t sanction such activities, but I believe my mores should not interfere with the rights of those that vote in Alabama.

    1. Allen:
      That burden shifting statement seems to imply that if JT believes the accusers then Moore has to prove he didn’t abuse them. Missed that part in law school. It’s always been she who asserts must prove. Proving a negative is tough as in “prove there isn’t a teapot floating in orbit around the sun.”

      1. Thanks for the agreement. That is the way I hope law school is taught, but I don’t understand how such a smart guy like Turley can make such a basic mistake.

        On another issue, not Wahhabi vs Salafi. Garcia Zapata had a smoking gun and got off with murder. His defense was I didn’t do it, the gun did it, it went off by accident. Why was felony murder not on the table for such a defense if the prosecutor’s case and his abilities weren’t strong enough to convict?

        1. ” … but I don’t understand how such a smart guy like Turley can make such a basic mistake.”

          **********************************
          Emotion over sense. We’re all susceptible to it. I don’t like Moore either for the reasons JT cited. I just think fair is fair.

          1. “Well she showed more than that!”

            …And on what part of your anatomy did she imprint her stamp?

  6. Quick show of hands: how many of you have studied the other candidates on the ballot for Senator in Alabama? Me either. I haven’t even studied Roy Moore. From what I’ve seen or read though, Moore would be joining a Congress with members actively engaged in committing sexual harassment. If the voters in Alabama were smart, they would elect Moore for nothing more than placing a giant microscope in the Senate. Kind of like Ben Stiller at the rest stop in There’s Something About Mary.

    https://youtu.be/f0G7F81LTZw

    1. So your answer is elect the worst of the worst to “improve” government? I think we already that with Trump.

      1. I think we already that with Trump.

        I do appreciate you voting and giving us President Trump. Maybe even President Pence in due course. And of course Justice Gorsuch.

        More popcorn please.

        1. You think Trump is a improvement? Stick to your opinions and study your “facts” that tell you the world is flat.

          1. Looks like Trump is doing just fine. Why don’t you list the things that you believe Trump has handled badly. The economy?

  7. I would like to think that some people on this blog know better about Moore, but after reading comments giving him cover it is just beyond belief. Forget about the charges about him and young girls, which is bad enough and just look at his words about the law. He has been removed twice from the bench. My fear is he is just the tip of the iceberg coming at the separation of powers between church and state. And his election to the senate will give President Pence all of the tip of the blade to break down constitutional norms.

  8. Despite the credibility of the women. Moore rises in the polls. Is there any other conclusion than, his voters and supporters don’t care about the women?

    1. Enigma:
      It isn’t a question of belief or not. It’s the basic rule that she who asserts must prove. I haven’t seen any proof except a dubious and withheld from scrutiny yearbook entry, a political hack with a story and a woman who doesn’t know where the phone in her house was located along with a lady cop who bases her opinions on rumors. I also have a firm denial from the accused and an unequivocal refutation by a witness with knowledge (the mall manager). Given that evidence and the convenient timing of the allegations thirty days before an election and you’ve got one flimsy premise to deny Alabamians the person they want to represent them.

      1. I haven’t seen any “proof” regarding Harvey Weinstein. The nature of the crime, particularly when these things occurred make definitive proof unlikely. What you have instead is a significant number of women making similar claims about a type of behavior that he was well known to engage in.
        Moore’s response, other than deny, deny, deny, is to hide and not answer questions. I don’t want to deny Alabamians the right to make the choice, keep Moore on the ballot. I’m afraid they will be judged for the choice they make.

        1. I don’t want to deny Alabamians the right to make the choice, keep Moore on the ballot. I’m afraid they will be judged for the choice they make.

          I’m sure the Alabama voters are breathing a sigh of relief knowing that. I’m curious to know why you’d be afraid they’ll be judged. I’m not. I’m afraid, actually more angry, when voters are not judged on their choices. Most will treat those they elect like a fire and forget missile; if it doesn’t come back on them, then it’s someone else’s problem.

          1. Not afraid fearful but afraid in a reluctant acknowledgement that they’ll be known for this action. Alabama’s state motto means, “We Dare To Defend Our Rights.” Apparently not women’s rights, voting rights, and others They will soon show whose rights they dare to defend.

          2. “Keep Moore on the ballot”.
            Given that the accusations surfaced only after Moore won the primary, and the ballots were already printed/finalized, Moore’s name is on the ballot.
            The timing of the accusations “just happened” to come at a time when the ballots could not be changed.

              1. Paul C. Schulte…
                -Allred’s involvement in the issue and the suspicious timing of these allegations surfacing have probably helped to keep Moore competitive on the election.
                If the polls are halfway accurate, Moore has a small lead over Jones ( as of c. Nov.29 polling).
                Allred had an “October surprize” for Romney in the 2012 election, alleging that he lied in testimony involving a business associates divorce.
                She wanted the court records unsealed….I don’t think the Romney campaign objected, and it turned out to be a non-issue.
                She also produced an October surprise just before the 2010? Jerry Brown-Meg Whitman CA. election for governor.
                I can’t remember if the Summer Zervos accusations/ press conference was held befoe the 2016 election, but her daughter hyped the early November 2016 press conference where the alleged rape victim was a no-show.
                By putting herself and the high school yearbook issue in the mix re the allegations against Moore, I think she has inadvertently helped Moore.
                For a lot of voters, when Allred shows up, the credibility of the 11th Hour accusations goes down.
                Moore seemes to be effectively exploiting this ( Allred involvement/ yearbook issue).

                1. PC Schulte,..
                  – PS
                  – At least one of the Gloria Allred/ Summer Zervos press conferences was held a few weeks before the 2016 election.
                  I don’t know if Zervos is still active as a porn actress, but I read at the time that traffic at her “adult website” soared after the Allred press conference.

                  – I think the Allred- Zervos defamation lawsuit against Trump is still active.

                2. Tom Nash – last I read Moore was up by 6-8 points over Jones. It is a deep red state and it would take a major disaster to change it blue. A phony yearbook by Gloria “I’m a Media Whore” Allred” won’t do the trick. The moment I see Gloria Allred representing a client I know they have a weak case and are trying to win it in the press.

                  1. Paul, when things were going “badly” for Moore I thought the left overplayed their hand so I felt that Moore would win and he would even get support from Trump at a time before Trump was offering support. Now with all the revelations I feel more assured he will win, but who knows. I thought Trump would win quite awhile before the election, but then I changed my mind right before the election because of what kept appearing all over the news. I was foolish to have changed my mind since the facts on the ground hadn’t changed.

                    This most recent “confession of Flynn is the press’s attempt to hide a lot of good news for the right and hide a lot of bad news from the left. What is amazing is he admitted guilt to the same thing he was fired for by Pence. There was no collusion or anything of that nature something that has been known for about a year after the FBI listened to the tapes of Flynn. The press is evil.

                  2. Paul C. Schulte,
                    – FiveThirtyEight piblishished the most recent polling results ( from about a dozen different polls) on Nov. 29th.
                    Most showed Moore with a small lead, but a few had Jones ahead, or a tie.
                    I think it’ll be a close election….Moore could bteak out with a big lead if Allred does another weepy press conference, but I think Allred may have figured out that her involvement in this campaign is actually helping Moore.

          1. I didn’t mean to suggest he wasn’t guilty as hell. Just that I hadn’t seen proof of crimes. This “admission” is at best acknowledgment of some sort of bad behavior and not proof of crimes. He deserves everything he’s getting, so does; Franken, Moore, Conyers, and Trump (who deserves much more than he’s getting).

      2. “It isn’t a question of belief or not. It’s the basic rule that she who asserts must prove.”

        This fits a standard approach that you have used in the past – taking an issue of every-day life and arguing as though we have an obligation to apply standards of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

        The fact is that most people, in most situations, including deciding their vote, must make decisions without clear proof. That is the nature of being mere mortal.

        In the case of Moore, the question is not where is the proof beyond reasonable doubt. The question is whether there is reasonable belief regarding his actions to support or deny a vote for him.

        I listened to two of the women and considered their overall demeanor, their expressions, their tone of voice and I believe the women. I do not believe Moore.

        Others may arrive at a different conclusion.

        The point is that proof if simply beyond having in this situation – whether for or against Moore. Anyone reaching a conclusion in the question of Moore must decide on the basis evidence to support reasonable belief – not proof.

        1. Bfm:

          First off, “he who asserts must prove” is a rule of logic and argumentation used in court but it has general applicability to real life situations. In fact, it’s a rule of clear thinking. Secondly, I just require proof that the claims are more likely true than not and not true beyond a reasonable doubt. You give no pause to the facts that these women remained silent for 35 years and then 30 days before a crucial national election come forward at the behest of a newspaper that has shown animus to the same political party affiliated with Moore and/ir were prompted by a tv lawyer who never walked past a rolling camera. Thus, I look carefully at the women’s statements and I’ve stated the factual basis for my skepticism for each of them which no one has refuted. You, on the other hand, simply accept the accusers statements as true because you saw them on tv and you believed them based on their comportment. That’s fine for beauty pageant judging or buying on the Home Shopping Network but not for separating truth from politics driven fiction. Sorry, but your argument that you’ve looked and somehow seen into their souls won’t win the day in fifth grade.

          1. “. You give no pause to the facts that these women remained silent for 35 years and then 30 days before a crucial national election .,… ”

            It is well known that for decades (actually longer) women who report sexual abuse have been disbelieved, belittled, and often penalized for coming forward. That long sordid history is enough to explain the silence of the victims.

            Recently, women proved that when they stand together and report abuse they can succeed in bringing some accounting to powerful figures such as Bill Cosby, Harvey Wienstein, and many, many others.

            Courage begets courage. . .

            Some of the women who accused Moore have stated they lived with their terrible secret till they saw the courage of the the women who first spoke publicly and felt compelled to speak of their own abuse at the hands of Moore. Whether their efforts to bring Moore to account for his heinous deeds will be successful remains to be seen.

            The long history of disbelieving and penalizing women who complain of abuse explains the long silence of the women abused by Moore. The recent success of groups of women bringing down men at the highest positions of power explains why so many women, including Moore’s accusers, have come forward in the past few weeks.

            You claim: “First off, “he who asserts must prove” is a rule of logic and argumentation used in court but it has general applicability to real life situations” As I pointed out, that much of what concerns us regarding Moore is beyond proof. There is no way to prove Moore’s terrible acts one way or another. In this situation, and in most situations related to ordinary life, your so called ‘rule of logic and argumentation’ makes no sense. Most of us, most of the time, in most situations must make decisions based on reasonable belief. We gather what evidence is available, we consider that evidence in relation to our experience and we make the best decision we can. That process is nothing like evaluating conclusive evidence for proof. It is nothing like a rule of logic. Further examining a group of statements or a body of evidence for reasonable belief is a well known process of argumentation. Most of the time we evaluate evidence for the best supported proposition, for reasonable belief – not logical proof, not proof of any sort.

            But you know this because you let the cat out of the bag when you further acknowledge: ” I just require proof that the claims are more likely true than not and not … “. Proof that a claim is ‘more likely true than not’ is not proof at all – however, it may be a basis for reasonable belief.

            So after criticizing my remarks, you acknowledge you know that in the case of Moore we are dealing with reasonable belief – not proof, not by any stretch are we dealing with proof.

            The women who were abused by Moore have offered eye witness testimony. We may wish for stronger, more conclusive evidence. But, eye testimony is clearly evidence and it for each of us to evaluate that evidence for reasonable belief.

            Finally, you claim ” You, on the other hand, simply accept the accusers statements as true because you saw them on tv and you believed them based on their comportment.”

            Demeanor of the witness is a well known and respected factor in evaluating eye witness testimony. In fact, the are courses and materials available to officials and law enforcement to train them to evaluate the demeanor of individuals. These techniques are far from error free. But they are accepted and used to evaluate statements and testimony to aid the observer arrive at reasonable belief. But, as an attorney, I am sure you know that.

            After we read though all your remarks we are left with the fact that numerous women women have come forward to offer eye witness testimony of abuse at the hands of Moore. I find their demeanor convincing and the timing of their remarks convincing, reasonable to believe.

            If you want to discuss proof, perhaps you ought to offer proof Moore never abused a teenage girl. Perhaps you could offer evidence to support reasonable belief that Moore never abused a teenage girl. If you belief Moore’s statements, please tell us what it is about his statements that convince you he is telling the truth? Does his demeanor convince you? Or is it his history of abusing his public trust and the law that convinces you that Moore has never abused a girl?

            1. BFM :
              There so much sophistry in your remarks and tortured distinctions that it wouldn’t serve any point in trying to disabuse you. Suffice to say proof is the foundation of all reasonable belief, there are myriad reasons to lie and you’ll never know them all and nobody — not even you —can prove a negative.

              1. The situation stands as a he said she said argument with no clear answer. Where evidence might exist the plaintiff’s side refuses to release the evidence to a valid third party. Likely there was no action that was illegal at the time since at least in Nelson’s case she was 16 years old.

                30 years have gone by without anyone calling into question any inappropriate sexual behavior. Had Moore been a Democrat and convicted of Moore’s so-called crimes, served time, been released and then lived a productive life free from scandal the Democrats would be hailing him in near God-like terms as a demonstration of a man who was rehabilitated. They would stand strongly behind him and demand he win the election as a demonstration of the goodness of rehabilitation and one that provides diversity.

                It is all a crock of sh-t. Listen to Pelosi and one sees that she doesn’t care one bit about women’s rights. Her only concern is a Democratic win so she supports those criminals in her party until they become a liability. I think bigfatmike doesn’t like Moore’s politics so he only chooses evidence that favors Moore losing the seat and discards all the rest. This type of political quackery is typical of those supporting Democratic causes. I think such a view is reasonable based on bigfatmike’s appreciation of proof in that it is utilizing his own logic.

              2. ” Suffice to say proof is the foundation of all reasonable belief …. ”

                As I have pointed out, there are situations where mere mortals cannot obtain proof. According to your theory, how do humans, the rest of us, make decisions when no proof is available. How do we make decisions under conditions of uncertainty.

                In my view we gather the best evidence available, evaluate that evidence according to our experience and choose what seems to be best supported.

                Your statement “proof is the foundations of all reasonable belief” tells us that when no proof is available then we cannot arrive at reasonable belief – according to you.

                Perhaps you should make an announcement to statisticians that their work is futile because without proof we can never act on their calculations.

                Perhaps you should have a conference with MDs and inform them that their diagnosis are useless because we can never have proof till the autopsy – even then there is sometimes no proof.

                I could go on. But I think most of realize that proof is almost never the basis for reasonable belief.

                We live in a world of uncertainty. As mere mortals we are often reduced to making the best decisions we can – without proof. When proof is unavailable we used the best evidence we can find and our experience to arrive at the best supported conclusion – all without proof.

                Don’t get me wrong. I think logic is wonderful. But life is rarely so well defined. Life rarely fits into a neat syllogism.

                  1. “No BFM when you don’t have proof and you still believe in something it’s called either a hunch or superstition.”

                    I suppose that statement makes perfect sense to one who believes proof means ” … the claims are more likely true than not … .”

                    You argue as though the universe of statements is composed only of superstition (including hunches) and proven statements. But the elements of you argument demonstrate that you understand there are statements better supported than superstition – the ones that are ‘more likely true than not’.

                    Your argument continues by assuming statements which are ‘more likely true than not’ are equivalent (have the same truth value) with statements that are true.

                    The standard ‘more likely true than not’ includes the possibility that the statements is false and some other statement is the one that is true. The truth value of statements that are ‘more likely true than not’ is indeterminant. They may be true or they may be false. We require additional facts to know their truth value.

                    So we know there is a major difference between proven statements and statements that are ‘more likely true than not’.

                    Your concept of proof that accepts as proven statements that are likely to be false 49% of the time is pretty weird to me. I wonder if anyone else agrees with you that a statement is proven when it is ‘more likely true than not’.

                    I think many of us would agree that is is important to distinguish which of our beliefs are based on statements that are proven true, and our belief (perhaps reasonable belief) in statements which are ‘more likely true than not’. And we should distinguish both those cases from hunches and superstition.

                1. “Perhaps you should make an announcement to statisticians that their work is futile because without proof we can never act on their calculations.”

                  Statisticians don’t provide proof rather a likelihood of something occurring. I don’t think they ever say 100%. There is always a black swan.

                  1. “Statisticians don’t provide proof rather a likelihood of something occurring.”

                    Please inform the statisticians they new find a new career because as M72 pointed out ” … proof is the foundation of all reasonable belief …. “.

                    Clearly, anything the statistician say cannot be taken as reasonable.

                    Oh, BTW, been to the doctor recently? Please don’t take that diagnosis seriously – it is not proof. It is clearly not reasonable to believe your doctor – at least not until his diagnosis is proven by an autopsy.

                    Talked to your investment adviser recently? Please, please don’t do anything rash with your money – like follow his advice. There is no proof and we know that without proof there is not reasonable belief.

                    Sent your car to the repair shop? What ever you do, do not, repeat, do not have your car repaired. Auto mechanics usually work from hunches and experience. Even when they work from flow charts and decision trees provided by the manufacturer, there is no proof. And we know ‘ proof is the foundation of all reasonable belief.. ” There for it is extremely unreasonable to have your car repaired just because the mechanic says you need a new oil pump or a radiator.

                    I could go on. But my eyes have been opened, I have been enlightened. No belief and therefore no action without proof.

                    1. Al:“Statisticians don’t provide proof rather a likelihood of something occurring.”

                      Bigfat: Please inform the statisticians they new find a new career because as M72 pointed out ” … proof is the foundation of all reasonable belief …. “

                      Perhaps, bigfatmike, you should learn what a statistician does. They take data and then provide a likelihood based on that data where what is to be calculated and the data are determined by someone else and might not even be true.

                      “diagnosis seriously – it is not proof. ”

                      No. A doctor’s diagnosis is not proof. It is a diagnosis. A blood test might be an element of proof.

                      Same for the rest of your examples.

                      It appears that your understanding of what is or is not proof is quite limited. I think I just proved that. 🙂

                    2. @Allan: “It appears that your understanding of what is or is not proof is quite limited. I think I just proved that.”

                      I think you need to talk to M72. He is the one who is claiming that ” proof is the foundation of all reasonable belief”.

                      I think if you follow M72’s assertions (“proof is the foundation of reasonable belief”) to their logical conclusion you will see that no one can reasonably use the work product of statisticians, doctors, auto mechanics and so may others – because their efforts rarely, if ever, involve proof.

                      I, on the other hand, am the one who claims that most of us in most cases have to use what ever evidence is available, to evaluate alternatives, to reach reasonable belief – all without proof. Mere mortals necessarily develop belief and take action without proof – in most cases.

                      I truly value to work of statisticians because I know proof, outside a textbook on mathematics, is rare. But M72 tells us ‘proof is the foundation of all reasonable belief’ – hence it is extremely unreasonable to use the work product of statisticians, and BTW MD’s, and auto mechanics.

                      I hope you will give our friends the statisticians the word soon, before they waste any more of their finite hours here on earth. Imagine that, so many hours in grad school and an entire career wasted because there is no proof! Poor statisticians!

                      I don’t feel so sorry for the MD’s. At least their work is well compensated, even if, totally useless according to M72.

                    3. “I think you need to talk to M72. He is the one who is claiming that ” proof is the foundation of all reasonable belief”.”

                      Bigfatmike, I think you should listen to M72. He’s a smart guy. I have no problem following what M72 said.

                      My comments to you were based on what you said. Based on what you say in your above reply I think you should read my comments again. Start with this thought “Statisticians don’t provide proof rather a likelihood of something occurring.”

                    4. @Allan: “My comments to you were based on what you said. Based on what you say in your above reply I think you should read my comments again. Start with this thought “Statisticians don’t provide proof rather a likelihood of something occurring.””

                      I understand your comment regarding statistics fully and completely. My view of reasonable belief is completely consistent with your view, that statistics does not provide proof. It is M72 who claims that “proof is the foundation of all reasonable belief”

                      I think it should be clear that one cannot believe both that ‘proof if the foundation of all reasonable belief’ and that statistics is useful. The two statements contradict. If ‘proof is the foundation of all reasonable belief’ as M72 asserts then statistics is useless because it does not provide proof, as you have pointed out.

                      On the other hand if statistics can lead to reasonable belief then M72’s statement ‘proof is the foundation of all reasonable belief” is refuted because there is at least one form of reasonable belief that does no include proof, namely statistics. You cannot consistently believe both.

                      I would urge you to try to reconcile your remarks regarding statistics, with which I agree, and your support for M72’s position, which is a contradiction to your support for statistics.

                      But if in the final analysis you agree with M72 that ‘proof is the foundation of all reasonable belief’ then you really ought to tell all those statisticians they are wasting their time – because statisticians do not provide proof.

                      BTW, I don’t agree with M72. I believe we necessarily arrive at belief and make decisions with out proof – most of the time. I also believe there are better and worse ways to make those decisions. I believe we can distinguish superstition from useful, rational tools such as statistics. I will continue to use tools like statistics because I believe reasonable belief can be based on evidence that does not rise to the level of proof.

                      What about you? Do you agree with me that reasonable belief can arise from evidence that does not rise to the level of proof. Do you agree that one can reasonably believe one statement while acknowledging the possibility that a different statement might be true. ( BTW, that view would seem to be the very essence of statistics which suggest that many statement might be true while holding that one statement or a range of statements are best supported by the evidence.) Or do you agree with M72 that ‘proof is the foundation of all reasonable belief’?

                      Let us know where you stand. I would really like to know how you reconcile the reasonableness of statistics with M72’s assertion that proof is required.

                      I am fascinated.

                    5. “On the other hand if statistics can lead to reasonable belief “

                      But, bigfatmike, statistics do not always lead to a reasonable belief.

                      Statistics are not the proof. They may (or may not) represent proof in a fashion that is easier to understand. Statistics result from data and numerical calculations. They are dependent on the methodology used. The proof is in the data.

                      “Do you agree with me that …”

                      Your arguments fall short of demonstrating what m72 said is wrong.

                    6. “Statistics are not the proof. … Your arguments fall short of demonstrating what m72 said is wrong.”

                      However I did prove conclusively that one cannot consistently believe both M72’s proposition and in the reasonableness of statistics. Belief in statistics and agreement with M72 that ‘proof is the foundation of reasonable belief’ are contradictory.

                      I agree 100% that statistics does not provide proof. That is precisely the point. According to M72 ‘proof is the foundation for reasonable belief’. Statistics, as you pointed our, offers no proof. Therefore statistics cannot lead to reasonable belief – according to M72’s criteria for reasonable belief, which requires proof. .

                      So tell us, what exactly do you belief? Do you agree with M72 that ‘proof is the foundation for all reasonable belief’. If you agree with M72 then you have to reject statistics because it does not provide proof.

                      Or do you agree with me that statistics can lead to reasonable belief. If you agree that statistics is useful because it can lead to reasonable belief without proof, then you have to reject M72 and his proposition that ‘proof is the foundation for all reasonable belief’.

                      Which is it?

                    7. Bigfatmike, you are conflating statistics with proof demonstrating your limited understanding of both. I have no difficulty with what m72 said in the context of his statements and I have answered your questions more than once above.

                    8. ” you are conflating statistics with proof demonstrating your limited understanding of both. ”

                      Please explain how I am conflating proof with statistics.

                      On the contrary, I have pointed out that statistics cannot provide proof – that distinguishes statistics from proof, not conflates the two.

                      “I have no difficulty with what m72 said in the context of his statements and I have answered your questions more than once above.”

                      I don’t think that even one time you have answered my question of how your resolve the contradiction between M72’s criteria of proof for reasonable belief and statistics which provides no proof.

                      You seem to value both statistics and defend M72’s criteria that reasonable belief requires proof.

                      Do you realize there is a contradiction? If statistics does not provide proof then by M72’s criteria for reasonable belief, statistics cannot lead to reasonable belief.

                      Do you value statistics? Do you believe that statistics is useful in that it can lead to reasonable belief under conditions of uncertainty?

                      Do you acknowledge that statistics does not lead to proof?

                      Do you understand that M72’s criteria requires ‘proof’ for reasonable belief?

                      Do you understand that if statistics does not provide proof, then according to M72’s requirement for proof, then statistics cannot lead to reasonable belief because it provides no proof?

                      I can’t wait to read your remarks.

                    9. “Please explain how I am conflating proof with statistics.”

                      Bigfatmike, the explanation is contained in the prior entries. It is your fault that you didn’t address those explanations in a timely manner. Go back and reread them.

                      “Do you realize there is a contradiction? If statistics does not provide proof then by M72’s criteria for reasonable belief, statistics cannot lead to reasonable belief.”

                      I don’t think M72 engaged in a discussion of statistics.

                      I will repeat what I said earlier. “Statisticians don’t provide proof rather a likelihood of something occurring.” add within set parameters.

                      M72 explained where your rhetoric ran into trouble. “There so much sophistry in your remarks and tortured distinctions that it wouldn’t serve any point in trying to disabuse you. Suffice to say proof is the foundation of all reasonable belief, there are myriad reasons to lie and you’ll never know them all and nobody — not even you —can prove a negative.”

                      I can’t add to what he said except that he didn’t mention statistics.

                    10. 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.

                    11. Mespo, I agree with you and find all of this very clear, but despite how smart you think BMF might or might not be I don’t think he gets it. Do you think he is just playing games? It seems there was a lot of double talk and not enough attention to detail. Even a lot of lawyers I have met have had some difficulty with these simple concepts.

    2. Maybe it’s just that Alabama is populated mostly by mentally ill, depraved, sexual predators. Don’t such people as that deserve to be represented in the US Senate? (Rhetorical question. They are already well-represented.)

      1. I wouldn’t say all of that, but Alabama has already given us George Wallace, Robert Bentley, and Kay Ivey. Moore isn’t even a stretch for these voters.

        1. Do I really need to counter the silly argument that a state producing a few miscreants isn’t all miscreant for you? If so, let’s talk Californification.

          1. Producing a miscreant and electing them to a statewide office (in Moore’s and Wallace’s case more than once) are different things. It isn’t as if they didn’t know who these people were… they got elected because of who they were and what they represented.

                  1. You’ll perhaps make the connection for me. If the majority of Alabama voters put in office a George Wallace or Roy Moore on multiple occasions, I conclude they agree with him. If that makes me a bigot, your definition differs from mine.

                    1. enigma – sadly, the people of Arizona voted for both McCain and Flake to be Senators, now they are voting with their feet as Flake found out. Flake will be gone in slightly more than a year and maybe McCain about the same time since he seems determined to die on the Senate floor.

                    2. enigma – we gave up on Democrats after Janet Napolitano. However, at one time, our 4 highest offices were held by women.

                    3. No my definition of bigot matches the dictionaries. You’re a bigot when you assume that worst about a group of people because you disagree with them. You may draw the conclusion that voting for someone means you agree with every last notion that rambles through the official’s head but most sentient folks don’t.

                  2. Enigma:

                    “…. define that as you will.”
                    **********************************
                    Typical of your “words mean what I say they mean” mentality. Very Alice in Wonderland!

      2. Well, maybe. But that does not seem to distinguish Alabama from the other states, now does it?

        To really know where Alabama stands we would have to make public the disbursements from that fund that congress uses to pay of victims of sexual abuse.

        I can’t wait for the bumper sticker: ” honk if you have not been abused by your elected representative”.

  9. “It is hard to believe that anyone would buy this low-grade conspiracy spin.”

    It’s not hard at all, when you read the remarks by some of the posters on this blog. In fact, a great many posters on this blog make Moore sound almost normal; Trump almost sane, the richest deserving of 75% of the tax cut benefits, the oligarchy to continue, etc. The America that is dragging this country backwards can be found slinging sh*^ on a daily basis. No wonder the mindless fanatics are in the White House, Congress, the Senate…..

  10. “homosexualist gay terrorists”
    ~+~

    I have to admit the word homosexulist is a neologism to me but trying to deduce what is meant by “homosexualist gay terrorists”, requires some imagination.

    After a bit of searching, I found this quoted from a Wikipedia article on “Homosexual Agenda”

    The idea of a homosexual agenda is also used by some Christian critics of LGBT rights in conjunction with a putative ideology they refer to as homosexualism (as opposed to a synonym for homosexuality), using homosexualists to describe people who seek to advance LGBT emancipation.[6][7] The use of homosexualist in this way first appeared in 1995 in Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams’ book The Pink Swastika, “to refer to any person, homosexual or not, who actively promotes homosexuality as morally and socially equivalent to heterosexuality as a basis for social policy”.[8] Lively and Abrahams argue that alleged homosexuality found in the Nazi Party, specifically within Ernst Röhm’s SA, contributed to the extreme militarism of Nazi Germany, and write about the “gay agenda” in this context.

    Somehow it is not surprising to me that Godwin’s Law would find its way into the use of the word “homosexualism”. But whenever extreme views are held the law manifests in either support or protest of one’s position.

    Certainly this phrase is laughable in a rather cold hearted way for its sheer inanity. But given its convenience today I suspect its use is akin to the “Commie Pinko” of the cold war days. Which is why I suppose during the early 1980s a video game named “Communist Mutants from Space” was just as laughable as “Homosexualist Gay Terrorists” for today. Maybe it could be ported to the X-Box.

  11. This case among others shows the folly we entwined ourselves into by promoting a duopoly system of control. If we as a people actually had more choices, miscreant candidates will be minimized. But when a two-tiered election system complete with a primary that only allows the top two candidates to become eligible for the general election, it nearly guarantees that some taint of these two parties will influence any candidacy.

    My observation of dysfunctional government agencies and pols for that matter is that the system by default allows ambitious yet often unsuitable persons to rise to higher positions due in part to capable people becoming so dismayed or disgusted by the environment they seek better opportunities elsewhere. Eventually the organization becomes staffed by incompetents in management roles for which they have no innate qualities requisite and manifest among true leaders. Later, the incompetents view any promising subordinate to be a threat and make every effort to protect what they recognize to be their own tenuous position.

    So here we have Mr. Moore, a wrecked Justice and embarrassment to our system who returns to familiar ground–a cauldron of politicians.

    1. Darren re “This case among others shows the folly we entwined ourselves into by promoting a duopoly system of control. If we as a people actually had more choices, miscreant candidates will be minimized. But when a two-tiered election system complete with a primary that only allows the top two candidates to become eligible for the general election, it nearly guarantees that some taint of these two parties will influence any candidacy”

      Spot on!

  12. I don’t approve of a 32 yr old man pursuing and dating a 16 or 17 yr old, but is it legal? I’m not particularly crazy about a 32 yr old man pursuing and dating a 16 or 17 yr old boy, but is it legal? I’m not at all excited about a 32 yr old man pursuing and dating a 16 or 17 yr old transgender, but is it legal? I’m not at all excited or approving about a 32 yr old man pursuing and dating a 16 or 17 yr old TG who is actually a transvesite, but is it legal?

    All of the above situations fall within the ambit of “legal”. The last three examples are of recent to very recent legality. The first situation involves statutes dating back considerably before, e.g., Obergefell, yet makes the msm and left queasy. Why? Why are examples 2-4 just fine and examples of modern, open broad minded thinking while the legal action described in a 32 yr old dating a 16 yr old is somehow problematic?

    Somehow I suspect that if the parties were gay or lesbian, and (D), the left would not find the situation intolerable. And should we presume if the 32 yr old was a female teacher and the teenager a boy who would later be the French PM it would represent circumstances the left would defend?

    1. warspite2, does the “ambit of legality,” in your view, distinguish between “dating” versus “sexually assaulting” women, men, transgenders of any age at all? IOW, warspite2, do you think that “dating” legally negates “sexual assault”???

  13. If I lived in Alabama, I’d vote for Moore just to stick a sharp stick in McConnell’s eye. Personally, I think Moore is exactly the kind of poison pill candidate Republicans ought to send over to the Democrats to run. I don’t think he has the intelligence of a bessie bug. But until the party shows some backbone and starts finding sharp, young, smart, credentialled guys and gals to run, we will have to put up with the witches and the crackpots like Moore. I wish Newtie would get back into finding and grooming candidates.

  14. It doesn’t really matter if Roy Moore was hitting on 14 y/o Republicans or 14 y/o transgender socialists. The issue is the age, not the politics of the victim.

  15. I’ll grant that the woman who accused Moore of assault when she was 14 has provided an obviously doctored yearbook. Aside from that, the sheer volume of similar stories is very troubling. I’ve felt for a while that Moore should have withdrawn and given a suitable replacement enough time to catch up. The fact that there is political motivation behind some of the charges, such as the activist for his opponent being the one with the at least partially forged signature, does not mean that the allegations aren’t true.

    The age of consent in Alabama is 16. If he only pursued girls over 16, then that would be legal, but I would still personally object. My own parents got married when my mother was 19. Many girls got married at that time as older teenagers. Most girls of age have dated older men at some point. So if these girls were of age, especially over 17, then that’s a non issue. If he pursued girls under 16, then that was criminal, regardless of whether the statute of limitations removed prosecution from the table. If he really did remark in his own autobiography that he singled out his wife in junior high school, then that’s an admission of guilt of being attracted to under age girls. Did he date his future wife at that age?

    I do not know if they have presented any evidence to corroborate the stories. These decades old accusations are so frustrating when it becomes a matter of someone’s word. Where were they for the past 30 years, and past few elections? It would have been really helpful to have this information years ago. Hopefully, they will provide some sort of evidence to back the stories, and perhaps they have already.

    The voters in Alabama may very well go with Moore because they are voting against his opponent, and absolutely will not have a Democrat. Maybe this is a matter of the “devil you ken”, and they have not been convinced of his guilt.

    Very interested to see how this plays out.

    1. Karen S said, “I’ll grant that the woman who accused Moore of assault when she was 14 has provided an obviously doctored yearbook.”

      Leigh Corfman is the woman who accused Moore of assaulting her when she was 14. Beverly Young Nelson is the woman who accused Moore of assaulting her when she was 16. Nelson–not Corfman–is the accuser who provided the yearbook inscription with Moore’s signature.

      There is nothing “obviously doctored” in the yearbook inscription. The allegation of forgery that Moore’s lawyer, Philip Jauregui, leveled against Nelson is unfounded and self-contradictory. The rubberstamped Roy S. Moore signature on the court document dismissing Nelson’s divorce complaint in 1999 features Moore’s middle initial “S.” The Roy Moore signature in Nelson’s yearbook inscription does not feature Moore’s middle initial “S.” Nelson did not copy Moore’s signature from the court document into the yearbook inscription as Jauregui alleged.

      Meanwhile, the only evidence for two different colors of ink in the yearbook inscription comes from the freeze-frame image taken by CNN’s TV scanning camera at an angle that distorts the depth of field on a curved surface to create an optical illusion of several different colors in that image. All other available color photographs of the yearbook taken with SLR cameras at better camera angles show no difference of color in the yearbook inscription. The provenance for the forgery allegation against Nelson traces back to Breitbart News operated by Steve Bannon who supports Moore’s candidacy for Alabama’s open Senate seat.

        1. Ken, you’re welcome. IMO, Karen S is not so bad. At least she distinguishes between dating versus sexual assault. What’s up with warspite2? Did he take Moore’s bait on the question of soliciting the mother’s permission?

      1. Diane – let’s get down to basics. The longer Allred keeps the yearbook from being examined, the cleaner Moore looks. Allred is doing him a favor by not allowing an independent document examiner to examine it. Also, the longer she has it, the longer the ink has to dry. AL voters will select the person they want to send to the Senate, not you or I.

        1. Basics. A) I don’t care about Allred. I care about Nelson. B) Assumed facts not in evidence vis-à-vis the ink drying. C) I love democracy. How’s about you?

            1. Yes, Beverly Young Nelson is innocent of forgery until proven guilty of forgery.

              1. Diane – Moore deserves the same, innocent until guilty. Allred is withholding evidence that would prove Moore is innocent.

                1. Moore is not facing any legal jeopardy. If Moore’s signature in Nelson’s yearbook were proven to be a forgery, then that would seriously undermine Nelson’s credibility. However, Nelson’s accusation of sexual assault against Moore could still be true, even if Moore’s signature in the yearbook were proven to have been forged.

                  1. Diane – at this point we don’t even know that it is Nelson’s yearbook. If the signature is forged, it makes Nelson both a liar and a forger and taints any other testimony she might have.

                    1. Paul, that’s not different than what I said. Unless you’re under-emphasizing the word, “IF”.

                      The absence of Moore’s middle initial “S” from the Moore signature in Nelson’s yearbook inscription directly contradicts the theory of forgery alleged by Moore’s own lawyer, Phillip Jauregui. If you’d care to offer an alternative theory of the alleged forgery, then you might want to consider what items of knowledge the alleged forger would have to possess and how such an alleged forger might acquire such knowledge.

                      Also, pay particular attention to the seemingly inexplicable date, 12-22-’77, in the yearbook inscription. Why would any alleged forger put that date in the yearbook? Or was that date already there before the alleged forgery? Why would any alleged forger use a yearbook that had that date already in it? Finally, what is the significance of that date? And how would any alleged forger possess or acquire knowledge of the significance of the date 12-22-’77???

                      P. S. Check with Mespo to see if it is possible to frame a guilty person with fabricated evidence; and, if so, does Mespo know of any case where a guilty person was framed with fabricated evidence???

                    2. Diane – I know of cases where people have been framed with fake evidence. So, Allred needs to put up or shut up. Same with you.

                    3. Diane – if it is fake evidence, how do we know if they are guilty? All we know for sure is that they were framed. That is what Allred is trying to do, frame Moore with the yearbook and you are her willing tool.

                    4. IF, if, if, Paul. I do not concede that the yearbook is a forgery. In fact, I seriously doubt that it is a forgery.

                      Instead, I conjecture only that IF the yearbook is a forgery, then Nelson will have undermined her credibility.

                      I further speculate that IF the yearbook is a forgery, then the date, 12-22-’77, in the yearbook would be best explained on the theory that Nelson’s allegation of sexual assault against Moore is true.

                    5. Diane – that does not make a bit of sense. Because the yearbook is fake, Nelson is not a fraud? No way, Jose.

                    6. The date in the yearbook, 12-22-’77, coincides with the timeline in which Nelson alleges that Moore was a regular patron at the restaurant where Nelson worked up until the sexual assault that Moore allegedly committed against Nelson. Had Moore not sexually assaulted Nelson during that timeline, then the alleged forgery of Moore’s signature in that yearbook with that date, 12-22-’77, would be, not merely malicious, but incomparably stupid, as well.

                      If Nelson, or anyone else, wanted to fabricate evidence against Moore, then why would Nelson, or any other person, fabricate that evidence to fit that specific timeline? The forgery theory makes far more sense if Moore did sexually assault Nelson in that specific timeline. Besides, the forgery theory is just that–a theory, as in not a fact, anyway.

                    7. mespo – cute 😉 Hope the date went well and she made you show two forms of ID.

                    8. mespo – Congrats!!! to both of you. I was going to say something snotty, but that would not have been nice to the married couple. I am a fan of couples staying together. 🙂 Keep up the good work, both of you. 🙂

                    9. Mespo, you’ve made a fine motion for cross-examination in a court of law. It’s a shame such a fine motion motion can’t be granted. Maybe one of your colleagues will get their chance in Moore’s defamation suit against WaPo and AMG.

                    10. “IF, if, if, Paul. I…”

                      Diane or Late4Dinner should you be called “If” or perhaps “If Late4 Dinner”? Throughout this entire discussion no matter what is said you continue to try and prove Moore’s guilt by saying, If, but if, if it, etc. Your entire argument seems based on ifs. ‘If the yearbook signature is valid Moore is guilty. If the signature is proven a forgery Moore is guilty’. “If” seems to be your proof so it seems one has to discard whatever you say.

                    11. “Well she showed more than that!”

                      …And on what part of your anatomy did she imprint her stamp.

                    12. “That’s privileged, Allan.”

                      mespo, I ran into your comment again. I had responded to the email and it was talking about the yearbook before your response. I now see that it followed “…And on what part of your anatomy did she imprint her stamp”. LOL

                    13. “You should be practicing law!”

                      Thanks. Mid-career I became angry at certain corporations and strongly considered law school without giving up my career since it was extremely valuable to my objectives. I already had some heated disputes with such companies and one time almost led to court which I was hoping would occur just so I could hire an attorney and use the deposition process. I wasn’t looking for money so I needed something to hire an attorney on a contingency basis even if I did a lot of the work and they handled the technical legal affairs.

                    14. “That’s privileged, Allan.”

                      I assume you mean the yearbook. Moore’s lawyer never asked that a yearbook need be presented. Allred provided it as evidence and then refused a third party review. My response is put up or shut up. It demonstrated at least to me that she recognized she has a timeline of the election and that is all she cares about. My contention is that such a presentation is gratuitous and that Allred is not a believer in its validity so she doesn’t want to know the truth.

                      By the way, I feel that Moore is going to win and that we will see a further push from both sides right before the vote at which time I think Trump will be directly supporting him. One doesn’t want to peak until right before the vote.

    1. The following sentences are from the link to an article in The Anniston Star that in turn was linked in an article at ONE News Now that Mespo727272 provided just upstream from here.

      “The restaurant was real, and it was on Meighan Boulevard. Gadsden city directories at the Glencoe Public Library list it at 305 Meighan Boulevard in 1978 and 307 Meighan Boulevard in 1980. A January 1978 ad in the Gadsden Times placed it at 207 Meighan. By the mid-1980s, the restaurant is no longer mentioned in directories.”

      So the Olde Hickory House had at least two different addresses, 305 and 307 Meighan Boulevard, over the course of two years [exclusive] or three years [inclusive]. One might suppose that 305 and 307 are adjacent addresses on the same side of the street. One might further suppose that the advertisement in the Gadsen Times listed the address 207 Meighan incorrectly. Or not.

      If Beverly Young Nelson’s story were true, then she would have quit working at the Olde Hickory House sometime in the first week of January 1978. If the 207 Meighan address from the ad is incorrect, then Nelson would have worked at the 305 Meighan address and would have quit before the restaurant moved next door to 307 Meighan Boulevard. However, if the 207 Meighan address from the ad is correct, then Nelson would never have worked at either the 305 nor the 307 addresses for the Olde Hickory House.

      Either way, it would not be especially surprising that people who worked at, or who patronized, one of the several addresses for the Olde Hickory House might not remember Nelson having worked at, nor Moore having patronized, one of the other addresses for the Olde Hickory House. Likewise, certain inconsistencies between, say, the location of a dumpster, for instance; or the location of rear driveway connecting a rear parking lot to a different street, for another; or the closing time for the restaurant and the lighting conditions in the back of the restaurant might be unsurprisingly explained by the change of address for the Olde Hickory House from 1977 to 1978, to 1980.

      P. S. I thank Mespo727272 most kindly for the link.

        1. Mespo, the link within the link that you provided reports that precious few residents of Gadsden Alabama have any clear memory of the Olde Hickory House. Moreover, until the Gadsden Historical Society weighed in on the subject, Moore’s own wife, Kayla, was posting on Twitter that the restaurant supposedly never existed and the whole bloody thing is supposedly a hoax. Besides, I seem to remember somebody informing BigFatMike that nobody can prove a negative. If the people in link to ONE News Now who say they don’t remember Moore having patronized the Olde Hickory House proves that Moore never set foot in the place, then I’m afraid you owe BigFatMike an apology.

          1. Diane – however, you now owe us all an apology for defending Nelson, since you now agree he never set foot in Old Hickory.

          2. Well, you’re wrong yet again. If you want to prove Never Trump Nelson’s account, you have to prove Moore did walk in there and that she worked three. Since not one patron besides Nelson says this, no independent, corroborating proof exists ans thus he didn’t walk in and she didn’t work there — logically speaking. I do love your attempts at sophistry.

            1. Admittedly, in a court of law, Nelson would have to prove each and every last particular detail of her story. But when you now suggest that four people, Rhonda Ledbetter, Johnny Beyleu, Renee Schivera and somebody else whose name I forgot, who do not remember having seen Moore at the Olde Hickory House supposedly proves that Moore never set foot in the Olde Hickory House, you are necessarily attempting to prove a negative (albeit, outside of a court of law) directly contrary to your previous claim that it is impossible to prove a negative. Surely you’ve heard the old Ancient Greek maxim:

              The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

              1. Diane – you have 4 people who not only say that Moore was not a regular at Olde Hickory, but they do not remember Nelson either. It casts a lot of doubt on her story, which is weak to begin with and getting weaker by the day.

              2. I guess you didn’t read my reply. Moore need prove nothing. Nelson hAs to prove it all and judging by the witnesses so far, she can’t.

            2. Mespo727272 said, “Since not one patron besides Nelson says this . . . [that] Moore did walk in there and that she [Nelson] worked there . . . no independent, corroborating proof exists.”

              Counselor, the four people quoted in the article at ONE News Now to which you linked us, remain well short of your statement that “not one patron says . . . Moore did walk in there and that [Nelson] worked there . . .”

              How many people were patrons of the Olde Hickory House during the timeline when Nelson says she worked there? Which of the several known addresses for the Olde Hickory House did those people patronize? And, more to the point, which of those several addresses for the Olde Hickory House did those patrons not remember Moore setting foot in? Finally, in what year, exactly, did those people not see Moore set foot in the Olde Hickory House?

  16. I remember that Moore bragged that he met his wife and picked her outcat her junior high school dance— Moore wrote this account in his autobiography

    She was in junior high and he was a prosecuting attorney 😱

    1. Well you remember wrong there Jim. Here what he said and he never “met” her:

      “When I was deputy district attorney, many years before we got married, I saw her at a dance recital and I was standing, oh, at the back of the auditorium and I saw her up front,” he recalled at the time. “I remember her name, it was Kayla Kisor. KK. But I remember that and I didn’t meet her there … it was, oh gosh, eight years later or something, I met her. And when she told me her name, I remembered.” (CNN)

      Like a little knowledge, a little memory is a dangerous thing.

  17. “…a conspiracy of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender persons, and socialists….”

    Hallowed Feces! Could this creep be any more Himmlerian!

  18. Ivey is taking the same line as some of the Democrats are taking on Franken and Conyers. Fair is fair.

    1. So if the Democrats do not resign in order to maintain the numeric status quo, that’s OK too? That’s what Ivey and others are doing. Where did we lose the ability to disagree with some of a candidate’s positions but vote for the most qualified?

      1. bluearkie – qualifications are what the Constitution says they are. If they satisfy all of those (and they are minimal) then they are qualified.

    2. I will be forced to explain your logical short-circuit, I see. First: Moore is a pedophile, and a rapist. Second: your “what-about-ism” exemplars are sexual harassers. Now, can you understand the difference between the two situations? One is illegal on two avenues and usually garners its practitioners very long prison sentences, as society has rightfully expressed its disgust for pedophiles and rapists through criminal penalties. The other does not lead to prison sentences; rather it leads to societal disapproval and money damages under the civil law. Unfortunately, I doubt that this clearly-explained primer will be of any assistance to you; your past commentary here reveals a psyche which does not comport with those who possess an appropriate level of intellectual rigor.

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

      1. Mark M:
        I love an argument that starts with one unsupported conclusion (“Moore is a pedophile and rapist”) and then follows with a another unsupported concussion (and he’s a sexual harasser, too, implying lack of consent despite the conceded age of consent) and finally concludes with the assertion that it’s all true because I say it’s true. Mark M, you’re really not the person to argue logical short circuiting.

Comments are closed.