BUSTED: Mother of Roy Moore Accuser Contradicts Key Detail of Daughter’s Sexual Advancement Claim

[ph3iron]

Talking on the phone is not a sex crime.

Why would a 32 year old be talking on the phone with a 14 year old? There is NOTHING good that can come from that.

All you have offered is insinuation and innuendo...exactly what political smear hatchet jobs are intended to do.

Talking on the phone is not sexual assault.

Nor has any actual evidence been put forward. Moore is entitled to due process, but the nature of this creepy accusation 38 years after the supposed incident is not for the truth to come out. The purpose is character assassination in order to remove a political opponent.

To remove a political opponent that molests little girls.

Proof? Where is the evidence that he molested little girls?

All you have is unproven accusations decades after the alleged incident. This is how Totalitarian regimes work, bub.

Please read.
No one said he molested
Just that he admitted a 30 something guy dated teenagers.
Don't you think that's sick??
Hardly the thing senators are made of.
Maybe in the confederacy among high school white boys

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to decieve:

BUSTED: Mother of Roy Moore Accuser Contradicts Key Detail of Daughter’s Sexual Advancement Claim​

They say if you want to catch a liar, merely let them talk. In the case of Judge Roy Moore accuser Leigh Corfman, just let her mother talk.

In an interview with Breitbart News, Corfman’s mother Nancy Wells contradicted a key detail of her daughter’s sexual advancement claim against the Alabama GOP Senate candidate. As Breitbart News reporter Aaron Klein noted on Sunday, “Wells, 71, says that her daughter did not have a phone in her bedroom during the period that Moore is reported to have allegedly called Corfman – purportedly on Corfman’s bedroom phone – to arrange at least one encounter.” Breitbart News reports: Citing Corfman, the Postreported: After her mother went into the courtroom, Corfman says, Moore asked her where she went to school, what she liked to do and whether he could call her sometime. She remembers giving him her number and says he called not long after. She says she talked to Moore on her phone in her bedroom, and they made plans for him to pick her up at Alcott Road and Riley Street, around the corner from her house.​

You do realize that if that were the only inaccuracy in the story, Moore would still be guilty as hell, right?

 

[bripat9643]

They may have been invented before that, but AT&T didn't allow you to use phones made by other manufacturers until it was broken up.

I can't speak to that - not sure the brand but i THINK Motorola. One way or the other, we had a cordless phone when i was a senior in high school 1979.

CORDLESS PHONES CATCHING ON

I don't recall cordless phones being available then.

 

[boedicca]

All you have offered is insinuation and innuendo...exactly what political smear hatchet jobs are intended to do.

Talking on the phone is not sexual assault.

Nor has any actual evidence been put forward. Moore is entitled to due process, but the nature of this creepy accusation 38 years after the supposed incident is not for the truth to come out. The purpose is character assassination in order to remove a political opponent.

I was responding to YOUR post. You said talking on the phone is not a sex crime.

I said there is no reason a 32 year old man should be talking on the phone with a 14 year old girl... NOTHING good can come from it.

If you have a problem understanding this, just ask yourself, would you want a 32 year old man calling to talk to your 14 year old daughter?

Nice witch hunt you've got going. Better call in the Thought Police!

No need. YOU said it. I didn't change YOUR words.

Would you be ok with a 32 year old man calling your house to talk to your 14 year old daughter? Simple question.

And a bogus one. The burden of proof is on the accusers. You are demanding that the accused prove his innocence. Until actual proof is provided, this is just a political hatchet job.

Are you fucking stupid? You made a statement and I asked you a simple yes or no question.

WOULD YOU BE OK WITH A 32 YEAR-OLD MAN CALLING YOUR 14 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER?

You are the one that said talking on the phone is not a sex crime.

So either you are stupid or dishonest.

I'm not playing your stupid hypothetical game, you sad little hack.

You loons are engaged in a witch hunt, all eager to condemn a man without due process. But I'll note that you didn't believe Juanita, despite corroborating evidence that she was raped by Bill Clinton.

 

[Theowl32]

Poor libs and the lies they cling to.

Could not help but notice that redskin Lakota laughed again.

No wonder redskins are so stupid that they did not have a word for wheel before normal civilized people got here.

 

[bripat9643]

Talking on the phone is not a sex crime.

Why would a 32 year old be talking on the phone with a 14 year old? There is NOTHING good that can come from that.

All you have offered is insinuation and innuendo...exactly what political smear hatchet jobs are intended to do.

Talking on the phone is not sexual assault.

Nor has any actual evidence been put forward. Moore is entitled to due process, but the nature of this creepy accusation 38 years after the supposed incident is not for the truth to come out. The purpose is character assassination in order to remove a political opponent.

To remove a political opponent that molests little girls.

Proof? Where is the evidence that he molested little girls?

All you have is unproven accusations decades after the alleged incident. This is how Totalitarian regimes work, bub.

Please read.
No one said he molested
Just that he admitted a 30 something guy dated teenagers.
Don't you think that's sick??
Hardly the thing senators are made of.
Maybe in the confederacy among high school white boys

A 30 year old guy dating 18 year olds is not sick.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to decieve:

BUSTED: Mother of Roy Moore Accuser Contradicts Key Detail of Daughter’s Sexual Advancement Claim​

They say if you want to catch a liar, merely let them talk. In the case of Judge Roy Moore accuser Leigh Corfman, just let her mother talk.

In an interview with Breitbart News, Corfman’s mother Nancy Wells contradicted a key detail of her daughter’s sexual advancement claim against the Alabama GOP Senate candidate. As Breitbart News reporter Aaron Klein noted on Sunday, “Wells, 71, says that her daughter did not have a phone in her bedroom during the period that Moore is reported to have allegedly called Corfman – purportedly on Corfman’s bedroom phone – to arrange at least one encounter.” Breitbart News reports: Citing Corfman, the Postreported: After her mother went into the courtroom, Corfman says, Moore asked her where she went to school, what she liked to do and whether he could call her sometime. She remembers giving him her number and says he called not long after. She says she talked to Moore on her phone in her bedroom, and they made plans for him to pick her up at Alcott Road and Riley Street, around the corner from her house.​

You do realize that if that were the only inaccuracy in the story, Moore would still be guilty as hell, right?

No he wouldn't.

 

[boedicca]

Talking on the phone is not a sex crime.

Why would a 32 year old be talking on the phone with a 14 year old? There is NOTHING good that can come from that.

All you have offered is insinuation and innuendo...exactly what political smear hatchet jobs are intended to do.

Talking on the phone is not sexual assault.

Nor has any actual evidence been put forward. Moore is entitled to due process, but the nature of this creepy accusation 38 years after the supposed incident is not for the truth to come out. The purpose is character assassination in order to remove a political opponent.

To remove a political opponent that molests little girls.

Proof? Where is the evidence that he molested little girls?

All you have is unproven accusations decades after the alleged incident. This is how Totalitarian regimes work, bub.

Please read.
No one said he molested
Just that he admitted a 30 something guy dated teenagers.
Don't you think that's sick??
Hardly the thing senators are made of.
Maybe in the confederacy among high school white boys

The age of consent in Alabama was 16 years in that era. Personally, I wouldn't have dated a 30 something guy when I was a teenager, but that doesn't make Moore's actions either illegal or immoral.

Again, I'll stand by the concepts of Rule of Law and Due Process, thing which the Left abandoned long ago.

 

[ph3iron]

Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to decieve:

BUSTED: Mother of Roy Moore Accuser Contradicts Key Detail of Daughter’s Sexual Advancement Claim​

They say if you want to catch a liar, merely let them talk. In the case of Judge Roy Moore accuser Leigh Corfman, just let her mother talk.

In an interview with Breitbart News, Corfman’s mother Nancy Wells contradicted a key detail of her daughter’s sexual advancement claim against the Alabama GOP Senate candidate. As Breitbart News reporter Aaron Klein noted on Sunday, “Wells, 71, says that her daughter did not have a phone in her bedroom during the period that Moore is reported to have allegedly called Corfman – purportedly on Corfman’s bedroom phone – to arrange at least one encounter.” Breitbart News reports: Citing Corfman, the Postreported: After her mother went into the courtroom, Corfman says, Moore asked her where she went to school, what she liked to do and whether he could call her sometime. She remembers giving him her number and says he called not long after. She says she talked to Moore on her phone in her bedroom, and they made plans for him to pick her up at Alcott Road and Riley Street, around the corner from her house.​

"Key"in your kiddie mind.
Read about the cord?
Oh you didn't have one, can't be true then

 

[boedicca]

Why would a 32 year old be talking on the phone with a 14 year old? There is NOTHING good that can come from that.

All you have offered is insinuation and innuendo...exactly what political smear hatchet jobs are intended to do.

Talking on the phone is not sexual assault.

Nor has any actual evidence been put forward. Moore is entitled to due process, but the nature of this creepy accusation 38 years after the supposed incident is not for the truth to come out. The purpose is character assassination in order to remove a political opponent.

To remove a political opponent that molests little girls.

Proof? Where is the evidence that he molested little girls?

All you have is unproven accusations decades after the alleged incident. This is how Totalitarian regimes work, bub.

Please read.
No one said he molested
Just that he admitted a 30 something guy dated teenagers.
Don't you think that's sick??
Hardly the thing senators are made of.
Maybe in the confederacy among high school white boys

A 30 year old guy dating 18 year olds is not sick.

Indeed. Such an age difference in marriages is quite common.

 

[Lewdog]

I was responding to YOUR post. You said talking on the phone is not a sex crime.

I said there is no reason a 32 year old man should be talking on the phone with a 14 year old girl... NOTHING good can come from it.

If you have a problem understanding this, just ask yourself, would you want a 32 year old man calling to talk to your 14 year old daughter?

Nice witch hunt you've got going. Better call in the Thought Police!

No need. YOU said it. I didn't change YOUR words.

Would you be ok with a 32 year old man calling your house to talk to your 14 year old daughter? Simple question.

And a bogus one. The burden of proof is on the accusers. You are demanding that the accused prove his innocence. Until actual proof is provided, this is just a political hatchet job.

Are you fucking stupid? You made a statement and I asked you a simple yes or no question.

WOULD YOU BE OK WITH A 32 YEAR-OLD MAN CALLING YOUR 14 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER?

You are the one that said talking on the phone is not a sex crime.

So either you are stupid or dishonest.

I'm not playing your stupid hypothetical game, you sad little hack.

You loons are engaged in a witch hunt, all eager to condemn a man without due process. But I'll not that you didn't believe Juanita, despite corroborating evidence that she was raped by Bill Clinton.

Do you understand I made ZERO comment about the actual situation and only responded to YOUR comment?

You defended him by not saying he didn't make the call... you said that talking on the phone is not a sex crime.

So since you won't answer we can only assume you are some kind of hack parent that either doesn't care if your 14 year old daughter is talking to a 32 year old man, or your too stupid to understand how despicable it is. By the way you are trying to weasel your way out of answering the question by trying to talk shit about me, tells me you have low morals. No wonder you are defending Moore's actions.

 

[Theowl32]

Does anyone else just presume Lakhota wears denim a lot and drinks strong whiskey often?

They sure are fortunate normal people arrived here?

How badly did they stink? Probably not as bad as Africans, but without soap.....wooooo weee!

 

[BULLDOG]

Talking on the phone is not a sex crime.

Why would a 32 year old be talking on the phone with a 14 year old? There is NOTHING good that can come from that.

All you have offered is insinuation and innuendo...exactly what political smear hatchet jobs are intended to do.

Talking on the phone is not sexual assault.

Nor has any actual evidence been put forward. Moore is entitled to due process, but the nature of this creepy accusation 38 years after the supposed incident is not for the truth to come out. The purpose is character assassination in order to remove a political opponent.

To remove a political opponent that molests little girls.

Proof? Where is the evidence that he molested little girls?

All you have is unproven accusations decades after the alleged incident. This is how Totalitarian regimes work, bub.

A RWNJ complaining about unproven claims. How ironic is that?

 

[boedicca]

Nice witch hunt you've got going. Better call in the Thought Police!

No need. YOU said it. I didn't change YOUR words.

Would you be ok with a 32 year old man calling your house to talk to your 14 year old daughter? Simple question.

And a bogus one. The burden of proof is on the accusers. You are demanding that the accused prove his innocence. Until actual proof is provided, this is just a political hatchet job.

Are you fucking stupid? You made a statement and I asked you a simple yes or no question.

WOULD YOU BE OK WITH A 32 YEAR-OLD MAN CALLING YOUR 14 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER?

You are the one that said talking on the phone is not a sex crime.

So either you are stupid or dishonest.

I'm not playing your stupid hypothetical game, you sad little hack.

You loons are engaged in a witch hunt, all eager to condemn a man without due process. But I'll not that you didn't believe Juanita, despite corroborating evidence that she was raped by Bill Clinton.

Do you understand I made ZERO comment about the actual situation and only responded to YOUR comment?

You defended him by not saying he didn't make the call... you said that talking on the phone is not a sex crime.

So since you won't answer we can only assume you are some kind of hack parent that either doesn't care if your 14 year old daughter is talking to a 32 year old man, or your too stupid to understand how despicable it is. By the way you are trying to weasel your way out of answering the question by trying to talk shit about me, tells me you have low morals. No wonder you are defending Moore's actions.

Sad little dweeb. I'm defending his right to due process. You, on the other hand, are perfectly copacetic to judge him guilty without evidence or a trial.

BTW, JFK was 12 years older than Jackie. What a perv!

 

[Lewdog]

Why would a 32 year old be talking on the phone with a 14 year old? There is NOTHING good that can come from that.

All you have offered is insinuation and innuendo...exactly what political smear hatchet jobs are intended to do.

Talking on the phone is not sexual assault.

Nor has any actual evidence been put forward. Moore is entitled to due process, but the nature of this creepy accusation 38 years after the supposed incident is not for the truth to come out. The purpose is character assassination in order to remove a political opponent.

To remove a political opponent that molests little girls.

Proof? Where is the evidence that he molested little girls?

All you have is unproven accusations decades after the alleged incident. This is how Totalitarian regimes work, bub.

Please read.
No one said he molested
Just that he admitted a 30 something guy dated teenagers.
Don't you think that's sick??
Hardly the thing senators are made of.
Maybe in the confederacy among high school white boys

The age of consent in Alabama was 16 years in that era. Personally, I wouldn't have dated a 30 something guy when I was a teenager, but that doesn't make Moore's actions either illegal or immoral.

Again, I'll stand by the concepts of Rule of Law and Due Process, thing which the Left abandoned long ago.

Yeah that's cool and all... except the girl wasn't 16. She was 14. If Moore was a Democrat you'd be calling for him to be castrated and lynched. He's a republican so you instead try to stretch the law to meet his situation, thus proving your dishonesty.

 

[Aletheia4u]

Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to decieve:

BUSTED: Mother of Roy Moore Accuser Contradicts Key Detail of Daughter’s Sexual Advancement Claim​

They say if you want to catch a liar, merely let them talk. In the case of Judge Roy Moore accuser Leigh Corfman, just let her mother talk.

In an interview with Breitbart News, Corfman’s mother Nancy Wells contradicted a key detail of her daughter’s sexual advancement claim against the Alabama GOP Senate candidate. As Breitbart News reporter Aaron Klein noted on Sunday, “Wells, 71, says that her daughter did not have a phone in her bedroom during the period that Moore is reported to have allegedly called Corfman – purportedly on Corfman’s bedroom phone – to arrange at least one encounter.” Breitbart News reports: Citing Corfman, the Postreported: After her mother went into the courtroom, Corfman says, Moore asked her where she went to school, what she liked to do and whether he could call her sometime. She remembers giving him her number and says he called not long after. She says she talked to Moore on her phone in her bedroom, and they made plans for him to pick her up at Alcott Road and Riley Street, around the corner from her house.​

They needs to get those nasty heifers from out of this country, and lock up Hillary..

 

[ph3iron]

Why would a 32 year old be talking on the phone with a 14 year old? There is NOTHING good that can come from that.

All you have offered is insinuation and innuendo...exactly what political smear hatchet jobs are intended to do.

Talking on the phone is not sexual assault.

Nor has any actual evidence been put forward. Moore is entitled to due process, but the nature of this creepy accusation 38 years after the supposed incident is not for the truth to come out. The purpose is character assassination in order to remove a political opponent.

To remove a political opponent that molests little girls.

Proof? Where is the evidence that he molested little girls?

All you have is unproven accusations decades after the alleged incident. This is how Totalitarian regimes work, bub.

Please read.
No one said he molested
Just that he admitted a 30 something guy dated teenagers.
Don't you think that's sick??
Hardly the thing senators are made of.
Maybe in the confederacy among high school white boys

The age of consent in Alabama was 16 years in that era. Personally, I wouldn't have dated a 30 something guy when I was a teenager, but that doesn't make Moore's actions either illegal or immoral.

Again, I'll stand by the concepts of Rule of Law and Due Process, thing which the Left abandoned long ago.

I stand by what's revolting
14 may be illegal, but anyhow, Just sick behavior
Can you imagine a future 32 yr old judge even talking to a teenager?
Nothing to do with what's legal

 

[boedicca]

Talking on the phone is not a sex crime.

Why would a 32 year old be talking on the phone with a 14 year old? There is NOTHING good that can come from that.

All you have offered is insinuation and innuendo...exactly what political smear hatchet jobs are intended to do.

Talking on the phone is not sexual assault.

Nor has any actual evidence been put forward. Moore is entitled to due process, but the nature of this creepy accusation 38 years after the supposed incident is not for the truth to come out. The purpose is character assassination in order to remove a political opponent.

To remove a political opponent that molests little girls.

Proof? Where is the evidence that he molested little girls?

All you have is unproven accusations decades after the alleged incident. This is how Totalitarian regimes work, bub.

A RWNJ complaining about unproven claims. How ironic is that?

I know why you're so uptight, you haven't gotten any lately. Perhaps your pal LD will oblige you.


7262 by boedicca on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[bripat9643]

Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to decieve:

BUSTED: Mother of Roy Moore Accuser Contradicts Key Detail of Daughter’s Sexual Advancement Claim​

They say if you want to catch a liar, merely let them talk. In the case of Judge Roy Moore accuser Leigh Corfman, just let her mother talk.

In an interview with Breitbart News, Corfman’s mother Nancy Wells contradicted a key detail of her daughter’s sexual advancement claim against the Alabama GOP Senate candidate. As Breitbart News reporter Aaron Klein noted on Sunday, “Wells, 71, says that her daughter did not have a phone in her bedroom during the period that Moore is reported to have allegedly called Corfman – purportedly on Corfman’s bedroom phone – to arrange at least one encounter.” Breitbart News reports: Citing Corfman, the Postreported: After her mother went into the courtroom, Corfman says, Moore asked her where she went to school, what she liked to do and whether he could call her sometime. She remembers giving him her number and says he called not long after. She says she talked to Moore on her phone in her bedroom, and they made plans for him to pick her up at Alcott Road and Riley Street, around the corner from her house.​

"Key"in your kiddie mind.
Read about the cord?
Oh you didn't have one, can't be true then

What part of "her phone" didn't you understand?

 

[Lewdog]

No need. YOU said it. I didn't change YOUR words.

Would you be ok with a 32 year old man calling your house to talk to your 14 year old daughter? Simple question.

And a bogus one. The burden of proof is on the accusers. You are demanding that the accused prove his innocence. Until actual proof is provided, this is just a political hatchet job.

Are you fucking stupid? You made a statement and I asked you a simple yes or no question.

WOULD YOU BE OK WITH A 32 YEAR-OLD MAN CALLING YOUR 14 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER?

You are the one that said talking on the phone is not a sex crime.

So either you are stupid or dishonest.

I'm not playing your stupid hypothetical game, you sad little hack.

You loons are engaged in a witch hunt, all eager to condemn a man without due process. But I'll not that you didn't believe Juanita, despite corroborating evidence that she was raped by Bill Clinton.

Do you understand I made ZERO comment about the actual situation and only responded to YOUR comment?

You defended him by not saying he didn't make the call... you said that talking on the phone is not a sex crime.

So since you won't answer we can only assume you are some kind of hack parent that either doesn't care if your 14 year old daughter is talking to a 32 year old man, or your too stupid to understand how despicable it is. By the way you are trying to weasel your way out of answering the question by trying to talk shit about me, tells me you have low morals. No wonder you are defending Moore's actions.

Sad little dweeb. I'm defending his right to due process. You, on the other hand, are perfectly copacetic to judge him guilty without evidence or a trial.

BTW, JFK was 12 years older than Jackie. What a perv!

No, you're not, because I didn't reference his actions, I referenced YOUR comment dumbass.

What does JFK have to do with this? Is he running for Congress in Alabama?

WOULD YOU CARE IF A 32 YEAR-OLD MAN CALLED TO TALK TO YOUR 14 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER?