Roy Moore says he'll sue WaPo

[DrLove]

More Rut Roh - either the Senate Judiciary Committee brings Roy Boy up under oath to answer these charges within two weeks, or this gal will answer questions on her own.

He signed her yearbook, he attempted to rape her in his car in a dark parking lot. He finally gave up and left her on the cold pavement as he gave up and squealed his tires with the passenger door open on his way out, threatening her in the process.

Black and blue marks on her neck the next morning, and she quit her job at the diner the following morning and never went back.

You idiot duh fenders of this uber-kreepy kook had better up your game - he's going down ...

HARD

 

[Syriusly]

He should.

I agree completely.

I would love to hear him discuss these issues under oath.

And be cross examined.

Maybe have a doctor check his memory too. If he can't remember which teens he dated when he was in his thirties......maybe that says something about his mental status too.

 

[OldLady]

More Rut Roh - either the Senate Judiciary Committee brings Roy Boy up under oath to answer these charges within two weeks, or this gal will answer questions on her own.

He signed her yearbook, he attempted to rape her in his car in a dark parking lot. He finally gave up and left her on the cold pavement as he gave up and squealed his tires with the passenger door open on his way out, threatening her in the process.

Black and blue marks on her neck the next morning, and she quit her job at the diner the following morning and never went back.

You idiot duh fenders of this uber-kreepy kook had better up your game - he's going down ...

HARD

I knew there would be more. I didn't think they'd come forward. Good for her.

 

[Syriusly]

More Rut Roh - either the Senate Judiciary Committee brings Roy Boy up under oath to answer these charges within two weeks, or this gal will answer questions on her own.

He signed her yearbook, he attempted to rape her in his car in a dark parking lot. He finally gave up and left her on the cold pavement as he gave up and squealed his tires with the passenger door open on his way out, threatening her in the process.

Black and blue marks on her neck the next morning, and she quit her job at the diner the following morning and never went back.

You idiot duh fenders of this uber-kreepy kook had better up your game - he's going down ...

HARD

Nelson went on, describing another incident in which Moore signed a school yearbook of hers when she was 16.

"He wrote in my yearbook as follows: 'To a sweeter more beautiful girl, I could not say Merry Christmas, Christmas, 1977, Love, Roy Moore, Old Hickory House. Roy Moore, DA.'"

Okay- now this is sounding more believable.

This is evidence that Moore knew her pretty well- and certainly admired her looks.

 

[Syriusly]

I hope he does sue- at that point the women can cross sue- after all he as publicly accused them of lying about him

Why Roy Moore's accusers are coming forward now

In this case, reporter Stephanie McCrummen was in Alabama as part of The Post's coverage of the race. She explained the genesis of the story to NPR last week.

"I was in Alabama actually reporting another story on Roy Moore supporters, a story aiming to understand, you know, the basis of his support in the state. And it was at the end of a long conversation with someone there that these allegations surfaced. So none of these women — none of the women in this story sought out The Washington Post. No one promoted this story to The Washington Post. And all of the women went through quite a long process deciding whether to come forward."

We've seen a similar difficult deliberative process in other recent allegations that have made headlines. Moore's claim that it's "unbelievable" that it could take 40 years for these stories to come to light ignores dozens of recent examples of allegations against men in positions of power that took decades to surface.

It's important to note that McCrummen wasn't the only Post reporter covering the race. In late September, shortly before the primary, our Michael Scherer profiled Moore, including a two-hour interview conducted as the pair drove to visit Moore's mother. When Moore came to Washington, our Sean Sullivan covered his visit. Had either Scherer or Sullivan heard the same rumors as McCrummen — rumors, we've learned over the past few days, that have been around for years — it's safe to say that they, too, would have investigated further.

That, of course, is what reporting is about: telling important stories. Sometimes that means convincing people who know the stories to come forward, as The Post's team did with the four women sharing stories about Moore's alleged interest in teenage girls, including Leigh Corfman, the girl who was 14. The original story noted that "[n]either Corfman nor any of the other women sought out The Post." After learning about them, "two Post reporters contacted and interviewed the four women. All were initially reluctant to speak publicly but chose to do so after multiple interviews, saying they thought it was important for people to know about their interactions with Moore."

Why was it important? Presumably because of the timing. Because now.

For 40 years, as Moore and his defenders point out, the women kept their stories close, telling some friends and family (and, in Corfman's case, one former boyfriend) but not the public at large. It's important for Alabamians at large to know about those interactions now presumably because Moore is running for the Senate. The same reason it's important for The Post and other outlets to cover who he is and what he believes, as Scherer, Sullivan and McCrummen all have.

The point of asking "why now" is not usually a good-faith effort to understand why the interactions only just came to light. It is usually simply meant to raise uncertainty about the women's stories and, therefore, about the allegations against Moore. It is up to the voters of Alabama to decide if the allegations against Moore are a reason to oppose his candidacy; they may decide that they are not. The Post's role is simply to bring the stories to light.

There's a more subtle aspect to "why now" that's worth pointing out. Why did the story drop last week? Because that was when the story was ready, after dozens of interviews and a great deal of verification, down to the date of court appearances 38 years ago.

Why now? Because that's when an important story about a man who is right now seeking election to the Senate was unearthed, researched and vetted. It's no more complicated than that.

 

[rightwinger]

You only think it's wrong because of your hatred of Moore. Stop trying to be so prudish all of a sudden.

Funny how the party of "Christian family values" is defending a 30 year old creeping on high schoolers.

Er um - not that funny since their Bible seems to justify it.

Jesus' father was a child molester.......Mary was only 14

 

[rightwinger]

Lets just look at these stories about Moore as "Extreme Vetting"

 

[DrLove]

Jesus' father was a child molester.......Mary was only 14

Would that have been the VIRGIN Mary?

 

[bodecea]

ahhhh... you know those are not opposites, right?

cor·rob·o·rate
kəˈräbəˌrāt/
verb
verb: corroborate; 3rd person present: corroborates; past tense: corroborated; past participle: corroborated; gerund or present participle: corroborating
confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding).
"the witness had corroborated the boy's account of the attack"
synonyms: confirm, verify, endorse, ratify, authenticate, validate, certify​

The statement is corroborated. By at least three people. That was your point of questioning, and it was delivered.

Anything else?

Corroboration involves 3rd hand confirmation of the events, not someone TALKING about the events.

In your case the witness saw the attack, not the boy saying he was attacked.

In the actual case all that has been confirmed in the story is that she told others about the supposed incident, not that they saw the incident.

Once again we whiplash right back to the question you can't or won't answer, and that is --- what is there for the Post to "retract"?

The story is that this woman made an accusation of an event from 38 years ago. Whelp, she did make that accusation, so there''s nothing to "retract". It's documented and undisputed that she made that claim.

When I pointed that out, you asked for "corroboration" ----- even though you're misdirecting that; the Post needs no "corroboration" for the fact that someone makes a statement, because again the statement is on the record. But just to humor the point I gave you references to three other people who had been told the same story in the past by the same person, on the theory that you thought the woman's claim itself had to be corroborated before they would treat the claim as newsworthy. The claim still exists with or without corroboration or evidence. The claim was made. There's no dispute about that.

And so I gave you the corroboration that supports HER story, not the Post's.

Now it's possible she could come out later and retract HER story, and that would be her retraction, not the Post's. But it would make hard to explain all those recountings of the same story to other people years in the past.

So again the original question was --- what could there be for the Post to "retract"?

If it was found out that her story has a ton of holes in it, they would have to retract the original story and provide the corrections, not doing so would make them liable.

And I noticed you didn't have the balls to address my correct assertion that all the "corroborating" evidence is nothing but hearsay.

What if the holes are in Moore's story, and not theirs? Because there's an awful big hole in Moore's story...namely the reason why he was pursuing high school girls in the first place!

No, the story is about accusations of potential assault, the rest is just progs like you getting all prude like when it suits your political goals.

I sense a pattern here.....you think it's prudish to be against electing child predators to the U.S. Senate.

 

[DrLove]

In case ya missed it - link herein

Can't hardly wait to see his defenders come out from under their rocks and mansplain THIS:

New Roy Moore accuser, Beverly Young Nelson, claims he violently assaulted her when she was 16

 

[bodecea]

In case ya missed it - link herein

Can't hardly wait to see his defenders come out from under their rocks and mansplain THIS:

New Roy Moore accuser, Beverly Young Nelson, claims he violently assaulted her when she was 16

Is this just biblical too?

 

[OldLady]

More Rut Roh - either the Senate Judiciary Committee brings Roy Boy up under oath to answer these charges within two weeks, or this gal will answer questions on her own.

He signed her yearbook, he attempted to rape her in his car in a dark parking lot. He finally gave up and left her on the cold pavement as he gave up and squealed his tires with the passenger door open on his way out, threatening her in the process.

Black and blue marks on her neck the next morning, and she quit her job at the diner the following morning and never went back.

You idiot duh fenders of this uber-kreepy kook had better up your game - he's going down ...

HARD

Nelson went on, describing another incident in which Moore signed a school yearbook of hers when she was 16.

"He wrote in my yearbook as follows: 'To a sweeter more beautiful girl, I could not say Merry Christmas, Christmas, 1977, Love, Roy Moore, Old Hickory House. Roy Moore, DA.'"

Okay- now this is sounding more believable.

This is evidence that Moore knew her pretty well- and certainly admired her looks.

Her story was fishy. That there was a lot more to it than what she said at the press conference makes sense.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Beverly Young Nelson says Roy Moore tried to rape her as a teen: ‘I was struggling and begging him to stop’
A new accuser emerged on Monday and claimed that Republican Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore tried to rape her when she was just a teenager. Developing…

 

[JimBowie1958]

Let him sue

He will have to prove what they printed was not true......Love to see him take the stand

Actually it's worse, he has to prove it's not true, AND the paper KNEW it wasn't true.

There has to be malice involved, although he may meet that requirement via the timing of the whole thing.

I think the objective would be to get these people under oath, not necessarily to win cash from some old worn out whore.

And Moore would also be under oath.

If Hannity’s interview would be any indicator, it would be a steady stream of non-denial denials, ie “I don’t recall,” “that’s not how I would have behaved,” etc.

Well he is around 80 years old.

Lets see how quick on the stick you are at that age, lol.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No one is saying 16 was illegal. What it DOES show is that he was dating much much younger women (if you can call them that) at the same time he is accused of dating a 14 year old. Not much of a stretch, given the typical age of his "dates."

It is a stgretch that crosses a legal line.

*If* Moore did this crap with girls of legal age when he was just out of the Vietnam, I dont consider it a big deal.

If he went after a young girl knowing she was 14, that *IS* a big deal.

But I have little serious doubt that these charges are nothing more than trumped up bullshit of the type Democrats run in almost every election.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

when Roy Moore orders a "Shirley Temple" he is not referring to a non alcoholic drink

 

[Baz Ares]

Pedo moore been married 32 years. 1985. If you say the wife is 15-20 years younger than the Cowboy Pedo.
That would make her 47 years old now if she was 15 .
A 47 year-old wife - 32yrs married = a 15 years old dating a 50 year-old then.
But if you apply the PEDO's Shopping Patterns. The wife could be married at 16 or less.

btw. Seems her age is TOP SECRET
Kayla Moore (Roy Moore's Wife) Age, Family, Biography, Profession & More - StarsInformer

 

[Pogo]

holy crap, spock... a political PLOY to not give pedophiles the ability to legislate in America!


McConnell on Moore: 'I believe the women' - CNNPolitics

He isn't a pedophile.

Just likes em young?

Like a lot of Hollywood, yes.

Like Trump at a Miss Universe pageant

When did he date a Miss Universe contestant?

Actually he didn't need to. He cut right to the chase and just walked into their dressing room. Habitually.
Presumably it cuts out all that drudgery of asking permission. And saves Tic Tacs.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Let him sue

He will have to prove what they printed was not true......Love to see him take the stand

The onus is on the Post.

 

[Pogo]

No. I'm referring to three other friends of hers who confirmed that she related the same story in the past.
All referring to the same incident with the same person.

So hearsay, not actual corroboration.

ahhhh... you know those are not opposites, right?

cor·rob·o·rate
kəˈräbəˌrāt/
verb
verb: corroborate; 3rd person present: corroborates; past tense: corroborated; past participle: corroborated; gerund or present participle: corroborating
confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding).
"the witness had corroborated the boy's account of the attack"
synonyms: confirm, verify, endorse, ratify, authenticate, validate, certify​

The statement is corroborated. By at least three people. That was your point of questioning, and it was delivered.

Anything else?

Corroboration involves 3rd hand confirmation of the events, not someone TALKING about the events.

In your case the witness saw the attack, not the boy saying he was attacked.

In the actual case all that has been confirmed in the story is that she told others about the supposed incident, not that they saw the incident.

Once again we whiplash right back to the question you can't or won't answer, and that is --- what is there for the Post to "retract"?

The story is that this woman made an accusation of an event from 38 years ago. Whelp, she did make that accusation, so there''s nothing to "retract". It's documented and undisputed that she made that claim.

When I pointed that out, you asked for "corroboration" ----- even though you're misdirecting that; the Post needs no "corroboration" for the fact that someone makes a statement, because again the statement is on the record. But just to humor the point I gave you references to three other people who had been told the same story in the past by the same person, on the theory that you thought the woman's claim itself had to be corroborated before they would treat the claim as newsworthy. The claim still exists with or without corroboration or evidence. The claim was made. There's no dispute about that.

And so I gave you the corroboration that supports HER story, not the Post's.

Now it's possible she could come out later and retract HER story, and that would be her retraction, not the Post's. But it would make hard to explain all those recountings of the same story to other people years in the past.

So again the original question was --- what could there be for the Post to "retract"?

If it was found out that her story has a ton of holes in it, they would have to retract the original story and provide the corrections, not doing so would make them liable.

Once AGAIN the question stands untouched ----- "liable" for .................. what?
Let's reduce this to simple stick figures.
*DID SHE* or *DID SHE NOT* tell the story?

Is the Post just picking some random woman and plunking a fake accusation in her mouth? Is that your position?

Because nothing else makes any sense.

And I noticed you didn't have the balls to address my correct assertion that all the "corroborating" evidence is nothing but hearsay.

You noticed no such thing, since I immediately called it out for the false comparison it was, is now, and ever shall be.

You don't seem to understand what "corroboration" means. Even though you yourself introduced the concept.
Let's use an analogy.

Let's day it's 1906 and you're running the Washington Post. You get a telegram saying that a huge earthquake has struck San Francisco and the city is in flames. You have one source, with no evidence. One source who, for all you know, could be making it up.

So you get a second source, independent of the first one, who confirms the same thing. Now you have two (or more) independent sources telling the same story.

The story is now corroborated. Now you can go to press and print "multiple sources tell us a huge earthquake has rocked San Francisco". Which is irrefutable since multiple sources *DID* tell you that.

You could have gone to press with only the first source in order to scoop the NY Times. But you would not have had corroboration.

But in neither case did you print that a huge earthquake DID hit San Francisco. The assertion you're printing is that source(s) TOLD you this --- not that it absolutely happened.

Get it?