Roy Moore says he'll sue WaPo

[Pogo]

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.

And what onus is that exactly?

 

[edthecynic]

He should.

He won't, because then he can be deposed!!!

 

[Pogo]

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.

And "could not say Merry Christmas"
Call Bull O'Reilly!

I love the way he made sure to write "DA" in there too.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

No it's not. Moore is a "public figure".

 

[rightwinger]

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…

Come on conservatives

What is taking so long to attack this woman

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Actually no- the onus is on the accuser- not the accused.

And if Moore sues- yes he can be compelled to testify.

 

[Syriusly]

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."

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.

Yep- when its a Republican accused- the sheeple assume that the women must be lying.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

He is running for Senator.

If he is not quick enough on the stick to remember which teenage girls he dated when he was in his thirties- maybe he is not quick enough on the stick to be Senator.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Actually no- the onus is on the accuser- not the accused.

And if Moore sues- yes he can be compelled to testify.

In terms of defamation, generally (if the plaintiff is a "private" individual) there is actually no requirement for the plaintiff to "prove" that the defamatory statements are false - just that they are defamatory. On the other hand, the defendant has an affirmative defense if they can prove the statements are true.

But Moore isn't a "private" individual, he's a public figure. The bar is much higher for him.

 

[Baz Ares]

In other news today. Another comes forward.

Woman accuses George H.W. Bush of groping her when she was 16
‘I Was a Child.’ Woman Says George H.W. Bush Groped Her When She Was 16

Seems all the U.S. Presidents have Grabbing issues?
Even raygoon! Do you recall.. recall..Gipper the Ripper?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Actually no- the onus is on the accuser- not the accused.

And if Moore sues- yes he can be compelled to testify.

In terms of defamation, generally (if the plaintiff is a "private" individual) there is actually no requirement for the plaintiff to "prove" that the defamatory statements are false - just that they are defamatory. On the other hand, the defendant has an affirmative defense if they can prove the statements are true.

But Moore isn't a "private" individual, he's a public figure. The bar is much higher for him.

I don't claim to be a lawyer- so I will bow to your superior knowledge.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Actually no- the onus is on the accuser- not the accused.

And the Post is in neither of those roles.
Hence my question, from which the onusmonger ran away.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Actually no- the onus is on the accuser- not the accused.

And if Moore sues- yes he can be compelled to testify.

In terms of defamation, generally (if the plaintiff is a "private" individual) there is actually no requirement for the plaintiff to "prove" that the defamatory statements are false - just that they are defamatory. On the other hand, the defendant has an affirmative defense if they can prove the statements are true.

But Moore isn't a "private" individual, he's a public figure. The bar is much higher for him.

I don't claim to be a lawyer- so I will bow to your superior knowledge.

I am not a lawyer either (yet) - but it just happens that we covered this in my Torts class this afternoon.

 

[Pogo]

He isn't a pedophile.

Pedo-adjacent. Not sure that's any better.

The proper term would be hebephile the 14 year old, and and ephebophilia for the 17 and up ones. But that isn't even really a proper diagnosis because he did marry someone 24 and has remained married to them.

We did this word game the other day ---

>> Ephebophilia is the primary sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19.[1] The term was originally used in the late 19th to mid 20th century.[1] It is one of a number of sexual preferences across age groups subsumed under the technical term chronophilia. Ephebophilia strictly denotes the preference for mid-to-late adolescent sexual partners, not the mere presence of some level of sexual attraction.

In research environments, specific terms are used for chronophilias: for instance, ephebophilia to refer to the sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents,[1] hebephilia to refer to the sexual preference for earlier pubescent individuals, and pedophilia to refer to the primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children.[1][2] However, the term pedophilia is commonly used by the general public to refer to any sexual interest in minors below the legal age of consent, regardless of their level of physical or mental development.[3] << (Wiki)​

--- so while hebophilia applies to the case of the 14-year-old, ephebophiia would apply to 15 and up, not 17. You can't just leave the 15/16 year-olds isolated as some sort of DMZ.

But who he marries is irrelevant to any of this. None of these Chronophilia terms distinguish who one "marries". That isn't what the root philia means.

 

[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.

And what onus is that exactly?

That their allegation is accurate.

 

[boedicca]

There something about this situation that reminds me of Ted Stevens. The Dems were desperate to get a Senate seat. He was found guilty on bogus charges, with a great deal of FBI/prosecutorial misconduct. But that didn't matter in the end because Stevens was replaced by a Dem.

Fast forward to today. It's too late for the GOP to substitute someone for Moore on the ballot, and voila! Dem operatives orchestrate a smear campaign. Given their lack of effects, it doesn't stretch the imagination one iota to believe that this is highly plausible.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

And what onus is that exactly?

That their allegation is accurate.

The Post didn't "allege" anything. They reported a story about women who "alleged" things.

It's irrelevant, anyway.

Moore is a public figure, he would not only have to prove that the allegations were false, he'd have to prove that the Post knew they were false, and published them anyway.

 

[Pogo]

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.

And what onus is that exactly?

That their allegation is accurate.

And that "allegation" is..................................................... ?

I should have been a dentist.

 

[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.

No it's not. Moore is a "public figure".

But libel is libel.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

No it's not. Moore is a "public figure".

But libel is libel.

The standard required to prove libel is not the same for a public figure as it is for a private individual.