quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

...When it's your guy under attack you form a circle around him and fire outward to defend...

Uh...I'm not seeing many Republicans defending Moore. And it's not like they're saying nothing, they're joining the Dems in attacking him. It's almost like the GOP WANTS to lose control of the Senate.

Look at it this way: It's almost like they did not want to support an alleged pedophile, who admits he did not "generally" date a lot of teenagers in his thirties, although he admittedly "would not deny it." These admissions are not some made-up democratic ploy. Of course, the initial allegations might have been raised by them, but he himself admits that HE SOUGHT AND DATED TEENAGERS WHILE IN HIS THIRTIES. There is good reason for rational people to say I don't want anything to do with this guy.

quote:

It's almost like they did not want to support an alleged pedophile,

Pedophiles don't mess with teenagers. Pedophiles are into prepubescent children. Pre-teens.

quote:

but he himself admits that HE SOUGHT AND DATED TEENAGERS WHILE IN HIS THIRTIES.

Which was/is completely legal so long as it was consensual.

quote:

There is good reason for rational people to say I don't want anything to do with this guy.

I started selling rocks out of my neighbors landscaping back to them around the age of 5. I started in the safe business at 13. I was running a limousine service at 16.

Know how hard it was for me to do those things? Thanks to all of those "intelligent adults" that "know" what's good for us "kids"?

The law in his state says that those "teenagers" that he dated were old enough to make those decisions on their own behalf without your input. I wish I would have had that luxury.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

It's almost like they did not want to support an alleged pedophile,

Pedophiles don't mess with teenagers. Pedophiles are into prepubescent children. Pre-teens.

Beat me to it.

Using the word pedophile in this case means you're either misinformed, clueless, or being purposefully dishonest.

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
Sean Hannity responds to open letter from Roy Moore

Thanks for posting that. It sounds like there are some serious concerns about the validity of the year book signature and same accuser not telling truth about not having any further contact with Ray Moore after alleged incident. If he and his team can prove that, then that will be huge in vindicating himself.

The new plan being talked about this morning:

Have Luther Strange resign immediately (Strange replaced Sessions). This would allow the Alabama Gov to appoint a replacement that could sit until next year's election and this special election would just be cancelled.

If everyone will just stop thrashing around and trying to "do something", this guy will win.

McConnell and the GOP leadership are thrashing around exactly for that reason - they want to prevent him winning almost as bad as the democrats do.

Roy Moore responded by writing an open letter to Hannity that states that he believes he is the victim of a smear campaign by The Washington Post and the liberal media. Moore also says that he believes the note left in the yearbook is fraudulent.

The letter posted to his Facebook account states:

Dear Sean:

I am suffering the same treatment other Republicans have had to endure.

A month prior to the general election for U.S. Senate in Alabama, I have been attacked by the Washington Post and other liberal media in a desperate attempt to smear my character and defeat my campaign.

Over the last 40 years I have held several public offices, including Deputy District Attorney, Circuit Judge, and Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. In addition to running five statewide and three county campaigns for public office, I have been involved in two major controversies that attracted national attention, one about the Ten Commandments and the other the sanctity of marriage.

The Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission, Court of the Judiciary, and Attorney General have investigated, scrutinized, examined, and vetted me, not to mention every opposing candidate against whom I have run.

I have been married for almost 33 years to my wife Kayla. We have four children and five granddaughters.

We are in the process of investigating these false allegations to determine their origin and motivation. For instance, we have documented that the most recent accuser, Beverly Nelson, was a party in a divorce action before me in Etowah County Circuit Court in 1999. No motion was made for me to recuse. In her accusations, Nelson did not mention that I was the judge assigned to her divorce case in 1999, a matter that apparently caused her no distress at a time that was 18 years closer to the alleged assault. Yet 18 years later, while talking before the cameras about the supposed assault, she seemingly could not contain her emotions.

My signature on the order of dismissal in the divorce case was annotated with the letters "D.A.," representing the initials of my court assistant. Curiously the supposed yearbook inscription is also followed by the same initials—"D.A." But at that time I was Deputy District Attorney, not district attorney. Those initials as well as the date under the signature block and the printed name of the restaurant are written in a style inconsistent with the rest of the yearbook inscription. The "7's" in "Christmas 1977" are in a noticeably different script than the "7's" in the date "12-22-77." I believe tampering has occurred.

Are we at a stage in American politics in which false allegations can overcome a public record of 40 years, stampede the media and politicians to condemn an innocent man, and potentially impact the outcome of an election of national importance? When allegations of events occurring 40 years ago—and never before mentioned during a 40-year career of public service—are brought out and taken seriously only 30 days before a critical election, we may be in trouble as a country.

I adamantly deny the allegations of Leigh Corfman and Beverly Nelson, did not date underage girls, and have taken steps to begin a civil action for defamation. Because of that, at the direction of counsel, I cannot comment further.

- Roy S. Moore.

this pic is from CNN

https://twitter.com/CNN/status...ferent-color-inks%2F






different color ink

people are also questioning the different type of "77" s in the writing

short interview between Gloria Allred and Wolf Blitzer - Allred will not come out and say the signature was not a forgery

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbRDFswFPfc

It's a puzzler

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
McConnell and the GOP leadership are thrashing around exactly for that reason - they want to prevent him winning almost as bad as the democrats do.

And if he does win they will try to remove him. Anything to preserve their oligarchy. No holds barred when you are trying to suppress the will of the people.

Someone made the comment about voting for a pedophile over a democrat. Well on the levels of hell a democrat is a few rungs below a pedophile.

quote:

different color ink

people are also questioning the different type of "77" s in the writing

They are also questioning:

Why his signature has D.A. after it. He was not a D.A. at that time, he was a D.D.A. Apparently he had an assistant with the initials D.A., and they believe that (if it is forged) the forger didn't know that little tidbit and copied it thinking it was there as his title.

Why somebody would be signing a yearbook in the middle of winter.

There are a lot of things that don't make logical sense here.

It's a good thing we don't have Senators chosen by the legislatures!

Can you imagine those bowel-less weak-knee'd sissies under this much pressure?

Lordy!

Yes, it's a good thing we don't do things like the founders intended. Just a bunch of old white guys, what did they know about how a government should run? Besides, the Constitution is a living document, so....

None of the founding fathers would have ever been allowed in congress today. None of them were the permanent political class. Can't have those rookies making decisions! How the hell would they know what's good for the people?

Mitch McConnell and Steve Bannon fight the battle of Roy Moore

On the ballot in Alabama, it will be Roy Moore versus Doug Jones come Dec. 12. The special Senate election, however, is widely seen as a proxy war between Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and former White House strategist Steve Bannon.


Roy Moore is the embattled Republican senatorial nominee in Alabama, but two other figures in the party have even more to lose in his race: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon.

First, the obvious. If Moore is beaten by Democrat Doug Jones — a leaked National Republican Senatorial Committee poll has the socially conservative retired judge trailing Jones by 12 points, but this is at odds with public polling — McConnell will be knocked down to leading a 51-49 Republican Senate.

That may not seem like much in a Senate that has no meaningful filibuster for executive and judicial appointments, but where 52 votes are no more useful for advancing legislation that can’t be snuck through the reconciliation process. It is nevertheless significant given that the Senate has already had trouble passing major legislation like Obamacare repeal and tax reform with the majority it currently has.

It also would bring the Democrats one vote closer to recapturing the Senate majority, despite a very daunting electoral map for the upper chamber in 2018. Winning such a reliably red state would aid Democratic candidate recruitment across the board and embolden the party’s ten senators from states President Trump carried who are up for re-election next year.

Superficially speaking, McConnell comes out a loser if Moore is defeated. But not in the bigger picture. The Dec. 12 special Senate election in Alabama could also be viewed as a front in the proxy war between McConnell and Bannon.

After leaving the White House, Bannon threatened to recruit primary challengers for most of the incumbent Republican senators who are seeking re-election in 2018. At a joint press conference with Trump in the Rose Garden, McConnell didn’t mince words about how he felt about this gambit.

“Look, you know, the goal here is to win elections in November,” McConnell said last month. “Back in 2010 and 2012, we nominated several candidates — Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock. They're not in the Senate. And the reason for that was that they were not able to appeal to a broader electorate in the general election.”

“My goal as the leader of the Republican Party in the Senate is to keep us in the majority,” he added. “The way you do that is not complicated. You have to have nominated people who can actually win, because winners make policy and losers go home.”

Bannon wants more Republican senators who will vote against McConnell. McConnell and his allies believe the Breitbart News chief’s intervention in the primaries could lead to fewer Republican senators overall, so they have started punching back.

In September’s Alabama Republican primary, McConnell went all in on appointed incumbent Sen. Luther Strange and lost, despite the president’s backing. Bannon made the argument that the candidate Trump endorsed wasn’t the one who would be most supportive of the Trump agenda. For that, he insisted, you needed an anti-establishment candidate like Moore. Bannon, via Moore, won.

Both men might have been better off with Rep. Mo Brooks, who was eliminated in the first round of voting. Brooks was big on the Trump agenda and did not have all the weird sexual baggage that could wind up dooming Moore. Bannon allies told the Washington Examiner that the former top Trump strategist might have preferred Brooks.

Yet McConnell’s political apparatus spent heavily against Moore to protect Strange, a sitting senator who struggled from the local perception he secured his seat through some kind of corrupt bargain with disgraced former Gov. Robert Bentley. And Bannon couldn’t very well throw his weight behind a candidate who, despite being ideologically Trumpist, endorsed Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, over Trump in the 2016 primaries — especially while still serving in the West Wing.

Freed from the White House, Bannon backed Moore less because the “Ten Commandments judge” had any particular affinity for the issues that Trump ran on last year and more because Alabama’s political conditions made him likely to beat Strange. Moore would owe McConnell and the establishment nothing, but Bannon would have chits to cash in and an improved reputation as a kingmaker inside the GOP.

If Moore loses in a disastrous fashion (and remember it is courting disaster for this race to even be competitive; in 2014, Jeff Sessions had no Democratic challenger and won over 97 percent of the vote), it will prove McConnell’s point about the futility of Bannon’s enterprise before the Senate majority is ever really at risk.

The funding would likely dry up, as GOP megadonor Sheldon Adelson already closed his checkbook. That would be bad news for Bannon-backed candidates, who will look wackier and have access to less resources, and good news for McConnell. And it would have the additional salutary effect of distancing the national party from Moore’s problems — and discouraging Moore imitators.

The risk is that McConnell’s machinations will look to the grassroots like an establishment coup against a duly nominated candidate who so far retains the support of Alabama Republicans. McConnell already proved incapable of swinging the primary against Moore, even with Trump on his side and Alabama has a well-documented history of resisting federal authority.

Even if a victorious Moore is expelled from the Senate, it bolsters Bannon’s argument against McConnell. The populist rabble-rouser can say that the Washington establishment overrode the will of the people in Alabama and normal Republicans cannot be counted on to drain the swamp. And as one of the last national GOP figures still standing behind Moore, Bannon will look prescient, even if he merely got lucky.

On the ballot, it is Moore versus Jones. But they aren’t the only combatants in this unusual election.

http://www.washingtonexaminer....oore/article/2640865

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
None of the founding fathers would have ever been allowed in congress today. None of them were the permanent political class. Can't have those rookies making decisions! How the hell would they know what's good for the people?

Really?

Thomas Jefferson

Virginia delegate to the Second Continental Congress
June 20, 1775 – September 26, 1776

2nd Governor of Virginia
June 1, 1779 – June 3, 1781

Virginia delegate to the Congress of the Confederation
November 3, 1783 – May 7, 1784

United States Minister to France
May 17, 1785 – September 26, 1789

1st United States Secretary of State
March 22, 1790 – December 31, 1793

2nd Vice President of the United States
March 4, 1797 – March 4, 1801

3rd President of the United States
March 4, 1801 – March 4, 1809

Other than that, he was just an ordinary guy, like the rest of us.

Ben Franklin

Speaker of the Pennsylvania Assembly
May – October 1764

1st United States Postmaster General
July 26, 1775 – November 7, 1776

United States Minister to France
September 14, 1778 – May 17, 1785

United States Minister to Sweden
September 28, 1782 – April 3, 1783

6th President of Pennsylvania
October 18, 1785 – November 5, 1788

John Adams

Delegate to the First Continental Congress
from Massachusetts Bay
September 5, 1774 – October 26, 1774

Delegate to the Second Continental Congress from Massachusetts
May 10, 1775 – June 27, 1778

United States Envoy to France
April 1, 1778 – June 17, 1779

United States Minister to the Netherlands
April 19, 1782 – March 30, 1788

United States Minister to the
Court of St. James's
April 1, 1785 – March 30, 1788

1st Vice President of the United States
April 21, 1789 – March 4, 1797

2nd President of the United States
March 4, 1797 – March 4, 1801

Need we look at the others?

quote:

Someone made the comment about voting for a pedophile over a democrat. Well on the levels of hell a democrat is a few rungs below a pedophile.

Look, I'm as versed in hyperbole as anyone - but in no universe, ever, is someone who has differing political opinions (even vile Hillary herself) worse than an adult who fucks kids.

Which has nothing to do with Moore himself, I don't think he's a pedo either. But dude...

http://www.breitbart.com/video...dge-not-banned-mall/

In an appearance on Birmingham FOX affiliate WBRC6 on Wednesday, Barnes Boyle, who was the manager of the Gadsden Mall from 1981 to 1996, said he had no memory of former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore being banned from that mall.

A report from The New Yorker magazine published earlier this week claimed Moore had been banned while Boyle was the mall’s manager.

“Sure, it was part of the job,” Boyle said. “We did have written reports and things. But to my knowledge, he was not banned from the mall.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...ndred-percent-a-lie/

Darrel Nelson, the stepson of Republican senatorial candidate Roy Moore accuser Beverly Young Nelson, claims that his stepmother’s accusations are “one hundred percent a lie.”


100 % seems like a stretch

“I know for a fact that there is a lot that that woman does not tell the truth on,” Nelson claimed in an in-person interview with Breitbart News. “Do I think that Beverly is trustworthy? No, I really don’t. Could I see her making it up? …The odds are in that favor.”

Darrel Nelson stated that he is not close to his stepmother, but they talk every few months and that they are not on bad terms. He said that he is in regular contact with his father, John Nelson, Beverly’s husband for the past thirteen years.

“There is a lot of details that just does not add up,” he stated. “Do I believe that she is being paid? I have got a feeling that that is so.”

“It’s got to be money. Financially, I really do believe that she is out for the money part. Somebody is paying somebody. It seems awful funny. Twenty-five days or so until the election. Why wait until just now to start doing all of this?”