Corfman came forward to say that Roy Moore took her to his house, undressed her to her underwear, stripped himself down to his underwear, and proceeded in touching her and trying to get her to touch him.
The situation alleged was that Corfman and Moore met outside the courtroom in Feb of 1979. Corfman's mother had a hearing in court, and Moore offered to watch Corfman while she was in court. Corfman provided Moore with their home phone number that day, which he allegedly called multiple times to arrange meetings. According to Corfman, the first meeting took place "days later". Moore took her to his home, where he put his arm around her and kissed her. The second meeting (which involved the alleged molestation) took place shortly after that. She alleges that there was an intersection she described as "around the corner from her house" where Moore picked her up for these meetings. Moore allegedly continue to call Corfman, but Corfman then started to make excuses to not see him.
Corfman went on to state that she felt bad about the event, and that she felt like she did something wrong. Eventually she claims this led to emotional problems, which led to her well documented behavior problems. She is basically blaming Roy Moore for childhood behavioral issues that led to a troubled adulthood as well.
But there appears to be three potential problems with the story.
- First is the timeline. The court hearing in question was a custody hearing. It took place (according to records) on February 21st 1979. The result of the hearing was that Corfman's father would be given full custody. The change in custody was ordered to take place less than two weeks later (March 4th). Her father did not live in the same town. While this conceivably provides a timeline for everything to have taken place. Several phone calls, two meetings, follow up phone calls and excuses within the 10 day period... it certainly provides for some suspicion.
- Second would be the place of the meeting. The intersection described according to those knowledgeable with the town, was more than a mile from Corfman's place of residence. It also would involve passing over a major highway. It's not inconceivable that Corfman would not specifically remember the meeting place correctly, but why provide a detail (much like the phone in the room detail) that is factually incorrect?
- Lastly, the reasoning behind the change in custody (according to court documents), was due to the fact that Corfman had been suffering from emotional problems that had led to behavior problems. It was believed that a new start in a new town and the input of the father would be helpful. Everyone (including the mother) agreed to the custody change for these reasons. Basically, Corfman is not only accusing Moore of sexual molestation, but also blaming him for the start of behavior problems that predated the event.
Again, none of this specifically proves that key portions of the events did not take place as described by Corfman. It's still entirely plausible that Moore did in fact take her to his house, and do the things she alleges. But what the historical timeline does show is that there are several details that Corfman either remembers wrong or possibly is being dishonest about. The timeline suggests that her blaming Moore for her behavior problems is factually incorrect, and looks like she is pushing the victim card. Lastly, the fact that she moved to a different town just a few days after meeting Moore, seems like an important bit of information to just "leave out" of the story... especially considering that that move would be the main reason why contact with Moore would have been cut off.
100 comments:
at some point i really hope we learn just how much $$$$$ the WaPo gave to moore's accusers. with bezos' deep pockets i'm sure it was a handsome sum.
Republican Women in Alabama Begin to Turn on Roy Moore
The Daily Beast 1 hour ago
Two Minnesota Lawmakers Resign After Claims
Minneapolis Star Tribune: “A pair of Minnesota state lawmakers — one a DFL senator, the other a Republican representative — announced Tuesday that they will resign from office in the wake of sexual harassment allegations. Word of the resignations of Sen. Dan Schoen and Rep. Tony Cornish came within two hours of each other, capping a stunning sequence of events that vividly demonstrated a new awareness of what many insiders say has been a long-standing tolerance of mistreatment of women working at Minnesota’s Capitol. Both men had been under pressure from leaders of their parties to resign.”
Spam by the pedo
Pastor Says Moore Dated Teenagers for Their ‘Purity’
Alabama pastor Flip Benham, who recently appeared with U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore (R) at a campaign rally, told an Alabama radio station that Moore dated “younger ladies” for their “purity.”
Said Benham: “He did that because there is something about a purity of a young woman, there is something that is good, that’s true, that’s straight
and he looked for that.”
______________
Yeah, that's it. For their purity.
Yep. And he wanted to keep them pure of course. Yep.
New Senate polls have Roy Moore in lead, Doug Jones close
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/new_senate_polls_have_roy_moor.html
and for the millionth time enough of that political_lire spam "pastor"
A former chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC) said Wednesday that President Trump's comments dismissing GOP Senate candidate Roy Moore's accusers were "beyond stupid" and that he doesn't care about his own party.
"This is beyond stupid. And there's irreparable harm that's being done to this party and to this country. Someone needs to take control here and it's certainly not the president."
--Michael Steele
Pastor James Boswell - worse than Roy Moore...
"Oh, and I do indeed think teenage girls, post pubescent ones that is, can be sexy. I have always thought so."
https://coldheartedtruthblog.blogspot.com/2017/10/trump-phone-call-to-widow-recorded.html?showComment=1508608752714&m=1#c1852015223026817867
"
"Several phone calls, two meetings, follow up phone calls and excuses within the 10 day period... it certainly provides for some suspicion. "
If you mean that it sounds like what a predator would do, to take full advantage of a young girl's emotional turmoil, then yes it's cause for suspicion.
I doubt that this is your angle however. If you're trying to cast two meetings in 10 days as some kind of herculean task that casts doubt on the whole story, well that would just be silly.
Anonymous The Daily Beast said...
Republican Women in Alabama Begin to Turn on Roy Moore
The Daily Beast 1 hour ago
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
from the same hack at the daily beast:
Democratic Hopes Are Sky High in Trump-Testing Georgia Special Election Runoff
The $50 million fight to fill Tom Price’s congressional seat is now the most expensive House race in American history—and Republicans can blame Trump if Jon Ossoff wins on Tuesday.
Patricia Murphy
PATRICIA MURPHY
06.19.17 1:00 AM ET
The intersection described according to those knowledgeable with the town, was more than a mile from Corfman's place of residence....
Another herculean task, to walk a whole mile? Why that could take 15 or *gasp* 20 minutes of light effort! How could any normal human girl face that kind of hardship, is that what your blog post is saying here CH?
Basically, Corfman is not only accusing Moore of sexual molestation, but also blaming him for the start of behavior problems that predated the event.
You're suggesting that a child wouldn't have been emotionally traumatized by sexual molestation, because she was already experiencing emotional issues during her parents custody fight.
Wow. What does a person say to something like that? I think that you already know that it's completely illogical. Point out that you're blaming the victim maybe? Using the emotional damage caused by the molester to try to discredit her?
There is no way that you really believe that this notion, or any of your three points, is actually a problem with her story. You have to be just spit-balling excuses for Moore to see what gets stirred up, and I jumped right in didn't I?
There is no way that you really believe that this notion, or any of your three points, is actually a problem with her story.
There is no way anyone being objective and reasonable would not find these points to be disturbing.
Do I believe that a 14 year old girl who already had emotional problems would have then greatly enhanced by being molested by an older man? Of course. That is a no brainer...
and more to the point... it isn't my argument.
You are simply going through your usual straw man arguments... as you pretty much always do.
The reality is that she actually did state flat out that her emotional issues and behavior problems were "caused" by the alleged events that took place. Based on the court records and the time line... that is a flat out lie. If sexual molestation was the cause of her emotional problems (as she suggests), then someone other than Moore was the culprit.
That is my argument.
Perhaps she (or a WaPo reporter) felt that admitting she was a troubled 14 year old who was being moved out of town because of emotional and behavior problems would lessen her credibility?
But else why would she lie, WP?
______
If you're trying to cast two meetings in 10 days as some kind of herculean task that casts doubt on the whole story, well that would just be silly
Secondly... it's not that it would be a herculean task to have everything she suggested happen, happen within that 10 day period. Again, that is not really my argument.
It's that she NEVER MENTIONED that there was such a limited time period involved?
It had to be found out by people researching her story?
Why would she omit this? You cannot argue that it was irrelevant.
Was it the fact that she was moved to a different town a few days after she met Moore probably would have had people question the time line? Was that is why it was never mentioned? Obviously you don't forget that move moved from one parent and one town to another parent and another town?
_____
Do you understand how the whole "he said she said" thing actually works? When there is no other corroborating witness or evidence... it goes entirely to credibility.
At this point, we know (for a fact) that the woman mislead or lied, we know that she omitted important facts involving the situation. That is enough (at this point) to objectively question her credibility from a pure stand point of "he said she said" determination.
______
Do I think she is probably telling the basic truth about being molested by Moore? I am still more predisposed to believe her than not, but at this point it's about 55-45. When this all started it was probably enough to say my belief in what she said was beyond a reasonable doubt.
The fact that you or I don't like Roy Moore (and I think I can safely say that we both don't like Roy Moore) should be irrelevant... not liking him is not a reason to simply not believe him. That runs amok common sense.
But something tells me that much of your arguments these days are emotional, rather than logical, and completely clouded by your disdain with the people in question.
Wow. What does a person say to something like that? I think that you already know that it's completely illogical. Point out that you're blaming the victim maybe? Using the emotional damage caused by the molester to try to discredit her?
The emotional impact on the child is ignored.
Your arguments are political, rather than Coldheartedtruth analysis of the little girls fourty years old memories that may not be faked in order to keep Moore out of the Senate.
Roger - Nice try.
But yours is a textbook fallacy - along with an attempt to "shame" people into agreeing with you.
Appeal to Pity
Explanation
An appeal to pity attempts to persuade using emotion—specifically, sympathy—rather than evidence. Playing on the pity that someone feels for an individual or group can certainly affect what that person thinks about the group; this is a highly effective, and so quite common, fallacy.
This type of argument is fallacious because our emotional responses are not always a good guide to truth; emotions can cloud, rather than clarify, issues. We should base our beliefs upon reason, rather than on emotion, if we want our beliefs to be true.
This type of argument is fallacious because our emotional responses are not always a good guide to truth; emotions can cloud, rather than clarify, issues. We should base our beliefs upon reason, rather than on emotion, if we want our beliefs to be true.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
take away the alky's emotions and he really has no other capacity to "think."
Roger's bigger problem was that the Alabama seat that he was convinced was going to go Democrat in some sort of "landslide" is now back to being a contest.
In fact, today Roy Moore is a 4/9 betting favorite and Jones is a 13/8 underdog... just a couple of days ago, betting was almost even. The blogosphere buzz is that both camps are now saying internal polling shows Moore slightly ahead again.
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=5991496
I have a feeling that the new found research on the accusers, along with some degree of local circling of the wagons are the main causes for the turnaround.
The emotional impact on the child is ignored.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
really?
how about the impact on the accused? especially if the accused is innocent of the charges.
you see alky, i'm no fan of moore. and other than his value as a seat for the GOP in the senate i really couldn't give less of a shit about him except for one crucial thing that you CHOOSE to ignore -
he may be innocent.
CH is right. you rush to judge and believe the accusers and use a cloak of pity to advance your position while completely ignoring the possibility of moore's innocence. and your hypocrisy is staggering.
everyone from known rapist bill clinton to known sexual predator al franken gets a pass from you, but let there be a 38 year old shaky accusation of sexual impropriety against a republican conveniently dug up and pressed by the WaPo and you go full on -
SEIZE HIM!!!
your asshattery is so fucking transparent it would be laughable if it wasn't so fucking dangerous towards an accused whom you would deny a fair hearing.
"Impact on the Child" ugllllyyyy wife Alky.
Like ,you mean, killing a baby , like abortion?
You suck ass HB, lowest IQ here for sure.
Dems and switch hitters like the ilk of WP are now true belivers , yet during the JFK, Teddy killer Kennendy, gov clinton years, nope Bitches lie.
It's that she NEVER MENTIONED that there was such a limited time period involved?
10 days isn't that limited, and as you admit not unexpected or surprising. Whether or not she mentioned it is therefore also not very important. What OTHER unimportant details are you "concerned" that she didn't mention?
But that's literally not where you went in your blog post. You were complaining about "the timeline", as objectively established, and you expressed doubt that all of those events would have occurred within that time.
and more to the point... it isn't my argument.
Yes it literally is: "The reality is that she actually did state flat out that her emotional issues and behavior problems were "caused" by the alleged events that took place"
Even in your reply, quoted here, you double down on it. You say here that she can't blame emotional problems on her molestation, since she already had emotional issues. The refutation that "these are different emotional problems" should be so obvious that I have to question whether you really believe that you've made an argument at all, or just stirring the pot.
The fact that you or I don't like Roy Moore (and I think I can safely say that we both don't like Roy Moore) should be irrelevant... not liking him is not a reason to simply not believe him
Well, wrong again because this disdain is 99% from what I've learned from his current scandal. I knew that he'd placed the 10 Commandments statue in the courthouse, and I was actually OK with that. He went too far in defying the higher courts - to me, that was all a wash. I "don't like" him because of what we've found out, and I don't believe him because his accusers are credible. You should know me better than that. I would defend him where he was right, just like I've defended Trump when he was right. Liking Moore or disliking him has zip to do with it.
really?
how about the impact on the accused? especially if the accused is innocent of the charges. ... he may be innocent.
RRB, the problem with this is you're not judging him in a criminal court. You're not even judging him in the court of political opinion. None of us are, unless we are registered voters living in Alabama. For them, "innocent until proven guilty" is not the standard, nor should it be. They HAVE to judge, and Moore subjects himself to their judgement when he first throws his hat in the ring.
The rest of us, we're just talking about what we think the voters' judgment should be, or will be. There is just about zero chance that the Republicans will engineer a write-in to oppose Moore, and even less chance that they'd expel him if he's elected. The voters are going to decide, not on "innocent until proven" but on what they're inclined to believe based on what they know. And of course some evangelicals who will support him regardless.
"in fact, today Roy Moore is a 4/9 betting favorite "
I hate the way gamblers represent odds. This means the same as 9-4 odds, betting $9 wins $4, and ultimately 9/13 probability to win, right?
It's volatile based on gamblers betting, Moore was probably 1/10 (?) favorite before all this started.
the specific circumstances are what they are wp, but if one is willing to dispense with fundamental principles in pursuit of political expediency, these are not people i would choose to associate with.
believe moore, believe his accusers, or err on the side of caution and wait for the truth to come out. i know where i am on this issue.
10 days isn't that limited, and as you admit not unexpected or surprising. Whether or not she mentioned it is therefore also not very important.
I 100% disagree and I 100% disagree. If it wasn't important, then nobody would have looked into it and reported it
You say here that she can't blame emotional problems on her molestation, since she already had emotional issues.
This is fundamental logic. If she already was suffering from emotional and behavior issues at the time of the alleged molestation... then citing the alleged molestation as the "cause" of those issues is factually impossible.
Whatever caused or otherwise exposed her emotional instability happened prior to February of 1979. That is just a fact. I don't see how you argue differently.
Unless of course, you have tangible evidence that the behavior issues she was "experiencing" that caused everyone to believe she should move to a new town came to a complete halt... and then were replaced by the Roy Moore "caused" emotional and behavior issues?
Bottom Line WP:
It's obvious that you "want" to believe the girl... as most of us do. I still want to believe the girl. But there is no denying that her story is not consistent and it's not transparent. We can make all the excuses in the world, and it doesn't change the reality that these inconsistencies have created real doubt.
My issue (at this point) is that some of this has come out just recently. It was like when it first broke, and things were bad for Moore, and things started piling up, and it looked like he was done... she was quiet.
Now, as Moore looks to have recovered... she starts doing interviews telling everyone that her troubled past can be tied right back to Roy Moore. She literally is blaming him for all her emotional problems. Now it looks like she is just escalating it to provide more sympathy for her story. Which would be fine, if she was entirely honest and there were not people checking her story and finding omissions.
Omissions can be the worst sort of lies.
I find it difficult to doubt these women. I can't see how anyone can believe that all of these spoke out. It would make it necessary to believe that this is a political conspiracy.
well genius, never forget that the WaPo... sought these women out. that's what kicked this whole thing off. and to suspect that with bezos' checkbook at the ready the WaPo is in the process of trying to influence an election outcome is not much of a stretch at all.
but you... you're not that complex. you're a straight up sufferer of stage 4 TDS. of course you believe the women. it's the politically expedient thing to do.
must. destroy. all. that. is. trump.
I find it difficult to doubt these women.
But yet you doubted all of the women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment, rape, and such... back in the day. It was easy for you to doubt it when you were told it was all part of the "vast right wing conspiracy".
It is interesting that even after Bill Clinton was caught red handed lying about certain things... so many were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt about every other claims that were not 100% verified by a blue dress or taped conversations.
Shouldn't we actually just believe those who have the most consistent stories? Shouldn't we stop making decisions about truth based on what is or what is not "politically correct" at the time? Shouldn't we not let ourselves get caught up in certain hype and shouldn't' we sometimes be able to look past the rhetoric?
No way am I stupid enough to believe that this whole thing is a conspiracy.
Bill Clinton doesn't matter. It's distraction from the giant conspiracy to sink Moore in your mind that you believe.
If it wasn't important, then nobody would have looked into it and reported it
You aren't that naive.
Must be a conspiracy....campaign spokesman for moore just quit....he saw the light and it was not good.....
Ex-Alabama cop had to watch Roy Moore in case he harassed cheerleaders at ball games in the 80s
ELIZABETH ELIZALDE
Nov 22nd 2017 10:53AM
A retired Alabama police officer said she had to keep an eye on Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore because he would regularly harass teenage cheerleaders at local school ball games in the 1980s.
Ex-Gadsden cop Faye Gray told MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell that rumors of Moore liking young girls were heard on a daily basis and was informed he was suspended from Gadsden Mall because he would often target young female employees.
“We were also told to watch him at the ball games and make sure that he didn’t hang around the cheerleaders,” Faye said.
“The rumor was that Roy Moore likes young girls,” she added. “It was not only in our department but at the courthouse too.”
Shouldn't we actually just believe those who have the most consistent stories?
Right, there are just too many stories which are consistently backing these girls up to disregard them and give Moore the benefit of the doubt. He called a girl out of class and asked her out in the Principal's office. One story of many. Are you really going to ignore them all and hunt for little inconsistencies in the telling of them?
he's guilty as sin.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Bill Clinton doesn't matter.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
juanita broaddrick believes otherwise.
so much so she's writing a book specifically about what that piece of shit did to her.
The book’s title, “You’d Better Put Some Ice On That,” is a reference to what Broaddrick says Clinton told her after he allegedly raped her in an Arkansas hotel room in 1978. The book’s subtitle: “How I survived being raped by Bill Clinton.”
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/17/juanita-broaddrick-coming-out-with-new-book-on-surviving-bill-clintons-alleged-rape/
I'm a pedophile.
Signed,
Rev James Boswell
Normal, Illinois
Actually Roger... I don't believe it's a conspiracy per sea. But the fact is (like it or not) is that the entire thing was orchestrated by the Washington Post. Corfman has said that WaPo came to her, she suggested that she would only talk if others stepped forward, and WaPo went searching.
Perhaps it's not a "conspiracy" - but it was certainly a blatant attempt to bring down a Senator.
The problem for me (and I assume for many) is that I believed Corfman. Those are serious allegations that warrant serious consideration.
But exactly because of the seriousness, the blatant playing of politics, and inconsistencies of the story, you are almost required to hold a fair court before just "passing judgement". Has Moore given us any reason to not believe him? Other than the idea that you believe her?
I believed (and still do) that Roy Moore was attracted to and pursued the girls in question (all but Corfman) between the ages of 17 and 22. I see no reason for any of those stories to be doubted, as Moore hasn't really pushed back at them. In fact, of the so called allegations, the lion's share surround the idea that he pursued young girls. As far as those allegations are concerned, even if you believe them 100% it's a personal issue as to whether or not a 70 year old judge is not qualified for the Senate because he liked teens back in the 70's when liking teens was not a big deal.
Think back at all of the songs about girls who were 16, 17, etc... from that era. Your 16 your beautiful and your mine, she was just 17, well you know what I mean, etc..
I am probably predisposed at this point to "not" believe the Gloria Allred Beverly Young allegations, because they simply appear to be all wrong (starting with the altered yearbook signature)... and there are at least two people close to Young who say she is predisposed to lie, and that they believe she is lying for publicity.
I don't know Roger... there are reasons to believe that this is a hit job as much as anything else. Perhaps they started from the solid allegations of a women telling a hard truth... but it doesn't feel that way right now.
The [resignation] comes as allegations of sexual misconduct against the Alabama Republican continue to roil his campaign. Moore has denied those allegations, but several prominent Republicans, including Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, have withdrawn their endorsements. The Republican National Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee have also dropped their support.
__________________
Oh but Trump's still hanging in there with him.
(Takes one to defend one.)
I'm a pedophile too.
Ch is still hanging in there with him too.
(Has Ch got problems himself?)
No, James is not. But I am.
because he liked teens back in the 70's when liking teens was not a big deal.
Speak for yourself, I was about 20 at the end of that decade, and I was repulsed by the thought of "cradle-robbing" a 16 year old. If you do remember that time period, back in the 70's, you'll no doubt remember that there were plenty who'd do that and they were not held in high regard. Everyone did know that there was something wrong with men like that.
I saw nothing wrong with that.
Even in your reply, quoted here, you double down on it. You say here that she can't blame emotional problems on her molestation, since she already had emotional issues. The refutation that "these are different emotional problems" should be so obvious that I have to question whether you really believe that you've made an argument at all, or just stirring the pot
So riddle me this:
On May 5, 1980, Wells [Corfman’s mother] filed a new petition to take back custody of her daughter. That petition stated that Corfman’s “disciplinary problem has improved greatly.”
Ultimately the judge agreed that Corfman’s mother should be granted custody.
So, once again... according to court documents, the girls life did not "spiral downwards" after the encounters with Moore. But rather her behavior improved, and she went back to her Mother's place.
I might find it odd that she would want to go back, knowing Roy Moore was lurking around?
Moore campaign refuses to substantiate claims about accuser
The Washington Post
Michael Scherer
1 hr ago
Senate candidate Roy Moore's campaign refused Wednesday to substantiate a key claim it made as part of an effort to raise doubts about one of the Alabama candidate's accusers.
The campaign has claimed to have found documents that show Leigh Corfman lived more than a mile from the intersection where she said Moore picked her up for dates in 1979, when she was 14 and he was 32. She says he took her to his house and touched her inappropriately. Moore has denied knowing Corfman.
"According to records the media has not bothered to look at, we've been able to find that Corfman's supposed pickup place was almost a mile away from her mother's house and would have been across a major thoroughfare," Ben DuPré, a longtime aide to Moore, said at an event Tuesday in Montgomery. "This is yet another improbable fact in Leigh Corfman's own words and story that the media has not bothered to investigate."
Corfman and her mother, Nancy, told The Washington Post that they lived at the time on Whittier Street in Gadsden, Ala., around the corner from Alcott Road and Riley Street, where Leigh says she met Moore.
Nancy Corfman said she kept that address from 1974 until February 1981, when she relocated with her new husband to a house on Dogwood Circle in Gadsden, which is about a mile away across a major thoroughfare. A police report about property theft published in the Gadsden Times on March 31, 1980, listed Nancy Corfman's address on Whittier Street.
The Post requested documentation to support DuPré's description of another address on Tuesday, and a spokeswoman for the Moore campaign said she would try to respond. On Wednesday morning, after another request for the information, Brett Doster, a strategist for the Moore campaign, sent an email to The Post.
"The Washington Post is a worthless piece of crap that has gone out of its way to railroad Roy Moore," Doster wrote in an email he described as an "on the record" statement. "There is no need for anyone at the Washington Post to ever reach out to the Roy Moore campaign again because we will not respond to anyone from the Post now or in the future. Happy Thanksgiving."
DuPré claimed Tuesday that the news media had not reviewed the available legal filings at the Etowah County courthouse for the custody dispute that Leigh Corfman says led her to meet Moore in February 1979. In fact, The Post obtained and reviewed the entire case file before publishing an article on Corfman.
DuPré described what he called four problems with Corfman's story, including the claim of a different address. The evidence he presented did not contradict what Corfman has told The Post.
First, DuPré said that court files showed that her parents were attempting to transfer custody of their daughter from the mother to the father. Second, he noted that her parents had described in legal filings concerns for their daughter's behavior after their separation. Neither fact is in dispute, and both were known to The Post before publication.
DuPré also pointed to a Breitbart story that quoted Corfman's mother saying there was no phone in her daughter's room in 1979. Both Leigh Corfman and her mother have said they had a phone on a long cord in the hallway that could be brought into the daughter's room, where the younger Corfman says she spoke with Moore.
"John Adams once said, 'Facts are stubborn things,' " DuPré said at the end of his remarks Tuesday. "We urge the press to do its job."
_______________
They have, and Moore is toast.
So is Ch Truth's defense of him.
I'm a pedophile.
Corfman wasn't living with her mother. Custody was granted to her father.
WP - I graduated in 1981.
Dating younger girls was not unusual or frowned upon where I came from. I recalled many of my female classmates by their Jr or Sr years dating college aged guys (generally because I lived in a college town). The only reason it might have bothered me, was the fact that it took them off the Market. It was considered (by most standards) a cool thing for the girls who were dating a college guy. Almost a badge of honor for them. (think Phoebe Cates in Fast Times).
In college I dated a girl for most of her Jr and Sr year in high school (we were four years apart) and her Parents loved me. Other than the fact that she was "popular" and some of her male classmates didn't like that she was dating an older guy... I didn't get any flack. In fact, a couple of my friends (my age) went out with a couple of her friends (her age) while we were dating...
I was more weirded out by the whole rite of passage deal where Sr Boys would initiate a Freshmen girl. I never participated, but it was definitely a thing. But that was because a Freshmen girl was generally 14 or 15.
But once a girl was 17 or 18, I don't think age tended to matter as much back then as it does today. Once they graduated from High School, started college, then they would all start dating their college psych teachers.
All that being said, 32 would have been considered oddly old to be pursuing High School girls. But whether it is "disqualifying" for a 70 year old running or Senate is a matter of personal opinion.
Lol, alky, " Bill and Hillary Clinton don't matter".
Defeat smell like alky
Dating younger girls was not unusual or frowned upon where I came from
Sounds like the southern hillbillies....So in your world it is fine for a 32 year old to be chasing a 14 year old....even the hillbillies of georgia only chased kin folk.... CH....you really are a sick white man....
In college I dated a girl for most of her Jr and Sr year So as a 1 yr old you dated an 17 or 18 year old....That is not what moore did, not even close....your anecdotal story just proves your desperation to make moore look good....Just curious....how much more are you going to tolerate????? 17 or 18 seeing a 30+ year old matters to most and you speaking for the universe is most amusing and should scare your new wife....BTW. I really am enjoying watching you squirm, CH, very revealing.....
Home Depot a stock I have owned for 5 years had a fantastic week, up $5.50.
CH, in my 20's I was heavily involved with an 18 year old freshman. I was too naive to realize her maturity level, and it was regrettable. For that same reason - that they aren't fully developed mentally and emotionally - I had no interest in anyone younger than 18. We're not talking about someone a year or two out of HS, only 2 or 3 or even 4 years older than the girl. For an older adult to be romantically interested in a 16 year old, then and now, there is something dangerously wrong with him.
" AS A 1 YEAR OLD" LOL@ oDopie
(Actually Roger... I don't believe it's a conspiracy per sea. But the fact is (like it or not) is that the entire thing was orchestrated by the Washington Post. Corfman has said that WaPo came to her, she suggested that she would only talk if others stepped forward, and WaPo went searching.)
A denial that contradicts itself. Using "not as a conspiracy" followed by "the entire thing was orchestrated by the Washington Post"
You are dancing around in circles,trying to appear as a disinterested analyst. You think that it looks like you are not partisan, just an analyst, but instead it not believable coming from you. It makes you look an immoral Just admit you are going to be satisfied a child molester in the Senate of the United States Of America.
So a photo of a Republican in the US House has had a naked "grafic" photo of him while he was single.
He has apologized.
He did not release it. One of his past GF did.
Roger - nothing I wrote is not the 100% truth. The Washington Post did seek out the girl, and when she suggested she would not come out unless others did, the Washington Post did go on a hunt to find others.
Would you define this action by the Washington Post to be a "conspiracy"?
I wouldn't. What they did was not illegal.
I am not "dancing" around anything. Unless you consider writing factual truth to be somehow dancing around the liberally preferred version of events?
If a woman had come forward an accused Obama of abusing her at the age of 14, but said she would come forward with that accusation only if others would make similar accusations, is there anyone here who thinks there is any right leaning news agency on earth that would not have gone looking, especially if there was as much chatter in the air as there already was regarding Roy Moore?
I mean, really.
Of course Obama had two sexual harassment charges settled while he was editor of the school paper and the press sure was on top of that too, didn't effect his grades, or did it? And his drug use, no problem, he might have even engaged in a little selling.
Really
And chatter in the air???? There was none.
Thankful Trump Won.
Off topic but a day that will live in history happen on this date in 1963..
November 22 1963.
I was in civics class in West Junior High School in Rapid City South Dakota. I was 12 years old. We heard something was going on. But the principal was on the speaker system and said that President John Kennedy had been shot and killed in Dallas Texas. Go home now.
We didn't turn the television off until the funeral service and the coffin going to the Arlington national cemetery in Washington DC. It was on KOTA television and Walter Cronkite CBS full time
"Would you define this action by the Washington Post to be a "conspiracy?"
Journalism is what it is.
You (think) it's Fake New.
You and the President are almost alone in doubting the veracity of the women. President Bannon is your dear leader. 😣
I dare you to post a real picture of the President on the New York Post.
I'm with the perv.
https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/FWCUMRWPVUI6PKD3I7YUW4YWFI.jpg
This will not get a non response post
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), who apologized Wednesday for a lewd photo of him that circulated on the Internet, told a woman to whom he had sent sexually explicit photos, videos and messages that he would report her to the Capitol Police because she could expose his behavior, according to a recording reviewed by The Washington Post.
Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal
Alabama Women, Say No to Roy Moore
www.wsj.com
Alabama has its back up, or at least its Republicans and conservatives do, and it’s understandable. They don’t like when Northerners and liberals and people in Washington tell them who their senator should be. They don’t like when reporters from outside come down and ask questions and turn over rocks looking for what’s crawling on the underside. There’s always an underside. Man is made from crooked timber.
People from the Deep South feel culturally patronized. This is because they are. Reporters from outside don’t admire or relate to them; when a Washington Post journalist presented as fact, in a 1993 news report, that evangelical Christians are “largely poor, uneducated and easy to command,” you know he was thinking of Southern evangelicals. Hollywood has long cast Southerners as witless and brutish in films from “Inherit the Wind” to “Deliverance” and “Mississippi Burning.”
Politically, Southern conservatives have long decried a double standard. Ted Kennedy spent much of his life as a somewhat inebriated roué whose actions caused the death of a young woman, but now we’re instructed to call him the Lion of the Senate. Bill Clinton was worse than Roy Moore. Mr. Clinton was accused of rape, harassment and exposing himself, but his party backed him and he kept the presidency. Democratic Sen. Al Franken was credibly accused Thursday, by an anchor at KABC radio in Los Angeles, of groping and harassing her on a USO tour in 2006. When she resisted him, Leeann Tweeden wrote, “Franken repaid me with petty insults,” and took an obscene photo of her on the way home, as she slept. Will the liberal media dig into Mr. Franken as they have dug into Mr. Moore? Or is he too good a source and friend?
She devastated every single argument here who have no problem with a child molester in the Senate is just fine.
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), who apologized Wednesday for a lewd photo of him that circulated on the Internet, told a woman to whom he had sent sexually explicit photos, videos and messages that he would report her to the Capitol Police
Sending a lewd photo to a women you were in an intimate relationship with at the time may be stupid but not illegal.
However her publishing it on the internet after you broke up is.
It's called revenge porn and she could very well be in big trouble.
It's called revenge porn and she could very well be in big trouble.
And what do you know about revenge porn Menstral?????? LOLOL
And the public is stuck with the visual of barton's junk....almost as despicable as loretta's ....BTW...Happy Thanksgiving!!!!!
My bitch.
Spam by the drunkard.
"This will not get a non response post"
Put it on the trash blog drunkard.
Problem solved.
Loretta said...
My bitch.
Your asshole....Hope you have a great day......IDIOT So easy trolling you. LOL---+
The Republican Thanksgiving Turkey for the top 1%!
Republicans have been selling their tax overhaul plan as a major booster for the U.S. economy. In fact, they have argued that it would grow the economy so much that cuts would largely pay for themselves.
But on both counts, top economists are doubtful.
In a new poll from the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, 38 economists from schools including Yale, MIT and the University of California-Berkeley weighed in on contentious points about the GOP tax plans.
On one question, the economists were asked whether enacting "a tax bill similar to those currently moving through the House and Senate" would lead to a "substantially higher" rate of economic growth a decade from now than it would otherwise.
Only two percent — or, 1 out of 38 economists — agreed. 36 percent were uncertain, 33 percent disagreed, and another 19 percent strongly disagreed. (The remainder did not answer.)
That one economist who agreed also didn't do so without reservations: while a lower corporate tax rate would likely grow the economy, he wrote, he also said it was "another matter" whether the plan is "fair" in how it spreads the benefits of tax cuts. A recent analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, for example, shows the senate proposal disproportionately benefiting some of the richest Americans.
Economists were much more certain about what the tax bills would do to the debt. They were asked whether a tax bill like those in the House and Senate right now would leave the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio (a common measure of how large the national debt is) "substantially higher" in a decade than otherwise.
On this, fully 43 percent agreed that it would leave the debt level higher, and another 45 percent strongly agreed. Only 1 economist was uncertain. None disagreed.
But there's a catch here, yet again with the one economist who stood alone. That economist, Stanford's Liran Einav, told the Washington Post that he "didn't read the question properly" and in fact agreed with his peers.
This level of consensus from top economists undermines the arguments underpinning the Republican tax plan.
Congressional Republicans have argued that the tax overhaul will launch so much economic growth that it will generate additional revenue, allowing cuts to pay for themselves.
More Supply Side B*** S***
Council of Economic Advisers Chair Kevin Hassett told reporters at a recent press briefing that he thinks reform of the corporate tax code in particular will send growth soaring.
"The idea that right now we have the highest corporate tax on Earth generating almost no revenue — because people avoid the tax by moving factories to Ireland — that if we fix that, if we repair it and make the U.S. an attractive place again, that it's going to blow a hole in the deficit — it's just not economically rational," Hassett said.
But major models of the tax plan thus far have not found that the plan would launch the kind of growth needed to pay for itself, as the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget recently noted.
In planning out their tax overhaul, Republicans gave themselves a $1.5 trillion cost limit — that is, their plan would not be allowed to add to deficits by more than $1.5 trillion over 10 years. And, indeed, recent estimates from the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation found that both the House and Senate versions of a tax overhaul would add around $1.4 trillion over 10 years, roughly.
But even when taking into account the potential effects of higher growth — a practice known as "dynamic scoring" — models have still shown Republican tax proposals ballooning the debt. The right-leaning Tax Foundation, for example, found that the House bill would add $1 trillion to the debt over 10 years.
Copyright 2017 NPR. To see more, visit NPR.
My turkey is soaking in the brine and the deep fried turkey for Thanksgiving day is delicious.
Spam by the drunkard
Loretta said...
Spam by the drunkard
Idiot....go cook something....LOL!
My bitch
Loretta said...
My bitch
LOL....you are soooooo easy to troll....just like donnie the CIC.. who is about as presidential as roy moore, the pedophile.....
Didn't read it, did you? Prominent economists stated that the Republicans tax bill will radically increase the national debt by $1.5 Trillion dollars, yes twit $1.5 Trillion dollars
She's a victim of the terrible disease called Alzheimer's disease. I pray for her good health, despite the fact that she's never contributed to the discussions .
My friends, I'm serious about this. It is a must read. Wait until after the Thanksgiving holiday. But seriously, this is why our beloved country may be at risk.
One hundred thirty-nine years since Reconstruction, and half a century since the tail end of the civil-rights movement, a majority of white voters backed a candidate who explicitly pledged to use the power of the state against people of color and religious minorities, and stood by him as that pledge has been among the few to survive the first year of his presidency. Their support was enough to win the White House, and has solidified a return to a politics of white identity that has been one of the most destructive forces in American history. This all occurred before the eyes of a disbelieving press and political class, who plunged into fierce denial about how and why this had happened. That is the story of the 2016 election.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
My friends, I'm serious about this. It is a must read.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
must read, alky?
hardly.
it's a breathless, pearl clutching crock of shit authored by a card-carrying drama queen.
and you collapsed on your fainting couch after reading just one idiotic paragraph.
The usual suspects are going through this time in the country, filled with hate and anger. I pity them.
This describes the rrb exactly.
One hundred thirty-nine years since Reconstruction, and half a century since the tail end of the civil-rights movement, a majority of white voters backed a candidate who explicitly pledged to use the power of the state against people of color and religious minorities, and stood by him as that pledge has been among the few to survive the first year of his presidency. Their support was enough to win the White House, and has solidified a return to a politics of white identity that has been one of the most destructive forces in American history. This all occurred before the eyes of a disbelieving press and political class, who plunged into fierce denial about how and why this had happened. That is the story of the 2016 election.
a candidate who explicitly pledged to use the power of the state against people of color and religious minorities
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"people of color and religious minorities?"
uh no, alky.
THAT would be what we call a LIE.
if one would strive for accuracy and truth one would instead refer to those in question as criminal illegal aliens. skin color and religion are not in question. immigration status is the sole qualifier. to frame the issue as the piece of shit author did is intellectually dishonest. and as we all know, intellectual dishonesty closely follows hypocrisy as a bedrock principle of liberalism.
so alky, go fuck yourself. on this thanksgiving day, and each and every other day.
A James-Thinking type of Anonymous said...
If a woman had come forward an accused Obama of abusing her at the age of 14, but said she would come forward with that accusation only if others would make similar accusations, is there anyone here who thinks there is any right leaning news agency on earth that would not have gone looking, especially if there was as much chatter in the air as there already was regarding Roy Moore?
I mean, really.
November 22, 2017 at 6:56 PM
A Cowardly-thinking type of Anonymous said...
Of course Obama had two sexual harassment charges settled while he was editor of the school paper and the press sure was on top of that too, didn't effect his grades, or did it? And his drug use, no problem, he might have even engaged in a little selling.
Really
November 22, 2017 at 7:28 PM
James:
Well, I googled this, wondering what it amounted to, and got the most ridiculous charge that Obama while he was editor of the school paper made homosexual advances to two men, a charge that was so debunked that it is true that no reputable news sources would even touch it.
But Cowardly anonymous eats that sort of thing up.
The Cowardly type of Anonymous also said:
And chatter in the air???? There was none.
November 22, 2017 at 7:33 PM
_________________________
Really?
Ex-Gadsden cop Faye Gray told MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell that rumors of Moore liking young girls were heard on a daily basis and was informed he was suspended from Gadsden Mall because he would often target young female employees.
“We were also told to watch him at the ball games and make sure that he didn’t hang around the cheerleaders,” Faye said.
“The rumor was that Roy Moore likes young girls,” she added. “It was not only in our department but at the courthouse too.”
Read 9:53AM again.
But of course white supremacist racist Rat finds nothing wrong with white supremacist racist Trump.
"Ex-Gadsden cop Faye Gray told MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell"
Have you researched either one of these, or know anything about MSNBC?
Well of course not. Did the cop document any of these troubling rumors at the time?
Well of course not. Not till now, 40 years later.... hmmm.
And during all those other previous elections ????? Silence. hmmm.
And "widespread" knowledge of the rumor heard on a daily basis can only bring up one person validating(her) and others disputing ???
And suspended from the Gadsden mall? Turns out the one verifiable fact she gave is false. hmmm.
hmmm, must be a politically motivated "pastor" who condemns others without any personal knowledge. Quick and vocal to judge, must have been taught much differently when he was being schooled, or didn't do much listening.
But in his "heart" I'm sure he thinks he is right.
Mr Beaner bigot and moose limb bigot loves Trump and Moore
Cowardly Anonymous questions a cop and numerous others who report that there was widespread awareness of and talk about Roy Moore behaving inappropriately toward teens while he was in his thirties.
In his heart he must know he's wrong.
Actually I questioned the single cop who didn't do anything, EVER. You said this was numerous people and widespread knowledge, provide names and documentation rather than repeat left-wing talking points. And then answer my other points.
It would be cowardly not to provide, and you still haven't.
"In his heart he must know he's wrong"
Actually, in my heart I know I am right, and you must know it too.
It looks like the noose around the neck of The President is getting tighter.
WASHINGTON — Lawyers for Michael T. Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser, notified the president’s legal team in recent days that they could no longer discuss the special counsel’s investigation, according to four people involved in the case, an indication that Mr. Flynn is cooperating with prosecutors or negotiating such a deal.
Mr. Flynn’s lawyers had been sharing information with Mr. Trump’s lawyers about the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who is examining whether anyone around Mr. Trump was involved in Russian efforts to undermine Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
That agreement has been terminated, the four people said. Defense lawyers frequently share information during investigations, but they must stop when doing so would pose a conflict of interest. It is unethical for lawyers to work together when one client is cooperating with prosecutors and another is still under investigation.
The notification alone does not prove that Mr. Flynn is cooperating with Mr. Mueller. Some lawyers withdraw from information-sharing arrangements as soon as they begin negotiating with prosecutors. And such negotiations sometimes fall apart.
Several people have said that there was rampant chatter about Roy.
What happened is not most of the white voters who voted for Trump were not people who wanted "a candidate who explicitly pledged to use the power of the state against people of color and religious minorities." They are a small percentage of Trump supporters. But the few that were motivated by those beliefs were sufficient to give Trump the electoral college vote Most Republicans aren't racist pigs like you.
This is like saying the new black panthers put Obama over the top twice.
This is a stupid, racist, offensive statement.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Mr Beaner bigot and moose limb bigot loves Trump and Moore
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
gee alky, i'd say you're doing a piss poor job defending your hyperventilating little piece from the atlantic.
Blogger Commonsense said...
This is like saying the new black panthers put Obama over the top twice.
This is a valid point. Just because you might associate some group with a given candidate, does not mean that they were the margin of victory. Nor any positive margin for that matter. Did they vote? Who did they vote for? Was that vote different for Trump (or Obama) than it was in the past? None of that is a given.
15% of our population have IQ's lower than 85. They get a vote, racists get a vote, violent criminals get a vote if they haven't been convicted yet. That's Democracy. There are a lot of reasons to dislike Trump, and a few to potentially question his legitimacy, but that some racists may have voted for him is not among them.
Post a Comment