Roy Moore's Accuser Count is now up to 9

[sallybutler]

Muslims in America follow Sharia law as often as Christians in America follow the 10 Commandments. That is to say both are really rare occurrences.

 

[Stephen_C]

Just like saying Catholic’s could not uphold the oath of office per the Constitution because we answer only to the Pope. That was a thing back in the day. And some folk still believe that.

 

[Inisfallen]

Well, there is the oath of office to uphold the Constitution.

There is. And there’s also that pesky clause in the Constitution about not imposing religious tests for office. Should that clause be upheld?

 

[dvdjs]

Well…except for the thousands of CLASSIFIED emails, including TS/SCI emails ,that she sent/received through her unsecured server.

Thousands you say? Show me.
A felony you say? But the investigation did not leas t a charge. You may prefer to see that as unfair, but your perspective is not at the level of fact. And certainly not at the level of the “innocent until proven guilty” cry that I responded to.

If ANYONE in the military had done that, they would be in prison.

Really - Like Colin Powell?
Other cases like Petraues or Saucier were distinct from that of Clinton (or Powell) in the clarity of the illegal activity.

 

[dvdjs]

This is not true. There were MANY allegations that had been made against Billy C, but the media generally refused to pursue them.

Nope. I invite you to try to prove otherwise - but I have giventhe tie-lines over and over.
Not stories, but specific allegations brought by the parties involved.

 

[dvdjs]

I’m denying nothing. I understand the allegations which may, or may not, be true. Or, as life generally teaches us, the truth may lie somewhere in between.

Except when you speak of HRC.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

Conservatives, and especially constitutionalists, refer back to the original writing/meanings. In that light, please tell me where the First Amendment says a government building can’t have the Ten Commandments posted?

Going to start a new thread for this.
but for starters, how many versions are there of the Ten Commandments?

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

The fourth “pattern” I am not aware of, please provide a source.

Roy Moore Says He May Have Gone Out On A Date With A Teenager

The Alabama Senate candidate also denied, again, initiating sexual conduct with a 14-year-old girl while he was in his thirties.

www.buzzfeednews.com

Roy Moore's former colleague says it was "common knowledge" he dated teens

"We wondered why someone his age would hang out at high school football games and the mall," former Deputy District Attorney Teresa Jones told CNN

www.cbsnews.com

and even Hannity picked up on the inconsistent answers. Roy Moore can’t remember which lie he told.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...plain-inconsistencies/?utm_term=.56be52f977a4

 

[Jig_Saw]

Somewhere in between could be anywhere from “almost all the allegations are true and Moore is a pedophile” to “Moore contacted some of these young women for benign reasons”. I don’t know what happened, and neither do you.

If someone votes for Moore, they are voting for an ALLEGED child molester.

If someone votes for Jones, they are voting for someone who is a self-described big-government, pro-abortion leftist.

If I voted for Moore, I would be breaking the law because I don’t live there.

God help the voters in this election!

If you can look at all the facts in this case and conclude that none of the allegations are true, then you are a defense attorney’s dream.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

@joshuaIsLord
Thank you for the sources.

I didn’t watch the Hannity segment, but I can see Moore’s answer to the question of “if you’ve ever dated a teenager”, which he answered it “would’ve been out of his customary behavior”, as a Southener’s answer of “no”.

Moore is a poor candidate, but it’s up to the voters to decide how much they believe about these ALLEGATIONS, and how they weigh these allegations against his opponents leftist positions.

 

[F_Marturana]

A lawyer knows that if the answer is no you say no clearly. No need for southern gentleman politeness.

“Tom, Did you rape Mayella Ewell?”

“It would have been out of my customary behavior.”

Doesn’t have the same ring as “I did not!”

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

I didn’t watch the Hannity segment, but I can see Moore’s answer to the question of “if you’ve ever dated a teenager”, which he answered it “would’ve been out of his customary behavior”, as a Southener’s answer of “no”.

Nope, I was born and raised here. I am the same age as his wife. I am pretty well versed in the lingo. He skirted around the “No” answer.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

f you can look at all the facts in this case and conclude that none of the allegations are true, then you are a defense attorney’s dream.

Please read this carefully: I don’t know what happened, you don’t know what happened. We only have the information presented to us by an incredibly biased media. Therefore I have come to NO conclusions about whether I think the allegations are true or not.

Just like saying Catholic’s could not uphold the oath of office per the Constitution because we answer only to the Pope. That was a thing back in the day. And some folk still believe that.

I’m not advocating for banning Mohammedists from public service, but saying someone who follows Sharia law shouldn’t hold public office is NOT “just like saying Catholics could not uphold the oath of office” because there is nothing in our Catholic faith that is incongruent with our Constitution.

See Article VI of the Constitution. Moore was quite clear that he didn’t care what the Constitution says, he wants to bar Muslims from Congress.

That’s your opinion.

Again, where in the Constitution is a “separation” of Church and State?

One reason why Moore has many followers is that he seems to be an “original constitutionalist”, and understands that the federation of states that helped make our nation so great has been greatly strained by judicial activism.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

housands you say? Show me.

A felony you say? …

Listen to Comey’s testimony to congress where he lists out the laws she broke, but then says “but we can’t prove that she meant to, so we’re not going to charge her” (right after his boss met privately with the accused’s husband on a tarmac for 30 minutes).

Hillary is THE MOST CORRUPT POLITICIAN EVER to win the nomination for Presidency, which is why she lost to Trump. Her corruption isn’t just 40 year old allegations with absolutely no evidence of criminality/corruption/malfeasance, it’s 40 YEARS of evidence that has been mostlly ignored/covered up by her friends in the media.

Really - Like Colin Powell?

Other cases like Petraues or Saucier were distinct from that of Clinton (or Powell) in the clarity of the illegal activity.

Powell sent a couple of emails in a time where emails were still in development and, as is typical, the technology was ahead of written guidance.

FOIA laws require all government action to be retained, this includes memos, letters, messages, and emails.

In Powell’s time, we had government email on government computers, so he and I could have emailed each other through those government computers. BUT, these government computers didn’t talk very well to civilian computers, so I couldn’t send an email from work to your private @aol.com address. As the internet exploded beyond the military/government/universities, government workers got home email addresses as well, and sometimes (out of necessity) used home email to communicate to civilian entities in an official capacity.

As government email technology caught up, we got the ability to send/receive emails to non .gov accounts. However didn’t have the ability to send/receive work emails from home. Many of us, including senior executives like Powell, were on call 24/7, so when we needed to send an email we would use our home email addresses to send/receive work-related emails at home. This is what Powell (and virtually everyone else in government service in that timeframe) did.

Oops…we all broke the FOIA laws because these work-related emails (which by law are OWNED BY US CITIZENS) were not being captured by the IT backups.

So guidance eventually caught up with us and the easy fix was any work-related email I sent/received from home I had to “cc” to my work email, therefore it would be caught by the backup tapes.

But by the time Clinton came around technology had progressed. I had a government issued blackberry that allowed me to send/receive work emails, on my .gov account, 24/7. Clinton was given the same…but she refused to use it. First, she wanted a “secured blackberry” like the POTUS had, but that was shut down by the intelligence/secret squirrel guys.

So she went around them, set up a private server in her bathroom, and send/received thousands of classified emails through it, including TS/SCI emails.

She should be in prison.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Nope, I was born and raised here. I am the same age as his wife. I am pretty well versed in the lingo. He skirted around the “No” answer.

I agree it would have been better for him to (honestly) answer “no”.

As to the lingo, if you grew up there then you know what I’m talking about.

Q: “Did you rape her?”
A: “I would never do such a thing!” (ie: No)

Another example, from another part of the country (Downeast Maine).

Q: “How do you get to Eastport from here?”
A: “You can’t get there from here!” (ie: There is no direct road, so you have to go back and turn)

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

That is the way Politicians answer questions when they want to skirt around a simple question that requires a simple “Yes” or “No” answer.

I remember the Last Al Franken interview by Steve Colbert. Steve asked why is that. Al said it is something I had to learn to do.

Al gave it a special name, but I can’t recall it now.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

That is the way Politicians answer questions when they want to skirt around a simple question that requires a simple “Yes” or “No” answer.

I remember the Last Al Franken interview by Steve Colbert. Steve asked why is that. Al said it is something I had to learn to do.

Al gave it a special name, but I can’t recall it now.

I can think of three different variances of what you are talking about.

1: Cultural lingo - examples above.

2: Political lingo - Talk and talk and talk, promise everything to everyone, but don’t give ANY specifics that could be used against you.

3: Legal lingo - Don’t talk, just give brief non-specific answers. This is the safest strategy when being “interviewed” by PD/DAs because everything you say WILL be used against you. Here is a fantastic lecture from an attorney on why you NEVER talk to police (Don't Talk to the Police - YouTube). Hillary showed she was an expert on this strategy when she was interviewed by the FBI - she couldn’t “recall” anything!

 

[Jig_Saw]

Please read this carefully: I don’t know what happened, you don’t know what happened. We only have the information presented to us by an incredibly biased media. Therefore I have come to NO conclusions about whether I think the allegations are true or not.

So, you are going to take the “I don’t know if they are true because I’m not going to examine the evidence” point of view. That’s fine. For those that look at the evidence (and, if you’re a voter in Alabama, you should look at the evidence), then I don’t see how a person of sound mind can look at the evidence and conclude in Moore’s innocence.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

So, you are going to take the “I don’t know if they are true because I’m not going to examine the evidence” point of view. That’s fine. For those that look at the evidence (and, if you’re a voter in Alabama, you should look at the evidence), then I don’t see how a person of sound mind can look at the evidence and conclude in Moore’s innocence.

What evidence? Is there a blue dress with DNA evidence on it? There is a yearbook signature that initially looked damning, but now appears to be fraudulent.

We have 40 year old accusations, most of whom are very, very disturbing. The accusers generally need to be believed, yet the accused generally deserve the right of being treated as if they innocent until proven guilty. Individual voters should look at the accusations, at the accusers, and the accused, and make their individual determination of how much they believe the accusations.

Then they must weigh the “how much do they believe the accusations” against the qualities of the other candidate as they decide who to vote for.

At wouldn’t take a “conclusion” of Moore’s innocence to vote for Moore over Jones, one could find the situation inconclusive, yet vote just on the two candidate’s policies.

 

[Jig_Saw]

What evidence? Is there a blue dress with DNA evidence on it? There is a yearbook signature that initially looked damning, but now appears to be fraudulent.

We have 40 year old accusations, most of whom are very, very disturbing. The accusers generally need to be believed, yet the accused generally deserve the right of being treated as if they innocent until proven guilty. Individual voters should look at the accusations, at the accusers, and the accused, and make their individual determination of how much they believe the accusations.

Then they must weigh the “how much do they believe the accusations” against the qualities of the other candidate as they decide who to vote for.

At wouldn’t take a “conclusion” of Moore’s innocence to vote for Moore over Jones, one could find the situation inconclusive, yet vote just on the two candidate’s policies.

I thought you didn’t know the evidence. Now you are saying it’s not good. Which is it?