Let's get one thing straight about Roy Moore

[hadit]

President Bill Clinton is not an elected official, nor is he relevant to the topic. His victims, if you want to believe they were victims, were all adults. And, neither Clinton has been convicted of any criminal activity to date. Millions of dollars have been spent by the Republican Party investigating them, to no avail.

The hypocrisy of you and other Clinton haters, Obama haters, and haters of every citizen who objects to the authoritarian regime currently running our country is despicable - defending a likely sexual predator is beyond belief even for a trumpanzee.

Partisans are demanding that Moore step aside solely on the basis of allegations that he denies. The same ones making that demand are some of the ones that circled the wagons around Bubba and excused or ignored every accusation.

My point is, either all should be held to the same standard or none should be. This double standard is ridiculous.

Apples and Zebras ^^^ There is a vast difference between a skirt chaser and a pervert / predator. Honest and sagacious people understand, hacks are hypocrites and/or too dumb to comprehend the difference. There was no hew and cry when Hollywood moguls were outed as predators, but when one of their own is accused, they cry foul.

The common thread is the allegation. Bubba Clinton was accused of rape. Under the standard being applied to Moore, he should have been run out of town.

Bill Clinton was already elected when that accusation surfaced. The question asked now is — should someone accused of sexually assaulting a child be elected?

Someone accused of sexually assaulting a child should be tried and brought to trial. If convicted he (or she) ought to be tossed out of their job and put in prison.

And if found not guilty, should face no negative consequences.

 

[Faun]

my whole thing is why would a reporter at the WAPO have a need to go after Roy Moore in Alabama? without any names? No accusations, nothing. tells me all I need about it being faked. truly angry individuals seek out reporters, not the other way around.

Yes, this certainly looks like a fishing expedition.

Looks like they caught one

Let's get people under oath and find out.

WTF good is that gonna do?

Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Bill Clinton never raped her and all the rumors saying he had were false — and yet many on the right still believe Clinton raped her.

What good does it do to condemn someone without knowing what actually happened?

Or are you saying that many on the left will still believe he assaulted her if she testifies under oath that he didn't do anything wrong?

I'm saying rightards are delusional and will believe a conservative or anyone accusing a Liberal, regardless of what testimony under oath reveals.

As evidence, I offered up a woman who testified under oath that Bill Clinton did not rape her -- yet rightards insist that he did. So what good did her sworn testimony provide? What good would it do to put Roy Moore's accusers under oath?

 

[Faun]

President Bill Clinton is not an elected official, nor is he relevant to the topic. His victims, if you want to believe they were victims, were all adults. And, neither Clinton has been convicted of any criminal activity to date. Millions of dollars have been spent by the Republican Party investigating them, to no avail.

The hypocrisy of you and other Clinton haters, Obama haters, and haters of every citizen who objects to the authoritarian regime currently running our country is despicable - defending a likely sexual predator is beyond belief even for a trumpanzee.

Partisans are demanding that Moore step aside solely on the basis of allegations that he denies. The same ones making that demand are some of the ones that circled the wagons around Bubba and excused or ignored every accusation.

My point is, either all should be held to the same standard or none should be. This double standard is ridiculous.

Apples and Zebras ^^^ There is a vast difference between a skirt chaser and a pervert / predator. Honest and sagacious people understand, hacks are hypocrites and/or too dumb to comprehend the difference. There was no hew and cry when Hollywood moguls were outed as predators, but when one of their own is accused, they cry foul.

The common thread is the allegation. Bubba Clinton was accused of rape. Under the standard being applied to Moore, he should have been run out of town.

Bill Clinton was already elected when that accusation surfaced. The question asked now is — should someone accused of sexually assaulting a child be elected?

If he's not guilty, why not? If we do otherwise, any future candidate can be destroyed at any time.

That's the dilemma. No one other than Moore and those women know the truth, so it's up to the electorate to decide. And this is not the first time candidates have been accused of sexual improprieties nor will it be the last.

But this has nothing to do with Bill Clinton.

 

[hadit]

Yes, this certainly looks like a fishing expedition.

Looks like they caught one

Let's get people under oath and find out.

WTF good is that gonna do?

Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Bill Clinton never raped her and all the rumors saying he had were false — and yet many on the right still believe Clinton raped her.

What good does it do to condemn someone without knowing what actually happened?

Or are you saying that many on the left will still believe he assaulted her if she testifies under oath that he didn't do anything wrong?

I'm saying rightards are delusional and will believe a conservative or anyone accusing a Liberal, regardless of what testimony under oath reveals.

As evidence, I offered up a woman who testified under oath that Bill Clinton did not rape her -- yet rightards insist that he did. So what good did her sworn testimony provide? What good would it do to put Roy Moore's accusers under oath?

Partisans are going to believe whatever they want to believe. That can't be helped. The accused, however, would see their named cleared legally and their accuser would have to go away.

And, Clinton is a good example. He was accused of rape, yet stayed in office. Moore is accused of less, yet faces demands that he drop out of the race.

 

[Faun]

Looks like they caught one

Let's get people under oath and find out.

WTF good is that gonna do?

Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Bill Clinton never raped her and all the rumors saying he had were false — and yet many on the right still believe Clinton raped her.

What good does it do to condemn someone without knowing what actually happened?

Or are you saying that many on the left will still believe he assaulted her if she testifies under oath that he didn't do anything wrong?

I'm saying rightards are delusional and will believe a conservative or anyone accusing a Liberal, regardless of what testimony under oath reveals.

As evidence, I offered up a woman who testified under oath that Bill Clinton did not rape her -- yet rightards insist that he did. So what good did her sworn testimony provide? What good would it do to put Roy Moore's accusers under oath?

Partisans are going to believe whatever they want to believe. That can't be helped. The accused, however, would see their named cleared legally and their accuser would have to go away.

And, Clinton is a good example. He was accused of rape, yet stayed in office. Moore is accused of less, yet faces demands that he drop out of the race.

Clinton was accused of rape by someone who swore under oath he didn’t rape her. Moore was accused of sexual assualt by woman who have no evidence other than their word and he’s being pressured into stepping down by his own party.

 

[hadit]

Let's get people under oath and find out.

WTF good is that gonna do?

Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Bill Clinton never raped her and all the rumors saying he had were false — and yet many on the right still believe Clinton raped her.

What good does it do to condemn someone without knowing what actually happened?

Or are you saying that many on the left will still believe he assaulted her if she testifies under oath that he didn't do anything wrong?

I'm saying rightards are delusional and will believe a conservative or anyone accusing a Liberal, regardless of what testimony under oath reveals.

As evidence, I offered up a woman who testified under oath that Bill Clinton did not rape her -- yet rightards insist that he did. So what good did her sworn testimony provide? What good would it do to put Roy Moore's accusers under oath?

Partisans are going to believe whatever they want to believe. That can't be helped. The accused, however, would see their named cleared legally and their accuser would have to go away.

And, Clinton is a good example. He was accused of rape, yet stayed in office. Moore is accused of less, yet faces demands that he drop out of the race.

Clinton was accused of rape by someone who swore under oath he didn’t rape her. Moore was accused of sexual assualt by woman who have no evidence other than their word and he’s being pressured into stepping down by his own party.

Obviously, the Republican establishment simply doesn't want him around and doesn't care what the voters think. That's the kind of thing that kept Hillary out of office.

Anyway, if we're going to condemn someone solely on unsubstantiated allegations introduced immediately before an election, we're going to see a lot of it from now on.

My prediction, after the election we hear no more about it.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

WTF good is that gonna do?

Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Bill Clinton never raped her and all the rumors saying he had were false — and yet many on the right still believe Clinton raped her.

What good does it do to condemn someone without knowing what actually happened?

Or are you saying that many on the left will still believe he assaulted her if she testifies under oath that he didn't do anything wrong?

I'm saying rightards are delusional and will believe a conservative or anyone accusing a Liberal, regardless of what testimony under oath reveals.

As evidence, I offered up a woman who testified under oath that Bill Clinton did not rape her -- yet rightards insist that he did. So what good did her sworn testimony provide? What good would it do to put Roy Moore's accusers under oath?

Partisans are going to believe whatever they want to believe. That can't be helped. The accused, however, would see their named cleared legally and their accuser would have to go away.

And, Clinton is a good example. He was accused of rape, yet stayed in office. Moore is accused of less, yet faces demands that he drop out of the race.

Clinton was accused of rape by someone who swore under oath he didn’t rape her. Moore was accused of sexual assualt by woman who have no evidence other than their word and he’s being pressured into stepping down by his own party.

Obviously, the Republican establishment simply doesn't want him around and doesn't care what the voters think. That's the kind of thing that kept Hillary out of office.

Anyway, if we're going to condemn someone solely on unsubstantiated allegations introduced immediately before an election, we're going to see a lot of it from now on.

My prediction, after the election we hear no more about it.

Exactly, where did all the Trump accusers go? Their silence is deafening.

 

[Pogo]

What good does it do to condemn someone without knowing what actually happened?

Or are you saying that many on the left will still believe he assaulted her if she testifies under oath that he didn't do anything wrong?

I'm saying rightards are delusional and will believe a conservative or anyone accusing a Liberal, regardless of what testimony under oath reveals.

As evidence, I offered up a woman who testified under oath that Bill Clinton did not rape her -- yet rightards insist that he did. So what good did her sworn testimony provide? What good would it do to put Roy Moore's accusers under oath?

Partisans are going to believe whatever they want to believe. That can't be helped. The accused, however, would see their named cleared legally and their accuser would have to go away.

And, Clinton is a good example. He was accused of rape, yet stayed in office. Moore is accused of less, yet faces demands that he drop out of the race.

Clinton was accused of rape by someone who swore under oath he didn’t rape her. Moore was accused of sexual assualt by woman who have no evidence other than their word and he’s being pressured into stepping down by his own party.

Obviously, the Republican establishment simply doesn't want him around and doesn't care what the voters think. That's the kind of thing that kept Hillary out of office.

Anyway, if we're going to condemn someone solely on unsubstantiated allegations introduced immediately before an election, we're going to see a lot of it from now on.

My prediction, after the election we hear no more about it.

Exactly, where did all the Trump accusers go? Their silence is deafening.

What, you're actually so full of yourself that you think they can't make a move without notifying you?

Hard to believe. SMH

 

[Faun]

WTF good is that gonna do?

Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Bill Clinton never raped her and all the rumors saying he had were false — and yet many on the right still believe Clinton raped her.

What good does it do to condemn someone without knowing what actually happened?

Or are you saying that many on the left will still believe he assaulted her if she testifies under oath that he didn't do anything wrong?

I'm saying rightards are delusional and will believe a conservative or anyone accusing a Liberal, regardless of what testimony under oath reveals.

As evidence, I offered up a woman who testified under oath that Bill Clinton did not rape her -- yet rightards insist that he did. So what good did her sworn testimony provide? What good would it do to put Roy Moore's accusers under oath?

Partisans are going to believe whatever they want to believe. That can't be helped. The accused, however, would see their named cleared legally and their accuser would have to go away.

And, Clinton is a good example. He was accused of rape, yet stayed in office. Moore is accused of less, yet faces demands that he drop out of the race.

Clinton was accused of rape by someone who swore under oath he didn’t rape her. Moore was accused of sexual assualt by woman who have no evidence other than their word and he’s being pressured into stepping down by his own party.

Obviously, the Republican establishment simply doesn't want him around and doesn't care what the voters think. That's the kind of thing that kept Hillary out of office.

Anyway, if we're going to condemn someone solely on unsubstantiated allegations introduced immediately before an election, we're going to see a lot of it from now on.

My prediction, after the election we hear no more about it.

I agree with you he should not be condemned based on the evidence so far. I also agree with you these women will disappear after the election. This still has nothing to do with Clinton and putting these women under oath still won’t make a difference.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What good does it do to condemn someone without knowing what actually happened?

Or are you saying that many on the left will still believe he assaulted her if she testifies under oath that he didn't do anything wrong?

I'm saying rightards are delusional and will believe a conservative or anyone accusing a Liberal, regardless of what testimony under oath reveals.

As evidence, I offered up a woman who testified under oath that Bill Clinton did not rape her -- yet rightards insist that he did. So what good did her sworn testimony provide? What good would it do to put Roy Moore's accusers under oath?

Partisans are going to believe whatever they want to believe. That can't be helped. The accused, however, would see their named cleared legally and their accuser would have to go away.

And, Clinton is a good example. He was accused of rape, yet stayed in office. Moore is accused of less, yet faces demands that he drop out of the race.

Clinton was accused of rape by someone who swore under oath he didn’t rape her. Moore was accused of sexual assualt by woman who have no evidence other than their word and he’s being pressured into stepping down by his own party.

Obviously, the Republican establishment simply doesn't want him around and doesn't care what the voters think. That's the kind of thing that kept Hillary out of office.

Anyway, if we're going to condemn someone solely on unsubstantiated allegations introduced immediately before an election, we're going to see a lot of it from now on.

My prediction, after the election we hear no more about it.

I agree with you he should not be condemned based on the evidence so far. I also agree with you these women will disappear after the election. This still has nothing to do with Clinton and putting these women under oath still won’t make a difference.

They will vanish just as the Trump "accusers" vanished.

 

[Faun]

I'm saying rightards are delusional and will believe a conservative or anyone accusing a Liberal, regardless of what testimony under oath reveals.

As evidence, I offered up a woman who testified under oath that Bill Clinton did not rape her -- yet rightards insist that he did. So what good did her sworn testimony provide? What good would it do to put Roy Moore's accusers under oath?

Partisans are going to believe whatever they want to believe. That can't be helped. The accused, however, would see their named cleared legally and their accuser would have to go away.

And, Clinton is a good example. He was accused of rape, yet stayed in office. Moore is accused of less, yet faces demands that he drop out of the race.

Clinton was accused of rape by someone who swore under oath he didn’t rape her. Moore was accused of sexual assualt by woman who have no evidence other than their word and he’s being pressured into stepping down by his own party.

Obviously, the Republican establishment simply doesn't want him around and doesn't care what the voters think. That's the kind of thing that kept Hillary out of office.

Anyway, if we're going to condemn someone solely on unsubstantiated allegations introduced immediately before an election, we're going to see a lot of it from now on.

My prediction, after the election we hear no more about it.

I agree with you he should not be condemned based on the evidence so far. I also agree with you these women will disappear after the election. This still has nothing to do with Clinton and putting these women under oath still won’t make a difference.

They will vanish just as the Trump "accusers" vanished.

Yup

 

[hadit]

What good does it do to condemn someone without knowing what actually happened?

Or are you saying that many on the left will still believe he assaulted her if she testifies under oath that he didn't do anything wrong?

I'm saying rightards are delusional and will believe a conservative or anyone accusing a Liberal, regardless of what testimony under oath reveals.

As evidence, I offered up a woman who testified under oath that Bill Clinton did not rape her -- yet rightards insist that he did. So what good did her sworn testimony provide? What good would it do to put Roy Moore's accusers under oath?

Partisans are going to believe whatever they want to believe. That can't be helped. The accused, however, would see their named cleared legally and their accuser would have to go away.

And, Clinton is a good example. He was accused of rape, yet stayed in office. Moore is accused of less, yet faces demands that he drop out of the race.

Clinton was accused of rape by someone who swore under oath he didn’t rape her. Moore was accused of sexual assualt by woman who have no evidence other than their word and he’s being pressured into stepping down by his own party.

Obviously, the Republican establishment simply doesn't want him around and doesn't care what the voters think. That's the kind of thing that kept Hillary out of office.

Anyway, if we're going to condemn someone solely on unsubstantiated allegations introduced immediately before an election, we're going to see a lot of it from now on.

My prediction, after the election we hear no more about it.

I agree with you he should not be condemned based on the evidence so far. I also agree with you these women will disappear after the election. This still has nothing to do with Clinton and putting these women under oath still won’t make a difference.

Not for some, I agree because partisans have a remarkable ability to resist reality, as we have seen repeatedly. But I think for the majority it would make a difference. I know if I were in that situation,I would like to have my accusers shown to be lying.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Looks like they caught one

Let's get people under oath and find out.

WTF good is that gonna do?

Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Bill Clinton never raped her and all the rumors saying he had were false — and yet many on the right still believe Clinton raped her.

What good does it do to condemn someone without knowing what actually happened?

Or are you saying that many on the left will still believe he assaulted her if she testifies under oath that he didn't do anything wrong?

I'm saying rightards are delusional and will believe a conservative or anyone accusing a Liberal, regardless of what testimony under oath reveals.

As evidence, I offered up a woman who testified under oath that Bill Clinton did not rape her -- yet rightards insist that he did. So what good did her sworn testimony provide? What good would it do to put Roy Moore's accusers under oath?

Partisans are going to believe whatever they want to believe. That can't be helped. The accused, however, would see their named cleared legally and their accuser would have to go away.

And, Clinton is a good example. He was accused of rape, yet stayed in office. Moore is accused of less, yet faces demands that he drop out of the race.

Clinton was accused of rape??? Please provide the details.

 

[hadit]

Let's get people under oath and find out.

WTF good is that gonna do?

Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Bill Clinton never raped her and all the rumors saying he had were false — and yet many on the right still believe Clinton raped her.

What good does it do to condemn someone without knowing what actually happened?

Or are you saying that many on the left will still believe he assaulted her if she testifies under oath that he didn't do anything wrong?

I'm saying rightards are delusional and will believe a conservative or anyone accusing a Liberal, regardless of what testimony under oath reveals.

As evidence, I offered up a woman who testified under oath that Bill Clinton did not rape her -- yet rightards insist that he did. So what good did her sworn testimony provide? What good would it do to put Roy Moore's accusers under oath?

Partisans are going to believe whatever they want to believe. That can't be helped. The accused, however, would see their named cleared legally and their accuser would have to go away.

And, Clinton is a good example. He was accused of rape, yet stayed in office. Moore is accused of less, yet faces demands that he drop out of the race.

Clinton was accused of rape??? Please provide the details.

Juanita Broaddrick.

 

[Wry Catcher]

WTF good is that gonna do?

Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Bill Clinton never raped her and all the rumors saying he had were false — and yet many on the right still believe Clinton raped her.

What good does it do to condemn someone without knowing what actually happened?

Or are you saying that many on the left will still believe he assaulted her if she testifies under oath that he didn't do anything wrong?

I'm saying rightards are delusional and will believe a conservative or anyone accusing a Liberal, regardless of what testimony under oath reveals.

As evidence, I offered up a woman who testified under oath that Bill Clinton did not rape her -- yet rightards insist that he did. So what good did her sworn testimony provide? What good would it do to put Roy Moore's accusers under oath?

Partisans are going to believe whatever they want to believe. That can't be helped. The accused, however, would see their named cleared legally and their accuser would have to go away.

And, Clinton is a good example. He was accused of rape, yet stayed in office. Moore is accused of less, yet faces demands that he drop out of the race.

Clinton was accused of rape??? Please provide the details.

Juanita Broaddrick.

Not the most credible source, her story changed several times and when under oath denied the allegation:

"Rumors circulated about Broaddrick's allegations for many years, but she refused to speak to the media. In a sworn statement in 1997 with the placeholder name "Jane Doe #5,"[1] Broaddrick filed an affidavit with Paula Jones' lawyers stating there were unfounded rumors and stories circulating "that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies... These allegations are untrue

Juanita Broaddrick - Wikipedia

 

[Boss]

Not the most credible source, her story changed several times and when under oath denied the allegation:

Whoa... I thought all it took was the ALLEGATION? Now it's suddenly about "credibility" and testimony under oath (which Moore's accuser hasn't been put under yet.).

Me thinks you have a double standard working here!

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Direct evidence comes from the accuser, If what the alleged victim describes meets the element(s) of a crime, a complaint will be issued if no exculpatory evidence exists; Then the trier of fact will determine the probative value of the testimony at the end of the trial or preliminary hearing.

and his jury is the voters. so we will see how they vote.

He may win the popular vote in Alabama, but the jury will be the entire senate. 42 R's have already said he should not continue his pursuit for the seat, and most D's will vote against his acceptance too.

There is one thing a Senator or Member of the H. puts before their party, and it is their job.

If the Senate refuses to seat him we are no longer a democratic Republic. They cannot usurp the people's vote. As loathesome asI judge the Judge to be, that doesn’t mean iI️ Support authoritarianism in the Senate.

Of course they can. It is written in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 5: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

Actually they have to seat him, but then they can almost immediately give him the boot.

No. They can give him the boot for misconduct while in office. Before that, it's the voter's decision to make.

 

[Faun]

WTF good is that gonna do?

Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Bill Clinton never raped her and all the rumors saying he had were false — and yet many on the right still believe Clinton raped her.

What good does it do to condemn someone without knowing what actually happened?

Or are you saying that many on the left will still believe he assaulted her if she testifies under oath that he didn't do anything wrong?

I'm saying rightards are delusional and will believe a conservative or anyone accusing a Liberal, regardless of what testimony under oath reveals.

As evidence, I offered up a woman who testified under oath that Bill Clinton did not rape her -- yet rightards insist that he did. So what good did her sworn testimony provide? What good would it do to put Roy Moore's accusers under oath?

Partisans are going to believe whatever they want to believe. That can't be helped. The accused, however, would see their named cleared legally and their accuser would have to go away.

And, Clinton is a good example. He was accused of rape, yet stayed in office. Moore is accused of less, yet faces demands that he drop out of the race.

Clinton was accused of rape??? Please provide the details.

Juanita Broaddrick.

LOLOL

Here’s what Juanita Broaddrick swore happened...

During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family.​

 

[Faun]

Not the most credible source, her story changed several times and when under oath denied the allegation:

Whoa... I thought all it took was the ALLEGATION? Now it's suddenly about "credibility" and testimony under oath (which Moore's accuser hasn't been put under yet.).

Me thinks you have a double standard working here!

She swore Clinton never raped her and the stories that he did were “unfounded rumors.” WTF kind of allegation is that??

 

[hadit]

What good does it do to condemn someone without knowing what actually happened?

Or are you saying that many on the left will still believe he assaulted her if she testifies under oath that he didn't do anything wrong?

I'm saying rightards are delusional and will believe a conservative or anyone accusing a Liberal, regardless of what testimony under oath reveals.

As evidence, I offered up a woman who testified under oath that Bill Clinton did not rape her -- yet rightards insist that he did. So what good did her sworn testimony provide? What good would it do to put Roy Moore's accusers under oath?

Partisans are going to believe whatever they want to believe. That can't be helped. The accused, however, would see their named cleared legally and their accuser would have to go away.

And, Clinton is a good example. He was accused of rape, yet stayed in office. Moore is accused of less, yet faces demands that he drop out of the race.

Clinton was accused of rape??? Please provide the details.

Juanita Broaddrick.

Not the most credible source, her story changed several times and when under oath denied the allegation:

"Rumors circulated about Broaddrick's allegations for many years, but she refused to speak to the media. In a sworn statement in 1997 with the placeholder name "Jane Doe #5,"[1] Broaddrick filed an affidavit with Paula Jones' lawyers stating there were unfounded rumors and stories circulating "that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies... These allegations are untrue

Juanita Broaddrick - Wikipedia

The Roy Moore standard asserts that the credibility of the accusations don't matter, it is their seriousness that counts. Under that standard, Bubba should have been run out of town.