Go Get Em, Roy: American Patriot Roy Moore Weighs Legal Action Against Accusers As Allegations Fail

[tinydancer]

YEP, I don't blame him one bit. Time to take legal action against these gold digger political feminists and put them where they belong, in the kennel or jail.

Judge Roy Moore Weighs Legal Action Against Accusers As Allegations Fall Apart

Trump made the same promise. And we see that didn't happen. Liars don't want to go under oath, which a lawsuit would do.

He didn't have to. The women were discredited and bailed. Just like the woman who accused him of rape as a teenager with Epstein.Liars. The lot of them.

 

[radical right]

Moore would have no problem taking the stand. None at all.

Moore stepped on his tongue during a softball interview with Sean Hannity. Put him on the stand and he would fold like a cheap suit Unable to remember who he dated and who he didn't.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I agree, however we are talking about civil suits here and the standards of evidence.

Pertaining to younger women, their would be dispositions and court testimony - and you can bet that Moore does not want to have to take the stand (and he wouldn't have 5th Amendment protections since their would be no criminal case). The respondent would get on the stand and repeat their claims. And then they would call to the stand others that would confirm their testimony that they were told about the incident(s) 40 years ago. All relevant testimony to support the women claims and would bolster their credibility. Moore would loose.

Pertaining to the media, the lawsuit would be a non-starter. The Washington Post would have to simply demonstrate due diligence in investigative reporting to nullify the malice claim.



>>>>>

Moore would have no problem taking the stand. None at all.

And the Washington Post not only endorsed his opponent before running the story but the WP was lying to Leigh when they told her that other women had come forward with sexual misconduct allegations. A flat out lie. Proving malice would be a walk in the park.

We disagree, which is OK, Moore will never start a lawsuit and get within 500 miles of court room regarding allegations of sexual molestation of a 14 year old or sexual assault on a 16 year old.



>>>>

 

[tinydancer]

Moore would have no problem taking the stand. None at all.

Moore stepped on his tongue during a softball interview with Sean Hannity. Put him on the stand and he would fold like a cheap suit Unable to remember who he dated and who he didn't.

I heard the whole interview. Bullshit that he stepped on his tongue.

 

[radical right]

When the asshole is constantly trying to date underage girls when he was over 30 and an officer of the court, something stinks real bad in Alabama.

Age of consent is 16. What's the problem> Just because you don't like it means jack shit.

The fact that you have to even use that as a defense speaks volumes.

 

[radical right]

Moore stepped on his tongue during a softball interview with Sean Hannity. Put him on the stand and he would fold like a cheap suit Unable to remember who he dated and who he didn't.

I heard the whole interview. Bullshit that he stepped on his tongue.

Sean Hannity was pitching softballs, and Moore struck out. Like when asked if he in general dated girls that young, instead of saying no, Moore said he did it with their mothers permission.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

It's had to believe that Washington Post had any credibility left to lose

 

[nat4900]

Age of consent is 16. What's the problem> Just because you don't like it means jack shit.

Bill Maher was maybe correct when he quipped that in Alabama, a HS senior is regarded as a MILF.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If he wins (which is very possible) he probably won't pursue action. But if he loses, I couldn't blame him. .

Why would winning or losing make a difference?

If he wins, then the damage is minimal. If he loses, it will be directly related to these claims.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

YEP, I don't blame him one bit. Time to take legal action against these gold digger political feminists and put them where they belong, in the kennel or jail.

Judge Roy Moore Weighs Legal Action Against Accusers As Allegations Fall Apart

Trump made the same promise. And we see that didn't happen. Liars don't want to go under oath, which a lawsuit would do.

Bull. If Trump would have lost, he would have taken those women to court. But a sitting President is not about to spend time in court suing people. He's got better things to do now.

 

[Old Rocks]

YEP, I don't blame him one bit. Time to take legal action against these gold digger political feminists and put them where they belong, in the kennel or jail.

Judge Roy Moore Weighs Legal Action Against Accusers As Allegations Fall Apart

Trump made the same promise. And we see that didn't happen. Liars don't want to go under oath, which a lawsuit would do.

He didn't have to. The women were discredited and bailed. Just like the woman who accused him of rape as a teenager with Epstein.Liars. The lot of them.

Ted Nugent, NRA and GOP pervert.

Jailbait you look so good to me
Jailbait won't you set me free
Jailbait you look fine, fine, fine
And I know I've got to have you in a matter of time

Well, I don't care if you're just thirteen
You look too good to be true
I just know that you're probably clean
There's one little think I got do to you

Jailbait you look so good to me
Jailbait won't you set me free
Jailbait you look fine, fine, fine
And I know I've got to have you in a matter of time

Sad but true

So tell your mama that I'm back in town
She likes us boys when it's time to get down
She's got this craving for the underage;
I just might be your mamas' brand new rage

Jailbait you look so good to me
Jailbait won't you set me free
Jailbait you look fine, fine, fine
And I know I've gots to have you in a matter of time, now babe

Honey, you, you, you look so nice
She's young, she's tender
Won't you please surrender
She so fine, she's mine
All the time, I woke my mind

It's all right baby, it's quite all right I asked your mama

Wait a minute officer; wait a minute officer
Don't put those handcuffs on me, what about her?
Hey, I'll share her with you!

Looks like this is the theme of the Grand Old Perverts party.

 

[Old Rocks]

YEP, I don't blame him one bit. Time to take legal action against these gold digger political feminists and put them where they belong, in the kennel or jail.

Judge Roy Moore Weighs Legal Action Against Accusers As Allegations Fall Apart

Trump made the same promise. And we see that didn't happen. Liars don't want to go under oath, which a lawsuit would do.

Bull. If Trump would have lost, he would have taken those women to court. But a sitting President is not about to spend time in court suing people. He's got better things to do now.

LOL Sure he would have LOL

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well thanks, but this ruling was about the media and freedom of press protections. Also, it didn't totally exclude lawsuits against the press, only that "malice" had to be proven in false reporting.

I agree, however we are talking about civil suits here and the standards of evidence.

Pertaining to younger women, their would be dispositions and court testimony - and you can bet that Moore does not want to have to take the stand (and he wouldn't have 5th Amendment protections since their would be no criminal case). The respondent would get on the stand and repeat their claims. And then they would call to the stand others that would confirm their testimony that they were told about the incident(s) 40 years ago. All relevant testimony to support the women claims and would bolster their credibility. Moore would loose.

Pertaining to the media, the lawsuit would be a non-starter. The Washington Post would have to simply demonstrate due diligence in investigative reporting to nullify the malice claim.



>>>>>

Women making unproven claims is not evidence in court. As far as her telling others in her family about it, same holds there. She could have easily told them to say that she told them about it years ago. No evidence.

The only fact would be that this woman made the claim, and did so to the media. Another fact is she supposedly held on to this story until just before a very important election. Other than those two facts, everything else is hearsay.

So what the court would have are facts vs unproven allegations. You really think the court will side with unproven allegations?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

YEP, I don't blame him one bit. Time to take legal action against these gold digger political feminists and put them where they belong, in the kennel or jail.

Judge Roy Moore Weighs Legal Action Against Accusers As Allegations Fall Apart

Trump made the same promise. And we see that didn't happen. Liars don't want to go under oath, which a lawsuit would do.

Bull. If Trump would have lost, he would have taken those women to court. But a sitting President is not about to spend time in court suing people. He's got better things to do now.

LOL Sure he would have LOL

Yes he would have. Trump spent half his life in court--mostly suing people. However it takes a lot of taxpayer money, a lot of planning, a lot of time for a sitting President to go somewhere, not to mention anytime he goes out in public, there is a security and safety risk involved.

 

[bodecea]

YEP, I don't blame him one bit. Time to take legal action against these gold digger political feminists and put them where they belong, in the kennel or jail.

Judge Roy Moore Weighs Legal Action Against Accusers As Allegations Fall Apart

Trump made the same promise. And we see that didn't happen. Liars don't want to go under oath, which a lawsuit would do.

He didn't have to. The women were discredited and bailed. Just like the woman who accused him of rape as a teenager with Epstein.Liars. The lot of them.

No they did not bail....but it's amusing to watch all the trumpanzees believe exactly has their orange master wants them to.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well thanks, but this ruling was about the media and freedom of press protections. Also, it didn't totally exclude lawsuits against the press, only that "malice" had to be proven in false reporting.

I agree, however we are talking about civil suits here and the standards of evidence.

Pertaining to younger women, their would be dispositions and court testimony - and you can bet that Moore does not want to have to take the stand (and he wouldn't have 5th Amendment protections since their would be no criminal case). The respondent would get on the stand and repeat their claims. And then they would call to the stand others that would confirm their testimony that they were told about the incident(s) 40 years ago. All relevant testimony to support the women claims and would bolster their credibility. Moore would loose.

Pertaining to the media, the lawsuit would be a non-starter. The Washington Post would have to simply demonstrate due diligence in investigative reporting to nullify the malice claim.



>>>>>

Women making unproven claims is not evidence in court. As far as her telling others in her family about it, same holds there. She could have easily told them to say that she told them about it years ago. No evidence.

The only fact would be that this woman made the claim, and did so to the media. Another fact is she supposedly held on to this story until just before a very important election. Other than those two facts, everything else is hearsay.

So what the court would have are facts vs unproven allegations. You really think the court will side with unproven allegations?

This is not a court of law. And nine women, several mall workers, and police officers have confirmed that Moore was a predator on teen girls when he was over 30 and an officer of the court. In an election, that does carry weight.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Women making unproven claims is not evidence in court. As far as her telling others in her family about it, same holds there. She could have easily told them to say that she told them about it years ago. No evidence.

Speaking in the context of court, Oral Testimony is evidence.

"Oral testimony is the oldest kind of evidence. The oral testimony of witnesses can exclude or supplement documentary evidence. Under the U.S. law almost anyone can be a witness. The parties to the case, experts, even children, and convicted felons can testify."

And they told others that just "family". Then there are other instances of mall employees coming forward and police that had to watch Moore around cheerleaders at games. All of this oral testimony will all come in as evidence and will be weighed as part of determining the credibility of the acursors claims.

Oral Testimony Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.


>>>>

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Women making unproven claims is not evidence in court. As far as her telling others in her family about it, same holds there. She could have easily told them to say that she told them about it years ago. No evidence.

Speaking in the context of court, Oral Testimony is evidence.

"Oral testimony is the oldest kind of evidence. The oral testimony of witnesses can exclude or supplement documentary evidence. Under the U.S. law almost anyone can be a witness. The parties to the case, experts, even children, and convicted felons can testify."

And they told others that just "family". Then there are other instances of mall employees coming forward and police that had to watch Moore around cheerleaders at games. All of this oral testimony will all come in as evidence and will be weighed as part of determining the credibility of the acursors claims.

Oral Testimony Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.


>>>>

Which would easily be dismissed because the manager of the mall stated he was unaware of any ban on Moore. So how could these police officers testify that they had to watch Moore without the management knowing about it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well thanks, but this ruling was about the media and freedom of press protections. Also, it didn't totally exclude lawsuits against the press, only that "malice" had to be proven in false reporting.

I agree, however we are talking about civil suits here and the standards of evidence.

Pertaining to younger women, their would be dispositions and court testimony - and you can bet that Moore does not want to have to take the stand (and he wouldn't have 5th Amendment protections since their would be no criminal case). The respondent would get on the stand and repeat their claims. And then they would call to the stand others that would confirm their testimony that they were told about the incident(s) 40 years ago. All relevant testimony to support the women claims and would bolster their credibility. Moore would loose.

Pertaining to the media, the lawsuit would be a non-starter. The Washington Post would have to simply demonstrate due diligence in investigative reporting to nullify the malice claim.



>>>>>

Women making unproven claims is not evidence in court. As far as her telling others in her family about it, same holds there. She could have easily told them to say that she told them about it years ago. No evidence.

The only fact would be that this woman made the claim, and did so to the media. Another fact is she supposedly held on to this story until just before a very important election. Other than those two facts, everything else is hearsay.

So what the court would have are facts vs unproven allegations. You really think the court will side with unproven allegations?

This is not a court of law. And nine women, several mall workers, and police officers have confirmed that Moore was a predator on teen girls when he was over 30 and an officer of the court. In an election, that does carry weight.

So what if it was 300 hundred women, would you still believe all 300?

 

[Care4all]

I never heard of that. Have any links?

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan - Wikipedia


>>>>

Well thanks, but this ruling was about the media and freedom of press protections. Also, it didn't totally exclude lawsuits against the press, only that "malice" had to be proven in false reporting.

And to prove Malice with the press, you have to prove that the paper intentionally printed an article that was not true.... and that will not be proved, because the legitimate press has to have all kinds of back up and sources for their articles before their articles go to print....

It's a pretty hghi hurdle that is rarely won if at all by a famous or political figure.... from what I have read on it....