Social Question

seawulf575's avatar

Now that Beverly Nelson has admitted to forging part of her evidence against Moore, does that change your view of her claims?

Asked by seawulf575 (11572points) December 9th, 2017

Beverly Nelson has come out to admit she added notes to her yearbook inscription, a point she previously avoided. Does this change your view point of the rest of her claim?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

127 Answers

elbanditoroso's avatar

No. Because her actions don’t negate the other women’s stories, nor do they call into question the ‘ban him from the mall’ contemporaneous rules that were put into place after his misbehavior.

There’s plenty of evidence of Moore’s actions even if you take Nelson out of the picture.

Nice try.

seawulf575's avatar

@elbanditoroso I didn’t ask if it changed your view of all the claims against Moore, just the validity of her claim.

canidmajor's avatar

Do you have a link or a source, please?

chyna's avatar

No it doesn’t. She added the date and place to what he wrote in her year book. I have done the same to remember when/where something was written. He denied knowing her, yet he wrote in her yearbook.

stanleybmanly's avatar

No. From what I have read, she hasn’t admitted to “forging part of her evidence”.

Love_my_doggie's avatar

There was no “forging.” Mrs. Nelson added a postscript of when/where Roy Moore had signed her yearbook. She didn’t attempt to mimic his handwriting or disguise her own as his. Anyone with a pair of eyes can see that the inscription was written by Moore, just by looking at his official signatures from his years in public office and the graduation card given to Debbie Wesson Gibson.

At most, you could accuse Mrs. Nelson of tampering. Yet, the very word “tamper” means that something is an alteration – that the beginning, underlying premise, Moore’s inscription in this situation, is true and valid and was changed for manipulation.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

I think I know the source @canidmajor, Breitbart

flutherother's avatar

As I understand it the date and place were added in a different ink and in a different handwriting and Beverley Nelson has explained that while the inscription message was from Roy Moore these additions are hers. It is hardly “forgery” to write in your own yearbook and in your own handwriting. Roy Moore’s message is a bit suspect however and it tends to corroborate Beverley’s claims.

PS If Breitbart really thought this damaged Beverley’s credibility wouldn’t it have said she had “imploded”?

flutherother's avatar

I notice that Fox has removed the word “forgery” which appeared in the original headline to its story.

canidmajor's avatar

Well, gosh, @seawulf575, I don’t want to do your work for you. You made the statement, it is incumbent on you to furnish your sources. I just don’t want you to accuse me of using slanted media.

flutherother's avatar

I don’t try to discredit Breitbart. It accomplishes that by itself without any help from me.

seawulf575's avatar

I found the part that seemed the oddest to me is that she didn’t mention this before, and now that the legitimacy of the entry is being questioned, she comes out to say she added it. He supposedly signed this before the attack, yet she didn’t do anything with it until now? Seems very suspect.

filmfann's avatar

She added a date and place to what was written. That is not forgery. That is documentation.
If you agree she added things to it, doesn’t that mean you acknowledge he wrote something, which is her claim? She is using this as proof that they had contact, which he denies.
That means you agree he lied.
Gee, it is a slippery slope.

seawulf575's avatar

@filmfann Your logic is amazing. No, SHE admitted to adding it. That doesn’t mean I acknowledge he wrote anything. Moore claims to not know the woman. That could very well be true. Let’s play it out. According to Nelson, she had Roy Moore sign her yearbook in December of 1977. She claims it was at the diner where she worked, one week before he supposedly attacked her. STOP! Let’s look at that. I don’t know how they do things in Gadsden Alabama, but when I was in school, yearbooks didn’t get delivered to the students until April or May. How did she have the yearbook in November? I’m going out on a limb to say, she didn’t. The school pictures aren’t taken until September or October, various other pictures are collected through the year and are sent to the yearbook publisher that prints them all up and sends them out. That takes quite a few months. More than the 4 Nelson is claiming. Was it a previous year’s yearbook? If so, why was she carrying it around with her at work a year later? The timeline is suspicious and, in my mind, doesn’t work. But let’s move on.
Let’s say she met Moore when he was a customer in the diner. He’s a public servant, possibly well known in a small town. She asks for him to sign her yearbook so he does. Does this prove he knows her? No. It proves she asked him to sign her yearbook. Let’s go on with the illusion that he signed it. As a public figure in your 30’s, you have a 16 year old basically asking for your autograph. Do you just write your name and let it go or do you write something that might be fun for her? Let’s say he just wrote his name. Couldn’t the rest of the inscription have been added later? And if he did write the rest, does it prove anything?
Does that mean he knows her? Does it mean he remembers her? Does it prove he did anything, other than sign her yearbook? No to all those questions. Again, I’m not conceding that he did any of this, but I’m trying to make sense of the timeline.
As for the rest of your logic…her claim is that he attempted to rape her. She is using her claim that he signed her yearbook as proof that her story is true. ??? I still don’t get that. I got a Christmas card from my insurance agent, does that constitute proof if I claim he attacked me? Her “proof” is to refute his claim that he doesn’t know the woman. Signing a yearbook doesn’t disprove that, it just shows that at some point, their paths may have crossed.
Now, on to the inscription in the yearbook. I have quite a few issues with it. The angle of the writing on the inscription and on the signature don’t match. The forms of the M in Moore and Merry are different. The O’s and E’s don’t seem to match either. The thickness of the ink line on the inscription and on the signature are not the same. The DA at the end of the signature seems odd since he didn’t typically sign his name that way. There are a lot of things about that entry that seem odd. If Nelson and Allred weren’t doing this for political reasons, they would allow the entire entry to be inspected by an impartial handwriting analyst and not demand on a Senate investigation. First off, a Senate investigation would not be convened for what amounts to a civil issue at this point. Gloria Allred knows this, and that is why she demands it. She wants it to sound like they have nothing to hide when, in fact, they are giving provisos that are impossible. Why not use a State Crime Lab analyst? And let them do an entire forensics analysis of the yearbook entry. Is the ink between the writing and the signature the same? Were both actually written with ball point pen on that page? Here’s a thought…did the ink used exist in 1977? In a case like this, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. It should be to their benefit, if the claim is true, to bring in as many experts as possible and to prove the validity of their “evidence”. They should be finding witnesses to support all the claims. Right now, all the significant witnesses say she is batty and can’t be telling the truth.

Strauss's avatar

Let’s take a look at those links:

An update to first article, from Fox News, reads as follows:

“An update to this story reflects that Beverly Young Nelson admits writing what ABC News characterized as “notes” beneath what she says is Roy Moore’s signature, and that the only notes below the signature are the date and location. Furthermore, the headline on story now specifies that Nelson admits to writing part of the inscription herself, rather than forging part of it”

The next link, from the New York Times, contains the following statement:

Paula Cobia, a lawyer for Gloria Deason, who has said Mr. Moore took her on dates and ordered her alcohol when she was 18, said Ms. Nelson’s admission had not undermined Ms. Deason’s story or that of the other accusers.
“The inscription and his signature look completely authentic. The fact that she might have written and she says that she did the Olde Hickory House or whatever underneath it, so what?” Ms. Cobia asked.
“Each accusation,” Ms. Cobia added, “stands on its own.”

The next link, the article from USA Today states:

“At Friday’s press conference, Allred provided a report to reporters from a forensic document expert, who assessed that the signature in the yearbook was Moore’s.”

I don’t have the luxury of time to point out what is said in the other links, other than to say that notation is not the same as forgery, nor does it negate any of the other claims or the contemporaneous circumstances, such as the mall ban.
.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I guess I need to see where she originally said the year (77) and place (Old Hickory House) were written by Moore. It’s quite obvious the hand writing is different.

chyna's avatar

^If you find it @Dutchess_III please post it here. I want to see it too.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I think it’s on the OP to provide the proof.

Kardamom's avatar

I recently went to a show and got a photograph autographed for a friend of mine. I added the date and venue to it, in my own writing. I’ve done that many times.

si3tech's avatar

It nullifies any claim she made or will make!

MrGrimm888's avatar

Ah. I was beat to it. She just added the date, and place. Something my grandmother does to every single picture, or saved document.

And yes, a handwriting expert confirmed that it was Moore’s signature.
And yes. Fox news, had to backtrack.

Does this effect her credibility? Not at all. To me, it proves that she shared Moore’s feelings, at the time. Wanting to remember it, because they had the type of bond that an adult shouldn’t have with a minor. Nice of Moore, and Trump to take advantage of the “news,” for once. Why wouldn’t Trump call the news fake, like all other news? Oh duh… Any news that doesn’t support his agenda, is fake. News that helps him, is always authentic. Stupid me…

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . Ever noticed that you will get very creative, trying to imagine elaborate alibis for the accused GOP members, yet take all negative news about any dem, as beyond reproach?

Your favorite word “hypocrisy, ” comes to mind. But I won’t call you a hypocrite. I think you’re just hopelessly biased. That’s an understandable human trait.

Don’t worry. The GOP will continue to try and dig up dirt on other dems. Franken won’t be the last. Lots of stone throwing in D.C. these days. Too bad D.C. is full of glass houses…

I wonder how scared all these politicians must be(both dems,and reps.) They probably all have some sexual skeletons, in the closet. Each must cheer the removal of the latest scumbag, all the while, hoping they threatened or bribed enough people to keep their dirty laundry off the front pages…

MrGrimm888's avatar

^So you won’t think I’m “attacking” you, I admit, that I am probably hopelessly biased as well. I get it…

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 I think I am one of the few on here that will trash both Dems and Repubs. If you look, I have stated repeatedly on this topic (not necessarily this thread) that if Moore was guilty, I would be all for trashing him. The same goes for everyone else. I even said it about Franken. Even after the photographic evidence showed up. He should be allowed to refute all claims against him.
If you notice, what I do is to ask for fairness. I’m not trying to convince anyone Moore is innocent, I’m trying to find out how deep their hatred of him goes. Let’s take the two cases…Moore and Franken. I will acknowledge that if true, Moore’s transgressions are worse in my mind than Franken’s, but Franken has just as many accusers. Yet this group of jellies makes excuses for Franken and, even after he apologized, downplayed anything he might have done. Conversely, Moore had 5 accusers come forward and they were ready to crucify him before he even responded. And when I point out facts like at least one of the girls says she was 18 when he asked her out on a date which is no crime whatsoever, they rally around merely calling him a pedophile and chasing young women. It doesn’t matter to this group that there is no crime, that Moore, if it were true, did nothing wrong. So I ask…who is more biased? Me for supporting fact over innuendo or the rest for supporting hatred over everything else?
As for being creative, I tend to have to be with this group. I need to spell out logic since there is so little in evidence. My last diatribe was the best example. I was responding to the “logic” of another jelly. That logic made jumps and assumptions all along the way which made no sense at all. I spelled out my thinking…my logic. I asked a lot of questions. The questions are good places that if you can answer them differently than I do, you may change my thinking. Since I posted it, 7 jellies have posted. Not a single one attempted to debate the logic. But there are a lot of random things, but nothing on my comments, except you suggesting I am creating elaborate alibis. I would suggest that I am merely seeing things differently. Here is the summation of why I find the entire yearbook thing goofy: It proves nothing, yet is being put forth like it just solved a mystery. Her accusation is that he attacked her. Her proof is a yearbook inscription. ??? It doesn’t tie together for me. I don’t understand how one has anything to do with the other. Even if he did sign it (which I’m still not convinced), it proves nothing other than he signed her yearbook. It doesn’t prove they had anything going, it doesn’t prove he even remembers the event. It just proves that he signed her yearbook. He signed her divorce papers as well….so what? Imagine how many divorce papers he signed over the years? None of that proves he knows her, that he remembers her, and it certainly doesn’t prove he ever attacked her.
Here’s the other thing I am skeptical of. Allred supposedly called in a handwriting expert to verify it was Moore’s signature. Did he also evaluate the inscription or just the signature. The stories all say just the signature. So if he did, the other could have been added anytime by anyone. The other question…did he actually look at the yearbook or a picture of the yearbook? That I don’t know. I would hope it was they yearbook, but I also know how things get in court. Expert testimony can be bought and can be made to say whatever is desired by the one paying the expert. Been through that, Don’t want to do it again.
And surprisingly, I didn’t take anything you stated as a personal attack. You made an observation. I’m okay with that. I’m good with being challenged. I’m okay with people having different opinions from my own.

flutherother's avatar

@seawulf575 The yearbook comment and Moore’s signature to it prove Moore had a connection with his accuser. It doesn’t prove nothing, as you suggest, and the eagerness with which some commentators have claimed incorrectly that it was forged indicates that they don’t feel it proves nothing either.

seawulf575's avatar

Okay @flutherother ,please explain EXACTLY what it PROVES. I know the answer, but I would love to hear someone other than me say it.

stanleybmanly's avatar

and the other 7 women?

LostInParadise's avatar

@seawulf575 , The girl added a comment to one made by Moore. I fail to see what your point is or why you are so hellbent on defending Moore. Let’s look at the public record. He admits to dating teenagers when he was in his 30’s. He was thrown off the court twice for violating federal laws. Here is what Alabama’s Republican senior senator has to say about Moore. He actually voted against Moore.

Link 1
Link 2

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly again…I’d give Moore any chance to refute any crimes committed. But remember, several of those that are his “accusers” didn’t really claim any crime. So it looks like a smear job even more. Let’s go through the list:
Leigh Corfman – Claims Moore molested her when she was 14. Her own parents shoot holes in her story.
Wendy Miller – Claims Moore asked her out when she was 16, but her mom said no and that ended it. The kicker is that her claim also says he told her she was pretty when she was 14. So let’s look…telling a girl she is pretty and asking a girl out if she has her parents permission….no crimes there. But nice try.
Debbie Wesson Gibson – Says she dated Moore with her parent’s consent when she was 17 and he was 34. She says they dated for several months and went no further than some kissing. She has a graduation card he gave her wishing her well in life that she claims is proof of their relationship. But again…parental consent and she was willing at the time…and nothing happened. No crime.
Gloria Thacker Deason – Says she dated Moore off an on when she was 18 and that it never progressed beyond kissing and hugging. No crime here. Move along.
Beverly Young Nelson – we have been over and over this one.
Gena Richardson – Claims Moore asked for her phone number when she was at work either before or after her 18th birthday (can’t be sure), and she declined. He supposedly called her at school a couple days later asking her out for a date and she accepted. On the date he forcibly kissed her. Now…if true, forcing a kiss on her would be right up there with Al Franken and would, in my mind, warrant some sort of punishment. But again, it would have to be proven. She can’t remember if she was 18 or not, claims he called the school and they supposedly went and got her so he could ask her out for a date. Seems awfully odd…especially for a public figure. But that’s her story.
Becky Gray – Claims Moore harassed her at the mall and asked her out repeatedly. She declined. If true, what is the crime? None.
Tina Johnson claims she was 28 in 1991 and he grabbed her ass in his law office. Again, if proven, that would put him on a par with Franken and my same opinion holds.
Kelly Harrison Thorp – Claims Moore asked her out when she was 17 and she declined. Crime? None.

So there are 9 accusers. Only 4 of them actually claim any wrongdoing. The fact that they are coming out of the woodwork to make claims about his “morality” makes me highly suspicious. In fact, most of the to-do about Moore involves his morality, and it is being exploited by people that will ridicule anyone that espouses morality. So of the 9, Moore really only has 4 that claim anything untoward. And again I will say it…they have zero proof. The burden of proof is on the accusers, not on the accused to prove their innocence. He claims nothing happened. What is their “proof” other than claims?

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise If you look, I’m not really defending Moore. I trying to put for the idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty. Apparently not with this crowd, though. Even your links are jokes. The first is from Breitbart. I’ve already been told, and I believe by you, that Breitbart is unreliable. But it cites a CNN report in which Jake Tapper voices the opinion that if Alabama elects Moore they will be something of a laughing stock. What does that prove about anything? CNN is biased? We all know that. As for the other one, what does that prove? The Republicans in the Senate were already bouncing around the idea that they would work on expelling him if he were elected. We already know that the establishment Repubs don’t like him…he isn’t afraid to battle for his beliefs.
The other part I find particularly funny about all this is that those against Moore are using the exact same arguments that have been used by Conservatives against Obama and Hillary…where there is that much smoke, there must be fire. And what is the response they got? You don’t have any proof…you are just a hater. Well, let me return the favor…you don’t have any proof against Moore, you are just haters.

LostInParadise's avatar

You do make one good point. I think Moore is a scumbag apart from the accusations made. It really is telling when the senior senator from the same state comes out against Moore. Tapper takes a serious risk in making such a statement.

Here is a quote from Moore saying that the last time America was great was before the Civil War. Why not just wear a button saying that he is a bigot and proud of it. Link

MrGrimm888's avatar

I would add that one’s handwriting, is typically VERY different from their signature. Comparing the inscription, with the signature (other than ink variables, as @seawulf575 mentioned)would be an incorrect analysis of the yearbook.

To me, it proves that Moore knew her, and had a relationship with her, in which love was involved. Moore claims that he doesn’t even know the woman. There’s that liying, that the Republicans wanted to hang Bill Clinton for…

Since we’re playing detective, did we notice the position of the inscription? Up in the corner? If Moore only signed it, he left an odd void above his signature. A triangle, just big enough for a manufactured inscription. No. Just no…

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, flies like a duck….......

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise I am not going to support Moore’s overall personality or try to convince you that he is a great guy. I fully support our right to believe he is scum. I feel the same way about many politicians in both parties.
As for the link, I’m going to give you the same crap I get when I cite a right wing source: Did you really use a left-wing rag like Huffington Post as a source?!? They make stuff up all the time! They are so skewed left they can’t drive in a straight line. Sort of sounds silly to attack the source instead of the statement, doesn’t it? As for the statement, I didn’t hear the entire thing and don’t have the full context. From your source, it sounds like he was talking about family values and sticking together, but he also added the proviso “Even though we had slavery…” Yet everyone went off on a tangent about how he was supporting slavery. It read to me that even though we had slavery and that wasn’t a good thing, families stuck together and the country had purpose. Slightly different take from the liberal view, I know. But that’s me. I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 I would disagree. People’s writing and signature usually have many similarities that would need to be addressed. The angle of the letters, for instance. When you write, you hold the pen, your hand, and the paper in a fairly typical way and all the writing you do is at a given angle, give or take a little bit. The way they make certain letters or how the letters run together. The depth their writing presses into the paper. There are a lot of aspect that are similar. And, if anything, the signature is usually more rushed and automatic than the writing in a letter, for instance. In the case of the yearbook, it looked exactly the opposite to me…that the writing on the inscription was written far more quickly and loosely than the signature. Seems backward to me. But I’m not a handwriting expert, so I could be wrong.
I still don’t see how a yearbook entry, even if it were completely authored and signed by Moore, proves anything. I still see it as a really big stretch to get from “He signed my yearbook” to “He had a weird crush on me and attacked me.” As I previously mentioned, it could be something as simple as him basically giving an autograph that meant nothing to him. And the one thing no one has even addressed, is how this yearbook was supposedly on hand, at the diner, in December of 1977. The timeline seems really odd to me.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^No. Moore said he did not, ever know her. He clearly did. I don’t have the inscription in front of me, but it something about love. It had romantic intent, and desire. He didn’t sign a generic inscription. It was personal.

So. Moore lied about knowing her, and it’s no stretch to comprehend the inscription as romantic in nature, and therefore inappropriate/illegal due to the girl’s age at the time.

This is how crimes are investigated. So far, Moore was caught in a lie. The accuser hasn’t lied. She is being truthful. As some have mentioned above, she was simply documenting the time of the inscription. Let’s say, she added the date/place recently. Even then, it wouldn’t change the fact that Moore lied, and indeed had a relationship with her.

So. Again, we see a pattern, and profile with Moore. There isn’t a lot of physical evidence, due to the age of the claims. So. Personal testimony will be the primary focus. The yearbook is receiving so much attention, because it is hard evidence of Moore’s lie…

LostInParadise's avatar

@seawulf575 , What about Moore endears him to you? Is it the first time he was suspended from his judgeship, when he refused to take down a display of the Ten Commandments? Do you agree with him that he did nothing wrong, since we are a Christian nation, negating any silly need for separation of church and state?

How about the other time he was suspended, for refusing to allow for gay marriage? The bible is pretty clear on this matter. Do you think Moore did the right thing?

As to pre-Civil War time, the bible condones slavery, so how bad can it be?

Would you say Moore has the proper credentials for upholding the Constitution?

MrGrimm888's avatar

Moore’s political past, while reprehensible, is irrelevant to the thread.

This is in Social though. I’d be interested in a true response. The “I just want justice” argument doesn’t hold much water, to me. Especially given the way he went after Franken. The two threads show a polar opposite, in thinking…

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 The inscription was “To a sweeter more beautiful girl I could not say “Merry Christmas”. Honestly, yes, that could indicate some deep attraction, or it could just be something nice to write. Maybe when she asked him to sign her yearbook she was cute about it. And he may not have known her at all. He was a public figure and from what I can gather, quite popular with the community. Maybe she just thought it was cool to get him to sign her yearbook.
My point is that while you can read a lot into things, things might also be very simple. Let me ask…do you remember everyone whose yearbook you ever signed? If someone came up to you today claiming you had a relationship with them and used a yearbook entry as proof, would you necessarily know them? I know that back in the day I signed dozens and dozens of yearbooks and couldn’t, for the life of me, tell you who most of them were for today. Even if you gave me a name, I couldn’t say I really knew them all. He claimed he doesn’t know the woman. That could easily be true. You see it as him lying, I see it as potentially not. As for her lying, she toted out the yearbook as proof of their relationship. What in that shows relationship? It shows paths crossing. But beyond that, she initially showed the entire thing as proof. Then, when it came up that the the last part was not the same, she started saying she added it. Did she? Sure…why not? I can see why. But why not say that up front? There was a couple weeks of her swearing it was his handwriting and signature before she came out with this. You are right…that is part of investigation. When someone’s story changes, it should raise doubt. Another part that you are forgetting is that there are several people that have called her story into question for some pretty damning reasons. She claimed to have been 15 when she was working at the diner. The owner says she couldn’t have been since state laws limit working age to 16 and up. She claims Moore took her to the back of the diner where it was darker and secluded to attack her. But the owner has shown the diner as it is and claims that is how it has been…well lit, all sides readily visible from streets…not at all the picture she paints. Her own boyfriend from the time doubts her story. You are right…physical evidence will be non-existent in this case, so it will come down to as much character reference as anything else. With that in mind, her case is weakening significantly. And again, I question the timing of the yearbook. What yearbook comes out in November? Classes start in September (maybe late August) and the yearbook is full of pictures from throughout the year. How does it get filled with pictures, sent to the publisher, produced and get to the kids by November? The timeline doesn’t work for me.

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise I’m struggling here…do you not like Moore or do you just not like Christianity? Seems like the latter to me and Moore because he hasn’t gone against it fully.
Separation of Church and State: You know that isn’t part of the Constitution, right? The Constitution says that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Having a statue of the Ten Commandments is not establishing a religion. To call it unconstitutional is a gross exaggeration of the Constitution.
Gay Marriage: I believe if you look, Moore’s argument was that the states’ rights should decide that. Not a bad thing since it is not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government. To be honest, I question the legitimacy of the Obergefell decision. Justices Kagan and Ginsburg should have recused themselves as they both participated in gay marriages while that case was in their docket. It is a clear violation of the judicial ethics rules.

LostInParadise's avatar

I am not going to get into an argument over the constitutionality of the federal laws that Moore violated. Let’s set aside the constitutionality issue. As a judge, and as he would as senator, Moore is obligated to follow federal laws. His refusal to do so on two occasions makes highly questionable his ability to hold public office.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . My understanding of Alabama highschool yearbooks from 30 years ago, is not strong. I have said what I feel is relevant. I’ll stick with it…

chyna's avatar

@seawulg575 I have disagreed with most of what you have said on this topic. However, I must say that I was wondering about the timing of the yearbook myself. I agree that they are usually given out at the end of the school year in May or June. I’m sure this can be looked up by someone with more resources than I have at hand.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Tomorrow we will discover as we did with Trump whether the label “unfit for public office” is a relevant consideration in matters of political advancement. It’s no coincidence that Moore is a product of the most politically corrupt government the country has experienced. There was a time when the doings in Alabama might be dismissed as just another of those peculiar anomalies indigenous to backwater America. But the smug luxury afforded with not residing in Alabama can no
longer be taken for granted. Trump’s elevation to the Presidency forces consideration of the proposition that it is now the United States which finds itself relegated to backwater status. The raucous orange canary screeching incessantly from the coal mine of America is more than a hint regarding our probable future. If there’s any lesson regarding the voters of Alabama as bellweather for the nation et al it is that the consequences of endemic ignorance are predictably horrific. We live in a land now where the unspoken truth is that teaching is a career for losers. The “enlightened” view of this is if of course that the plight of our electorate is due to the machinations of the teachers’ unions. But never mind. My family’s passports are in order.

flutherother's avatar

@seawulf575 In the old days, when America was great, politicians were expected to be of upstanding character. Any hint of scandal, such as molesting teenage girls, would ruin a political career. The court of public opinion held public figures to a higher standard than any legal court. In the post Trump era things appear to be different but I don’t think that is a good thing.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I can remember kids having their yearbooks from previous years in school. Admittedly, that was usually in the early fall, after the summer break. Girls especially seemed to care more about them…

But it wasn’t unprecedented, to see previous year’s year books… I may have seen early copies, from people who were in the photo club, or something.

What I’ve never heard of, is a grown man calling a high school to ask out a girl student. That’s unprecedented…

Dutchess_III's avatar

I disagree @flutherother. The world was much more inclined to simply look the other way in the “old days.” Kennedy is a good example of that.

@MrGrimm888 I was hit on by a couple of teachers in High School. Again, they mostly just looked the other way unless it was an actual rape situation. In high school and middle school I was sexually harassed by adult men.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Dutch. First of all, sorry.

Secondly, I suppose I should have made my statement, a bit differently.

I should have said “What I’ve never heard of, is a grown man (that isn’t a sexual predator) calling a high school to ask out a girl.”

I wager, it’s that type of behavior that got the cops to be wary of him around malls.

flutherother's avatar

@Dutchess_III I would replace Trump with Kennedy in a minute if that were possible. Kennedy’s faults weren’t acceptable, that’s why they were kept hidden, but at least his numerous affairs were with consenting adults.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Oh so would I @flutherother. Hell, I’d put Bush Jr. back in the chair instead of Trump if I could.

I didn’t see where he actually called the high school, but I probably missed it. I don’t see how he could even do that @MrGrimm888. The school would be liable.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^I have read from multiple sources, that he had a thing for this girl who was in high school. He allegedly called the principal of the school, to get to talk to her. If I’m not mistaken, Moore has admitted to this. It may have been the 18 year old. At this point, I am admittedly losing track of all the allegations, and stories.

As always, I apologize for not being able to provide a link.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I just have a very hard time believing a school would do such a thing. I’ll do some looking around @MrGrimm888.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, found this.

What a slimy snake in the grass (and I still can’t believe the school pulled her out of class to talk to him…unless he lied about his reason for calling….)

MrGrimm888's avatar

If the story is correct, it would have been the principal, not the school. For all I know, it may have been some great honor to be courted by such a man…

It’s different nowadays.

My father’s first wife, was 13 years old. He, if memory serves, was 18. This was back in the 60’s…

He is not a politician. I have no idea how they met, or whatever. But I bet the girls parents were happy she “found a man.”

When I was 19, I dated a girl for about 4 months. We broke up. Never had Intercourse, thank god. Months later, I learned that she was only 15 years old. I also learned to ask girls how old they were, before trying to “talk” to them…

I won’t even speak with a underage girl now, unless it’s in a professional capacity, or she’s related to me.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 I worked with a guy that started dating an 18 year old girl. She was in his college class. He was close to 30. He asked her out and she agreed. After several dates, it finally came to light that she was still in high school, attending college classes as part of an advanced education program. She wasn’t misrepresenting herself, it just never came up before. It happens. I had another friend that was dating a girl. He was 21, she claimed to be 17. They went out on a couple dates. He went to pick her up one day and he met her dad. The dad handled everything well. He talk to my friend, asked his intentions, and then asked “Are you aware she is only 13 years old?” My friend was stunned. He didn’t and he left, never saw the girl again. Things like this go on all the time. That’s not to say they are right or not…just that they happen.

seawulf575's avatar

@flutherother you are right…politicians used to be held to a higher standard. And you can see it even in my life. Nixon was a criminal, but resigned rather than put the country through the ignominy of an impeachment. His actions were wrong, but he did the honorable thing. But if you go back in time, to Kennedy, he was a womanizer. It was just discrete. Johnson? A womanizer…it was just discrete. Flash forward to Bill Clinton. He was a womanizer and not discrete. Yet the media and the Dems defended him. In fact, anyone that spoke out about his behavior was branded as a hater, a prude, a Christian extremist, as being narrow minded, as getting all worked up just because he fooled around. So now, all of the sudden it is all wrong to be a womanizer again. And I do mean All Of The Sudden. Within the past year. And I disagree with you…I think it IS a good thing. We deserve representatives in our government that have morals. That hold themselves accountable for their actions.
Everybody does things wrong at some point in their life. I get it. But our elected leaders are basically criminals and we keep them in office. So who is to blame in all this?

Dutchess_III's avatar

I don’t think Kennedy or Johnson or anyone else were any more “discrete” than Clinton. No one made a big deal of it then. And it was between consenting adults.

It’s time we make a big deal out of it, especially when it comes to adults trying to take advantage of minors like Moore, especially when they damn well know they’re minors, or men sexually assaulting women, like Trump.

It’s not OK. It’s never been OK.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III You have to remember how the US was when Kennedy and Johnson were in office. The season of the “free love” hippies was just kicking off, but there were still a lot of ultra conservative people in the country. Divorce was frowned on and teen pregnancy was rare and doubly frowned on. The Presidents had their flings, but if you go back and look you can’t name one of the girls in the flings that were verified at that time. There were hints and allegations (such as Marilyn Monroe and John F. Kennedy), but it wasn’t a sure thing. You didn’t have them on the front pages of the newspapers or even the rags, having been caught in the act with their mistresses.
Flash forward to Bill Clinton. His indiscretions were legend before he was elected president and they only got more publicity afterward. To this day there are still claimants against him. Every newspaper and TV station plastered his story 24/7. Yet the adherents always try to justify it. You, yourself are doing it right now. You make a very good point…when adults take advantage of children or when they sexually assault women, we need to make a big deal out of it. There is a lot of indications that Clinton was involved with children through his frequent associations with Jeffry Epstein. Not to mention the 3? 4? 5? women that claimed he physically assaulted them, one of them claiming rape. Yet you fail to mention that at all. You can only focus on Moore and Trump. I’m with you…if Moore and Trump are found guilty then we need to hold them accountable. I make that same statement over and over. But the funny thing is…the ones that are so down on Moore and Trump always make excuses for Clinton or try to ignore it. There is far more evidence of Bill’s indiscretions that should be investigated and could be proven, yet the outrage is silent. Why is that?

MrGrimm888's avatar

^The outrage isn’t silent. Most of us supported Franken stepping down, once there was enough evidence.

I have never heard of Bill being with children. It doesn’t fit his profile either. I’m not saying that it’s impossible, but I thought I’d heard everything real, or concocted about Bill…

I don’t recall him being convicted of any sexual assaults. As far as I am aware, Bill’s actions were with consenting adults. Monica was clearly a trap. So she was consenting to do someone’s bidding…

There’s a huge difference, if they were all consenting. I know Republicans like to bring up all kinds of dirt on Bill, but the fact he hasn’t been convicted of anything, even with them looking for anything, convinces me that there was nothing to find. Just old, disproven allegations, and rumors.
Yeah. If the Republicans could have put Bill in prison, they would have stopped at nothing…

MollyMcGuire's avatar

She also said she signed his name. She belongs in jail. I hope he sues her; she certainly acted with malice.

seawulf575's avatar

^ You have heard of Jeffry Epstein and his Lolita Express? This is the same guy that the left has been struggling to attach to Trump because he took a ride on the plane once, to get from FL to NY. Bill Clinton rode that plane all over the world…20 times. He has been to Epstein’s island a number of times. Yet even though Trump got a ride once, suddenly there is all sorts of innuendo that he is a pedophile, and crickets chirping about Clinton.
Clinton never was convicted of sexual assault. Because no one would investigate. But look at Juanita Broadrick, Kathleen Willey, or even Paula Jones (when Clinton was just governor). All with very convincing, unwavering stories. Jones even took him to court and he settled out of court for $850,000.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/us/politics/bill-clinton-sexual-misconduct-debate.html

You are right…he was never convicted of anything. But then neither was Moore. So what is the difference? You are willing to give Bill a pass because he wasn’t “convicted”. Why not give Moore a pass since he hasn’t even been investigated? You blind support of Clinton just proves what I was saying to @DutchessIII.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Just because I don’t think someone is a child rapist, doesn’t mean that I “blindly support” them… What a foolish thing to say…

@MollyMcGuire . When did she say she signed his name?

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 sorry, you don’t blindly support him. You just make excuses and ignore the bad stuff when it comes to Clinton. Let me rephrase the aspect…let’s say Trump repeatedly rode on the Lolita Express, visited the island of children with his billionaire buddy, was accused of multiple sexual assault cases as well as many more cases of philandering,, (including Troopergate), and oh, and he had an affair with a girl that was totally consensual. What would your response be then? Just that he had consensual sex with a girl? That he wasn’t CONVICTED of anything? Or would you, like you were with Roy Moore, be all over him? Now I stand by my stance, that he should be innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be thoroughly investigated. But that goes against liberals everywhere. It’s okay to be a rapist and pedophile if you are a liberal darling, but not if you are anyone else…that seems to be the attitude.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@seawulf575

Okay let’s blame Barry Obama for Trump traveling on Epstein’s plane ^

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . The allegations against Bill, must be old. With Republicans matching your unwarranted disdain for Bill, they would have buried him long ago, if there was something/anything… I believe that they did investigate his every possibly criminal behavior. You keep saying things like “but liberals wouldn’t stand for it. That goes against liberals everywhere etc…”

Liberals don’t have any say in what gets investigated. All liberals, that I know, have supported Franken’s departure.

I say that your claims that dems don’t get investigated, or care about sexual misconduct are FAKE NEWS

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 tell that to Juanita Broadrick or Kathleen Willey.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 the times they are a changin. No one is going to waste any time today investigating Clinton, because he’s out of the political game. The GOP had plenty of dirt on Clinton regarding his womanizing proclivities. The problem for Republicans was the unspoken agreement among politicians and the press as well that sexual matters were off limits when it came to both politicking and reporting. Clinton’s problem was that the rules shifted under him while he was in office. Now it’s no holds barred.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly And THAT is exactly what I am talking about. “Oh, it doesn’t matter since he isn’t in the political game.” Yes, he is, because Hillary is. And since when does your position make a difference on sexual assault? See? You guys continue to downplay his attacks, don’t even want to look into them. Weinstein and Spacey are getting crucified because of things they did years ago. It apparently still matters even after years for them. You have trashed Moore repeatedly about things that he allegedly did 40 years ago. So time matters. And I agree…look into these things. I’m good with that. If a woman has a case, let her present it and do the investigation. But that seems to be too much to ask when the last name is Clinton. The media has no problem trying to build innuendo about Trump being a pedophile because of one flight on the “Lolita Express”, yet they ignore the 20+ trips Bill Clinton took.
Even when there are women saying they were children serving on that plane, it is somehow okay so that we don’t even want to investigate? What’s that matter? Afraid they would actually find proof that Slick Willy was actually a rapist and it might hurt Hillary’s chances later on?
Until you can all be honest, all your tripe about Trump, Moore, or anyone else is just hot air. Your hypocrisy takes all the sting out of it.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Hillary isn’t in office or running for anything either. Spacey and Weinstein, liberals both, now find their careers in the toilet. Had Moore NOT been after that Senate seat, his pedophile tendencies would have remained little more than local knowledge. It isn’t liberal bias which hinders any excitement from me about chasing down Clinton. I just don’t care any more if Kennedy was screwin Marilyn in the White House. I’ve forgotten the name of whichever Republican Congrssman was disgraced for propositioning little boys in airport restrooms, though if he runs again for any public office, you can bet your ass that the matter will be brought up. I’m not saying that it doesn’t matter if people behave badly. What I’m saying is that there is no liberal conspiracy to keep Clinton out of jail or for that matter to put Trump and Moore in jail.

seawulf575's avatar

And what I’m saying is that the outrage about one person because they are a sexual predator because they are running for office and being neutral about another because they aren’t is hypocritical. What you are saying is that it isn’t the crime that upsets you, its all about how it can be used as a weapon. Thanks for clearing that up.

flutherother's avatar

@seawulf575 The outrage is because many people, me included, feel that a history of molesting under age girls is incompatible with holding public office and the only hypocrite in this miserable affair is Roy Moore.

seawulf575's avatar

@flutherother so tell me…what is molesting under aged girls compatible with?

stanleybmanly's avatar

the office of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (in Alabama)

flutherother's avatar

Time in jail.

seawulf575's avatar

@flutherother If it is compatible with time in jail, then why the support of Clinton? He is involved with even worse than Moore, so why is everyone so afraid of to bring that up? Why is everyone so afraid to call for an investigation? Why is everyone looking the other way?
That is why this group continues to fail in my eyes…why I continue to call you all hypocrites. You get all self-righteous about Moore. He’s a pedophile! He’s a sexual predator! You get all self-righteous about Trump. He flew on the Lolita Express with his billionaire buddy! Women have accused him of sexual assault!! Yet when it comes to Clinton, who is known to have flown repeatedly on the Lolita Express which is known to have had underaged girls in attendance for whatever the passengers might want, who is known to have spent time with Epstein on his island where underaged girls were known to have been turned into sex slaves, who has had more women accuse him of molesting them…even raping them…than anyone else you can name….when it comes to THAT, you all suddenly start trying to downplay it. Every one of you. “He isn’t a public official” seems to be the best excuse. You, yourself, just said it. The outrage is because those crimes aren’t compatible with public office. But when I ask what they are compatible with, you say time in jail. So why are you trying to support Bill Clinton so much while you are down on everyone else? Because he is a Liberal and a Democrat seems to be the only reason. And THAT is why all the blustering about punishments for Moore, and investigations into Trump come off to me as total hypocrisy, and they hold zero credibility.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Well. You’re just seeing something that isn’t there.

We repeatedly support investigation, and/or punishment of liberals as well. If there’s anything there. If the dems are still going after Moore, with nothing to show for it, in 20 years, then you have a comparison. Bill.has been thoroughly investigated. Why you refuse to accept that, is beyond me. There was even a trap set, that Bill walked right into. Monica was doing somebody’s dirty work, to bring Bill down. Instead of a coup, everyone now knows her for one thing. She hates it, but she shouldn’t have made a deal with whichever devil.

Sorry. Bill is innocent, and he was an excellent president. Far better than anything the Republican party has produced, in my life anyways. He even managed his effectiveness, while dealing with the GOP calling for his head, daily. What a great man. Perhaps The Republicans are jealous. I don’t blame them…

Obama was even better. Probably would have made this country even better, if he wasn’t constantly hamstrung, by a sore loser GOP, and stuck with the remnants of G.W’s failed, “lets try to destroy the world” tour…

By your own logic, if Bill “probably” did terrible things on that plane, then Trump is just as guilty. Thank you for shedding your blatant hypocrisy, and coming to your senses.

I find it interesting how Obama didn’t really bother to justify many of the stupid accusations about him. Bill tried to squirm at first, but eventually faced the music. Both were not little whinny bitches, screaming “fake news.” They just rolled with the punches, and still got the job done, albeit with some more grey hairs…

Indeed. Being a politician, opens you, and your past, to harsh criticism. Something Trump should have considered, before crying like a baby every day about it…

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 Which sexual predator running for office have we ignored in our zeal to pile up on Moore?

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 Sorry boss….your logic doesn’t hold. Clinton was NOT thoroughly investigated. Troopergate was NEVER investigated. Juanita Broaddrick was NEVER investigated. And Paula Jones was paid off almost a million dollars to drop her lawsuit.
Another failure you have is the comparison to Bill “probably” doing terrible things. As I have mentioned repeatedly, you failed jellies continually convict Roy Moore on innuendo and nothing more. Additionally, the left has repeatedly tried to smear Trump because he took one ride on the Lolita Express and there is no indication that anything happened. Yet many of these jellies have called him a pedophile because of it. They want him tossed out of office or for him to resign in part because of it. It is the EXACT claim that I am calling on Bill Clinton, and all of you are springing to his defense. You as well as many of these jellies have called Mueller’s investigation a good one, even though it has no focus other than to go find something. You all think it is a great idea to investigate until you find something. Yet when I mention Bill Clinton and many, many serious allegations, you all drop back and claim he was investigated (false) and that he is no longer in office (irrelevant unless you really don’t mind sex crimes), and claim there is nothing there. He was an EXCELLENT president…wasn’t that it? Excellent except for being a seriously potential sexual predator and pedophile. But, of course, that doesn’t matter since he is a Democrat.
As for your inane summation of Bill trying to squirm at first but eventually facing the music, all I can ask is “Really?!?”. Yeah, he tried to squirm at first, then faced the music. But somewhere along the way, he perjured himself and used the power of the office of the president to block investigation. Remember the charges for which he was impeached? Yeah, those. Just another example of how the left rewrites history to make their heroes seem so much more upstanding than they really were.
Meanwhile, I have repeatedly stated that when we find crimes like this, if they are serious enough, should be investigated. I don’t limit it to one party or another. I call for fair, unencumbered investigations and I allow the accused the right to have the charges proven before they are considered guilty. Sorry, old boy, claiming I am showing hypocrisy in this matter is nothing more than liberal projectionism. I call you all hypocrites and give you solid examples and your response is to call me a hypocrite and try to rewrite history to make it so. As I stated before, as long as you all refuse to consider that an investigation into Bill Clinton is warranted, all your claims of sexual misconduct against Trump and Moore are nothing more than hot air.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I don’t bother to call you a hypocrite. It’s rather your interpretations of the facts and the conclusions you draw that I find indigestible. You label me a hypocrite for not endorsing a full scale investigation of Clinton while favoring a full court press press on Moore and Trump. You’re all over the map with wild accusations that Obama must be investigated for trampling the Constitution, etc. In all of these discussions you assume that our indifference to your insistence on the prosecution of bygone Democrats proves our hypocrisy. If that is the case, then we are right in line with the bulk of the population including the Republican party. Answer me this. What is the utility in investigating Clinton who is certainly free of any criminal culpability due to statutes of limitations. Moore and Trump are on the hot seat because they are current. In fact, Moore is no longer on the hot seat and I am not going to bother labeling you a hypocrite if you don’t insist that money now be thrown away running him to ground. What would be the point?

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . Calm down buddy. You’re taking this awful personally, for a Russian agent. Maybe you could go take a break, and spread fake news on Facebook…

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@seawulf575 I don’t think it okay for a Judge/almost US Senator to play with little girls pee-pees.

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie I agree. But you don’t seem to have a problem that the same accusation applies to Clinton. I guess it’s okay for an ex-president, even though he was a president at the time. I’m trying to figure out where the distinction is. The only one I can come up with is that Clinton is on the side of liberals, whereas Moore isn’t. So what you are all telling me is that laws and investigations should be done solely on the basis of your political slant.

LostInParadise's avatar

Okay, let’s impeach Clinton again. Done! He will never again serve as president. Now let’s do the same to Trump.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@seawulf575 Clinton was a horn dog with consenting women, not little girls.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly Yes, I call you a hypocrite and your response proves it even more. We shouldn’t waste time investigating Clinton! If he did anything it’s long past the statute of limitations!! Yet it was more recent than anything Moore is being accused of. You want to go after Trump, but the same story applies. He was accused of raping a 13 year old….in 1994. Of course the case was dropped by the complainant. But Bill was flying around with Epstein a LOT between 2001 ad 2003.
Now, let me educate you a little further. Epstein’s “Orgy Island” is in the US Virgin Islands. There is NO statute of limitations on rape in the US Virgin Islands. It doesn’t exist. So no, Bill is not past that time.

https://apps.rainn.org/policy/policy-crime-definitions.cfm?state=Virgin%20Islands&group=7

Meanwhile, in Alabama, the best that any of the claimants can hope for is a smear job. They can go for a civil law suit EXCEPT…it is past the statute of limitations. They all admit he didn’t rape them, so it is a sexual abuse charge. Unfortunately for them, in the case involving a minor, they only have 2 years from their 19th birthday to file. So these 40 year old claims are bogus to start with, only an effort to smear what is probably a good man.

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/alabama-statutes-of-limitations-for-sexual-abuse.html

Yes, your attempts to justify your sad, sick opinions continue to show your hypocrisy. You don’t care about the women, you don’t care about little girls getting raped. You only care if you can find a way to pin it on a conservative. But please, continue to prove my point for me again and again and again. Your buddies that don’t care about facts will continue to support your unfounded fantasies and will join you in ignoring facts and logic. And that is about all you can get from liberals….fantasies.

chyna's avatar

So these 40 year old claims are bogus to start with, only an effort to smear what is probably a good man.
@seawulf575 There is no way you will ever know these are bogus claims.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 thank you for the education. But now it’s your turn for a little lecture. It doesn’t matter one iota if the Territory of the Virgin Islands has no statute of limitations, UNLESS it is the territory itself which chooses to prosecute Clinton. And there isn’t a chance in hell (justified or not) that the territory will assume the expense required to investigate Clinton. The Congress can investigate whatever it wants, but there is no question that Clinton is beyond the reach of ANY Federal statute concerning an alleged rape some 30— 40 years ago. So once again, how would you punish Slick Willy? Finally, let me leave you with the thought that it might be a bad idea to go around corraling ex Presidents for past mistakes. For example, in the event that the Democrats should gain control of the Congress, I would NOT be in favor of Bush being investigated for lying about WMDs.

seawulf575's avatar

@chyna by the logic of your fellow jellies, they are bogus claims. What do the hope to gain? Isn’t that the excuse for not looking into Clinton? The statute of limitations has gone by, they can’t even get a civil case through the courts, so the only purpose is a smear campaign. In other words, the cases aren’t worth looking at and are, therefore, bogus.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly Ahhh….so now your argument is that, even though there is a potential crime having been committed by Slick Willy, and the statute of limitations is still alive and well, he is above any recriminations because he fled the jurisdiction of the location the crime was committed? As for your exaggerated time line, I already told you he was a frequent flier with Epstein and visited his VI island multiple time between 2001 and 2003. That isn’t 30 to 40 years ago. It is 14 to 16 years ago. But I understand it sounds better for you if it is 30 to 40. But the kicker there is that your same argument, that it happened so long ago, you entirely negate when the name being discussed is Moore. You are a hypocrite, my friend. Until you can pick one side of the argument and stick with it, you will just dig deeper.
As for corralling ex-presidents for past mistakes, you amuse me! I feel like I have won this argument because you used Bush! Granted, you had to go W-A-A-A-Y out of the topic to do it, but you did it. Good job. But we aren’t talking about past mistakes. We are talking about actual criminal offenses…prosecutable offenses. What actual crime did Bush commit? He didn’t. If you want to say he lied, I will list you all sorts of lies, significant lies, that Obama told during his tenure. But the topic is sexual assault, not politicians lies.

stanleybmanly's avatar

You have a very unfortunate habit of drawing absurd conclusions from my declarations. Let me make my position clear so that you may once again deform it to suit your bewildering tastes. l am indifferent to whether or not Clinton is investigated. If you go back through this or ANY OTHER THREAD, you will not discover a single example of ME declaring that Clinton should NOT be investigated. What I have made clear is the reasons why he certainly will not. As fate would have it, I believe my attitude parallels that of the Republican Congress as well as the Department of Justice of the Virgin Islands. I ask you for the 3rd time: How would you propose to punish Slick Willy? Your mule headed insistence on ignoring pertinent arguments through stretching them to bizarre and irrelevant conclusions weakens any case you may believe you have. Once again, this is my position. No one is going to bother with investigating Clinton as long as he is neither serving in office nor running for office. This is true of Clinton. It is true for Moore. The Senate ethics committee is perfectly free to even now investigate Moore. NOW PAY ATTENTION: The fact that you may not feel that the committee should waste its time or MY money on such an investigation does NOT make you a hypocrite. The analogy holds perfectly for Clinton, and any argument to the contrary only serves to prove that you can’t distinguish a hypocrite from the hole in your head.

stanleybmanly's avatar

And by the way, it wouldn’t matter if Clinton isn’t in the jurisdiction. And I don’t know what possible logic circuit allows you to assign such an interpretation to what I have written. Any fool of a V I prosecutor is welcome to call for an indictment of Clinton, though such a move would almost certainly end the zealous man (or woman’s) career.

Love_my_doggie's avatar

The OP continues to beat a dead horse. Perhaps he should ride it to the polls instead.

stanleybmanly's avatar

yes and I’m a fool for joining him in flailing the carcass.

seawulf575's avatar

Oh @stanleybmanly you make it so easy! “Answer me this. What is the utility in investigating Clinton who is certainly free of any criminal culpability due to statutes of limitations.” Gee…that sounds just like you are saying Clinton should not be investigated. Yet as soon as you are cornered you try denying your own words. Own it. You are a hypocrite. You try using one argument against Moore, but deny it when it comes to Clinton. You make rash statements about statute of limitations that are patently false and when clocked, you try making excuses about why he shouldn’t be prosecuted or even investigated. Until you can apply your own arguments to both Moore and Clinton, you will always be a hypocrite.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Why do you APPROVE of pedophiles?

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 Instead of lecturing me on what “it sounds like”, why not just answer the question as it stands. What is to be achieved through investigating Clinton? For the 4th time, how would you punish Slick Willy?

stanleybmanly's avatar

What are you talking about? You really should pay attention. I have been applying EXACTLY the same argument to Clinton and Moore. I have been insisting that it is now a waste of time and money for a public investigation of either man and you haven’t noticed? There is nothing rash about ANY statement I have made and YOU know it. You have “clocked” nothing beyond betraying your own ignorance as usual. My comment on statutes of limitations was aboutt Federal limits, because YOU are attempting to justify a Federal investigation. The fact you are ignorant of the distinction between Federal and Territorial jurisdictions is not MY fault.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly You want an answer? fine. Investigate him, just as you and everyone else wants to investigate Trump or Moore. If evidence if found, Arrest him, ship him back to the VI and let him stand trial. He has every bit as much pointing to him being a pedophile as Trump or Moore. More in fact. This is the same thing I would claim for any of these people. Trump had two women come forward with wild claims of his debauchery. Neither one was credible. Yet you good folks on the left claim he is a pedophile and should be resign. Meanwhile, on identical evidence, you are willing to give Clinton a pass. You have said it yourself…you only want these cases for their political weaponization. Trump is in office, Bill is not. That is the only difference to you. So you don’t really care about the women or children, just how they can be used against a Conservative politician.
As for the statute of limitations on Federal and Territorial jurisdictions, let me help you with that. First off, you never claimed a federal statute of limiitations until now. you merely claimed a statute of limitations. After I shot holes all through that claim, you now want to claim you meant the federal statute of limitations. Okay, let’s play that game. I’ve already stated the territorial jurisdictions. This addresses the statute of limitations on rape (which sex with a child falls under) in the military. At the time we are talking, Clinton was president and therefore commander-in-chief of the military so it should apply.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/843

Want to try claiming that as president he doesn’t fall under military jurisdiction? Okay, then this applies

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf

And, oh yeah, there is no statute of limitations for sex with a minor. So Wild Bill can still be prosecuted in a federal court for the crimes committed. But I understand that there is no political gain and that is all that matters, right?

Sorry mister. The fact you are ignorant of federal and territorial rules concerning statute of limitations doesn’t make you any less wrong.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I’m giving you a GA just this once.

Strauss's avatar

@seawulf …Clinton was president and therefore commander-in-chief of the military so it should apply.

Although POTUS is commander-in-chief of the military, it is a civilian position, and therefore not governed under military law.

stanleybmanly's avatar

And was he President when the fantasy crimes supposedly took place?

seawulf575's avatar

@Strauss that is why I also cited the civilian version of the law that applies to statute of limitations.

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie That is the question I am asking all your confederates. I’m all for trashing all the pedophiles. If Trump is found to have participated in sexual orgies with children, burn him. But the problem with you and your buddies on this site is that you cannot look at Clinton the same way. You can only scream for punishment when it involves a conservative and try playing it off when it is a liberal. Pedophilia is just wrong. I don’t care what political slant a person has, if they are participating in it they need to be held to the strongest punishment the law can provide.

seawulf575's avatar

^yes, shake your head, but don’t call for equal justice. Continue to support the pedophile.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Clinton was not a pedophile. Why are these things so hard for you to understand @seawulf575 ?

stanleybmanly's avatar

No one is supporting him. We just disagree with your premise. Climb down from your pulpit and take a breath. The statement that it would presently be a waste of time investigating Clinton is NOT an endorsement for pedophilia.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III and @stanleybmanly I will agree with you as long as you will agree Moore and Trump aren’t pedophiles as well. After all, all any of them have is accusations. And if you want an investigation into Trump and Moore, you should want one into Clinton as well since he has even more circumstantial proof against him. See, the problem is that everyone on these pages has no problem slamming Moore or Trump, calling them pedophiles, yet when it comes to Clinton they defend him. The defining characteristic is that if a Republican/Conservative is accused of something, you view him as automatically guilty. Yet if the same evidence, or even more evidence, is given against a Democrat/Liberal, you defend him, claiming he isn’t guilty, it has never been proven, etc. See the hypocrisy?

stanleybmanly's avatar

You are sitting by yourself because you refuse to accept that the actual incentive for investigating these people rests on their holding or seeking of public office. How many liberals do you believe are now pressing for an in depth investigation of Moore? How many of your conservative allies now want to squander resources looking into Franken’s past?

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly You once again prove you don’t care about the victims at all…just if the events can be used as political weapons. thank you for playing.

Dutchess_III's avatar

The evidence suggests they are pedophiles. It’s evidence based redacted

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III The evidence against Trump was weak to start with…one woman that was debunked and another that pulled her accusation before it went to court. The evidence against Moore is even weaker. But the evidence against Clinton is far more circumstantial than either of them. Yet everyone seems to want to give him a pass…...

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . ” You once again prove you don’t care about the victims at all…” Now you can use your favorite word to describe yourself, hypocrite. Thanks for playing….

MrGrimm888's avatar

In case you can’t understand that, keep in mind that you started this very thread to discredit a potential victim. HYPOCRITE

stanleybmanly's avatar

Would you for God’s sake PLEASE stop jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 I have maintained all along that if it were proven that Trump or Moore were proven to be guilty, they should be burned and burned hard. But that doesn’t mean that every accusation is proof nor that the burden of proof is on the accused. However, you and the rest of your fellow jellies don’t share my penchant for fairness. If you go back and look, I’m only taking your exact accusations and claims and substituting Clinton for Trump or Moore. They all have the same accusations and circumstantial hints. I’m not saying Bill is guilty, in fact I have stated that his accusers bear the burden of proof as well. But you all take accusations as proof when it comes to republicans or conservatives, yet discount it when it comes to Clinton. You take circumstantial hints as proof against Trump, yet when those exact same circumstantial hints are against Clinton, it suddenly falls apart. As long as you all attack me, asking why I support pedophiles, I will respond in kind and will call you hypocrites. As long as you try branding Trump and Moore on hints and allegations I will remind you of those exact same things and how they apply to Clinton and will call you hypocrites. As soon as one of you actually comes out and says that Clinton, based on the circumstances should be investigated or that Trump and Moore should be considered innocent until proven guilty (a foundation of our nation, but one that is missing in Marxist and Fascist countries), As soon as that happens I will be glad to agree with you and will stop calling you hypocrites. Until then, wear your badge with pride since you seem to take pride in being extremely narrow minded and biased.

Dutchess_III's avatar

We’re getting there. They’ll burn. Wheels of justice move slowly.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 I agree that Moore and Trump are not proven sexual predators. Where I and the rest of the world disagree with YOU is about the proposition that a sitting President should be immune from investigation until past Presidents suspected of similar offenses are subjected to the same treatment. It should not be necessary to point out the absurdity of such a claim.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@hypocrite575 . Your assessment of your rhetoric, is quite incorrect. This question, along with any that you have asked, has a predetermined agenda. You only want to bash the left, in each “flamebait” question you submit. And any contributions you make on a thread involving politics, you can’t live without bringing up Hillary, Bill, or Obama. You’re predictability, points to an unwavering hatred of liberals, and support for the GOP, and whether you admit it or not, the POTUS. Don’t sit here and claim yourself as an unbiased person. Do you really think that any of us thought that anything would change your mind, the way ours changed about Franken?

You started this thread to discredit a victim. Your wording was deliberate, and clearly slanted against the victim. You hold Moore’s story as scripture, but work hard to find cracks in anything that doesn’t make the victims liars, or part of some left wing conspiracy.

I don’t believe that this question, nor any of your others, are anything but flamebait, or poorly camouflaged traps.

When people call you on anything, you resort to Trump’s victim strategy. You’re not. You get push back, because people are sick of hearing about your recycling of baseless right wing propaganda.

There are many ways you could have phrased this question, but you chose the way you did. Don’t go lecturing others about not caring about the victim. You have an obvious disdain for her, and any others who would dare point out issues with your right wing leaders. Yet you assume all victims of Bill, or any dem’s must be true. I know you claim to see the opposite, but the wording of your questions, and clear political leanings make that argument incapable of holding water…

seawulf575's avatar

@Mrhypocrite I understand, you don’t want to hear any opposing view points. It makes you uncomfortable. HEY EVERYONE! Make sure you bounce your ideas off MrGrimm before you post. We don’t want to make him uncomfortable.
As I mentioned before, and have repeated over and over, I don’t have any particular feelings one way or the other for Moore. What I do have is an abiding disgust with everyone that feels that anyone is guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Anyone. In this particular case, I feel the “victim” is hurting her own burden of proof, and just queried if anyone else felt that way. This group has a large contingent that feeds on one another when it comes to hatred of conservatives. They continually put forth that Moore should drop out for being a pedophile. He should be prosecuted for being a pedophile and a sexual predator. Want the proof? Okay, your own words. You claim I started this thread to discredit a victim. I see that I started this thread to point out how an accuser was discrediting herself. Until her accusation is proven, she hasn’t graduated to being a victim. Then, when I see something that I believe is the beginning of an accusation unraveling, I ask to see if there are any out there that might alter their thinking at all. Call it flamebait if you like, I really don’t care. I call that an attempt at censoring a voice. Don’t like my questions? Feel like they are just trying to stir the pot? Then don’t participate. But when you do participate, I feel I have the right to respond.
What I find the most amusing is that when I lay it out for you and you cannot argue, you come out with responses like this that are nothing more than personal attacks. You have done that repeatedly.
You say I hate liberals? You are right. I find them, for the most part, pompous, arrogant, ignorant, illogical, insanely biased, suppressive, racist, rude and boorish. I find their blind hatred of everything non-liberal to be disturbing. I find the liberal influence in our government to be one of the most destructive threats we face. It is the liberals that have really helped create the idea that there are two sets of laws…one for libs and one for everyone else. And to further answer you, I have never claimed to be a fan of liberals nor unbiased towards them. What I have claimed is that I have no problem holding all people to the same standards. I don’t care about party lines nor supposed ideology. If someone breaks the law, they should be punished. I have stated that corruption in our government should be dealt with harshly and have never limited it to only one party. And from those aspects I believe I am head an shoulders above the liberal contingent on these pages in the area of being unbiased.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 your description of the liberals you hate sounds like a great summation of Trump. Except for the boorish part, which I don’t find politically relevant, and you would have had to add greedy. It was nice to hear you express yourself clearly, instead of trying to set poorly designed traps. I bet that was therapeutic. And I can respect that.

Important.
I apologize if you inferred that I meant that you shouldn’t ask questions, or respond. I was attempting to point out the obvious pattern in your participation. Not censor you. Despite what you think I think, I am happy that you are part of our collective pond.

As for your self-righteous claim to be above the liberal jellies, in terms of bias, let’s just say I disagree…

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 my last post pretty much repeated everything I have stated all along and with which you and all the other liberal jellies have argued against. I’m not really supporting one side or the other. The reason it looks that way is because you all vehemently condemn Republicans and conservatives and Trump without a shred of proof and only innuendo and accusations to go on. I am calling for logic and equality in how we deal with our leaders. I have no problem slamming Trump…I have done it many times before. If he is found guilty of some crime, I have no problem calling for his punishment. But on the other side, it drives me nuts to see the same people slamming these people, defending others that have the same basis for crimes, only because they are Dems/Liberals. Trump has been called a pedophile in this thread. And the same people that have claimed that have demurred at considering Clinton in the same way, even though the evidence is actually stronger against Clinton. I hate the bias, and that is all it is. Blind bias. In my mind, if you are willing to state that Trump or Moore are pedophiles and should be punished for it on the weak evidence currently present, you should also include Clinton in that group. If you feel there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation into Trump or Moore, you ought to be calling for an investigation into Clinton. Punishment and investigations are done to help support victims get justice. In these cases, it is all purported to be underaged girls. So if you are only calling for a look at Trump or Moore, you are saying, in effect, that you really don’t care about the victims, you don’t care about the crimes. You only want to use these accusations as political weapons to drive the liberal agenda. There can be no other way to look at it. That is pretty low in my book and it pisses me off.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^As I said before, I am under the impression that Bill has had all his rocks turned over. If there is anything else that needs to be looked at, they should. And I have strong faith that none of us would support any cover ups, or lack of due diligence, in regards to investigation of any crimes, regardless of a person’s political leanings.

Dutchess_III's avatar

From your link @MollyMcGuire :

True: Beverly Young Nelson acknowledged that she had added annotations to Moore’s 1977 inscription and signature in her high school yearbook.

False: Nelson did not admit that she “forged” either the inscription Moore wrote or his accompanying signature.

When you “forge” a signature the goal is to make it look like the other person’s handwriting. That looks nothing like Moore’s handwriting. She just added that for whatever silly teenage reason.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther