Roy Moore, OJ Simpson, And why I don't believe you.

[musterion]

The story, if true, would likely not unseat a judge.

But let that judge try running for Senate and it's time to spring that story.

There is NO WAY people who would use this story as a political weapon did not know about it before now. Moore has made way too many enemies.

Besides, the GOP, half of the Uniparty, wants Moore gone as much as Democrats do. That's why I'm really interested to see what, if anything, McConnell says about Franken, a SEATED Senator.

 

[musterion]

As for the mall banning thing, this is as close as Wikipedia gets to evidence:

Multiple locals recounted having heard that Moore had been banned from the Gadsden Mall due to his pursuits of teenage girls there.

Heresay.

 

[musterion]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/score...-senators-stand-on-al-franken/article/2010508

Not one Democrat, so far, calls on Franken to resign.

 

[kmoney]

So was he banned from the mall as the article implies or was he run off of select stores?

Not sure. The latter seems more likely.

 

[kmoney]

There is NO WAY people who would use this story as a political weapon did not know about it before now. Moore has made way too many enemies.

So, people who would make it a political weapon didn't know and the people now aren't using it as a political weapon? :think:

Besides, the GOP, half of the Uniparty, wants Moore gone as much as Democrats do. That's why I'm really interested to see what, if anything, McConnell says about Franken, a SEATED Senator.

Do you think that McConnell would rather have a Democrat than Moore? The only way that would make sense to me is with the idea that they could more easily replace Jones after 1 term than replace Moore, but that's a risk when the Republicans are trying to make the most of their time with Trump and both houses. I'd wager that Moore is still better than a Democrat.

 

[kmoney]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/score...-senators-stand-on-al-franken/article/2010508

Not one Democrat, so far, calls on Franken to resign.

A lot about an ethics investigation. I guess the photo isn't enough.

Is there a scorecard for what these people have said about Moore? I've seen more about Republicans condemning Moore than Democrats.

 

[annabenedetti]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/dont-be-so-quick-to-expel-roy-moore-from-the-senate

Over the last 48 hours, Republicans have been abandoning Roy Moore in droves. Last night on his Fox News show, Moore dead-ender Sean Hannity put Moore under a 24-hour deadline to prove his innocence or drop out of the race. In this climate it’s now widely assumed that should he be elected Moore either will be or should be expelled from the Senate over the multiple accusations of pursuing and in some cases assaulting teenage girls in the 1980s. .... But we’re dealing here with issues which must be given due weight and consideration apart from Moore’s alleged crimes. Our entire constitutional system is based on duly constituted elections for public officials. The ability for a house of Congress to expel one of its own members is a power so great that it contains within it the power to overturn our entire system of government. Our whole system of government is based on the idea that the people of individual states decide who will represent them in the Senate rather than the Senate deciding who will or won’t represent a given state. Yes, there are exceptions. And yes, the constitution explicitly gives the Senate the power to expel members. But the history is instructive. Fifteen senators have been expelled from the Senate in the history of the country. All of them were expelled for what amounted to treason and sedition. Fourteen of those were expelled in 1861 and 1862 for supporting the Confederacy. The one remaining was expelled in 1797 for conspiracy and treason tied to inciting the British to invade Spanish Florida. Each of the fifteen was expelled for treason, making war against the country itself, something that makes legitimately being a part of the government an impossibility. In fairness, twice in recent history, the Senate committee which reviews these matters recommended a senator for expulsion but the senators in question resigned before the Senate could vote. This was Harrison Williams in 1982 (bribery conviction in Abscam) and Bob Packwood for a long history of sexual harassment as Senator. I think proceedings may have also begun against John Ensign who got charged with financial crimes tied to an affair. But I’m not certain. In any case, he resigned. Packwood’s case is the most analogous. The Senate was preparing to expel him for a number of reasons. But they were all reasons rooted in a long history of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct. I don’t remember every particular but I believe there were numerous instances that would now be classed as assault. (What happened in Packwood’s case was that he kept a diary in which he detailed it all.) But those were things he did as a Senator and more or less right up to the point he was about to be booted. As I noted above, Senators have only been expelled from the Senate for sedition. Others who resigned from the Senate under threat of expulsion did so because they had been convicted of crimes or were found by the Senate to have violated rules as a senator. ... Having said all this, I’m not saying definitively that it would be wrong to expel Moore. What concerns me is that it is being treated as a simple and obvious expedient when it is, in fact, a completely unprecedented move and highly questionable in terms of the precedent it sets regardless of Moore’s past crimes. The party at issue here isn’t Moore. It’s Alabama voters. The polls released since this scandal broke do not show them in a very good light at all. But voters have a perfect right to be terrible.

Thanks kmo, that's where I read it.

I'd forgotten about Bob Packwood.

Packwood's political career began to unravel in November 1992, when a Washington Post story detailed claims of sexual abuse and assault from ten women, chiefly former staffers and lobbyists.^[31] Publication of the story was delayed until after the 1992 election, as Packwood had denied the allegations and the Post had not gathered enough of the story at the time.^[32][33] Packwood defeated Democrat Les AuCoin 52.1% to 46.5%. Eventually 19 women would come forward.^[34]

 

[musterion]

So, people who would make it a political weapon didn't know and the people now aren't using it as a political weapon? :think:

Can you read?

Do you think that McConnell would rather have a Democrat than Moore?

Yes.

 

[musterion]

A lot about an ethics investigation. I guess the photo isn't enough.

More to it than just the pic. And now there's a 2nd woman.

Is there a scorecard for what these people have said about Moore? I've seen more about Republicans condemning Moore than Democrats.

Morals isn't the reason.

 

[ClimateSanity]

So, people who would make it a political weapon didn't know and the people now aren't using it as a political weapon? :think:


Do you think that McConnell would rather have a Democrat than Moore? The only way that would make sense to me is with the idea that they could more easily replace Jones after 1 term than replace Moore, but that's a risk when the Republicans are trying to make the most of their time with Trump and both houses. I'd wager that Moore is still better than a Democrat.

McConnell would much rather have a Democrat than Moore. McConnell answers to his donors not the voters. His donors are big money interests with a vested interest in maintaining the things as they are. Moore is a threat to them. One example is the climate change scam. Tons of money is being made by people involved in the scam. Roy is just another loud opponent of such nonsense and stands in the way of implementing this boondoggle further.

 

[ClimateSanity]

A lot about an ethics investigation. I guess the photo isn't enough.

Is there a scorecard for what these people have said about Moore? I've seen more about Republicans condemning Moore than Democrats.

That's because Moore is more of a threat to dems than repubs. He is a threat to the donor class specifically.

 

[ClimateSanity]

My response was based on your focus on a ban. The semantics is that if store managers were unofficially trying to prevent him from hanging around then it's effectively the same thing as a ban. He was a problem and wasn't wanted around.

There wouldn't be any documentation if it was unofficial.

And if there isn't any documentation then how can you say it's anything more than hearsay?

 

[ClimateSanity]

The fact that a number of merchants were creeped out by him hanging around high school girls is just one more confirmation of the accusations.

Do you have proof of merchants saying this?

 

[musterion]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article185091388.html

Democrats called Al Franken’s behavior unacceptable, returned his campaign donations, and hinted that — absent a satisfying explanation in response to a sexual harassment allegation [there's the out] — they’d eventually demand he resign. [maybe]

Anything less would risk catastrophe for a party that stakes its political reputation on fighting for women. Especially one that is just now, 20 years after the fact, grappling with its unyielding support of Bill Clinton.

And only because Hillary is now a liability for them.

 

[kmoney]

And if there isn't any documentation then how can you say it's anything more than hearsay?

Well, I never said it was proven. :idunno: There probably won't be any tangible proof. You believe one side or the other. There isn't much doubt that he dated teenagers. The idea that he used the mall to pick up girls seems relatively safe as well. So from there it doesn't seem like a big leap that some store managers wouldn't be thrilled to have that happen and would ask him to go away.

 

[kmoney]

Can you read?

I know that's not how you meant it.

Yes.

ok.

More to it than just the pic. And now there's a 2nd woman.

I hadn't heard about a 2nd women.

Morals isn't the reason.

And that isn't an answer to my question.

 

[kmoney]

McConnell would much rather have a Democrat than Moore. McConnell answers to his donors not the voters. His donors are big money interests with a vested interest in maintaining the things as they are. Moore is a threat to them. One example is the climate change scam. Tons of money is being made by people involved in the scam. Roy is just another loud opponent of such nonsense and stands in the way of implementing this boondoggle further.

What do you mean by keeping things 'as they are'?

Climate change seems like an odd example since most in the GOP are not proponents of it, establishment or not.

If you think they'd rather have a Democrat than Moore then I expect you would also say that the Republicans (establishment at least) aren't concerned with getting anything done because losing this red seat would weaken their majority even more. I don't know if I could say that.

 

[Tambora]

Glory Allred has been reluctant to confirm or deny that the alleged victim saw Moore sign her yearbook.
She has agreed to turn the yearbook over for an independent analysis, but ONLY if Moore & victim agrees to testify at hearing under oath.
She won't say WHY she won't turn the yearbook over now to be examined by independent expert.
Just holding out until Moore meets her demands.

I'm not seeing how waiting for Moore to agree to her demands helps determine if the signature is authentic.
What could be her motivation for withholding examination of the yearbook??????

 

[musterion]

The ex manager of that mall says Moore was never banned to his knowledge.

 

[musterion]

And that isn't an answer to my question.

Moore, like Trump, is perceived as a threat to the DC uniparty swamp.