Roy Moore

Roy Moore's Defenses Contradict Each Other

The Republican Senate candidate tries to discredit an accuser he said he didn't know by noting that he presided over her divorce case.

|

Max Tani on Twitter

Roy Moore's defenses are starting to contradict each other. On Monday the Republican Senate candidate said he had never met Beverly Young Nelson, who has accused him of sexually assaulting her when she was 16 outside the restaurant where she worked in Gadsden, Alabama. Yesterday, seeking to discredit Nelson, Moore said he had presided over her divorce case as an Etowah County circuit judge.

"We have documented that the most recent accuser, Beverly Nelson, was a party in a divorce action before me in Etowah County Circuit Court in 1999," Moore writes in an open letter to Fox News host Sean Hannity. "No motion was made for me to recuse. In her accusations, Nelson did not mention that I was the judge assigned to her divorce case in 1999, a matter that apparently caused her no distress at a time that was 18 years closer to the alleged assault. Yet 18 years later, while talking before the cameras about the supposed assault, she seemingly could not contain her emotions."

The relevance of the fact that Nelson did not ask Moore to recuse himself from the case is debatable, since that would have required her to publicly accuse a powerful local official with direct influence over her life of actions she had at that point, according to her account, described only in private. But Moore's acknowledgement that he handled Nelson's divorce case 18 years ago seems inconsistent with what he told reporters on Monday: "I can tell you without hesitation this is absolutely false. I never did what she said I did. I don't even know the woman. I don't know anything about her." To the contrary, as Moore's lawyer emphasized yesterday, "there was contact." [See the update below.]

Moore would not necessarily remember a litigant who appeared before him 18 years ago, just as he would not necessarily remember every teenager he flirted with 40 years ago. That is why people use phrases like "I don't recall" instead of "I don't even know this woman" or "I never met this woman" (as Moore said about Leigh Corfman, who accused him of initiating a sexual encounter with her when she was 14). Moore is asking for trouble by flatly denying any contact with his accusers.

In the same letter to Hannity, Moore says there is something fishy about the yearbook inscription that Nelson presented as evidence that he interacted with her at the Olde Hickory House in 1977. "My signature on the order of dismissal in the divorce case was annotated with the letters 'D.A.,' representing the initials of my court assistant," he writes. "Curiously the supposed yearbook inscription is also followed by the same initials—'D.A.' But at that time I was Deputy District Attorney, not district attorney. Those initials as well as the date under the signature block and the printed name of the restaurant are written in a style inconsistent with the rest of the yearbook inscription. The '7's' in 'Christmas 1977' are in a noticeably different script than the '7's' in the date '12-22-77.' I believe tampering has occurred."

Moore seems to be suggesting that he never would have referred to himself as a "D.A." when he was actually a deputy D.A. and that Nelson copied his signature from the 1999 order. But if so, why would he call it "tampering," as opposed to forgery? Moore has heretofore said he did not know Nelson and was unfamiliar with the Olde Hickory House. Is he now saying that he did sign the yearbook but that Nelson recently added the "D.A.," the date, and the name of the restaurant? It seems more plausible that she added the notation at the time, memorializing the occasion when a local celebrity signed her yearbook.

In any case, Moore's signature in Nelson's yearbook, assuming it's genuine, shows only that he knew her. Moore easily could have admitted that he may have eaten at the Old Hickory House and that he may have encountered Nelson there without admitting that he committed the crime she describes. He could have said he did not remember meeting her, rather than insisting "I don't even know the woman" and "don't know anything about her." Likewise with Corfman. His unnecessarily broad denials are setting him up for subsequent retreats that make him look guilty.

Update: Zack Ford reports at Think Progress that court documents indicate there would have been no need for Nelson to interact with Moore in the course of her divorce proceedings. Although Moore signed the dismissal she sought after deciding to try to work things out with her husband, other judges dealt with the case up to that point and with the couple's subsequent divorce proceedings. The dismissal "appears to be the only document Moore signed," Ford writes, "and given there was no hearing, there is no reason the divorce action would have required her to enter the courthouse or have contact with Moore."

NEXT: America Doesn't Have Enough Dentists

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well his law school professor doesn’t think he’s the sort who will likely back down:

    https://goo.gl/tJ7RZz

    In law school, the arguments arose from what Disraeli called “falling into a deep groove of illogic and being helpless to allow reason to pull you out.” If Moore’s analysis of a case was tantamount to thinking 1 + 1 = 3, and his classmates reasoned otherwise, there was no backing down by Moore. The class was willing to fight to the death against illogic that no legal mind but one in America would espouse.

    Moore never won one argument, and the debates got ugly and personal. The result: gone was the fulfillment a teacher hopes for in the still peace of logic and learning. I had no choice but to abandon the Socratic method of class participation in favor of the lecture mode because of one student: Roy Moore.

    1. Yeah, I’m starting to think they guy doesn’t have it all together (though I continue to have no opinion on the allegations as I can’t be bothered to put any effort into judging their credibility). He also thought that US law is based on the 10 commandments, which despite some overlap, is just not true.

      1. He is a bit of a nut. But as Maxin Walters, Al Franken, Kamala Harris and a lot of other people prove, nuts deserve representation in Congress too.

        Moore being in the Senate is really no different than Harris being there. Neither is good. But both are the major parties giving their batshit crazy wings a voice.

        1. I suppose so. There does seems to be a significant nutcase constituency on both sides.

          1. That is where Democrats are smarter than Republicans. If the average Dem Congressperson were honest, they would no doubt say someone like Waters is a nut. They don’t and don’t have a problem with her because they know a decent number of their voters are nuts. They don’t nominate Waters for President or make her Speaker. But they let her be in Congress so the nuts feel represented. The Republicans are so bullied by the media and the Democrats and so afraid of the other side not liking them, that they don’t do that. I am not sure that is a good thing. It is better to have the nuts have a small voice than have them walk away from politics altogether and engage in other means of being heard.

            1. The Democratic crazies are not just tolerated, they serve useful purposes for their party. Moderate Democrats can let these rabid, crazed, hungry attack dogs off their chains and go after people they don’t like, and then proclaim their complete innocence.

              Republicans really need to learn from Democratics how to get and maintain power.

              1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

                This is what I do… http://www.netcash10.com

              2. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

                This is what I do… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

      2. That article tells me why Trump supporters really like him though. They’ve got the same personality – aggressive streetfighters who may be wrong but will never back down an inch. Really has nothing to do with whether they share ideology. That personality will force a change even if the ‘change’ is irrelevant/meaningless.

        Also tells me why that sort of personality won’t have many little people willing to share skeletons. True or not won’t matter. Whether that sort of person is judged (in the court of public opinion) to be less/more likely to be a bully to those of less importance won’t matter. The little person will be torn to shreds long before the outcome is known.

        1. Not just Trump supporters ought to approve of that, libertarians should too: when Congress is tied up for a month over fighting over irrelevant/meaningless change, that’s a month where they can’t do any harm.

      3. Except that Moore was upholding traditional interpretations of the law and the SC was writing fiction. the best example would be RvW.

    2. If Moore is the sort of person that would never back down from a fight, then it seems sort of odd that he would accept being banned from a shopping mall or the YMCA. He seems like the sort that would have raised a ruckus at being told he wasn’t allowed to go someplace anymore, in which case there ought to be a record or an account of a fight over that. Unless of course it didn’t happen.

      1. He wasn’t banned. Those mall accounts imply he was on an informal watchlist – a list of convicted petty thieves – and oh don’t forget Moore. Even assuming that’s true – doubt he would have even known.

        A mall guard (likely more her age) comes over a bit more quickly and inserts himself into the conversation to ‘chat up’ the girl or ask him for career advice about being a real cop someday? You see either of those actions as cause for a public fight or to suspect he’s being watched?

        1. If he was on a watch list, where is the list? And how did his numerous political enemies not find this out before now?

          1. Keep in mind that this is easily the highest profile position he’s ever run for, as well as the closest he’s ever gotten to winning a major seat. As one works higher and higher up, the oppo research gets better. It’s shouldn’t be all that surprising that the worst things about a person don’t crop up until they’re about to becoming a senator, president, etc.

            1. He was on the Alabama Supreme Court and has been one of the most well known and controversial political figures for over 10 years. Everyone in Alabama has known who Roy Moore is and had an opinion about him for a very long time. Sorry but the “this is the first time he has run” doesn’t cut it.

          2. how did his numerous political enemies not find this out before now?

            His elections:
            1982 circuit court judge – lost
            1994 circuit court judge – won but he was the appointed incumbent
            2000 chief justice – won the R primary which was the only one that mattered
            2004 gubernator – lost R primary bad
            2008 gubernator – lost R primary bad
            2012 chief justice – won the R primary which was the only one that mattered

            IDK – maybe no one really gives a shit about judicial elections and the info wasn’t ‘needed’ for the others?

            If he was on a watch list, where is the list?

            The mall guard who was interviewed used the words I used – handed a list of actual thieves and then told verbally Oh and don’t forget Moore – like he’s somewhere between an inside joke for mall cops and an actual threat they are being paid to protect the mall against.

            1. The R primary was the only one that mattered in the current election too. Until the surprise of course.

              I like how you use his runs for office both to argue he is powerful and he is irrelevant depending on the conversation.

            2. The Mall manager at the time says this is a complete lie

              http://www.wbrc.com/clip/13905…..snt-banned

              1. I too said He wasn’t banned.

                Just because the media uses a word like ‘banned’ as clickbait doesn’t mean the underlying quoted are lying/wrong (or right) – or ever even said the word ‘banned’ (someone may have idk). It just means the media uses words as clickbait – which falls into the category of Well Duh.

  2. “I don’t even know the woman. I don’t know anything about her.”

    “In the Biblical sense, of course.”

  3. Not really. Saying “he didn’t know her” means he didn’t know her socially. I do not think presiding over someone’s divorce case means you “know them”. Moreover, Moore no doubt presided over 100s of divorce cases when he was a judge. So, it makes perfect sense he would not remember doing so over this woman’s case and honestly says he doesn’t know who she is.

    Meanwhile, the fact that he did preside over her divorce case creates a real problem for the accuser. She says that he tried to rape her. This is the woman who read the tearful statement at the Aldred press conference. Okay. So Roy tried to rape her when she was 14, but when he showed up as the judge in her divorce case, she said nothing about this fact at the time. The guy who tried to rape her is presiding over her divorce case and she never mentions it to her attorney and never tries to get another judge assigned? Really? Worse still, she said at the press conference that she never saw more again after the attack. But we know Moore was the judge in her divorce case in 1999. Did she forget this fact? Did she not notice the guy who tried to rape her was presiding over her divorce case?

    1. Interesting stuff, isn’t it?

      When these women testify under oath, they shouldn’t mind revealing with whom they’ve been talking during his campaign.

    2. Not really. Saying “he didn’t know her” means he didn’t know her socially. I do not think presiding over someone’s divorce case means you “know them”.

      This. No judge that I’ve ever been before would have cause to say they know me. There’s no way they would even remember me a year later, let alone 30 years later.

      1. You remember the judge. The judge doesn’t remember you.

        1. Exactly. But I will remember the judge because he presides over a court case that I have a financial and emotional stake in, and he determines my victory or defeat–while for him I’m just case #24 of god knows how many in a day, in a year with ~240 workdays, where he serves a decade or more in the position.

          To think he’ll remember me, let alone consider the two of us as knowing each other isn’t just preposterous, it’s absolutely retarded.

          1. What about a lawyer who appears before the judge?

            If the lawyer had just one or two appearances, I think the same reasoning applies – almost all of the time.

            If, however, the lawyer took a case in order to push for something radical, it might be different. For example, take domestic relations. Let’s say that a libertarian lawyer takes a case of a doctor who was saddled with alimony in connection with his divorce and is sick and tired of paying alimony and he meets the lawyer abhors alimony himself philosophically. The lawyer then files a motion to void the alimony upon constitutional grounds and subsequently totally outclasses the judge in arguing the matter to the point where the judge just cuts him off and sanctions the doctor.

            I would submit, the judge would remember that. Even thirty years later.

          2. I agree – but that is also why it is unlikely a nobody will ever ask a judge to be recused based on evidence that has not already been adjudicated somewhere or is public. He has the power over you – and HE is the one who makes the decision to recuse himself or not (divorce judgements ain’t appealed to higher courts). And if he were to recuse himself, he would be admitting that it was reasonable to believe that he had attempted to assault her and thus had a conflict of interest in the current case. Chances of that – zero. So now just by asking for him to be recused – you lose twice – he still has the power – and now he DOES know who you are.

            His lawyer raising this is just lawyer games.

          3. Typically lawyers and judges are much more likely to know each other. In most situations, a divorce lawyer is going to go before the same judge many times for many different cases. If a lawyer only ever took one case before a specific judge it is unreasonable to think the judge would remember them, unless there was some extenuating circumstance to make the case itself memorable. Even then, the judge would not say he knows the attorney, but might say he remembers them coming before him once.

            Is there some reason to think that the analogy you’re trying to draw here is relevant? I mean, a judge might remember a party that came before him if they acted in a very uniquely crazy manner too, but unless we have reason to think that was the case the default position should be “nope”.

            1. Of course, I agree with the default position.

              There is no reason why a typical probate court judge would remember a particular husband or wife in a given divorce case whereas the party will, almost all of the time, remember the judge.

              My point is that there are outliers. Sure, a judge will remember most of the lawyers who regularly appear before him but not those who only once or twice or occasionally appeared before him. But the lawyer I describe above, even though he had just the once case in front of the judge, would be remembered because of the highly unusual situation.

              So, yes, we agree. Its just that I am good at pointing out the exceptions or, viewed alternatively, I am good at being a pain in the ass.

    3. Worse still, she said at the press conference that she never saw more again after the attack.

      She never said that in her prepared statement. In that statement, she said she quit her job and never went back to that restaurant. told a couple of friends/family but otherwise said nothing. And – I was frightened by his position and his power. I am coming forward to let Mr. Moore know that he no longer has any power over me and I no longer live in fear of him. That statement is completely consistent with him STILL having power over her in 1999.

      So what exactly is the question she was asked at that presser where she responds she never saw him again?

      1. That said – I think this accusation is also the weakest. Since the statement itself seems to have been ‘vetted’ by lawyers ‘helping her’ phrase things

      2. The bottom line is how can she explain not mentioning the fact that he presided over her divorce?

        1. No YOU said that she affirmatively said she never saw him again. The burden is on YOU to prove she said that. THAT’S the only bottom line.

          Her only similar statement I see – I was frightened by his position and his power. I am coming forward to let Mr. Moore know that he no longer has any power over me is actually far more relevant to 1999 (with the full force of power in a black robe) than to even 1977 (with the alleged threat).

          1. Here’s the full press conference. https://youtu.be/TuJSleTMtf4

            She didn’t answer ANY questions – her lawyer did. And her lawyer – Gloria Allred – explained why – cuz the point of the press conference was to prepare the way for a Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate further – presumably if he wins the election and is seated.

            So there’s no question this one is gonna be turned into a full future political/legal circus – like Anita Hill hearings and Clinton impeachment – and the accuser presumably knew what she was signing up for before the press conference. This would also explain why national Republicans want Moore gone now. The last thing they need is 6-12 months of ‘war on women’.

  4. Whatever you think of the other accusations against Moore, this one is total bullshit. There is no way you can explain this woman’s failure to notice or mention that Moore presided over her divorce case with what she is claiming. I think you have to just dismiss this bullshit out of hand.

    And as far as the yearbook who the fuck knows if it is legit. Short of having a detailed forensic analysis of that page and the ink on it, there is no way to determine whether it is real or not. There really isn’t anything to say about it other than maybe it is legit.

    1. One thing that strikes me as a little strange is the actual wording of that Christmas greeting.

      Of course, I’m not from Alabama.

      1. Who writes a Christmas greeting in a yearbook? The whole thing is odd. Regardless, the woman’s story is just not credible.

        1. *** dabs tearless but reddened eyes ***

        2. John, OT:

          I know that you have been a fan of Mike & Mike, so how do you feel about the show coming to an end tomorrow?

          For a lot us, they were like scrambled eggs and bacon for breakfast. They were just part of the day. I am going to miss them.

          1. I am sad to see it end. But I think Trey Wingo will be a decent replacement. I like him.

            1. Yes, I like Trey as well.

              A friend of my daughter-in-law was an intern, then assistant and then assistant producer on the show. She told my wife and I that, as far as she knew, Greenie and Golic got along – but, I didn’t push the girl for details or dirt or anything because my wife would have killed me.

              1. I think that Greenberg is not going to do well with his own show. I like Greenberg but he only works in small doses. He needs someone to play off him. I think Golic and Wingo will do fine. But I honestly don’t know what Greenberg is going to do.

                1. My sense as well.

                  One of the reasons the show worked so well was its balance, i.e., the contrast between the two of them.

                  Another reason the show worked was that a lot of us have some Greenie and some Golic in us – obviously in varying degrees.

                  I have gotten a kick out of the animated bits that they have been running. The one with the two of them sitting with the hairdryers over their head is hysterical. Greenie proclaims that he likes to get his hair cut frequently enough so that he doesn’t look like he just got a haircut and Golic responds, “leave it to you to overthink the thing.” That spot perfectly captures Greenberg.

    2. “Whatever you think of the other accusations against Moore, this one is total bullshit. There is no way you can explain this woman’s failure to notice or mention that Moore presided over her divorce case with what she is claiming. I think you have to just dismiss this bullshit out of hand.”

      You are way overreaching here in calling her a liar. At best one can say it is a reason to suspend making a conclusion. People are not perfect witnesses. And troubled people with a history of interactions with the law are even less proficient witnesses. Don’t dismiss this woman as a liar just because she didn’t say something. The case of her truthfulness is still very much an open question.

      1. You have to. There is no way to explain why she did this other than that she is lying. No way does she not notice that he is her judge after he sexually assaulted her.

      2. This woman broke down crying during a press conference over her supposed experience with Moore.

        You mean to tell me that she simply forgot facing someone who she claims she felt so strongly about? That she wasn’t constantly worried about bias against her? That she wasn’t seething with anger the whole time through?

        Yes, witnesses can forget or overlook something. But this isn’t forgetting, this is a massive behavioral inconsistency.

  5. Hey, legal beagles: under what circumstances could Moore require that his accusers turn over phone records for last, say, three months, to determine who they’ve been in contact with? For instance, in a suit for slander?

    1. He could get those during discovery in a slander suit. Actually, I like the idea of Strange resigning and setting a new election. Push the election back and let Moore sue these people for slander. Put everyone under oath and let the public have a chance to see what if any of this is true before you have an election. If Moore is vindicated, he can run in the next special election.

      1. Will he be vindicated for defying the constitution resulting in his ouster from the bench? Or do Alabamans not care about the constitution? Apparently that’s the case.

        Do you not agree that he was a horrible asshole before anyone knew he touched little girls?

        1. Sure Tony, whatever.

        2. Are you gonna cry, Tony, when Roy Moore wins the Senate seat in Alabama?

          1. No.

            He won’t cry. He doesn’t even really know who Roy Moore is–only that he’s supposed to parrot the accusations made in the Post.

            Once Moore is elected, these women will fade into the mist–they have no cases that can stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever–this very article was rendered false within hours of being published. There are no facts here.

            Only more Democratic fakenews.

        3. Well, I think he was a horrible asshole. I also think Hillary was a horrible asshole. I think Bezos is a horrible asshole. And I think you are a horrible asshole. And I encourage people to vote based on whether they think someone is a horrible asshole.

          I discourage people to vote based on last minute scandals, innuendo, and accusations from politically motivated, billionaire owned media companies. If Alabamans were going to vote for an asshole before WaPo’s scandal, I think they should still do so now, regardless of whether I or you approve of their choice.

          The way to deal with outside interference and propaganda (Putin > US, Bezos > Alabama) is for voters to have the brains to ignore it.

          1. This. So so much.

    2. “in a suit for slander?”

      By the looks of things, that would be a class action suit.

      1. No it wouldn’t. Every circumstance is different. And the fact that there are a lot of allegations does not make any individual allegation more or less likely to be true.

  6. Nelson has also stated that she “never saw” Moore again after the incident she has described. But if he presided at her divorce, she must have seen him, right? So presumably she means never “saw” him in a social way. And presumably Moore’s statements that he didn’t know her can be taken in a similar way. (Is it possible that she didn’t appear personally in court at the divorce, and that only her attorney did? I doubt it, though I really don’t know for sure.) Anyway, has a close-up image of the disputed yearbook signature/inscription been made publicly available?

    1. It goes back to what was said above. You remember the judge in your divorce case because you don’t have many of those. The judge isn’t going to remember you because he has hundreds of cases and no reason to remember you. So Moore saying he doesn’t know this woman makes perfect sense. He doesn’t know her and no doubt had no idea he presided over her case until someone looked it up and told him. But when the woman says she never “saw” Moore again, that is a problem. She did see him again. He was the judge in her divorce. And unlike him remembering her, it is very hard to believe that she would not have noticed who he was or remembered that fact later. I see no credible way to explain why she would have forgotten that fact or failed to mention it during her press conference.

    2. When she says “I never saw him again” it would have to be taken as “I never interacted with him again”. It’s possible she saw him at a grocery store and walked on. Even if we found video evidence they passed each other in the grocery store, it would not make her a liar because there is no reason that either should remember this 30 years later. However, his presiding over her divorce case would definitely be memorable and unquestionably meaningful for her because it’s not like divorce is something that happens to her so often she can’t be expected to remember individual instances of it. It’s a rare occurrence, and it’s highly memorable due to the financial and emotional stakes involved.

      1. It’s not just memorable for her because it’s an unusual experience, if what she claims had happened actually happened, she ought to have had serious concerns about how Moore was going to handle the case and have lived in anger and fear sitting in the court room in front of him. The fact that she didn’t even find this worth mentioning makes her story not credible.

        1. Yeah, I left that part out. You are completely correct of course. If we take her at her word, there’s no way she would have forgotten

    3. You’re missing a huge difference, though. If Moore is telling the truth and nothing happened, he had no reason to remember Nelson at all or recognize her in her court appearance. However, if Nelson is telling the truth, her court appearance before Moore should have been extremely traumatic and something she ought to have brought up.

      1. That is a huge difference and what I was getting at.

  7. Schadenfreude ist die sch?nste Freude:

    Playmate says Al Franken groped her

    1. You would think Moore’s wife would want him to step aside so that he doesn’t go to the Senate and risk falling in with the wrong crowd. If your problem is with sex and groping women, I am not sure the Senate is the place you want to work, assuming you are trying to get over that problem.

      1. “You would think Moore’s wife would want him to step aside”

        I am sure she resigned herself to “stand by her man” many years ago.

        1. Way to have the joke go right over your head. Woosh.

    2. Tony says to stop with your whataboutism. Moore’s the badguy here. Stop defending pedos. Or something like that.

    3. At this point we probably need to assign every Senator a groping staffer (according to taste) and compensate them appropriately. We can recruit them out of D.C. area strip clubs and escort services and the Senator can fondle them however they like, but they have to leave everyone else alone. I don’t see any other way around the problem at this point and I like to think of it as just another stimulus project.

    4. Al Franken is now being accused of sexual misconduct. So everything is OK now. Except that Franken at least did it with an adult.

      1. No. Franken is shown in a photograph sexually assaulting a sleeping woman. I didn’t realize when I first looked at the picture that he is actually touching her boobs. Riddle me this; if today a man is caught rubbing the breasts through her clothes of a sleeping woman he barely knows on a commercial flight, what happens to that man? He is arrested and charged with felony sexual assault and goes to jail and ends up on a list and unable to live near schools. That is what Al Franken is shown doing here.

        Now explain to me why he shouldn’t at least be kicked out of the Senate?

        1. Ooh ooh! I know! There is a D after his name.

          1. Nobody with anything after their name is getting kicked out of the senate anytime soon for anything short of a capital crime unless one party gets the votes to expel someone.

        2. Now explain to me why he shouldn’t at least be kicked out of the Senate?

          It’s starting to look like it’s because they routinely tolerate much worse behavior.

          1. It appears so.

    5. Term limits

      “What is something that might restrain groping senators?”

  8. Its almost as if Reason is looking for web traffic.

  9. Overhead on Facebook: “But if we don’t let a teen groping, law flouting, twice disbarred theocrat be senator, then we’ll be stuck with a Democrat. And we can’t have that!”

    1. Kinda says a lot about how horrible the Democrats are, eh?

      1. Kinda says a lot about Evangelicals that they still think he is God’s candidate.

        1. Are you saying you think that facebook quote is really a supporter?

      2. I seriously doubt anyone thinks he’s “God’s candidate” you disingenuous twat. They probably think he will try to advance their values, or at least not try to erode them which is guaranteed to be better for them than the Democrat candidate. And they’re almost certainly correct, even if we presuppose that all of these allegations are 100% true.

    2. He was never disbarred. They kicked him off the bench for refusing to follow court precedents he thought were illegitimate. You can disagree with him about that. I do. But, you can’t say he was dishonest. Yet, people who should know better throw these terms around like he was kicked off for taking bribes or something.

      As far as the rest, is having a theocrat any worse than having a socialist or a believer in the global warming cult? I don’t see how.

      1. “is having a theocrat any worse than having a socialist or a believer in the global warming cult”

        They are all pretty much the same thing.

      2. “They other guys have socialists, so it’s okay if we have theocrats!”

        1. NO. If there are already worse in there, why should anyone think this is a big deal?

          YOu don’t read well do you?

    3. See, there are plenty of “teen groping, law flouting” totalitarians in the senate already; one more won’t make any difference on those counts.

      So, it does indeed come down simply to: how will this guy vote vs how will the other guy vote.

      Note that to Democrats, this has never even been an issue: they clearly forgive horrific transgressions of morality and law as long as a politician votes the right way. Republicans need to take notice.

  10. I’m so sick of this whole case. What does any of this have to do with libertarianism?

    1. Judge Roy Moore is a libertarian-leaning Republican.

      1. What views does Moore hold that are ‘Libertarian’? Honestly curious, because from what I’ve read about him he seems like a religious SoCon type. Frankly, he doesn’t sound like the kind of guy I would vote for, but then again I don’t live in Alabama so I’m spared that indignity.

        1. I think SIV was using sarcasm.

          1. Yeah, but the sad fact is that an evil prick like Moore is probably in practice still more libertarian than the so-called “moderate Republicans”, who think their job is to work for the “common good”.

        2. Outside of religion and teen-dating he seemed pretty good. Staunchly against gun control, supports flat tax, generally limiting federal powers, from what I recall. Probably also conservative on immigration though.

          I personally think it’s ridiculous how Reason will immediately leap in bed with the socialists over outrage at some southern republicans’ outdated views on abortion and gay marriage which are beyond congress’ power and gone in less than a generation anyway. Hell Bush was calling for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage remember that? Just campaign nonsense. But I guess they were right about Moore being nuts. Maybe just lucky like a broken clock though.

    2. Wish an article like this would mention that there is a Libertarian in the race (Ron Bishop). Not on the ballot but as a write-in.

      Course I doubt many Alabamans read Reason. And it’s a guarantee that no R’s of any stripe will ever advocate a write-in for a non-R. But hey – if he gets 20% of the vote in this election, then the actual L’s will get ballot access in the next election. hahaha.

  11. Moore seems to be suggesting that he never would have referred to himself as a “D.A.” when he was actually a deputy D.A. and that Nelson copied his signature from the 1999 order. But if so, why would he call it “tampering,” as opposed to forgery? Moore has heretofore said he did not know Nelson and was unfamiliar with the Olde Hickory House. Is he now saying that he did sign the yearbook but that Nelson recently added the “D.A.,” the date, and the name of the restaurant? It seems more plausible that she added the notation at the time, memorializing the occasion when a local celebrity signed her yearbook.

    This is like back when Jacob Sullum was a Trayvon Truther.

  12. So, no one is at all curious how the Washington Post discovered this whole ‘scandal’ in the first place?

    According to WaPo, this story magically fell into their lap while a random reporter was covering a Moore campaign event. Gee, I wonder how that went down?

    But no, I’m sure it had nothing to do with Democratic opposition research that was fed to them by the DNC. That would be crazy talk, right? After all there are no other major stories in the media about how the DNC used opposition research.

    This doesn’t address if the accusations are true or not, but I have to wonder how WaPo actually discovered this story because the way they say they found out about it can’t be true, or if it is true than it means these women were common knowledge to everyone at Moore’s own campaign events. Gee, what are the odd’s of that?

    1. According to WaPo, this story magically fell into their lap while a random reporter was covering a Moore campaign event. Gee, I wonder how that went down?

      Russians.

      Duh.

      1. Wouldn’t it be awesome if that turned out to be the case? Talk about God having a sense of humor.

    2. I think the timing is deliberate. A few weeks earlier, and the Republicans could simply have replaced Moore with a less controversial candidate, won the election, and have had less problems in Congress.

      This way is win-win for Democrats and puppet masters like Bezos: either Jones wins, or Moore is severely damaged good who nobody will work with in Congress and who may get bogged down in legal issues for years.

      1. I don’t really know where Bezos falls politically, but I don’t think he involves himself in the editorial decisions of WaPo.

        You are probably right about the timing.

        1. Based on his statements and actions, Bezos is the typical Silicon Valley faux libertarian: he mostly donates to Democrats but he wants government to stay out of his hair. When he donates to Republicans, it seems to be mainstream, big-government Republicans, you know the kind that hate Trump and Moore.

          Someone doesn’t buy the “Pravda on the Potomac” unless they agree with the ideology (what would be the point otherwise?). And he doesn’t need to involve himself in editorial decisions, he simply needs to hire/keep people with left wing ideological beliefs.

          Politically, WaPo is pretty far to the left, around where HuffPo and Politico are.

      2. There are no “legal” issues with Moore – the statute of limitations ran out long ago on these allegations, even if they were true.

    3. if it is true than it means these women were common knowledge to everyone at Moore’s own campaign events.

      Not according to the reporter. From an interview on NPR:

      NPR: How did you find these women, and did you have a sense that their telling their stories was politically motivated?

      MCCRUMMEN: Not at all, Kelly. I was in Alabama actually reporting another story on Roy Moore supporters, a story aiming to understand, you know, the basis of his support in the state. And it was at the end of a long conversation with someone there that these allegations surfaced.

      It would be useful to know who that person was but – ONE person, long conversation, in Alabama, and that person may have not provided actual names of anyone just passed on rumors for further investigation.

      I’m sure it had nothing to do with Democratic opposition research that was fed to them by the DNC. That would be crazy talk, right?

      See above. It may well have been a Democrat in Alabama that she was talking to. But the notion that this story had to come from the DNC rather than an actual local is the actual crazy talk.

      1. So in all of this time that Moore has been in politics, the first time any reporter was ever told of this stuff just happened to be a Washington Post reporter? Give me a fucking break. Really. The whole thing is a Democratic put up job. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Sometimes political hits are truthful. But spare me this bullshit about this reporter just happening onto the story. That is absurd.

      2. Oh, well then. It makes total sense that while talking to a Moore Supporter they casually dropped the fact that he dated teenagers into that conversation. With a reporter for a Newspaper who endorsed the Democrat in the race.

        It even makes total sense that, armed with that rumor, that this reporter was then easily able to track down multiple women who were willing to come forward and point fingers at Moore, today of all days, and publish the story in time to potentially ruin Moore’s chances of being elected after he had been in the public eye for close to four decades already without a peep.

        As I’ve said a few times now, I would have been more likely to believe allegations without proof if this was Moore’s first run at a public office. As it is, I find the whole story suspect even if it’s true. It seems to me that this reporter received information from someone who already knew who these women were and sat on that information until the opportune moment. (and that assumes it’s even true in the first place.)

        Any other interpretation stretches credulity to the breaking point.

        1. It makes total sense that while talking to a Moore Supporter they casually dropped the fact that he dated teenagers into that conversation.

          As usual you defenders can’t seem to read can you. This reporter said ‘someone there’. Not ‘Moore supporter’. Maybe that someone was a Democrat. Maybe it was one of the country-club R’s who supported Strange who had the info but who was belatedly gobsmacked that Moore won the runoff despite Trump supporting Strange and them having had dirt on Moore for a long time but never needing it. Maybe it was the checkout clerk at the Piggly Wiggly who knows lots of gossip but doesn’t know anyone important or vote. IDK

          I DOUBT it was a ‘Moore supporter’. Cuz if there’s one thing I think about the media elite types (like WaPo) is that they think all Trump supporters (and likely all Moore supporters) are a bunch of illiterate angry monkeys. And while they may want to write a story ABOUT the monkeys, they don’t necessarily want to spend too much time talking TO them within poo-flinging distance.

          There are a lot more possibilities which make sense than EITHER ‘Moore supporter’ or ‘DNC’. Yeesh.

    4. This could be the dictionary example of “whataboutism”. Just like when Comey revealed that Trump pressured him to drop the Flynn investigation, so many people were saying “let’s focus on the fact that Comey’s a leaker” even though nothing he said was classified.

  13. But if so, why would he call it “tampering,” as opposed to forgery?

    Because that would be accusing someone of a crime, which he is being carefully skirting so someone can’t sue him for defamation?

  14. Sorry, I find Nelson’s claim to be not believable. Her emotions were so over the top that I have to assume she’s either mentally ill or faking. On top of that, I think the signature itself is fake. When her claim falls apart, there really is nothing else.

    More importantly, the entire affair is timed as a transparent attempt by WaPo to reduce the senate majority. If you change your vote based on this story, you’re being let around by the nose by a crony capitalist billionaire.

    My rule of thumb is that if scandals break a few weeks before the election, I treat them as if they had been broken after the election; that is, Congress can deal with the crook in whatever way it sees fit.

    1. Very astute observation. I hope voting Alabamians can also see through the smoke. If Jones wins, the Dems will drop these women like a hot potato the day after the election.

  15. Roy Moore thinks he’s Ron White – “I had the right to remain silent ? but I didn’t have the ability.”

  16. In any case, Moore’s signature in Nelson’s yearbook, assuming it’s genuine, shows only that he knew her. Moore easily could have admitted that he may have eaten at the Old Hickory House and that he may have encountered Nelson there without admitting that he committed the crime she describes. He could have said he did not remember meeting her, rather than insisting “I don’t even know the woman” and “don’t know anything about her.” Likewise with Corfman. His unnecessarily broad denials are setting him up for subsequent retreats that make him look guilty.

    Except he isn’t just fighting to stay out of jail, otherwise he’d just keep quiet and let his lawyer talk. He also wants to win the election. If he isn’t making broad denials, then you have a he-said-she-said with her pitting a clear memory with and some verifiable facts versus him being all uncertain and evasive with I-don’t-recall’s.

  17. Doesn’t the “update” sort of undo most of this article? If she never had to meet Moore in person during the divorce proceedings….. Moore also never met her. If he never knew her, he would have no reason to remember signing any documents related to her.

    1. Then why would his lawyer claim that he did know her? Again, it doesn’t make any sense. The takeaway is that Moore doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about. “I don’t know her. Yes, I do. Oh, I guess I don’t.” As a witness, he doesn’t inspire confidence.

  18. How many judges will tell you they “know” all the people who come before them in court?

    I’ve been in a courtroom where a judge sent a guy to prison because he was obviously (after questioning by the judge and the ex-wife’s testimony by phone) trying to hide his income behind his new girlfriend to wiggle out from making child support payments.

  19. Once again an update undermines an article and Reason keeps the now false and misleading article up.

    And people wonder why ‘fakenews’ became a thing.

  20. Man, I thought this was a libertarian website.

    I almost feel like I’ve wandered over to Huffington Post or even– *shudders*– Salon.

  21. Why did this woman have a yearbook at work in December?

  22. The mainstream Cons should just allow the people of AL to elect who they want even if it’s a pedo. Then they can live with the embarrassment.

    On the other hand, the Cons should be careful about getting what they want if they tear down Al Franken too enthusiastically:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453899/
    al-franken-misconduct-conservatives-shouldnt-run

    1. I don’t see why social conservatives should have a problem with this. Traditionally, interactions between men and single and/or attractive women were closely scrutinized and implicitly suspect. Merely for an unmarried woman to be alone with a man was considered unseemly. Workplaces and businesses also used to prohibit dresses that were too revealing as well. Democrats seem hell-bent of taking us back to those days, why should social conservatives object?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.