Roy Moore

Roy Moore's Claim of 'Systematic Voter Fraud' Is at Least As Plausible As Trump's

The defeated Senate candidate's refusal to concede is no more preposterous than the claim that the president actually won the popular vote.

|

C -SPAN

Roy Moore, who is still refusing to concede that he lost the Senate election in Alabama on December 12, has asked a state court to block certification of the results, arguing that his opponent, Doug Jones, benefited from "systematic voter fraud." Moore's recalcitrance is too much even for Donald Trump, who supported the Republican candidate despite the credible allegations of sexual abuse he faced. The president, showing rare magnanimity, congratulated Jones on the night of the election, and two days later his press secretary said Moore's concession speech "should have already taken place."

Yet as Matt Welch pointed out a couple of weeks ago, Moore's allegation that Jones stole 20,000 or so votes in Alabama is at least as plausible as Trump's claim that he would have won the popular vote in last year's presidential election if it weren't for "millions of people who voted illegally." Jones beat Moore by 1.5 percentage points, while Hillary Clinton received 2.9 million more votes than Trump, a bit more than 2 percent of the total cast.

Moore cites "three national Election Integrity experts" who concluded "with a reasonable degree of statistical and mathematical certainty" that "election fraud occurred." Particularly suspicious, in their view, is the 47 percent voter turnout in Jefferson County, where Jones beat Moore by a margin of more than 2 to 1. Jefferson County, which includes Birmingham, is the state's most populous county and 43 percent black, compared to 27 percent for the state as a whole.

The results in Jefferson County do not look so suspicious when you consider that Moore was repelling Democrats and socially tolerant Republicans with his views on race, religion, and homosexuality long before he was accused of sexually abusing teenagers, which presumably did not make them keener to have him represent them in the Senate. Add the Jones campaign's concerted efforts to increase turnout by black voters, and what Moore sees as evidence of fraud looks more like evidence of revulsion's power to motivate participation in an off-year election.

Moore's desperation is evident from an affidavit accompanying his complaint in which he states that he "successfully completed a polygraph test confirming the representations of misconduct made against him during the campaign are completely false." According to the affidavit, "the results of the examination reflected that I did not know, nor had I ever had any sexual contact with any of these individuals." That statement contradicts Moore's admission that he knew at least two of the women who said he dated them when they were teenagers, which gives you a sense of how reliable so-called lie detectors are. Leaving aside Moore's inconsistency and the peudoscience of polygraph tests, his affidavit does nothing to bolster his complaint, since the truth of the charges against him has no bearing on whether people actually voted the way that the soon-to-be-official numbers indicate.

Thin as it is, Moore's case for throwing out the election results in Alabama is stronger than Trump's argument that he acually won the popular vote last year. After he took office, Trump told members of Congress somewhere between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes were cast in the 2016 presidential election. He still has not provided any evidence to back up that claim, possibly because there is none.

Update: Today Alabama Circuit Judge Johnny Hardwick rejected Moore's petition, and the Alabama State Canvassing Board certified the vote. The board consists of Gov. Kay Ivey, Attorney General Steve Marshall, and Secretary of State John Merrill, all Republicans. Merrill voted for Moore but said he has seen no evidence that fraud affected the outcome of the race.

NEXT: Warning: Don't Bring Your Legal Marijuana Through Internal Border Checkpoints in California

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. Roy Moore’s Claim of ‘Systematic Voter Fraud’ Is at Least As Plausible As Trump’s

    So the claim is as likely to be true as the claim that we landed on a moon made of green cheese. Huh. Good to know!.

  2. A persecution complex is worth its weight in gold to these Christ-humping kidfuckers. Roy Moore 2020!

    1. #MakeMyFuckingWeddingCakeBigotBitch!

    2. Kind of like that old “Vast Right Wing conspiracy” thing, right Tony?

      1. Who knew it was vast enough to extend to Moscow?

        1. Never give up – people will take you seriously one day.

  3. LOL… Peter Schiff’s premier fund performance in a period of economic expansion and private sector growth. Let’s hope all those Occupy Wall Street protestors that he “schooled” didn’t take his financial advice. That would be retarded.

    2013 2014 2015 2016 YTD
    13.59 -1.76 -10.67 -26.31 17.99 11.20

    Annual Report Net Expense Ratio 1.75 1.76 1.75 1.75 1.75

    People actually pay him for financial advice?

    1. #AlmostAsStupidAsCommunism

  4. Well, here’s what I’m confused about…if I was an undocumented immigrant then obviously Trump and the super-racist Republicans would pose an existential threat to me with their super-racist “immigration law enforcement.” Therefore, I would want to do everything in my power to stop him/them from taking power. There isn’t really much stopping me from voting because requiring me to show any kind of proof of citizenship is fascist, racist, and unconstitutional…so why wouldn’t I just vote? Because it’s illegal? I’ve already crossed that bridge. If I’m an undocumented immigrant, it appears to be a violation of a basic tenet of self-preservation NOT to vote.

    1. I’m also not sure how I’d ever get caught.

      1. Have you ever voted before? How do you vote when your name isn’t on the list? And why would people whose lives are spent avoiding notice by law enforcement commit an infraction like that whose punishment far outweighs any possible benefit?

        1. I have voted before…but I was never privy to this list. Do you get on it by registering? Do they check your ID when you register?

          1. In my state you have to provide a drivers license number or social security number and swear under penalty of perjury that you’re eligible to vote. An undocumented immigrant could theoretically steal someone’s SSN and go through the other hoops and vote fraudulently. But there’s no rational incentive to do so considering a single vote only matters in an actual tie, and no rational person would risk prison or deportation on that potentiality, don’t you think?

            Maybe focus on the plausible risks, like Steve Bannon being registered to vote in two places.

            1. I don’t give a crap about Moore or Steve Bannon. I’m just confused about the system. I think you can vote if you have a utility bill in at least some states, New York apparently being one of them. In some states it may require a driver’s license but I don’t think you need citizenship for that either (at least in some states). My position is, if you don’t need to show proof of citizenship to vote, a non-citizen can’t get caught and it’s in their best interest to vote (so they don’t get deported by racist Republicans). I would.

              1. Except when it comes with a penalty of $50,000 or 5 years in prison, as it does in my state.

                1. If you get caught, which it doesn’t seem like you can. How would you ever get caught? You get asked for a utility bill, you provided one. When does anybody check beyond that? Are you even allowed to?

                  1. In PA we just require a voter to sign the register book, but we aren’t actually allowed to challenge them if the signature doesn’t match the one in the book — poll watchers from the parties are supposed to do that. Showing ID is only required when voting for the first time at a given location, and a utility bill is sufficient.

                    But if there was a significant string of people showing up on election day brandishing utility bills, I’m pretty sure that either a poll watcher would protest, or one of the poll workers would let their party know., which is why I noted elsewhere here that I think significant voter fraud is only really possible in districts with heavily lopsided registration where the poll workers are in on the scam. You’re never going to get a significant number of fraudulent votes cast by “sneaking” people past the poll workers.

                    1. It looks like I can register to vote in PA online without ever having to go to the book. http://www.votespa.com/en-us/r…..ister.aspx

                    2. Here in New York, anyone can register by just filling out a form giving their name and address, and signing the form, which affirms their citizenship. No proof of citizenship, or even of residence, is actually required, just sign the form which says you’re a citizen, and you’re registered. Poll workers are supposed to compare the voter’s signature on election day with the signature from the registration, and can “challenge” the voter if the signatures don’t match. I put “challenge” in quotes because all such a challenge means is that the voter must sign one additional form attesting that yes, (s)he really is the voter (s)he claims to be, despite the poll worker’s doubts. Then (s)he must be allowed to vote like anybody else. So there is little point to such challenges. I was a poll worker this year, so I know. The only person whose signature I had any doubts about was the very first voter at my table, on primary day. I didn’t want to make a fuss with the first voter, so I let him vote without even the pro-forma challenge.

                    3. Schill, problem: In-person voting isn’t the real vulnerability. As has been said, it’s a giant hassle for minimal results. Ballot box stuffing and mail-in ballots, ARE a threat, and we have no way to identify these.

                  2. Wow, I mean, who doesn’t love shitbag Tulpa arguing with himself YET AGAIN

                2. Democrat voters will never be prosecuted for voter fraud in your state shitbag.

                3. Well in my state there was an actual conviction of voter fraud. $100 fine and two weeks of CS. The statute has no minimum so the judge said Tony suck my dick and I’ll let you off lightly.

            2. Tony:
              “But there’s no rational incentive to do so considering a single vote only matters in an actual tie…”

              Wow: you finally get it, and just come out and say how irrational you are.

              That’s proggresive, in a way.

              1. The point, which you people would grasp if you had any intellectual capacity, is that this can only possibly be a real problem if illegal immigrants were voting in a systematic and mass fashion. Something you’d think you’d actually want to prove before you expend any more credibility dying on the Roy Moore hill.

                1. Lol. Voting in a systemic and mass fashion… like everyone does every election?

                  Go ahead and make his argument for him, Mr. Rational.

    2. Except Alabama has a voter id law requiring everyone to show proof of citizenship.

      Not suprisingly, you’re still bitching about it. Because the whole voter fraud thing isn’t what you’re really upset about, is it?

      1. I’m not upset about anything. I just don’t know the process. It seems like if you don’t have to ever show proof of citizenship, and only proof of residence with something like a utility bill, then if I was an undocumented immigrant, I would vote. It’s stupid not to. If you do have to show proof of citizenship, then I wouldn’t. Do you ever have to show proof of citizenship? Should you?

        1. It’s absolutely stupid– mindbogginly so– to vote illegally in this country. Why would you risk jail, deportation, fines, etc. to cast a single vote in an election where 80 million or so people cast ballots?

          1. You risk an agonizing, slow, painful death every time you get in the car, but the odds are small enough it’s worth it. The odds of burning to death in a car crash I think are much higher than getting caught voting while undocumented. Has anyone ever gone to prison, etc. for voting while undocumented? If I was scared for my life because some racist tyrant (or his minions in Congress) was going to take control, I would take the miniscule risk of voting to stop it. I don’t see how it’s possible to get caught. The system just doesn’t have a mechanism to catch it and any attempt put a mechanism in place is racist and unconstitutional.

        2. then if I was an undocumented immigrant, I would vote. It’s stupid not to.

          Illegal immigrants generally avoid official contact with the state (except to pay taxes, because if you pay taxes you avoid more official “contact”). The idea that one would get their name and address on a list and risk discovery just for the chance to not-affect an election is simply your fever dream, not the reality.

      2. Except Alabama has a voter id law requiring everyone to show proof of citizenship.

        My state – New York – has no such thing. I’m sure there are others.

        1. New York doesn’t require you to show ID when you cast your ballot. It does require you to show ID when you register to vote:

          New York State Voter Registration Form

          If you do not have a DMV or social security
          number, you may use a valid photo ID, a current
          utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government
          check or some other government document that
          shows your name and address. You may include a
          copy of one of those types of ID with this form?
          be sure to tape the sides of the form closed.
          If we are unable to verify your identity before
          Election Day, you will be asked for ID when
          you vote for the first time.

          1. Yep, and none of those things is a proof of elibility to vote.

            1. Of course not. 80+% of people don’t have any way of proving they’re eligible to vote. They do confirm identity, and once identity is confirmed, the election board can confirm eligibility to vote behind the scenes. That’s what that big “For Board Use Only” square is for.

              1. the election board can confirm eligibility to vote behind the scenes

                Yeah, I’m sure they’ll get right on that.

                1. And here we get to the nut of the matter. No matter what efforts are taken to prevent voter fraud from occurring, Rhywun will claim it still occurring because some vast shadowy conspiracy is working behind the scenes to keep the voter fraud going. Thus the only way to prove a non-fraudulent election occurred is for Rhywun’s chosen candidate to win.

                  1. Do you seriously believe that the voter rolls are being cross-checked against some list of eligible voters somewhere? There is no “vast shadowy conspiracy” because there doesn’t have to be. Nobody’s looking.

                    As for “my chosen candidate”, well, I haven’t voted in a decade so maybe you can read my mind and tell me who that is.

                    1. Do you seriously believe that the voter rolls are being cross-checked against some list of eligible voters somewhere?

                      Do you have a reason to believe that they are not?

                      I am with you that voter ID rules are in general too lax across the board. But if the real problem is incompetent or corrupt poll workers, then no set of ID rules will ever work.

                    2. Do you have a reason to believe that they are not?

                      No, just a guess based on my observations of the way government operates. If nobody higher up is demanding it, they’re not doing it.

                  2. No matter what efforts are taken to prevent voter fraud from occurring,

                    In Rhywun’s state exactly zero effort is made in this regard. There are merely a few weak checks on the system, which is a giant red flag to anyone with any degree of audit experience (or even half a brain) that it is ripe for abuse. Couple that with the reality that one half of the duopoly isn’t at all interested in even knowing the degree to which fraud is perpetuated (particularly how much is perpetrated in the urban districts where it would be easiest to do so) and you end up with an endless wellspring for paranoid types.

          2. No it doesn’t. It requires you to show a utility bill. How does a government agency validate a utility bill? I bet I could get a utility bill for my dog. If the only thing I need to vote is a utility bill, and I’m an undocumented immigrant that could be deported if the wrong party gets elected, I’m voting.

            1. Oh look. Mister “I’m just asking questions” has suddenly come charging out of the Motte.

              1. I haven’t charged anywhere. I asked a question, you kind of botched the answer thus far, so I’m seeking clarification.

                1. I’m not sure how widespread the NY system is but it seems similar to a bar that says “in order to drink, you need to show a valid ID showing you’re at least 21 or a letter from your mom saying you’re at least 21.” Then, we just assume everybody at the bar is at least 21 and anybody who says there may people drinking underraged is a racist idiot. In addition, anybody who wants to do away with the letter from mom and require IDs is racist. I’m not saying that’s what’s going on, I’m just saying that what it seems like. I’m now asking the intelligent, educated fanbase of reason.com to confirm or deny this.

                  1. You’re exactly right, and democrats benefit disproportionately 1,000 to 1 from voter fraud.

                  2. I’m now asking the intelligent, educated fanbase of reason.com to confirm or deny this.

                    Why?

                    Do you imagine there’s some significant contingent here that are against requiring IDs to vote?

                    Have you noticed that sound in response to your baiting? It’s crickets.

                    1. Short answer, yes. I’ve read a lot of these boards and Reason seems fairly well-balanced on immigration. I think that’s because, like abortion, I don’t think there’s a “correct” libertarian answer to it like there is with drug prohibition. Also, whatever it’s faults, the average reason poster seems more intelligent and informed than the average foxnews/cnn poster, as sad as that may seem. I have admittedly limited knowledge but it seems like there’s a really simple flaw in the “anyone who thinks undocumented voters vote is a racist idiot” position (namely, there’s nothing stopping them or even a way of knowing if they are). I’m just trying to confirm if that flaw exists are not. There are posters here that clearly don’t believe the flaw exists but I haven’t heard a good argument against it. In that case, crickets is kind of an answer.

                    2. Pennsylvania had a voter ID law, but it was overturned by the courts after the Republican general assembly house leader was caught on tape admitting it was more about suppressing the minority vote than about stopping fraud.

                    3. Well, that’s the thing. Virtually every policy has an upside and a downside and great minds can disagree whether it’s worth it or not. There’s no denying that one of the downsides of voter ID laws is that racists love them. What I’m proposing is that a potential downside is that it allows an unknowable amount undocumented immigrants to vote with little to nothing stopping them. I’m not saying I’m for voter ID laws…maybe it’s worth it to stick it to those damn racists. However, unless I’m missing something (which is what I’m trying to find out), the downside I mentioned is a real thing and shouldn’t be categorically dismissed as crazy and racist nor should those that cite it be summarily ridiculed and demonized.

                    4. it seems like there’s a really simple flaw in the “anyone who thinks undocumented voters vote is a racist idiot” position

                      I don’t think many of the libertarians here are likely to make that argument. Tony, yes, but you may have noticed that he’s a Progressive who hates every single person here with the fury of a thousand suns, and who literally would have no idea what to think without his Team Blue talking points.

                      More honest Progessives in places like CA (where I live) argue that undocumented people should be allowed to vote, since if they have the documentation to be able to register, then they are paying taxes and living under the laws made by voters, and thus have a right to have a voice in those laws.

                      But being largely in lower socio-economic brackets, odds are pretty good that few illegals actually do vote, in fact. This has been a constant source of frustration for Team Blue going back decades – the poorest people tend to support Team Blue, but also don’t tend to vote.

                      Those who scream “Racist!” at those who advocate Voter ID laws are the people who scream “Racist!” at absolutely everything no matter what it is. I wouldn’t put too much stock in it.

        2. Funny, I was just looking at the NY State requirements for voting.

          You all have this convoluted process for getting a driver’s license. I suppose if someone can figure that out, then they could register to vote.

    3. No, you’re not confused. As far as I can tell there’s nothing stopping illegals from voting and it would certainly be in their best interest to do so.

      1. Thanks for the response. You’ve made the most sense so far. If you only need utility bills to register, it seems like anyone that pays for utilities can vote…and it’s obviously in undocumented immigrants’ best interest to vote since only one party is racist and wants to deport them. I don’t see how in the world we know how common it is since there’s absolutely no way to catch anyone…especially when you’re not particularly interested in doing it.

        1. It doesn’t take shit to vote, or get someone’s ballot. Remember a few years ago when James O’Keefe, a skinny white kid, got US AG Eric Holder’s ballot (an older black man)? This kind of shit are what democrats are all about.

      2. Lol. You people are fucking morons. It’s not even in citizens’ best interest to vote.

    4. My less-than-expert-level understanding was that if you showed up to vote but couldn’t prove that you are an eligible voter, then you get to cast a ‘provisional ballot’, and those are only checked if the margin is close enough to warrant checking them, otherwise they are ignored. Is that about right?

      1. No.

        In Kalifornia, “motor-voter” allows anyone getting a drivers license to register to vote at the same time. Does anyone know of any requirement to prove citizenship in Kalifornia to do either? No? Any surprise that Hitlery’s landslide popular vote win was 100% from Kalifornia?

    5. Here’s how it works in Michigan(Your state may vary). You give them your name and they check it against their list of registered voters. Once they find your name they ask to see an ID. If you don’t have an ID you have to sign an affidavit saying that you are who you claim your are and are given a provisional ballot to fill out.

    6. Have you talked to many illegals? Most Mexican and Central American illegals don’t speak English very well, are poorly educated and probably couldn’t even tell you which party is which. They also do everything possible not to be noticed. It would take a lot of organization and money to get them to the polls, and you would have no guarantee they would mark the right box. Of course you do have your Irish illegals, but if they did bother to vote it might be for Trump. The idea of massive voter fraud from illegals has always struck me as prima facie absurd.

      1. Almost as much organization as it takes to get them to the welfare office – and yet they seem to find their way.

    7. Add on the fact that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and the whole,

      “He still has not provided any evidence to back up that claim, possibly because there is none”

      thing falls apart.

      I laugh at the claims that there’s “no voter fraud” because “only small amounts have been found”.

      Want to change the narrative? Install voting machines that anyone can verify (even YOU, sitting at home), and require proof of voter registration.

      If the voting patterns do NOT change, then maybe there isn’t (much) voter fraud. But if they do…

      1. Cheaper to create a Gestapo, to do what you want.

  5. Moore is a racist. In his mind all black votes are illegitimate, so anyone who won with the black vote is illegitimate because they didn’t win what Moore considers the real election.

    Everything else is just Moore trying to say that without actually coming out and saying it.

    1. If I’m not mistaking, Roy’s stance is that everything after the Ten Commandments, oops, sorry, meant first ten amendments, should be thrown out, which includes giving blacks and women the right to vote. Therefore, I don’t think you are too far off.

      1. Also, in 2004, there was a movement to remove the segregation amendment from the Alabama Constitution. Roy Moore headed the successful (!) campaign to keep it.

      2. Well, there’s very little question that America will be destroyed by the female vote – if it’s not destroyed by something else first. If you lack the background to understand this statement, google “Women’s Suffrage” and “John Lott”. Read the paper and try to come up with any other explanation for all Americans states and the Federal Government running deficits.

        1. Not the female vote. It’s those 30 million illegals from Kenya.

    2. Well, that’s what was in the Articles of Confederation, and the original Constitution. Why d’ya think they call thimsilves conservatives?

      1. Fuck off Hank.

  6. Having worked at our local polls, I really don’t believe that significant identity-based fraud (the kind that Voter ID laws are intended to thwart) is plausible without the collusion of the poll workers, and if the local poll workers are in collusion (as seems quite possible in places with overwhelmingly lopsided registration), then having an ID requirement would be pretty pointless anyway.

    The most simple and effective preventative measure that I can think of is to assign out-of-town poll watchers to make single party shenanigans more difficult. I was pleased to see that Pennsylvania had such a measure in place in November 2016, and while our district isn’t a “problem” one, it was useful to have an extra hand to deal with administrative problems (voter not in the register, changed address, etc.).

    1. Trump’s main beef was illegals voting, not identity-based fraud.

      1. Of course, if you’re winking at the registrations of illegal aliens, there’s no reason you can’t wink at all kinds of other fraudulent registrations. But that’s likely a state-level fraud, tending to perpetuate the political status quo (so hardly something that would have harmed Moore in AL), rather than a means of shifting it.

        1. Yeah, I’m not talking so much about Alabama.

          It’s interesting to note that the states with the highest ratios of illegals happen to be the same ones most vehemently against the notion of ensuring that only citizens vote. I’m sure there’s no correlation at all.

          1. ensuring that only citizens vote

            Like how Alabama, after passing the Voter ID law, closed all of the DMV offices in eight of the ten black majority counties in Alabama. You know, because they’re SO into ensuring that only citizens vote and totally NOT trying to make it hard for blacks to vote.

      2. How retarded are you? Do the glibs actually suck your brains out when you join them or what? Is there some kind of non-identity-based fraud that would allow illegal immigrants to vote?

    2. Yeah I don’t think in-person voter fraud is a huge problem either. It would be a big risk for anyone to take. I think what is probably of greater concern is absentee voter fraud. It would seem to be easier to get away with, with less risk to the perpetrator.

      But a requirement for ID for in-person voting is still a good idea because it is just stupid not to.

      1. think what is probably of greater concern is absentee voter fraud.

        Yes, but absentee voters tend to lean heavily Republican, so there’s no need to worry about fraud there.

        1. Well I do think the stereotypical Republican complaint of hordes of undocumented people showing up at the polls casting trunkloads of ballots is probably false. But they do have a point that voting should probably be more secure than it already is. There has to be a balance between not having hurdles too high in order to cast a ballot, thereby wrongly disenfranchising valid voters, and having hurdles too low in order to cast a ballot, thereby wrongly disenfranchising valid voters by having their votes canceled out by invalid votes. The two parties are hypothetically representing the two extremes but FFS they do so in the most paranoid hysterical way imaginable that it’s hard for anyone to take them seriously.

          1. The two parties are hypothetically representing the two extremes but FFS they do so in the most paranoid hysterical way imaginable that it’s hard for anyone to take them seriously.

            This essentially describes every single issue that enters public debate.

          2. The two parties are hypothetically representing the two extremes but FFS they do so in the most paranoid hysterical way imaginable that it’s hard for anyone to take them seriously.

            Neither side gives a shit one way or the other about voter integrity beyond purely tactical aspects that benefit them. Republicans benefit from absentee voting and thus have no interest in making it harder for their elderly base to vote by mail. Democrats benefit from poor urban voters who often don’t have up to date identity documents and thus have no interest in making it harder for them to vote.

            Neither care about fraudulent votes, they’re just using it as an accuse to harass the legitimate voters of the other party.

      2. Here in my state we have in-person voter ID.

        Then very lax vote by mail.

        IMO, they cancel each other out.

      3. Yeah I don’t think in-person voter fraud is a huge problem either

        The HUGE case in Seattle (2007) — 1,800 fraudulent registrations funded by ACORN — was still a tiny fraction of voters. Perhaps not in local Precincts. but that type of fraud is for higher office. It was all cleaned up before any elections.

      4. WTFC as long as dolts like Scary Johnson don’t get elected.

    3. Verifiable votes–a QR code receipt you can use to see how your specific vote was counted if you please, would make elections honest. Then again, the only thing more amusing than a butthurt, whining snowflake DEM is a butthurt, whining snowflake GOP bigot. Poooor leeedle BAAAYBEEE!

      1. “All workers are required to turn in a QR receipt showing they voted for our preferred candidate for President in the election, or they are fired.”

  7. Here’s how this works–

    According to the affidavit, “the results of the examination reflected that I did not know, nor had I ever had any sexual contact with any of these individuals.” That statement contradicts Moore’s admission that he knew at least two of the women who said he dated them when they were teenagers, which gives you a sense of how reliable so-called lie detectors are.

    2 women accused him of crimes. Others said they dated him. The lie detector test and his repeated statements refer to the women making criminal accusations against him–NOT to the women he knew or dated.

    Why is this so hard for you people to grasp?

    1. Lie detector tests are bullshit anyways.

      1. Easy to fool. It’s all laid out here.

    2. Yeah actually you are right, at least according to Roy Moore’s affidavit. But FFS. If your defense is “I dated girls too young for my age, but I didn’t actually break any laws” then you’re already losing the argument.

      1. If the argument is “you did something illegal” and you can prove that you didn’t, then, however distasteful, you didn’t lose.

        My problem is that Reason keeps printing the spin when the reality is there and glaringly obvious.

        Attack the reality–don’t simply spread a lie.

        1. Reason is far more interested in virtue signaling to their prog pals, and Roy Moore is low hanging fruit they can grab that will allow them to show the progs that they are ‘good ones’.

          Those cocktail party invites don’t send themselves you know.

        2. In Sullum’s defense, it’s not all that obvious. Team Roy Moore and their Breitbart press shop has done all they can to paint *ALL* of the women’s allegations as false, not distinguishing between the ones that allege actual criminal behavior and just the ones that allege simply creepy behavior. In Roy Moore’s own lawsuit, he writes: “Plaintiff Roy Moore has successfully completed a polygraph test confirming that the representations of misconduct made against him during the campaign are completely false.” Which is itself not a truthful statement. You have to go all the way to the appendix and see his actual affidavit before you learn that he only took the polygraph test with regards to the allegations of three of the women, not all of them.

          1. Not, they haven’t.

            They have repeatedly stated that the women accusing Moore of committing illegal activities are lying.

            It’s the media who have been blurring that line–pointing out the two who were legal, who he dated or knew, every time the issue comes up as if that’s who he’s talking about, as if the fact that these two aren’t lying about the non-crime lends credence to the people accusing him of crimes.

            This is an absolutely true statement–

            “Plaintiff Roy Moore has successfully completed a polygraph test confirming that the representations of misconduct made against him during the campaign are completely false.”

            He’s only speaking about the accusations of criminality, the representations of misconduct

            1. He’s only speaking about the accusations of criminality, the representations of misconduct

              There were four.

            2. Azathoth? Must be another lie.

              This is an absolutely true statement–

              “Plaintiff Roy Moore has successfully completed a polygraph test confirming that the representations of misconduct made against him during the campaign are completely false.”

              French-kissing Moore’s ass, the real truth is that Roy Moore signed an affidavit CLAIMING he took a polygraph. But he refuses to even say who performed it.

              Like Trump, his puppets will dutifully troll any lie that is programmed into their robotic minds.

    3. Reading literacy? The actual polygraph results are not part of this. Only his sworn affidavit about a test that MAY not have ever happened. And he indeed said that he had dated underage girls “with their parents’ permission,”.
      He’s kinda like Trump on that also — repeatedly shooting himself in the foot.

    4. There is not a shred of evidence that a lie detector test was ever taken. Only his unverifiable statement,. He refuses to even say who took it. Polygraph officials (from the state organization) say it’s impossible to judge his statement

      “Without having known who gave (Moore) his test and which type of test was used, and specifically how the questions were formulated, I can’t give an opinion,” on the polygraph test that Moore said he took

      He’s about as honest as Trump

      2 women accused him of crimes. Others said they dated him. The lie detector test and his repeated statements refer to the women making criminal accusations against him

      Wrong on all counts. You invented that.

      In his election complaint, Moore stated that he took a polygraph test over the sexual misconduct allegations made against him by Leigh Corfman, Beverly Nelson and Tina Johnson.

      FOUR women accused him of crimes. HE said the purported polygraph involved THREE women.

      Shame on you.

  8. Sullum is old enough to realize that while children and idiots may be whipped into a frenzy over Trump or Whatzername, sophisticated voters read the platform planks. Trump got the electoral votes, true, but the only real issue was access to energy. The Libertarian and GOP planks favored keeping power plants safe and legal. They got 49.4% of the vote. The Dems, commies and Econazis want to hamper and obstruct power generation at every opportunity and pretext. They too got 49.4% of the vote–but the jobs, paychecks, pelf, power and boodle went to God’s Own Prohibitionists. Dems should consider a plank relegalizing all plant leaves instead of trying to ban stuff they know nothing about. That’s the 3% solution.

    1. FFS, you are a gibbering unoriginal subnormal.

    2. Don’t forget, it’s crackers to slip a rozzer, the dropsy in snide!

  9. It’s so weird being on a libertarian board and watching people who are presumably in favor of limited government argue that it’s necessary for the state to impose a citizenship test in order to vote. I’m pretty happy that in 2016 when I left my ID at the bar on Election Day I was able to cast a ballot for Jill Stein without having some apparatchik demand my papers.

    1. Oh FFS… I know you’re trolling, but just for the record libertarians generally don’t support allowing non-citizens to vote. See also: the Constitution.

      1. What kind of libertarians support taxation without representation? (If they realize it)
        Most countries allow non-citizens to vote, on limited matters. When I worked in Canada, it was direct voter levies — never candidates. I THINK it was nationwide, as it applied in four different provinces for me and my fellow yanks-in-residence.

  10. Oh come on! Of course Moore didn’t lose the election because of voter fraud!

    Everyone knows that Jones colluded with the Russians to spread fake news and spend $17.95 on Facebook ads which misled millions, if not billions, of gullible voters into voting for Jones. (Those Ruskies really know how to get a bang for their advertising buck, don’t they).

    That, and the TV interviewer were mean and nasty to Moore while tossing Jones cream-puff questions.

    #speaking-of-losers-in-denial

  11. There most certainly was voter fraud in Alabama! it was widely reported that Alabama imposed policies that kept black and Democrats from voting prior to the last election:

    ** Alabama law blocks 1 in 13 adults from voting : http://s.al.com/I2d80Gh

    ** Voter Suppression Tactics Are Being Reported in Alabama : http://theslot.jezebel.com/vot…..ot_twitter

  12. Keep in mind that Moore’s “affidavit” of a polygraph test is ..; his statement. I googled maybe a dozen reports, and not a single one even mentioned actual polygraph results. All phrased it as a statement. I’ll assume for now that he signed a sworn affidavit, but his history would render that fairly useless!

    Now I’m imagining a game of Liar’s Poker between Moore and Trump. Could a winner EVER be established?

  13. The difference between the two claims is that it makes Moore a sore loser, and it makes Trump a sore winner, but a winner nonetheless, regardless of the popular vote.

  14. “The defeated Senate candidate’s refusal to concede is no more preposterous than the claim that the president actually won the popular vote”

    It’s also no more preposterous than the claim the the Rooosuns interfered with the 2016 election.

    1. The entire intelligence community calls you a liar.

    2. No intelligent person disputes that the Russians interfered with the election. They have probably been interfering in every election since 1948. The issues are 1) whether that interference mattered and 2) whether Trump aided and abetted a foreign power interfere. The first issue can never be proven conclusively, there are just too many variables. There isn’t much evidence for the second other than Trump’s own hysterical denials and overreactions.

      1. If you follow the foreign press, several European countries also claim Russian interference. Putin was a rankling officer in the KGB for chrissakes.

        Trump denies collusion, but conspiracy seems more likely. Donald Jr’s confession essentially said he WANTED to conspire with the Rooskies at that meeting

        Watch those subpoenas at Deutsch Banke, the Russian money launderer. Was also Trump’s primary lender when US banks cut him off from all his business failure and bankruptcies. THAT trail COULD conclude that Trump owes his entire fortune to Russia.. And he’s already confessed to obstruction. Mueller is probably adding to a case he already has (or is close)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.