Home » This is called staying on message

Comments

This is called staying on message — 21 Comments

  1. From a comment on another blog:

    “If you’ve ever read the book by Simon Sebag Montefiore, “Stalin: In the Court of the Red Tsar”, the classic Soviet procedure was to bring forth false witnesses, then more witnesses, then forged documents. Then more false witnesses.

    “And then yet more fake witnesses: but always, always, always: repeat the lie. Repeat the lie, repeat the lie, repeat the lie. The Supreme Soviet could not be wrong, so any one who question them, was also a traitor. Repeat the lie.

    “Another favorite technique of Beria and his predecessors was to always choose an alleged “crime” that was impossible to defend. The favorite in their era was homosexuality. Against Judge Moore, it is “pedopheeeeelia”.

  2. there are a few incontrovertible facts here Neo

    1. Moore was never the DA

    2. She lied when she said that she had no contact with the presiding judge in her divorce case

    3. she didn’t demand that he be recused from her divorce proceedings.

    4. after he found against her ( although she claims no contact with him) her “yearbook” would be automatic appeal material.

    5. No parking lot behind the restaurant.

  3. Court documents show key claim made by Roy Moore’s attorney was a lie:

    The details of the case were first exposed by a pseudonymous Twitter account, which dug up the documents from that divorce action. ThinkProgress independently verified the full, unredacted case file, which shows there was no occasion for Moore and Nelson to cross paths. The case was dismissed shortly after it was filed as Nelson and her husband attempted to reconcile.

    The documents do show that Nelson, then Beverly Harris, filed a divorce action against her then-husband in May of 1999. All of the initial documents, however, were signed by a different district judge, W. D. Russell. On May 25, 1999, Judge Russell scheduled the first hearing for the case for June 16.

    But that hearing never took place. In June, before the scheduled hearing was set to take place, she filed for a motion to “continue” (delay) the hearing because she and her husband “are going to counseling and are attempting to reconcile.”

    A month later, she filed a motion to dismiss the case. That appears to be the only document Moore signed, 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.

  4. next time it will be a November surprise instead of October, giving someone 1 month to clear his name now seems too long with the technology.

  5. Ann Says:
    November 16th, 2017 at 2:43 pm
    Court documents show key claim made by Roy Moore’s attorney was a lie:

    if that is the case Allred would have no problem exposing the forged yearbook for analysis to prove the DA guilty

  6. Judge Moore could turn out to be pure as the driven snow, but with all of the accusations, negative upon negative publicity, his reputation is damaged beyond repair. If somehow elected, he will be under such a cloud to render him has useless. This seems to be a situation where there is no good solution. No matter any results of any investigation, there will be people on each side that will not believe or accept the results.

    Something I have heard little of is the timing of the revelations, after this man has held high state office for decades.

  7. Just the name thinkprogress raises the hairs on the back of my neck. But others’ mileage may differ. This has gone beyond ridiculous. Perhaps the SJW wonder woman should go after a known creep who became a Minnesota senator after a box of ballots was suddenly discovered in the trunk of an Oldsmobile weeks after the election. But heck, that is asking too much.

    And they still wonder why the bitter clingers do not trust them to pick up after their dogs poop on our lawns.

  8. I don’t see that, I didn’t know who Roy Moore is before, now I know about him I see Roy Moore as good man based on one simple logic, if the best smears his powerful political enemies could find is him pinching a girl’s butt or tricked a principle to take a girl out of trig class so he can talk to her or hitting a girl in a mall, then this man is as clean as it can be.

    If you have a problem with him dating young girls then why didn’t you have a problem with him married one for so long, he was 38 and she was 24, he obviously was searching for a girl in that age group to start a family, what exactly is wrong with that?

  9. Ann:

    I can’t find Nelson’s actual statement about not having had subsequent contact with Moore (what were her words?), but if she used the word “contact” that means more than “meeting up in person.” Signing off on her divorce dismissal would be “contact.” If he really abused her that badly, she would certainly have known he was a judge, and should certainly have noticed his signature on the motion to dismiss. It makes sense that, with their history, she would be monitoring whether he would ever be assigned to her case or ever would have anything to do with it.

    If he didn’t really have much to do with her case, however (and if that report is true, then he didn’t), it eliminates revenge for something he did during the divorce as a possible motive for her accusation. But that doesn’t tell us whether her story is true or false.

    I think Allred’s reaction in this interview is very telling, however. I don’t think she thinks she has a strong case.

  10. avi:

    In previous posts I’ve already pointed out things like the fact that Moore was not the DA. But your comment is the first I heard that says there was no parking lot in back. I can’t find a word about it. Can you find a link?

  11. “Think What the Left tells you to think”

    vs Evangelical “social laws that mirrors what they believe are biblical laws”

  12. “I’ll quit standing when they lay me in that box and put me in the ground” – Roy Moore on whether he will withdraw from the AL senate race in light of the sexual assault allegations

    It is the duty of every Christian to fight to the death against false accusations. Jesus never taught us to back down from evil and apologize to every accusation even those you didn’t commit. Apologizing to things you didn’t commit is lying, quitting for things you didn’t do is lying, why do evangelicals like Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan want Roy Moore to lie?

  13. “The USA was not founded on the Bible.”

    That’s arguable.

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”

    The “creator” to whom the founders referred was not the Hindu Vishnu, the Greek’s Zeus or the Egyptian’s Sun God Ra.

    And while the Declaration is not the Constitution, it is its spiritual inspiration, for “unalienable” rights cannot exist absent a beneficent creator that transcends the current consensus of societal opinion. Government can only ‘grant’ to its citizens… privileges.

  14. avi Says:
    November 16th, 2017 at 6:03 pm
    neo,
    forgot where I read it last night, but confirmed by Rush today
    https://www.mapquest.com/us/alabama/old-hickory-house-363661604
    * * *
    I couldn’t tell from the map which building was supposed to be the restaurant, but leaving that aside, the lack of a parking lot now doesn’t mean there was none 30 years ago.
    When I look at the changes to buildings and even streets in my own town just in the decade I’ve been here, the claim isn’t dispositive.

  15. AesopFan:

    Thanks.

    If there was a trial, that’s the sort of thing that could be learned rather easily—did the restaurant have a parking lot in the back in 1977? It would be important, too, because if there was no such lot then her story would be much less credible.

    My guess is that there was a lot, though. Having worked at the restaurant, she was familiar with the layout.

    I’m assuming, of course, that she did work at the restaurant back then. That’s not the sort of thing she’d be likely to lie about, because it would be so easy to find out if she did or didn’t.

  16. Neo, you are just too rational, and would never make a good criminal.
    People lie all the time about things even when “it would be so easy to find out if” it really could happen that way.

    Lincoln and the Almanac come to mind.

    There are examples even in just this case: banned from the mall (now in doubt); regular at the restaurant (could be other servers from that time with different data), signed my yearbook (waiting for the experts on that one),
    the divorce details discrepancy is more spin than lie IMO)

  17. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”

    That’s not the Bible. That’s Masonry, which back then meant Free Exercise of Religion. No Vatican. No Church of England. No Roman State Religion enforced by the legions, crucifixion, torture, taxes, etc.

    What you are quoting, GB, is a new covenant that established the US as a direct vassal under the Kingdom of God or the Divine Counsel of the Trinity.

    It is not from the Bible at all.

  18. AesopFan:

    Oh, I’m well aware that people lie a great deal, about things small and large, believable and unbelievable.

    I do think, though, that a well-orchestrated political hit job that involves lying about someone is often quite well thought-out, and works better if it is. So people might be more likely to use lies that are difficult to detect rather than lies that are easy to debunk.

  19. neo-neocon Says:
    November 17th, 2017 at 1:44 pm
    AesopFan:
    … So people might be more likely to use lies that are difficult to detect rather than lies that are easy to debunk.
    * *
    Agreed.
    But I’m wondering how well thought out any of this brouhaha really is, since WaPo claims they only got hold of the accusers immediately prior to publication (how many days?) and that was only last week.

    “Woman says Roy Moore initiated sexual encounter when she was 14, he was 32”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 9 November 2017.

    Plus, as I have said earlier, why in the world did Allred let the yearbook be seen without an instant explanation for the colored inks and signature problems?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>