This may be a close call but I will be amused to see if Hannity is stupid enough to buy this crap

he's learned his monetary lesson, and will now return to fellating Trump at every opportunity. There's always good money to be made keeping the Trumptards' hate fired up.

Moore had said he didn't know who Beverly Nelson was; his attorney now says Moore was the judge on Beverly Nelson's 1990s divorce case. So all the attorney managed to prove in this "press conference" (where he refused to take questions) is that Moore is a liar.

It should be possible to determine whether Moore ever frequented the restaurant where Nelson worked --someone would remember.

And it should be even easier to determine if he presided over her divorce trial. If that turns out to be true, Allred and Nelson have fucked up by not disclosing it at the outset

Gadsden is a small town. I would imagine he was the judge on EVERYONE's divorce case at the time. Why would Nelson have to disclose that?

Gadsden is the 12th largest city in Alabama. It is the County Seat of Etowah County, the 11th largest county (out of 67) in the state. Moore has been married to her current husband since 2004; I haven't seen any information about any prior marriages and when they might have ended. But assuming she was divorced between 1992 and 2000, the years Moore was a circuit judge in Gadsden, he probably was one of at least four judges. (There currently are four circuit judges and Gadsden's current population is estimated at around 36,000. Between 1990 and 2000 its population was between 43,400 and 38,900, so it probably was served by at least four judges back then as well.

The point, of course, is that if Nelson had contact with Moore in his professional capacity it would be a relevant fact to know. My guess, if its true, is that he signed some papers -- that he wasn't called on to make rulings -- and that he wouldn't necessarily connect the person who's names are on the papers with the girl he assaulted if she was known by her married name. But as Nelson's attorney, it was incumbent on Allred to get ahead of the story and have all the facts so that allegations like the one made today couldn't be used to muddy the waters.

Apparently all Moore did was sign a dismissal order. It appears to have been an out of court divorce settlement.

And Allred is "getting ahead of the story." Today she offered to hand over the yearbook to a Congressional committee if the committee agrees to hold hearings on the accusations. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/lawyer-congress-can-examine-yearbook-if-hearings-are-held-on-moore-accusations/ar-BBF13AE?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp

And we weren't discussing the yearbook. We're discussing whether there was subsequent contact between Nelson and Moore. According to at least one article I've read, Nelson (or possibly Allred) said there hadn't been any contact between them since he assaulted her. If he was the judge on her divorce they should have brought it up and explained it rather than let the other side put them on the defensive. Just bad lawyering by Allred. Not the first time either.

(Her call for the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing also seems like a pointless move).

Moore just signed off on the dismissal order. The parties' counsel would have just submitted that order to Moore for signature. She would not have been required to attend any hearings in front of Moore.

I don't see how it affects her credibility for not mentioning it.

You obviously don't like Gloria Allred, but I don't see that she has done anything wrong here.

But good lawyering and PR would be to nip the issue in the bud by noting that he signed some papers in her divorce settlement x years ago, but there was no direct contact.

Good lawyering and PR anticipates responses and preempts them.

So I am assuming that she did not appear before him. All he did was sign the divorce decree. Again, the fact that he signed this decree in this small town does not establish that she had some divorce-related ax to grind with Moore. If there were contested issues in the divorce, and Moore had ruled against her on those issues, you can bet Moore's lawyers would have dug that up and raised it at their "press conference." But all they managed to dig up was the order itself and did not say there were any contested issues. So he was basically performing a ministerial function. There was no "conflict" to disclose.

Allred is now challenging Moore to make his statements under oath, and has offered to provide her client to do the same. Yes, everyone knows Moore will never voluntarily agree to testify under oath. But his refusal shows he is a liar. Checkmate Allred.

in their stories.


MAKE UP YOUR MIND, YOU LIAR

I didn't see that he mentioned any of the "holes"...did I miss something?

An asshole...

are ALL lying is...ungodly.

1) Claim: Some supposed anomalies in the signature in the yearbook, comparing it his signature decades later.

Fact: Signatures evolve over decades and the anomalies are not much to begin with.

2) Claim: Cars did not have electric door locks back then. The accuser said he reached over her to lock the door.

Devious misdirections by the RW rebutted:

2a) Electric door locks are surely not involved. For one thing, she said he reached over her to lock the door. They completely ignore this statement and go down blind alleys claiming things like "she wasn't in the back seat". She wasn't. He reached over her.

2b) She should have just opened the door. This ignores the fact that it was locked. Unlocking it would give him time to hold her down while he relocked it.

3) Claim: She had him or let him sign the yearbook after the assault.

Fact: He signed it when she was 15. He sexually assaulted her when she was 16.

4) Claim: The yearbook said "Olde Hickory House" and the restaurant was called "Old".

Rebuttal: Tiny little discrepancies like that happen all the time. Moore had other things on his mind when he wrote "Love" in her yearbook, other things than getting the name of the restaurant exact. He only wanted to remind her.

5) Claim: Moore was not a full D.A. when he is alleged to have signed the yearbook "D.A."

Fact: His clerks put D.A. after all his signatures or after the initials if they initialed for him.
Fact: He told Nelson during the assault "I'm a District Attorney."

1) Claim: Some supposed anomalies in the signature in the yearbook, comparing it his signature decades later.

Fact: Signatures evolve over decades and the anomalies are not much to begin with.


She said he signed it, and signed it DA. She did not say that the notation below his signature was attributed to him, it is just a reminder note as far as I can see.

Also, retards are circulating a Fake News Picture claiming the lower writing was in blue. That is false, the original clearly shows all black writing.


The sad part of this is, that nothing will come of this, except tarnishing his reputation.

I have to say that is a bit odd. It makes me wonder if the one at the end was added by someone else (not that his inscription is not really his)

Different restaurant than the one that is around. Her story holds up.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/453723/olde-hickory-houses

go to Hell if I did.

if anyone has a link could you paste it, Thanks

here's one: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/locals-were-troubled-by-roy-moores-interactions-with-teen-girls-at-the-gadsden-mall

There are holes running Roy Moore's campaign!

I realize it's your job to defend your boss, but seriously go die in a fire.

convince hateful, stupid GOP assholes in Alabama that ALL THOSE GALS ARE LYING

The only criminal justice comes from due process