[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/news/ - Current News


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 23 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


Meta on /qa/ only.
All meta discussion of boards is to be redirected to /qa/.


http://www.businessinsider.com/nrsc-chair-cory-gardner-roy-moore-senate-expel-2017-11?utm_source=feedburner&amp%3Butm_medium=referral&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider+%28Business+Insider%29

>WASHINGTON — The chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner, called for the Senate to expel Alabama candidate Roy Moore if he wins the election on December 12.

>Gardner issued a statement Monday condemning Moore, who has been accused of sexual misconduct with multiple teenagers. A woman came forward on Monday and accused Moore of sexually assaulting her when she was a teenager.

>"I believe the individuals speaking out against Roy Moore spoke with courage and truth, proving he is unfit to serve in the United States Senate and he should not run for office," Gardner said. "If he refuses to withdraw and wins, the Senate should vote to expel him, because he does not meet the ethical and moral requirements of the United States Senate."

>The allegations against the Republican candidate, which included sexual misconduct with a 14-year-old girl when Moore was 32, have resulted in a snowball of withdrawn endorsements, including from Sens. Steve Daines and Mike Lee.

>Last week, the NRSC withdrew from the joint fundraising agreement between Moore's campaign, the Republican National Committee, and the Alabama GOP.

>And on Monday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he believes Moore's accusers and that he should step aside from the race. Sen. John Cornyn, the chamber's No. 2 Repulican, also withdrew his endorsement of Moore on Monday. He declined to say whether he would back Gardner's move, however, when asked by Business Insider.

>The allegations have also tightened the gap between Moore and his Democratic challenger, Doug Jones. One poll conducted after the sexual misconduct claims even showed Jones taking a slim lead.
>>
>>197161
Is there any legitimacy to the claims? I keep hearing about the fallout, but almost nothing about the evidence for them.
>>
>>197162
he pretty much admitted they happened in various statements
>>
>>197179
Isn't the accuser a Clinton campaign worker? Sounds like bullshit
>>
>>197162
>I keep hearing about the fallout, but almost nothing about the evidence for them.

Nobody wants to talk about that, because it's risky. If you're pro-Moore and it turns out the evidence is solid, you're fucked and you lose, good day sir. If you're anti-Moore and it turns out the evidence is shit, you're fucked and you lose, good day sir. If both sides ignore the evidence and assume that their preferred answer is real, they can avoid that automatic defeat.

Though a strange exception to that are the pro-Moore guys who say "so what if it's true?" which is incredibly bizarre coming from supporters of a moral authority candidate (and to an extent, the party as a whole). Hell, one of them even tried to use Mary and Joseph as a defense, because somehow the Bible trumps US law in legal precedent. This line of defense is the one that will cause damage to the Republican brand (as the moral authority party), which is a strong reason why other Republicans are willing to throw Moore to the wolves: saving one senate seat now is not worth sacrificing potential future seats.

But to answer the first question, they interviewed like 50 people for the original news story, of which many claimed that it was common knowledge that Moore liked to date young, specifically girls in high school. They can also place Moore and the then-14 year old in question in the same courthouse via these same interviewees. From that point on, what transpired is shakier because I keep hearing about the fallout, but almost nothing about the evidence for them.there aren't many witnesses to a private home compared to a public space.
>>
>>197184
if he sort of admits it I think that speaks for itself, also his attempts at defending himself come off as weaker than Anthony Wiener.
>>
>>197186
Fair enough. I kind of figured as much. The fact that they can place both of them in the same location does provide quite a bit more support for her claims. Guess we will need to see how this plays out.
>>
>>197187
Can you quote when he admits it? It sounds like it's a massive political hackjob
>>
>>197184
The accuser of primary concern (the then-14 year old) has voted Republican in the past and voted for Donald Trump. I believe the Clinton staffer was a secondary accuser who was 18 at the time, and therefor less politically significant.

>>197190
I'm not him, but the quote I heard was less of a direct confirmation and more of a nonspecific denial.
>HANNITY: Do you remember dating girls that young at that time?
>MOORE: Not generally, no. If did, you know, I'm not going to dispute anything but I don't remember anything like that.
>HANNITY: But you don't specifically remember having any girlfriend that was in her late teens even at that time?
>MOORE: I don't remember that and I don't remember ever dating any girl without the permission of her mother. And I think in her statement she said that her mother actually encouraged her to go out with me.
It's the "I don't remember" dodge, allowing him to avoid a perjury accusation if the evidence pans out (unlike Bill "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton, whose specific denial led to his impeachment). Later in that interview he gives a direct denial of even meeting her (which as you can see by confirmed evidence is likely false). He then follows up that short direct denial with a long tirade about how it's a conspiracy against him, how his opponent is very liberal, and his many years of service, which is a lot of unnecessary bluster that has nothing to do with the substance of the accusation itself.
>>
>>197184
There are 5 accusers now. 4 independently through the WaPo investigation, and one who came forward on camera after the WaPo story.

Her quote, "he no longer has power over me," illustrates exactly why in these types of assault in which there is a stigma associated (especially in a beet-red state, double especially 20 years ago, and 10x especially 40 years ago) the victim rarely comes forward publicly except in a watershed moment like this.

It's the same pattern every time -- accusers of the pedophile priests only consented to go on-record when it was guaranteed that they would not be alone and the story would be a windfall. That doesn't mean Moore is guilty by any stretch, nor does it provide evidence to that effect. But it does mean that as of yet there is *zero* reason to doubt these women's integrity. Again, that does not mean there is necessarily any reason to doubt Moore's integrity either.
>>
>>197272
In terms of the election, however, McCain probably said it best when he said that there is no burden of proof or presumption of innocence apart from the choice of the voters. That said, if the Party chooses to endorse a guilty man, they effectively say, "By our established reputation we think you should pick this guy." If he is elected and yet is found to be guilty, or is immediately expelled, he tarnishes the entire Party.

Now the GOP is effectively telling Moore in every way it can to step down -- it cannot legally remove him from the ballot so late, so Moore has to volunteer. If he still says "no," is he disowning the GOP? Is the GOP disowning him?

Btw, if he dropped out he could conceivably settle the claims by NDA settlement, as most he-said-she-said cases are, and AL would elect him next cycle in a landslide as they are predicted to do.
>>
>>197235
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/10/roy-moore-accuser-worked-for-clinton-campaign-as-interpreter-reports-say.html

Accuser worked for the Clinton campaign? Seriously?

All on the heels of an election? Why not before? He was always prominent. This is exactly what happened to Trump - dozens of trumped up charges with little credibility and zero evidence
>>
>>197275
Son, read this post
>>197186
>>
>>197295
well apparently /pol/ is fishing through the histories of all the accusers, and they're all either DNC affiliated or lying about their voting records

not saying anything either way, but anon is correct to assume this is a political stunt. its not a new strategy.
>>
>>197297
You do know /pol/ could also be altering the info right? Just saying that you should take a huge grain of salt about trusting anything on that board and this is for both liberals and conservatives.
>>
>>197299
You know they probably aren't though right?
>>
>>197303
/pol/ is 250% not above altering information to support their views
>>
>>197428
allegations are fake. yearbook signature uses two color inks. completely different handwriting (look at teh 7's). lousy forgery.
establishment doesn't want to lose control of the republican party from primary challengers. they have trump contained, but if they lose congress, they're fucked. this is pure intimidation tactics.
>>
>>197433
Trump didn't even support Moore until the establishment started backing Moore after he won the primary. Take your head out your ass.
>>
>>197161
Sorry I don't buy into this Soros funded bullshit. Roy Moore is being smeared by Soros funded groups in order to demonize Christianity. So what if he has a relation with a younger girl, globalist cucks.
>>
>>197476
Preach the truth, brother.

These dykes been accusing men of neglect when they're the ones that needed to be put in their places.
>>
>>197479
>>197476
>>197433
lol @ rightist damage control
>>
>>197476
>3 out of 5 women voted for Trump
>Soros funded bullshit
Good try there, Steve.
>>
>>197482
Media Matters and Shareblue are not welcome

Don't you have a cone to sit on?
>>
>>197161

You want to overthrow a democratically elected representative on accusations alone? I'm sure this won't have a negative impact on the duration of your life, Gardner.
>>
>>197186

There is no "moral authority" party. Democrats sold out this country's future via the Immigration Act of 1965 because they wanted to secure power for themselves, and Republicans looked the other way and didn't fix the fucking problem because it provided cheap labor. Neither party represents true Americans, the White man.

In the end, though, it's all irrelevant. The US will be a one party (D) state within 3 election cycles. It's a demographic certainty. For the past 10 presidential elections;

whites (r) 60/40
blacks (d) 90/10
hispanics (d) 70/30

By the late 2020s, conservative whites won't outnumber race traitors and coloreds who simply want to A) replace white people "diversity is our strength" or B) just want more GIBSMEDAT. But I'm sure I'm overreacting and everything will work out just fine.

Especially when Democrat nominees for Governor are running anti-white/pro-race war ads like this one;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXB7vlBl_Vs
>>
>>197482
Communists on suicide watch.
>>
>>197522
And thus, the filthy savages will infiltrate our government and destroy everything we hold dear.
>>
>>197522

No one fucking cares about your fear fantasy trapped inside your head. Keep your rambling incoherent monologues to yourself and let the adults (i.e. people with real world experience) do the talking.
>>
>>197522
>replace white people "diversity is our strength"
Who is replacing white people? White people are free to marry whomever they want. This country was 0% white at one time. Now it's mostly white. And whites choose their family same as everyone else. Liberals and minorities shouldn't be blamed by folks on the far right for the choices of others

>just want more GIBSMEDAT.
The biggest GIBS are whites and blacks and asians and jews in government, and industry, because we have no campaign finance reform and money is speech when rich people spend it on elections.

In this country we don't have an economic system that protects the working class and any attempt to create that by defending peoples' freedom through access to basic resources is just rebuffed as "gibs" even if it's just healthcare for children born into poverty.
>>
>>197545

>these are our future demographics
>this is what will happen, politically

I mean, you can choose to believe that when the US becomes a black/brown majority country, it won't fade into a third world shithole like every other black/brown majority country on the planet throughout all of history.

>>197552

>Who is replacing white people?

The federal government through immigration. You do realize that nearly 90% of our LEGAL immigration comes from South of the border, yes? Over the past few decades, we've prioritized non-white nations. What the fuck did you think was making White people become a minority in the US?

>White people are free to marry whomever they want.

This is a random comment. Yes. And White people, overwhelmingly, marry other White people. They're actually the most likely, among all races, to marry and date their own kind.

>This country was 0% white at one time.

This country was NEVER 0% white, you stupid fucking nigger. There was no country before Europeans showed up and made one. North America, the landmass, had few white people at one point, yes. It was mostly inhabited by East Asian migrants, who were constantly warring with one another, enslaving defeated enemies, slaughtering groups for human sacrifice, etc.

And then Europeans came, had open war with the current inhabitants, and won. Thus, the territory belonged to white people. Just like every other race of people have done regarding every piece of land on the planet throughout all of history.

>Liberals and minorities shouldn't be blamed by folks on the far right for the choices of others

I don't only blame race traitors and coloreds. I also blame RINO fucking filth, which is why I called them out as well in my post.
>>
>>197303
They probably are lmao
So glad I stopped visiting /pol/ and believing all that bullshit.
>>
>>197582
>I mean, you can choose to believe that when the US becomes a black/brown majority country, it won't fade into a third world shithole like every other black/brown majority country on the planet throughout all of history.

ALL THE WHITE PEOPLE ARE GONNA DIE!!1!1!1!11!!1!!1!1!!1 THE END IS NIGH.

By the way your stupid fucking dumb posting wont change anything. You will probably get burnt out by the time you're 21 or 22. You certainly aren't the first nor the last. Tell your mom about this as well, she'll be glad to hear all about it.
>>
>>197627

In 30 years, you'll realize your mistake.
>>
>>197582
Hitler was NEVER WRONG!
>>
>>197671

>MUH HITLER

Isn't it past your bed time, Champ?
>>
>>197186
>If you're anti-Moore and it turns out the evidence is shit, you're fucked and you lose, good day sir

That's not how accusations of sexual misconduct works: the mere accusation casts a long shadow. This is especially the case if the alleged perpetrator is poor or low privileged. Accuse a poor man of misconduct and he will quickly find that he is now unemployable even if the case falls apart in court. But a accuse a rich man of misconduct and he carries on as if nothing happened.

So the question is: how wealthy is Roy Moore: that is the real determinant of how things will progress.
>>
>>197668
About what, telling the Truth?




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.