November 14th, 2017

On unverifiable sexual allegations about political figures

It has become extremely common for people running for election (or newly-appointed to a political post) to be accused at the eleventh hour of sexual offenses. The accusation may take place at the eleventh hour, but the time of the alleged offense is almost always many years ago, and sometime many many many years ago. The accusations vary from sexual jokes in the workplace to unwanted touching, mistresses, and sexual kinkiness, all the way to more serious crimes such as assault and rape.

They are not ordinarily from completely random people; the accusers usually have had a moment when their paths either crossed with the accused (in the workplace, for example) or might have crossed (living in the same town). Sometimes the accusations were brought as part of a divorce by the person’s wife and the records are unsealed and published (this was Obama’s early m.o. against rivals).

So by now the tactic is not only not unusual; we’ve actually grown accustomed to it, as we’ve grown accustomed to the sight of attorney Gloria Allred standing next to the accuser du jour (see this and this). Just to refresh your memory, here’s an excerpt from that first link:

In a completely predictable development in the [Herman Cain accusation] case, Gloria Allred digs up another Cain accuser, Sharon Bialek, who ups the ante and accuses him of genital groping in a car in July of 1997. In another enormous surprise, the accuser failed to report the offense to the NRA or to come forward until now.

Why do I call such accusations of sexual misconduct “unverifiable”? Because ordinarily there’s no evidence whatsoever except the accuser’s words. Usually the closest we come to getting evidence is the unsealed divorce record (which usually merely contains the allegations of the accuser) or a settlement by a business (which is not an admission of guilt or even of a good case). But it’s not at all unusual to have no evidence at all, except that of proximity and opportunity (and sometimes not even that).

It’s quite different with incidents such as Trump’s “pussy” remarks, or Weiner’s penile emails, or anything with real evidence or physical evidence or documentary evidence rather than the unsubstantiated word of the accuser. In contrast, the unverifiable stories rest mostly on our evaluation of the veracity of the person making the allegations and whether their accusations are “believable” or “credible” based on what we know of the person being accused. In the case of Mitt Romney, for example, there were plenty of allegations but no sexual ones, and if there had been I doubt they would have gotten much traction (although in the current climate, they might have).

The accuser is generally someone we’ve never heard of before. How can people decide if that person can be trusted to tell the truth? Well, some listeners (way too many, actually), use the rule: “if the accused person is in my party, then the accuser is lying; if the accused person is in the opposition party, then the accuser is telling the truth.” Other observers try to look deep into the accuser’s eyes and decide if he or she (it’s ordinarily a “she” accusing a “he”) is telling the truth or is lying. In the law business, that’s called evaluating “demeanor,” and it’s always something that juries must take into account when a witness testifies.

In a trial, though, we don’t just decide these things on hunches—which is an awfully good thing, because apparently we’re not so very good at detecting who’s lying and who isn’t. In a trial, we’re supposed to decide if someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is ordinarily a great deal of additional evidence presented other than a witness’ narrative.

What’s more, in a trial we can actually see the witness (there are certain circumstances where this is not the case, but they are the exception and not the rule) and evaluate his or her demeanor for ourselves. Tone of voice, facial expression, body language—all of these can help, although we still make mistakes. In a trial the lawyers for the defense also are entitled to what’s called “discovery,” the right to receive certain kinds of evidence and information from the prosecution, as well as to receive what’s called “exculpatory evidence” (any evidence that would tend to exonerate the accused). In addition, the witness making the accusations can be cross-examined, and defense witnesses can be called. And of course, a jury’s verdict must be unanimous for conviction.

Those safeguards are meant to protect the innocent from being falsely convicted in a trial. But there’s nothing like that sort of protection for the accused in the current flurry of accusations. People are free to say what they want about a public figure because it is almost impossible for that figure to win a defamation suit. Most of the time we don’t even see the accusers, and when we do we get only their side of the story. The cross-examination process—what there is of it, because it’s not true cross-examination—is left to blogs and whatever newspaper might want to defend the person (ordinarily relatively few are in that position, if the accused is on the right).

The MSM prints the stories it wants to print—which often means accusations against Republican candidates, because those stories serve the political leanings of the MSM. The accusers say what they want to say, and although they may be subject to questioning or ridicule or scathing blog posts, they will never be subject to cross-examination because one of the hallmarks of such accusations is that charges are almost never filed against the accused, because the cases are so weak legally. Paradoxically, though, the weakness of the case—whether it be due to the mildness of the offenses (in some cases, anyway), or the lack of corroborating evidence that could hold up in court, or the antiquity of the charges—means that the left often gets more bang for its accusatory buck. That is, the repercussions for the accused can be very serious with far less proof needed, or no proof needed at all.

Right now there’s extra motivation for such accusations because it’s become au courant to make them, and that increases their general credibility. When there’s a popular hashtag “MeToo,” you know that there’s a contagion effect and we have a movement here. It becomes impossible—literally impossible—to tell who is lying and who telling the truth. That politician who was famous for saying “The only way I can lose this election is if I’m caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy” wasn’t running for office today, when it’s unnecessary to be actually “caught” with anybody.

At least, if you’re a Republican. Bill Clinton had to be “caught” with the DNA evidence on the famous blue dress before the media was willing to concede that there had been some sexual acts between Clinton and the youngish (but not teenaged) Lewinsky. And it was up to the National Enquirer to out John Edwards for his affair; the MSM wouldn’t touch the story.

Not only is the MSM far more eager to spread the word about supposedly erring Republicans, but it is aided in this endeavor by the fact that the public judges Republicans more harshly in the sexual sphere. “They’re hypocrites!” is the refrain, if suspect behavior is alleged. Unlike Democrats, Republicans often profess to care a great deal about things such as fidelity.

Actually, the MSM and the Democrats are in an excellent position when Republicans are accused:

(1) Because of the moral principles (or moral posturing, if you will) of Republicans, GOP members have a greater tendency to abandon their fellow Republicans candidates at the merest hint of scandal. That’s quite different from Democrats, who tend to circle the wagons.
(2) The accused person, nearly abandoned, sometimes drops out. That can easily pave the way for a Democratic win no matter who replaces the candidate for the GOP, in part because many voters on the right will blame the Republican establishment for their rejection of the candidate, and decide to punish them at the polls.
(3) If the accused decides to hang tough and not drop out, a Democrat might win because voters on the right are torn and divided, unsure whether the charges are true.
(4) If the accused stays in the race and somehow manages to win against all odds, the opposition can say that Republican voters are scum who don’t care about morals and don’t care about women.

So there is a great deal of reward for making these accusations. If they are true (and some of them probably are), all the better. But if they are false, it’s highly unlikely that fact will ever be uncovered, and they will have done their job.

[NOTE I: By the way, “unverifiable” doesn’t mean “untrue,” although sometimes these accusations are untrue. It means “impossible to tell.” And defending a person’s right to not be judged on the basis of unverifiable allegations does not mean defense of the behavior alleged, although the accusers would have you think so.]

[NOTE II: Remember the classic story (perhaps apocryphal) about LBJ:

[This is] a story about one of Lyndon Johnson’s early campaigns in Texas. The race was close and Johnson was getting worried. Finally he told his campaign manager to start a massive rumor campaign about his opponent’s life-long habit of enjoying carnal knowledge of his own barnyard sows.

“Christ, we can’t get away with calling him a pig-fucker,” the campaign manager protested. “Nobody’s going to believe a thing like that.

“I know,” Johnson replied. “But let’s make the sonofabitch deny it.”]

67 Responses to “On unverifiable sexual allegations about political figures”

  1. Barry Meislin Says:

    Gosh, why not do it here? Seems to work pretty well in Malaysia…

  2. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    So what can be done? New laws punishing the bearing of false witness? The pitfalls in that are obvious. So we have an uncorrectable situation because a society based on individual liberty requires moral self-discipline from its citizens. The immoral “forge their own fetters” for liberty can only be sustained by a “moral and religious* people”…

    * by “religious” I suspect that Adams meant a people who accept the premise that moral precepts must extend from a source that transcends mankind’s current consensus of opinion.

  3. Jim Doherty Says:

    The answer is for voters to ignore the media and elect a reality TV guy as President. That will show em.

  4. Tom Says:

    I noticed in recent coverage of the Moore situation that Gloria Allred has appeared on the scene. I think that knife might be starting to twist back on the Democrats. They are the ones who are always moralizing about sexual harassment, they are beginning to be branded as hypocrites too. (See Harvey Weinstein)

  5. Griffin Says:

    For me the real ‘tell’ in this saga is that it all came out after the primary and close enough to the general so as to make it very difficult to remove him. If this had come out a week or so before the primary it would still be questionable but it would at least have given people the chance to make another choice.

  6. Dave Says:

    so the scoring average for Moore is 0/5, five courtships and he scored nothing. even if every accusation against Moore is true, I don’t see an evil man, I see a conflicted man who at the most crucial moments always found inner strength to overcome his darkness.

  7. Gordon Says:

    I suspect Gloria Allred has a Rolodex of women who have come to her saying, “SoAndSo harrased me!” But there wasn’t enough evidence to do anything about it (or money to pay Gloria), so they got parked on the bench. She’s pulling them out as she needs them. I have no doubt that there are folks like George Soros or Tom Steyer who have a legal foundation, and that foundation pays Gloria.

    Then you have Gloria’s daughter of poor taste Lisa Bloom, who sicced the dogs on anyone Harvey Weinstein told her to. Kathy Griffin hired her for the “Trump broke me” press conference. It’s still a tossup as to who made the worst decision: Griffin for hiring her, or Bloom for taking Griffin as a client.

  8. arfldgrs Says:

    Arianna Huffington Ignored Sexual Misconduct at The Huffington Post

    When Susan Fowler rocked Uber’s world with a meticulous account of the company’s sexual harassment and gender discrimination issues, the ride-sharing service turned to its only female board member to help clean up its culture (and its image). Arianna Huffington was perfectly poised to position herself as the feminist savior who would advocate for Uber’s women—she oversaw the subsequent Eric Holder investigation, and promised that “no brilliant jerks will be allowed, and no one will be protected because they are top performers.” But being a powerful woman with a stake in a company, and its profits, doesn’t mean Huffington was actually the best choice to champion women struggling to make their voices heard.

    NBC Fires Top Booking Exec for ‘Inappropriate Conduct’ With Women

    Spokesperson tells TheWrap media company “recently learned” of executive’s sexual misconduct

    NBC Universal fired Senior Vice President for Booking, News & Entertainment Matt Zimmerman, following accusations of sexual misconduct, the company announced Tuesday.

    “We have recently learned that Matt Zimmerman engaged in inappropriate conduct with more than one woman at NBCU, which violated company policy,” a company spokesperson told TheWrap. “As a result he has been dismissed.”

    The network declined to comment on the number of accusers or the nature of their accusations; Zimmerman could not be reached for comment.

  9. J.J. Says:

    An excellent summation of the problem of accusations of sexual impropriety by candidates for office, Neo.

    There is a double standard for the MSM. (If it weren’t for double standards they’d have none at all.) When a Democrat is accused, it is a private matter between the accused and his/her accuser. Also, it has no bearing on the Democrat candidate’s suitability for office. Witness Bill Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, and others. When a Repub is accused it is a matter of great national moral importance with negative implications for the candidate’s suitability to serve. Witness Clarence Thomas, Newt Gingrich, and others.

    Politics has become so dirty that good people of ability are loathe to get involved. And who could blame them? The type of persons now getting into politics are so narcissistic and greedy that nothing deters them. Sad.

  10. Julia Says:

    Not an AL voter, but I’ve been wondering what I would do (vote for Moore or sit it out). I saw a quote on another blog this morning – ‘any chair in a bar fight’. After pondering that, I’d vote for Moore.

  11. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “If this had come out a week or so before the primary it would still be questionable but it would at least have given people the chance to make another choice.” Griffin

    Which is why WAPO and the democrats didn’t come out with this sooner. The Congressional RINOs happily see it as serendipitous. They’d rather loose to Democrat Doug Jones than have Moore win. As Selwyn Duke explains; this despite Jones having emphatically implied that he favors “prenatal infanticide, supports de-facto amnesty, supports the regulation of carbon dioxide, otherwise known as plant food, supports social experimentation in the armed forces, advocates using taxpayer money to fund fanciful, economically unviable energy schemes such as solar, wind and thermal energy, and opposes rescinding ObamaCare.”

    Good to know where the GOPe stands on the issues. They’d rather lose the Senate and House than lose their Oligarchic privileges.

  12. parker Says:

    As I have noted before, the Moore allegations do not pass my sniff test. In Iowa I have no knowledge of his character or history beyond what I read on the internet. But were I registerd in Alabama I would vote for for Moore just to spite McConnell.

  13. Cornhead Says:

    If Moore wins, will the Senate expel him as threatened? Lots of time will be wasted on that.

  14. Ken Mitchell Says:

    My default assumption is that if an allegation isn’t supported by at least SOME evidence, that the accuser is probably lying. ESPECIALLY if Gloria All-Red is involved.

    I know virtually nothing about Roy Moore, but I’m not aware of any actual “evidence” other than a statement in a yearbook. That’s a mighty thin reed to support a criminal allegation. It’s been suggested that the alleged behavior is unbecoming of a judge, and that’s probably correct. But Moore is running for the SENATE. He’ll fit right in compared to Byrd or Biden or Edwards or Kennedy.

  15. Annie Says:

    That is mature vote for Moore just to spite for Mcconell. Before these claims on the news Moores character failed the smell test. Check his history. People are letting anger justifie poor choices. Why would people not beleve these same claims about Romney? Character and principals. Moore may be innocent but if he looses Alabamans vote it will be from his character since we can not know all the facts on these claims. That is human nature and realitie Alabamans can only do or ignore it for partisan reasons and if true then what? Moore cannot be trusted to move Trumps agenda even. Picking the opposite of whatever you beleve the people you are angry on will dislike does not solve your problem and is not wise choices at all.

  16. Manju Says:

    Is this really common? I took a look at a wiki list of federal sex scandals to see how many fall under this “unverifiable sexual allegations” criteria.

    1. Gary Condit, Representative (D-CA): his affair with 23-year-old intern Chandra Levy was exposed after Levy disappeared.

    There’s a dead body, so this doesn’t count.

    2. Strom Thurmond, Senator (R-SC), noted segregationist, fathered a child, Essie Mae Washington-Williams, with a 15-year-old African American in 1925 .

    This is verifiable. Doesn’t count.

    3. David Dreier, Representative (R-CA), voted against a number of gay rights proposals, but was outed concerning his relationship with his chief of staff.

    Sounds verifiable (I’m not sure of details) so I’ll throw it in the “doesn’t count” camp for now.

    4. Don Sherwood, Representative (R-PA), failed to win re-election following revelations of a five-year extramarital affair with Cynthia Ore, who accused him of physically abusing her. (2004)[96]

    Apparently there was a police report on this one, so I’m leaning “doesn’t count”

    5. Mark Foley, Representative (R-FL), resigned his House seat when accused of sending sexually explicit e-mails to teenage male congressional pages. He was replaced by Tim Mahoney.

    Verifiable. Doesn’t count.

    6. David Vitter, Senator (R-LA), took over the House seat of former Congressman Robert Livingston, who resigned in 1999 following revelations of an extramarital affair. At the time, Vitter stated, “I think Livingston’s stepping down makes a very powerful argument that (Bill) Clinton should resign as well….”[98] Vitters’ name was then discovered in the address book of the Deborah Jeane Palfrey (the “D.C. Madam”)

    Verifiable. Doesn’t Count.

    7. Randall L. Tobias (R), Deputy Secretary of State and former “AIDS Czar” appointed by George W. Bush, stated that U.S. funds should be denied to countries that permitted prostitution.[100] He resigned on April 27, 2007, after confirming that he had been a customer of Deborah Jeane Palfrey (the “D.C. Madam”).

    Verifiable. Doesn’t Count.

    8. Larry Craig (R-ID), a U.S. Senator for 18 years, was arrested on June 11, 2007 and charged with lewd conduct arising from his behavior in a men’s restroom at the Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport.[102][103][104] Craig pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of disorderly conduct; he later unsuccessfully sought to withdraw his guilty plea.[105][106][107] He announced his resignation three months later on September 1, 2007, but changed his mind again, although he did not seek re-election in 2008.

    Verifiable. Doesn’t Count.

    9. Tim Mahoney, Representative (D-FL), was elected to the seat of Mark Foley, who had resigned following sexual harassment charges from his congressional interns. Mahoney ran on a campaign promise to make “a world that is safer, more moral”. In October 2008, he admitted he placed his mistress on his staff and then fired her, saying, “You work at my pleasure.” He then admitted to multiple other affairs.

    Verifiable. Doesn’t Count.

    10. Vito Fossella, Representative (R-NY), was arrested for drunken driving. Under questioning, the married Congressman and father of three admitted to an affair with Laura Fay that produced a daughter. (2008)

    Verifiable. Doesn’t Count.

    11. John Edwards, Senator (D-NC), admitted to an extramarital affair with actress and film producer Rielle Hunter, which produced a child, seriously undercutting his 2008 presidential campaign.

    Verifiable. Doesn’t Count.

    12. John Ensign, Senator (R-NV), resigned his position as chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee on June 16, 2009, after admitting he had an affair with the wife of a close friend, both of whom were working on his campaign.[118] Under investigation, he then resigned his Senate seat 20 months early in 2011[119] In 1998, Senator Ensign had called for President Bill Clinton (D) to resign after admitting to sexual acts with Monica Lewinsky. (2009)[120]

    Verifiable. Doesn’t Count.

    13. Chip Pickering, Representative (R-MS): on July 16, 2009, it was announced that his wife had filed an alienation of affection lawsuit against a woman with whom Chip allegedly had an affair.[121] The lawsuit claimed the adulterous relationship ruined the Pickerings’ marriage and his political career. (2009)[122]

    Well, is wife made the allegation, so doesn’t count I think.

    14. Eric Massa, Representative (D-NY), resigned to avoid an ethics investigation into his admitted groping and tickling of multiple male staffers. He later stated on Fox News, “not only did I grope [a staffer], I tickled him until he couldn’t breathe,”

    Well, he admitted it so doesn’t count.

    15. Mark Souder, Representative (R-IN), a staunch advocate of abstinence and family values,[125][126] resigned to avoid an ethics investigation into his admitted extramarital affair with a female staffer.

    Admitted it. Doesn’t Count.

    16. Chris Lee, Representative (R-NY), resigned hours after a news report that he had sent a shirtless picture of himself flexing his muscles to a woman via Craigslist, along with flirtatious e-mails.[130] He did not rely on a pseudonym or a false e-mail address but used his official Congressional e-mail for all communication. Lee said: “I regret the harm that my actions have caused my family, my staff and my constituents…. I have made profound mistakes and I promise to work as hard as I can to seek their forgiveness.”

    Physical evidence, admitted it. Doesn’t count.

    17. Anthony Weiner, Representative (D-NY), admitted to sending sexually explicit photos of himself to several women through his Twitter account.[132] He resigned from Congress on June 16, 2011,[133] but kept sexting after his resignation.[134] (2011)

    Physical evidence. Doesn’t Count.

    18. Scott DesJarlais, Representative (R-TN), admitted under oath to at least six affairs, including two affairs with his patients and staffers while he was a physician at Grandview Medical Center in Jasper, TN. Additionally, while running on a pro-life platform, DesJarlais made his ex-wife have two abortions, and tried to persuade a mistress who was his patient, into an abortion as well.[

    Admitted it. Doesn’t Count.

    19. David Wu, Representative (D-OR), resigned from the House of Representatives after being accused of making unwanted sexual advances toward a fundraiser’s daughter. July 26, 2011.

    THIS MAY COUNT. THE FIRST ONE! (Though he seems guilty imo)

    20. Herman Cain (R) 2012 Republican presidential candidate, was accused of sexual harassment by several women. These accusations eventually caused him to suspend his run for the presidential nomination (2012)[140][141] including Sharon Bialek, Karen Kraushaar, and having a 13-year affair with Ginger White.[142][143] Donna Donella also reported possible inappropriate behavior.[144][145][146]

    WE GOT 2!

    21. Vance McAllister, Representative (R-LA), who is married and the father of five, was caught on surveillance camera deeply kissing a married staffer. Several prominent Republicans asked McAllister to resign. In response, he stated he would not seek re-election in 2016.[147][148] McCallister said: “There’s no doubt I’ve fallen short and I’m asking for forgiveness. I’m asking for forgiveness from God, my wife, my kids, my staff, and my constituents who elected me to serve”.

    Caught on Tape. Doesn’t count.

    22. Denny Hastert, former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives (R-IL), pled guilty to structuring bank withdrawals in order to conceal deliberately-unspecified misconduct by Hastert against an unnamed individual years earlier.[150] At a sentencing hearing in October 2015, Hastert admitted that he had sexually abused boys while he worked as a high school wrestling coach decades earlier. (2015)[151][152]

    What scumbag. Doesn’t count.

    23. Donald Trump (R), the 45th President of the United States, was accused of sexual assault by 13 women during the 2016 election and denied it, along with the release of a 2005 video by The Washington Post.[153] The video, in which Trump described, in a private conversation, hypothetical consensual lewd sexual encounters of a celebrity, was released two days before a debate between Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee and Trump, the Republican nominee himself. At the televised debate, Trump dismissed the video as “locker room talk.”

    Well, there’s tape of him admitting he’s a groper. We could charitably detach the tape from the 13 allegations and maybe have this one count as half.

    24. Tim Murphy, Representative (R-PA), had an extramarital affair with Shannon Edwards, a 32-year-old forensic psychologist. The pro-life Murphy asked Edwards to have an abortion after she became pregnant. The information was revealed as part of Murphy’s divorce proceedings and published by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette after it fought in Pennsylvania state court to have the documents unsealed. Murphy resigned his seat in Congress.

    Verified. Doesn’t count.

  17. Annie Says:

    Too if there are doublestandards by them media and Democrats and if we know some of their peoples are guilty in old times now does that mean people should loose theirs standards to make it even? The boat of politics finds narcissitics peoples because peoples makes choices votes ignorning standards. They think this makes them win big. Everyone looses in opposite.

  18. steve walsh Says:

    Allegations of events from 30 – 40 years ago, having been made publicly for the first time now, are not credible.

  19. Manju Says:

    So to summarize, using the wiki list of federal sex scandals from 2000 to 2017, of the 24, 2.5 fall under the unverifiable category: Wu, Cain, and a 1/2 a point for Trump.

    Moore would bring us to 3.5 out of 25 in the last 17 years.

  20. Manju Says:

    Also, I really wasn’t expecting this, but Damn…there are a lot of Republicans on that wiki list.

    18-6, for Team Red.

    Who says Republicans don’t know how to have a good time?

  21. neo-neocon Says:

    Ken Mitchell:

    The yearbook inscription is not evidence of the truth or falsehood of the accusation. It’s evidence that he was acquainted with the accuser at the time—that is, if the inscription were to be authenticated, which has not occurred.

    That’s what happens with evidence, actual evidence. You can introduce experts to say whether it’s his handwriting. And you can question and challenge whether it has anything to do with the truth or falsehood of the assault charges.

  22. Dave Says:

    You can read it the other way, More republicans on that list can also mean democrats are more protected by the press or the left leaning press more willing to make up false accusations to frame republicans.

  23. Artfldgr Says:

    Earlier this week I took part in a debate about sexual harassment on Channel 4 News. Sitting alongside me was Dame Ann Leslie, one of the great reporters of the 20th century and a foreign correspondent at a time when such jobs were considered unsuitable for women. Leslie travelled the world, often alone, reporting from Moscow to Zimbabwe, from Berlin when the wall came down to South Africa when Mandela was released. Despite her age and physical frailty, her sense of humour and feistiness brought badly needed perspective to the discussion. Yes, she acknowledged, sexual harassment takes place. But she dealt with it through being fearless and fearful, once stubbing out a cigarette on someone, and shouting loudly at others.

    Leslie argued that feminists today ‘spend their time saying women are traumatised because some silly old drunk in parliament put his hand on her knee or something like that’. She was in no way trivialising rape or saying that when it comes to sexual harassment women should just suck it up. Rather, her point was that wailing over knee-touching makes women appear, frankly, a bit pathetic, and ‘you can’t say women are strong and empowered and then say they’re scared and they’re going to cry and all that sort of thing’.

    On cue, keyboard feminists took to Twitter to bemoan Channel 4 News for providing a platform for this ‘appalling woman’. ‘WHAT DID I JUST WATCH????’, they shrieked in unison. Why, they demanded to know, was this ‘dinosaur’ ‘exhumed’ and given airtime? ‘Women reporting sexual harassment are so, so brave’, came the chorus. The director of communications for Channel 4 News fuelled the indignation: ‘Ann Leslie claims women reporting sexual violence are weak.’ In fact, Leslie’s point was that it is precisely because women are strong, powerful and capable that crying over knee-touching is so degrading.

    Outrage continued over on the Huffington Post, where Leslie was described as ‘a Daily Mail journalist’. Her groundbreaking career now trivialised and ridiculed for the pleasure of the Guardian-reading classes. Contempt, prejudice and misrepresentation are all allowed because Leslie dared to veer from today’s feminist orthodoxies. This rewriting of history, this lack of respect, is far more appalling than anything Leslie did or did not say. A woman who landed a Fleet Street column at the age of 22, became the highest-paid female journalist in the UK and made such a significant impact upon journalism should be celebrated as a role model for today’s young women. But because she thinks the ‘wrong’ thing, she is a woman who is fair game for attack.

    just so you know what the “movement” is doing to make sure things happen…
    Like the same sudden influx of calling out men for past things is not just in the US, its also in the UK, Germany, etc.. (im not sure in france they are now having a problem considering if the age of consent should be 13 since, well, some cases recently allowed consent in a child near half that)…

    to be sure… this abuse is keeping the focus off other things… like this (in UK):

    Earlier this year, following a testimony from one woman and one girl, police uncovered a gang of rapists and child abusers in Newcastle. Seventeen men, convicted under Operation Sanctuary, were routinely raping young women, and girls as young as 14. They plied their victims with alcohol and drugs before assaulting them.

    This month, several MPs have been demoted or suspended pending investigations for allegedly touching the knees of journalists or researchers, and for making ‘lewd’ comments and texting women to ask them out for drinks.

    Which of these things got more media coverage?

    The rape of working-class women or the inconveniencing of middle-class women with a hand on the leg or an unwanted text? The latter, of course. The ‘Pestminster’ scandal has dominated media coverage for two weeks now. For more than a month the press has obsessed over which celebrities and actresses were allegedly mistreated by Harvey Weinstein. And the #MeToo hashtag has been trending for weeks, designed to raise awareness about sexual harassment.

    In contrast, the revelation that girls in the north of England had been raped on a terrifying scale was news for around a week. Some of the coverage was cautious and embarrassed. Don’t focus too much on the men’s backgrounds, commentators warned (the men were largely of Pakistani origin). It was a similar situation when the abuse and rape of working-class girls in Rotherham and then Rochdale was uncovered. Operation Stovewood, Operation Clover and Operation Sanctuary, all investigations of the sexual exploitation of young women or girls in northern towns, have now largely been forgotten.

  24. parker Says:

    Slick Willy getting bjs and inserting cigars into a young woman’s nether regions in the White House is okay, including “what is is” is (depending on “what is is”) is NBD, Polanski durugging and raping a 13 year is ok and not “rape rape”, and so it goes. These behaviors are condoned and defended because (D), and we are the deplorables? No wonder why they do not recognize why they got Trump. Hubris and hypocrisy have clotted the arteries to their brains.

  25. neo-neocon Says:


    “Federal sex scandals” would be a selected group that would be particularly unlikely to meet the “unverifiable” criteria and would be far more likely to have been verified. That’s not the category I’m discussing here, many of which did not rise to that level.

    Cases that wouldn’t have appeared on your list wouldn’t have been federal ones, for example. Or it could be that they weren’t well-known enough, or because they didn’t exactly qualify as “sex scandals.” For example, Obama’s early opponents Blair Hull and Jack Ryan, both of whom were knocked out their respective races by unlocking sealed divorce files to reveal allegations (unproven) made by their wives during the divorce process, don’t appear on the list although they were big cases. (I already provided a link in the post).

    I also already mentioned in the post that the Weiner and Trump/pussy charges are in the category of “verifiable” and therefore in a different category than I’m talking about here.

    I never said what percentage of sex scandals—or more accurately, what percentage of accusations about sexual wrongdoing by candidates—are of the “unverifiable” or “unverified” type. I am saying, however, that there have been a lot of them (not all of which became famous or gained a lot of traction; for example, this one). Just off the top of my head, here are a few more: There were the allegations against John McCain during his campaign in 2008. Most people don’t recall that Bill Clinton weathered an unverified allegation in 1992, one that much later was discovered to be true. But at the time, he denied it-successfully.

    Once the Trump pussy tape had come out, there were a whole bunch of other, unsupported allegations, a couple of weeks before the election—you noted these allegations but for some reason give the entire episode a half point, because of the pussy tape. Why? If there were 13 unsupported allegations and one true one, that would be 13 unverified to 1 verified (the tape).

    Unverified allegations don’t always sink a candidate (they didn’t with Trump), nor are they always false. Clinton in 1992 is a good example of an accusation that was true and was successfully weathered by the accused. But at the time of the accusation, the public didn’t know if it was true or false.

    Long ago, it was damaging to a politician merely to allege an affair, a conventional affair with an adult. Nowadays—during the last decade or so, and especially recently—that’s not offensive enough, so in order to shock people, you have to allege more. You have to allege that the politician harassed or assaulted someone, or did something extraordinarily kinky or assaulted a minor sexually. Sure enough, the accusations have changed to conform to the present-day need. And they are going further and further back in time, the better to enhance the “unverifiable” aspect of it.

  26. AesopFan Says:

    Griffin Says:
    November 14th, 2017 at 4:32 pm
    For me the real ‘tell’ in this saga is that it all came out after the primary and close enough to the general so as to make it very difficult to remove him. If this had come out a week or so before the primary it would still be questionable but it would at least have given people the chance to make another choice.
    * * *
    The lateness was a feature not a bug.

    There doesn’t seem to be any doubt now that Moore had at least dated younger girls (leaving aside the more serious allegations for the moment), and that people around the courthouse knew it; even though they might not have known any details, or how serious things might have been.
    I had wondered if the hints to WaPo on who and what to go looking for came from Strange’s campaign, but surely they would have used them sooner this year, unless really sure Strange was going to win the primary, and it was never a sure thing.
    However, now that I’ve learned that Moore started out as a Democrat and only switched in 1992 (the allegations date from the late seventies), perhaps the suggestions came from a Democrat, who would have been more likely to know (if there was anything to know — but it never hurts to do some oppo research, just in case).
    However, if this icky dating behavior was so well known, and especially if someone suspected the serious charges, why did it not come up in the background checks 25 years ago?
    “In 1992, Etowah County Circuit Judge Julius Swann died in office. Republican Governor H. Guy Hunt was charged with making a temporary appointment until the next election. Moore’s name was floated by some of his associates, and a background check was initiated with several state and county agencies, including the Etowah County district attorney’s office. Moore’s former political opponent Jimmy Hedgspeth, who still helmed the D.A.’s office, recommended Moore despite personal reservations, and Moore was installed in the position he had failed to win in 1982. …Judge Moore ran as a Republican in the 1994 Etowah County election and was elected to the circuit judge seat (6 year term) with 62% of the vote. He was the first county-wide Republican to win since the Reconstruction.”
    “A former colleague who worked with Moore at the Etowah County District Attorney’s office from 1982 to 1985 stated, “It was common knowledge that Roy dated high school girls, everyone we knew thought it was weird […] We wondered why someone his age would hang out at high school football games and the mall”. On November 13, local former police officers and mall employees reported that Roy Moore had been banned from a mall in the early 1980s for attempting to pick up teenage girls. ”
    If it’s enough to disqualify him now, shouldn’t it have disqualified him then? How did the 1992 background check miss this “common knowledge” and police action?

    Do they have a crystal ball at DNC that reveals who’s going to run for Congress so they can hold back on good stuff until it’s really, really needed?

  27. AesopFan Says:

    neo-neocon Says:
    November 14th, 2017 at 11:11 pm

    Unverified allegations don’t always sink a candidate (they didn’t with Trump), nor are they always false. Clinton in 1992 is a good example of an accusation that was true and was successfully weathered by the accused. But at the time of the accusation, the public didn’t know if it was true or false.

    Long ago, it was damaging to a politician merely to allege an affair, a conventional affair with an adult. Nowadays—during the last decade or so, and especially recently—that’s not offensive enough, so in order to shock people, you have to allege more. You have to allege that the politician harassed or assaulted someone, or did something extraordinarily kinky or assaulted a minor sexually. Sure enough, the accusations have changed to conform to the present-day need. And they are going further and further back in time, the better to enhance the “unverifiable” aspect of it.
    * * *
    We still don’t know if the Moore allegations are true or not, of course, and he doesn’t have the “cover” that Clinton did from the media and his own party that helped him weather the storm.
    Your point on allegation escalation is well-taken.

  28. AesopFan Says:

    Artfldgr Says:
    November 14th, 2017 at 8:39 pm

    Both of the articles from Spiked were very interesting (I had not heard of either before), and so is this third one which goes back to other alleged abusers.

    “Why does everyone believe Kevin Spacey’s accuser rather than Kevin Spacey himself? In a civilised society, it would be the other way round. In a civilised society we would doubt the accuser and maintain the innocence of the accused. But increasingly we do not live in a civilised society. As demonstrated by the hysteria of the Harvey Weinstein scandal and the increasingly strange and narcissistic #metoo contagion, we live in a society where accusation is now proof. Where accusation alone can colour someone’s reputation beyond repair. I fear we haven’t yet registered how worrying, and terrifying, this state of affairs is. …
    ‘I believe’ has become the ultimate virtue-signal. But it is utterly lacking in virtue to say this. Sixty-two years ago a woman called Carolyn Bryant Donham accused a young man of sexual harassment. He grabbed her by the wrist and said ‘How about it baby?’, she said. He wolf-whistled at her, she claimed. Everyone in her local community believed her, uncritically, and instantly. ‘I believe.’ They went after her harasser, tied him to the back of a truck, and then beat him to death in a barn. His name was Emmet Till. He was a victim of uncritical belief in people who make accusations of sexual harassment. Crying ‘I believe’ in response to every accusation of a sexual crime isn’t progressive; it’s a species of savagery.
    If people want us to believe that an individual has behaved criminally, they will need to convince us beyond reasonable doubt.”
    * * *
    There is a great difference between believing an accuser enough to investigate the claims, without dismissing or demeaning him or her (as was done in the Rotherham and now Newgate scandals); and believing that everything the accuser claims is true, without verifying it in some way.

    We are all sitting in the kangaroo courts that Title IX’s evolution has conditioned us to.

  29. AesopFan Says:

    Well, here’s the answer to why the allegations about Moore had to come out before the election (other than wanting him to lose, of course).
    Once he got into Congress, he would be home free.

    “Equal treatment for lawmakers? Don’t count on it.

    A little-known law has been on the books for more than a decade that gives anyone accusing a federal lawmaker of sexual harassment the right to sue – but only if they consent to a lengthy drawn-out process that includes a written statement within 180 days of the incident, 30 days of counseling and another month or so of mediation.

    During that time, the claimant’s employer will be notified.The lawmaker’s identity, however, will remain confidential even if he or she is found guilty.

    Former congresswoman opens up on ‘The Story.’Video
    Mary Bono shares story of sexual harassment in Congress

    Should there be a settlement – and there have been many – it’s the American taxpayer that’s on the hook, with “no public disclosure and no consequences for the harasser,” said California Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier.

    “The so-called process was clearly drafted to protect the institution rather than the most vulnerable,” Speier told Fox News in a statement. “Survivors have to sign a never-ending nondisclosure agreement just to start the complaint process, which is unheard of in the private sector, then continue to work in their office alongside their harasser.”

    The money comes from a special U.S. Treasury fund – and the payouts are kept quiet. That means,those found to be at fault are publicly shielded and don’t have to pay a penny out of pocket for settlement costs.”

    * *
    Now, what was that again about how the Senate just couldn’t possible seat Moore even if he was elected, because they are just too pure to abide his presence?

  30. neo-neocon Says:


    That law (which is not even cited in the article, so it’s impossible to look at the details of it to check them out) is not applicable in the case of Moore for 2 reasons.

    The first is that no one is going to sue him, I predict, because the charges are so old and unprovable. The second is that, as I interpret that law, the offenses must have occurred while the accused was a member of Congress.

    By the way—Spacey has voluntarily entered a sex addiction program. That’s evidence to me that the accusations are more likely to be true. I also think that with accusations against Hollywood figures, they are inherently more believable because of the lifestyle, and they don’t have the problem that the Moore accusations have concerning politically expedient timing and motive.

  31. AesopFan Says:

    I’m leaning toward this solution from a PowerLine commenter:

    Robert Shotzberger · Courier at Lab Corp
    The solution is to elect Moore and expel the rest of the Senate.

  32. Dave Says:

  33. Dave Says:

    Roy Moore may not be 100% innocent, but this whole setup, trying to paint a slightly inappropriate act as ATTEMPTED RAPE, is far more vicious and evil than what Roy Moore has ever done. I would vote for Roy Moore if i am from Alabama for one reason only, whoever was behind this setup, the methodology of it is far worse than whatever Roy Moore has ever done. We can’t let whoever behind it win. If given the choice that either an alleged child molester win or whoever behind this conspiracy win, sorry I have to vote for the alleged child molester, whoever behind this is way worse and scarier than a man who like late teens when he was 32.

  34. Lowell Says:

    Thanks, neo, for an excellent analysis of this entire Moore mess. Some of my simple thoughts about it:
    1. So five women have come forward to say that he never got very far beyond first base with any of them.
    2, He was a Democrat when these alleged incidents occurred.
    3. Beverly Nelson can still cry over the 40-year old attempt.

  35. Dave Says:

    I am officially off the Trump Train if Trump doesn’t back Roy Moore’s right to remain on the race, not to back an alleged molester, but a man who has every rights to defend himself from false accusations. Without any real evidence to prove sexual assault attempts took place the GOPe is trying to force Moore out of the race based on the fact that Moore, who was a liberal back in the day, as a young man of 32 had a liking of woman who were a bit young than him, a slightly unconventional preference among conservatives today. Ted Cruz should be ashamed of himself as the epitome of consitutionist choosing to withdraw his endorsement because “Its not appropriate for a 32 yo adult to sign the yearbook of a 16 year old girl” What a shame, especially considered that Ted was a victim of sexual defamation with national esquire story about his relationships with 5 former assistants. If the price for upholding the America value of due process and justice is a senate seat then so be it. Trump it is time for you to show us you are better than Mitch McConnell or Ted Cruz or Mitt Romney or John Mccain.

  36. Annie Says:

    Parker – you say some truths last time but still peoples makes votes ignorning standards. Many peoples votes Trump because (R) thinks okay when Democrats votes because (D). Should you do same to make even and to spite peoples you do not like Mcconell? How you keep narcissitics peoples out of boat that you keep chooses using no standards. No win big everybodies looses.

  37. Dave Says:

    The Alabama special election could be President Trump’ PATCO moment.

  38. Dave Says:

    Dogmatic fidelity is not Christianity, redemption, forgiveness and justice is.

  39. Dave Says:

    “I don’t care what a man was 40 years ago, I only care what a man is now”. Jesus would have said that if he is here, that is why he made djt the president to guide America back on track to make it great again.

  40. Dave Says:

    There are only three possible reasons why Moore choose to remain in the race.

    1. He is completely innocent.
    2. He is guilty as charged, but the worst that he had done has already been exposed, so he doesn’t mind staying in the race risking more series charges coming out.
    3. He is a complete lunatic dare devil who has done something even worse but choose to stay daring that the oppositions do not have more explosive scoop in hand.

    If we assume that Moore is not a lunatic, we can cross out reason number 3. Okay if either 1 or 2 is true, then any more serious allegations coming out now or in the future will be fake, because Moore knows what he done and if he isn’t crazy he would have left the race already.

  41. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Gateway Pundit is doing some yoeman’s work on the Moore accusations;

    “MUST SEE=> Roy Moore Signature Inside Accuser’s Yearbook Is Written in TWO DIFFERENT COLOR Inks”

    “The signature says “To a sweeter more beautiful girl I could not say, ‘Merry Christmas.’ Love, Roy Moore DA, 12-22-77, Olde Hickory House.”

    Strangely, “To a sweeter more beautiful girl I could not say, ‘Merry Christmas.’ Love, Roy,” is written in black ink, while “Moore DA, 12-22-77, Olde Hickory House,” is in blue ink.”

    But there’s more;
    The two sets of 7 are different. The the signature, “Roy” the R and y are similar but different from an authenticated signature.

    “Moore was not DA but DDA!”

    “Yearbooks are published at the end of the school year: summer.

    Christmas is the MIDDLE of the school year.”

    The OLD Hickory House was never named the Olde Hickory House. The forger got that wrong too.

    Rush Limbaugh points out that Nelson claimed that Moore locked her in the car preventing her from opening the door. She said this happened in 1977. But child safety locks weren’t mandated until the mid 80s… so its unlikely that Moore’s car had them.

    “Darrel Nelson, the stepson of Judge Roy Moore accuser Beverly Young Nelson says the allegations are all lies.”
    “I’ve known the woman, she married my father many, many years ago. I’ve known her for a while now, and I truly do not believe that she’s being honest about this,” added Nelson.

    Together, all of this raises reasonable doubt.

  42. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “Dogmatic fidelity is not Christianity, redemption, forgiveness and justice is.” Dave

    Not quite. To obtain redemption and forgiveness one must regret sinning and repent. Extending forgiveness to those who feel no remorse and contrition for their sin is injustice.

    “Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.”

  43. AesopFan Says:

    neo-neocon Says:
    November 15th, 2017 at 1:05 am
    * *
    Agree on Spacey; I thought Spikeds’ defense of due process was notable, but a confession (which the voluntary commitment logically entails) moots the point.

    The Congressional slush fund and procedure, regardless of the details, paints the virtue-signalling Senators in a new light. I can accept keeping accusations unpublicized until resolved, but not afterwards if the Congressperson is found guilty or payments are made.

  44. AesopFan Says:

    Geoffrey Britain Says:
    November 15th, 2017 at 10:09 am
    Gateway Pundit is doing some yoeman’s work on the Moore accusations;
    * *
    This is the sort of evidence (or not) that a trial is supposed to deal with. That little thing called “due process” —
    However, elections and political matters move much faster than the courts, which is why the public is taking over that function on the Web (a small advance over physical mob rule, but it may come to that if Antifa decides Moore must be dealt with personally).

    This current iteration of Ordeal by Pundit is not unlike the Bush National Guard Memo case and the Swift Boat case: both dealt with political malfeasance and were internet and media duels of evidence and interpretation that eventually reached a bipolar consensus: Dems “lost” electorally, but have never accepted the “verdicts”, while the Right “won” and has.

    Any case not settled in the courts risks this polarization, and even judicial determinations are not always considered final by all sides (Ferguson, O.J. Simpson, Leo Frank in the deep past).

    I don’t know that there is any systemic solution, so we will probably retain the principle of “innocent until proven guilty to my personal satisfaction” — and we all seem to have much different criteria for drawing the line.

  45. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “Any case not settled in the courts risks this polarization” AesopFan

    The polarization exists however it is settled. On the left; contrary facts, reason and logic are rejected out of hand, so there is no means for reconciliation. The side’s POV are mutually exclusive. One or the other shall prevail. Even should we win, the long term prognosis is grim.

  46. AesopFan Says:

    Back to the signature and the yearbook, I could make some plausible explanations if I were her lawyer, but I don’t know if any evidence will validate them.
    (1) the date problem: the yearbook was from the end of the school year in May 1977, but she didn’t get it signed by “Roy” until Christmas.
    (2) The “Roy” who signed was Moore, but he didn’t add the surname and other things, so she put that in soon after (or much later) to remind herself who he was;
    Obviously, the sooner it was added the better for her credibility; can experts resolve that within the time frame available?

    Nelson (per Wiki) claims the assault was in December 1977 or January 1978 (doesn’t she know?) so that would be after the signature was done.

    If it was by Moore, that narrows the time-frame for the assault, and thus the investigation of his visits to the restaurant (has there been any corroboration of his patronage there?).

    If she added the data herself, I would argue it was also done before the assault, and then she “forgot” about the yearbook —
    because (I would argue if I was Moore’s attorney)
    it seems to a rational observer that any woman so assaulted would have added some significantly derogatory information, or even crossed out the greeting completely, in the immediate aftermath.

    Even if she added the data herself years later (or last week), how does she explain not adding some damning epithet to the autograph?

  47. AesopFan Says:

    Geoffrey Britain Says:
    November 15th, 2017 at 11:27 am
    “Any case not settled in the courts risks this polarization” AesopFan

    … One or the other shall prevail. Even should we win, the long term prognosis is grim.
    * * *
    And I’m not entirely sure what “winning” looks like in a case like this.

  48. Dave Says:

    I wouldn’t spend too much time pondering the second set of date, the handwritings are different because the second date and restaurant name were written by the girl as some sort of addendum to remind herself who this person was how where they met… The thing is the yearbook serves no purpose but to collect two person together, to prove that the girl had contact with moore and nothing else. Taking out the allegations the inscription was innocuous with nothing outrageous or suggestive of clear sexual interest. Sweet little beautiful girl is something i would imagine biden saying all the time… maybe that was a good example but still if Moore had anything insidious suggestion in the inscription he wouldn’t be putting his job title on it right? As a way to impress the lady? come on she let him sign her year book, they should be real close already, did he need to add his job title to leave a tangible evidence to announce to the world that he was a DA trying to solicit sex with a minor, give me a break.

  49. AesopFan Says:

    Did Allred really allow the yearbook to be “introduced into evidence” without having a cover story for the ink? I can see overlooking the 7s and the Rs, but the colors are pretty clearly different in Gateway’s photo.

    Was the cover story not reported, or did she think the discrepancy would not be noticed, or did she miss it herself?

  50. neo-neocon Says:


    Actually, he wasn’t a DA, which makes it a bit odd that he might have written that.

    He was a deputy DA, which is quite different.

  51. neo-neocon Says:

    Geoffrey Britain:

    She never described a child safety lock situation. She said she tried to get out, he reached over and locked the door. That prevented her from unlocking it again for a while, because at that point she was grappling with him physically.

  52. blert Says:

    Manju Says:
    November 14th, 2017 at 6:58 pm

    Mr. Cain’s accusers lost at court.

    Every last one paid damages.

    So he has been cleared.

    Please update your files.

  53. DNW Says:

    Apparently Moore placed his hand on a woman’s butt back in 1991; only 26 years ago.

    She was wearing a nice little black and white dress at the time she remembers, and it was on the occasion of her being in his office in order to hand over custody of her son to her mother who had been taking care of the boy.

    And unlike the other alleged incidents where he also got no sex, in this case he was already married.

    There will be those who will try to minimize the heinousness of this crime by pointing out that:

    “She has pled guilty to writing bad checks, and for third-degree theft of property, …”


    “Since marrying her husband, Morris Johnson, in 2010, she said she has been working to improve her life.”

    Anticipating the reaction of some, she headed them off,

    “I’m not perfect,” she said. “I have things in my background and I know (the public) will jump on anything, but (what happened with Moore) is still the truth, and the truth will stand when the world won’t.”

    Who are you going to trust? Some guy who has been accused of stuff that sounds downright creepy and can’t even remember the names and faces of his victims?

    Or a nice woman trying to put her criminal past behind her, and who even remembers the exact words of Moore’s unwelcome compliments, and the color of the dress she was wearing 26 years later?

  54. neo-neocon Says:


    Are you being facetious? My guess is that you are.

    Because if he didn’t do it, why would he remember the names and faces of people he only fleetingly met?

    And do you have a photo of the dress she wore that day? Which, by the way, is quite irrelevant to what happened to her in that dress.

    I remember what I wore at many many occasions in my life, important and unimportant. I remember what other people wore, too, even when they don’t. So what? I even remember what I wore as a law intern when I was the lawyer for an indigent client getting a divorce, about 45 years ago. Nobody put his hand on my butt, either, but I remember what I wore.

    I was terrified on that occasion, by the way. And she said something different under oath than we had rehearsed! She gave a different spelling for her name, for example, and I had to amend the petition or something like that.

  55. Dave Says:

    The D.A. thing should be enough to prove everything is a setup. Why added D.A. there, it was put there by whoever forged the inscription to make sure That Roy Moore on her yearbook is the D.A. republican senate candidate Roy Moore they were trying to frame. There could be tens of Roy Moore living there at that time, a name as common as Joe Johnson.

  56. neo-neocon Says:


    One thing that’s clear is that it’s not a different Roy Moore who signed it. The signature is either Roy Moore himself, or a forgery of his signature, because it certainly resembles his actual signature.

  57. AesopFan Says:

    It could be a different Roy without being a different Roy Moore.
    Has anyone looked through the yearbook for all the Roys?

  58. AesopFan Says:

    blert Says:
    November 15th, 2017 at 5:12 pm
    * *
    Do you have a link on the Cain outcomes? Google isn’t helping me here and I would like to know, because I was very disappointed when he dropped out.

  59. Manju Says:

    blert Says: 

    Mr. Cain’s accusers lost at court.
    Every last one paid damages.
    So he has been cleared.
    Please update your files.

    According to The Economist, one woman was paid 3 months salary and another a full year’s. I don’t see anything about any of the accusers losing in court let alone paying damages and you don’t provide a cite so I figure you’re lying .

  60. Manju Says:

    “Federal sex scandals” would be a selected group that would be particularly unlikely to meet the “unverifiable” criteria and would be far more likely to have been verified. That’s not the category I’m discussing here, many of which did not rise to that level.

    “Federal” just refers to those running for or occupying a seat in the US Senate, House, or Executive Branch…as opposed to State or Local.

    It’s wiki, it leaves out a lot I’m sure, and we probably should look at Governors…but I don’t see any reason why sex scandals involving National political figures “would be far more likely to have been verified”.

  61. DNW Says:

    neo-neocon Says:
    November 15th, 2017 at 6:25 pm


    Are you being facetious? My guess is that you are.

    Because if he didn’t do it, why would he remember the names and faces of people he only fleetingly met?

    And do you have a photo of the dress she wore that day? Which, by the way, is quite irrelevant to what happened to her in that dress.”

    Yes in the part of the comment you suspect I was being facetious, I was.

    “I remember what I wore at many many occasions in my life, important and unimportant. I remember what other people wore, too, even when they don’t. So what?”

    So what? Because it is supposed, apparently, to add verisimilitude to her story.

    I can’t remember what anyone wears.

    “Do you think the neckline on my blue dress is too low for tonight?”

    Well, I know better than to actually say, “What blue dress … but …”

    This makes her remembering a strange idea to me and adds nothing in my book to her story. I cannot process that she remembers what dress she was wearing when she visited a law office 26 years ago especially given her subsequent life which seems to have been rather well filled with noteworthy events of a morally dubious nature.

    But then, I have no special insight into the workings of her … troubled … mind in the first place.

    I don’t remember such things and the notion is alien. Though I may know/”remember”/reconstruct something along the lines of ” In 1980 when I rode my Harley, I wore jeans, a tee shirt, a leather jacket, and work boots.”

    Just as I remember in snippet form, shivering in a Barbour stupidly and insufficiently donned for deer hunting some decades ago, and reaching into the game pocket for matches or something hopeful, and feeling old feathers. But I could not say when that was exactly or who was also staying at the cabin and so forth.

  62. phwest Says:

    I really wonder if people are not over projecting modern sensibilities on the whole “dating teenagers” part of this. Moore was dating in his early 30s because (presumably) he was looking to get married. He wasn’t already married in part because he was a West Point grad who did his service (including overseas) and then went to law school, and so only really embarked on his legal/political career then. Men at that age are likely to end up dating and marrying younger women, particularly if they don’t want to marry a divorcee, because those are the single women.

    This was a small (50k pop, 60% or less white) city in Alabama almost 40 years ago. Not modern NYC with swarms of single 20-something women. Not that I have demographic stats, but surely the population he could court would skew noticeably younger than what you would see today. I read somewhere he married his wife of 30+ years when she was 19 (wiki doesn’t have her info, just the 1985 wedding). What this feels like to me is more like a “land that time forgot” situation that would have been utterly unremarkable in much of the country 100 years ago, and was still probably unremarkable outside of large urban areas even 50 years ago. The modern tendency of women as well as men to delay marriage into their late 20s/early 30s is just that – modern. The trend was only just starting 30 years ago.

  63. Megalass Says:

    Exactly what I was thinking phwest. We were once stationed in a very similar town. The local girls by age 22 were either 1. Long gone. 2. Married or 3. Had 2 kids and 2 ex-husbands. (The single officers called them 22-2-2s). While Moore was at all-male West Point, VietNam and Law School, the girls he went to high school with were sorting themselves into those categories.

    If Leigh Corfman was 14, and Moore knew that, AND dated her, he’s a pig. It’s also possible that she (and her mom?) weren’t entirely honest about her age at the time. Some 14 year old girls can easily pass for much older, and 14-yr-old Brooke Shields was the Vogue cover girl of Feb. 1980.

    Roy Moore ultimately married a 24 year old with 1 ex-husband and 1 kid. (so practically a virgin by local standards)

    Final point- in those days, other than bars where his brand of “nice girls” would be unlikely to be found, The Mall would’ve been just about the only place for anyone to “hang out”. And a lawyer with ambitions of running for office would be “working the room” at malls, football games and other public spaces in furtherance of that aim.

    I’ve never been a fan of Roy Moore’s but this has smelled bad from Day One. I’ve seen up close locally how dirty Mitch McConnell can play and his stampede to the mic in this case gave me pause. It also drives me nuts when we conflate “teenagers” with “children”, but send said “teenagers” off to Afghanistan.

  64. mhj Says:

    Just to be clear on the point, the Trump Hollywood Access tape is only proof or verification of Trump saying certain things. It is NOT any evidence at all of his actually having done anything. In the tape he dind’t even claim any specific instances.

    Not saying he did or didn’t, allegations such as him taking advantage of owning the Miss Universe pageant and walking into the dressing room do seem at last plausible… but if we’re talking about verification, Trump’s explanation of “just locker room talk” is correct.

  65. neo-neocon Says:


    Indeed it is not proof of actions. It is “mere words,” which are not actions. But in it Trump claims to have acted. Whether this is just bragging without actions (“locker room talk”) or whether it is bragging about actions that occurred, we do not know. But it is evidence in the sense that it’s not just someone saying he said this.

  66. Ymar Sakar Says:

    Jesus would have said that if he is here

    To you, Jesus is just a dead human.

    To actual believers, he is here watching you act like NPR quoting people out of context… just another Leftist.

  67. Ymar Sakar Says:

    Most people, what they do here is use Jesus quotes like the Left used Bush II quotes about the Iraq war. To make a point and have the dead and humans not here become their sock puppets.

    The problem is, you can’t have the person sitting next to your monitor, let’s call him Charles, and then write “If Charles was here, he would have said this and backed me up”.

    Look, people Charles is watching you talk about him as if he isn’t here. And since you didn’t have the politeness adults are required to have, to ask him first… now you’re acting the fool.

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge