The reason I originally endorsed Luther Strange (and his numbers went up mightily), is that I said Roy Moore will not be able to win the General Election. I was right! Roy worked hard but the deck was stacked against him!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 13, 2017
Here's the NYT article about the new tweet:
In the White House, there was a sense of relief among some aides that they would not have to answer for Mr. Moore’s actions in the Senate.... Those advisers said the president was troubled watching a stream of Republicans step away from Mr. Moore over decades-old allegations of sexual misconduct with teenagers, and he did not want to join the stampede....The President is trying to move on, but why should the NYT (or other anti-Trumpers) let him? His face will have to be rubbed into this defeat, even as he'll act like nothing significant has happened, nothing that affects him. That's the seriocomedy that must play in the Theater of Politics right now. If I watch, it will only be as a critic, not a fan.
White House aides were also bracing for the president’s reaction toward Stephen K. Bannon, his former chief strategist who had publicly said Mr. Trump’s base was with Mr. Moore and suggested the movement would march on without the leader of the party. Mr. Bannon’s continuing sway over Mr. Trump has deeply bothered the advisers still on the government payroll, and they were optimistic that the outcome in Alabama would weaken his grip....
But Mr. Bannon’s words rolled round the president’s mind for several days before his endorsement. The president was also enraged when his daughter Ivanka Trump got ahead of him by declaring there was a “special place in hell” for people who harm children.
Mr. Bannon jabbed at Ms. Trump on Monday night at a rally in Alabama for that line. One White House adviser said that Mr. Trump was unlikely to blame his daughter. But he would almost certainly blame someone.....
Still, the embarrassing loss showed the limits of the president’s power to persuade voters and to lead his party.... The president had placed his credibility and the weight of his office behind Mr. Moore.... Mr. Moore lost in a state that Mr. Trump had won by 28 points....
Posts
165 comments:
Donald Trump, Master of Hindsight.
If Moore had won then Trump (and Ann) would have spent the next week claiming that he was more the voice of the people than ever.
That Ivanka "got ahead of him" should be all the info Trump needs.
Doesn't matter if accusations are old and fake and fabricated. Women must be believed, now, and women's feeling vindicated.
No tweet will change that.
(Of course, Reckoning aside, Moore is a fool, and AL GOPers were asking for it.)
How on earth was the "deck stacked against" Moore?
Republicans who went for a write-in candidate were ultimately Moore's undoing.
Trump was right again. He picked the right guy to back, the guy who would have won. Then that guy lost in the primary to Strange.
Then Trump went all in to support Moore. LOL!
What we really need is a 40 year old sexual allegation against Jones, and then a vote not to seat him.
Oh, what fun that would be!
Yeah, Luther woulda just walked into the seat. The Ds wouldn't have put up any kind of fight.
In truth Strange woulda been rolled. Moore at least fought.
Sniff. The NYT wants this to be about discrediting Trump. That is quite a hard connection to make considering everything.
Instead it is a reflection on the personal life of Moore.
Most folks in Alabama including the 'write in' crowd were JUST FINE with Trump and Conservatism. They did not cotton to a Jerry Lee Lewis/Roman Polanski figure as a senator.
(Funny how the Hollywood tried to rehabilitate Jerry Lee Lewis for a much more egregious moral breech with 'Great Balls of Fire'. Hmm!)
https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/7565e179d96ce1ee7fe3baa18578d72b5f93bb25/c=293-0-1848-2764&r=583&c=0-0-580-1031/local/-/media/2016/01/23/USATODAY/usatsports/xxx_jerry_lee_lewis__jy9484_26443477.jpg
Yuck! I would bet that Alabama remembers that bit of scandal far better than NE Liberals.
The accusers were believable. The decent people of Alabama did not want to be connected to a child molester. Good for them.
Trump and Bannon, losers. The people of Alabama and decency won.
Obama went to campaign for Martha Coakley back in 2010, and Scott Brown won. That being said, Scott Brown didn't last either in Massachusetts.
Too many of Bannon's Deplorables decided they wanted to be like the upper crust people. So they voted for a RINO Republican by write-in.
The sad part is that Alabama's National reputation will never be changed by electing a pro Hillary Dem. The rest of the States still need for them to be a scapegoat for sacrifice.
Moore’s loss was a giant win for Trump. It gets Moore off of the front page. No distractions in the Senate. No ethics investigation.
And Gillibrand just lost her foil. I bet she would have slapped him on the Senate floor. “You Monster, you!” Or maybe beat him with a cane. Better yet, a duel in New Jersey; across the Hudson from NYC. Gillibrand: The Musical. Streep in the lead.
Can we see Streep actually shot? I would pay good money for that. I will even see the rest of the play, if I must.
"Inga said...
Then Trump went all in to support Moore. LOL!"
Dialing the retard up to 11 so early? Trump didn't come out and endorse Moore until the very end. He didn't campaign for him. Here, even the Washington Post knows that:
By Jenna Johnson and Sean Sullivan December 10
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — President Trump has jumped into a contentious Senate race here in recent days, supporting embattled Republican Roy Moore in an election that neared the finish line Sunday under the glare of a national spotlight.
Trump’s 11th-hour imprint was splashed across the front pages of the state’s biggest newspapers over the weekend, as he championed Moore at a rally across the state border with Florida, recorded a phone call urging voters to vote Republican and branded Moore’s Democratic opponent a “Pelosi/Schumer Liberal Democrat” to his more than 44 million followers on Twitter.
You are a dullard.
OF COURSE the defeat needs to be rubbed in Trump's face! Even more so, Bannon's face! I already gave Trump credit for having backed Luther Strange; but never has Trump said what needs to be said about the guy who engineered this colossal defeat... Bannon.
Bannon tried to foist Roy Moore on the Republican Party in the name of Trumpism. It ought to be a yuuuge lesson going forward. No more Bannon candidates. Just think of what these idiot candidates have done, with Senate seats that should rightly be Republican; the Sharron Angles, the Christine O'Donnells, the Todd Akins. And now, the Roy Moores.
(Just so show what kind of guy I am, I am excepting Richard Mourdock from this list. I rather liked Mourdock, and I wish that Dick Lugar had retired more gracefully, and I think that Mourdock was savaged unfairly in the media. While Angle, Akin, O'Donnell and Moore were savaged quite fairly by the media.)
If your name is "Luther Strange" - please go in for a name change.
Gillibrand
I find her Come To Jesus moment re: Sexual Assault a little too politically expedient, given how much she was in bed with Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Hypocrite.
When Trump calls out the write-in vote, he is blaming Senator Richard Shelby. I’d credit Condi Rice as well. It wasn’t just how the deck was stacked, but the final cut of the cards. I think it can also be said Roy Moore didn’t have an effective closing argument. Supreme Court nominations might have been a winner if Hillary Clinton were President. But she isn’t so that issue was hypothetical.
There is no silver lining here.
And there is no such thing as "decency".
That is merely a propaganda word, with no meaning in modern culture. Its an antique term, obsolete. It has been irrelevant for decades.
traditionalguy said...
Too many of Bannon's Deplorables decided they wanted to be like the upper crust people. So they voted for a RINO Republican by write-in.
I think Bannon took the "deplorable" thing a little too literally. Recruiting a candidate who was really and truly deplorable.
I just don't know how "deplorables" can survive as an inside joke for people who want to be regarded as principled conservatives.
I don't think Trump was interested in the race that much. Or the FBI really. Now judges, that's different. Those are the ones knocking down his Executive Orders and pissing him off. He is probably thinking 2 judges on his side trump any senator, so he needs to pack the courts while he can.
Moore's loss is the worst thing for the clintons. The sexual stuff is no longer tolerated.
I still think the dems will run Hillary again in 2020. I'm fine with it. Lets re-litigate the Clintons crimes again.
Power is the only thing, everything else is simply a tool, building material, to get it. And these tools can be substituted. They dont matter, independently. Much less the absurd propaganda about "women".
If you don't have power, vae victis. No "institution" will protect you. Nor law. They are all illusions.
As for the "benefits" of losing - there aren't any.
You win by winning, it does not matter how.
“Moore’s loss was a giant win for Trump. It gets Moore off of the front page. No distractions in the Senate. No ethics investigation.”
Yes, there’s a heap of unintended consequences in this. Democrats spend a heap for a seat they’ll hold for just two years and an example is set that will be used as a cudgel every time one of the Democrat creeps opens his mouth. And the Democrats remain, indisputably, the Party of Rape.
I see people suggest that one of the effects of Pervnado will be that it will encourage Democrats to run more prog women as candidates. If true, this just locks Democrats tighter into the Identity box, inevitably enhancing the Republicans electoral fortunes.
Moore lost for the same reason Hillary lost.
He was a shitty candidate.
False, Inga.
YOU believe the victims. That does not mean that the victims were believable. By a razor thin margin, people felt that it was more likely than less likely.
Trump didn't win, but he didn't lose. Bannon lost. Moore lost. Republicanism didn't lose. And Democrats lost their 'what about' with Moore. No more R sex issues. Now it is all on Mendez and Franken...with the Right properly calling upon the Left to do deal with their perverts.
However, I am thankful in one way. If Moore was elected, I would have to deal with a low, immoral sort of person as one of our representatives. Republicans aren't used to the shame of having a horrible degenerate in our ranks.
So I would need to ask Inga for lessons on how she deals with the personal shame of having a party who welcomes and defends their perverts and murderers.
Her experience would be invaluable.
"And Democrats lost their 'what about' with Moore."
-- Do you really think so? I imagine people will be getting Moore and Moore-like questions for awhile longer.
The Moore loss will help immunize those of us who might have been getting a little tired of all the winning.
"So I would need to ask Inga for lessons on how she deals with the personal shame of having a party who welcomes and defends their perverts and murderers."
She has no shame, because she has no morality or intellectual honesty. She is a dullard who laps up the talking points and pukes them out here.
"Democrats" effectively have unlimited funds.
They draw on the resources of a clique with several orders of magnitude more money than has ever been spent on US politics.
US politics have been changed by the enormous economic stakes in public policy. They have not overspent for this victory. Last year they were complacent, the level of effort was the usual small change. Going forward this will not be the case.
If the GOP cannot find candidates to run and win against Murkowski and McCatkill, we might as well give up and let the corruptocrats continue to turn the US into a corrupt banana republic.
Moore should sue Allred. If he believes he's innocent, then her smear -- and their hiding the fact they had altered the yearbook, and in fact, that he claims the yearbook isn't even his signature at all -- has now demonstrably cost him. He has a real, legal hurt to his reputation. Since we know that the accuser stated he wrote everything, as CBS + NYT reported, we know that the accuser was malicious and knowingly saying something false. Even though he's a public person, he'd got a perfect case for libel/slander.
I carefully read all the allegations against Moore yesterday and I have to admit I'm happy he didn't win. There was just enough consistency to the stories that they had an air of credibility. It sucks to lose a senate seat though, especially in such an exceptional way.
If there's any bright side to all this it may be that the Democrat-Media complex will continue its self immolation of purging all the perverts and predators that infest its top echelons with renewed vigor, emboldened by this victory. They're committed to bringing down Trump, and it's looking less and less likely that the Russia thing will do the trick, so they have to push the sexual misconduct angle. In order to cast that stone, they have to reinforce their own glass house.
@Matthew Sablan "Moore should sue Allred" His Jewish lawyer should get on to that!
But actually, in all seriousness, if he knows that this was a falsehood, he absolutely *should* sue her because, as you rightly point out, he would have a great case to show damages.
My own personal view (based on nothing more than what I read, just like you) is that his denials were unconvincing and the accusations as a whole persuasive. So I would be very shocked if he pursued this. I think loudly and publicly threatening to sue (and then quietly not ever doing it because you don't actually have a strong case) is as it happens a classic Trump trick.
The Maenads no longer need sacrifice Al Franken as a rod for Roy Moore's back. I bet he stays.
This loss isn't a negative reflection of either Trumps or Bannon, but this is how the media and Dems will spin it. This this loss is at the feet of Mitch McConnell and GOPe, they abandoned the Republican candidate long before the WAPO allegations. Does anyone really believe Republicans would have staid at home if the GOPe had kept their legislative promises they had been campaigned on for the last eight years? Would the voters have rallied behind the GOPE candidate if they had kept those promises, fuck ya.
The first of the year the campaign finance reports will tell the story of the GOP abandoning the Republican candidate long before the WAPO allegations, it will show the massive dollars flowing into the state throughout the campaign for the DEM.
So Alabama will have a liberal Senator for three years, on a GOPe gamble that he is only a placeholder.
Read this tcrosse --
LINK TEXT
Now, the Governor of MN is a real piece of work, and perhaps he didn't get the message, but still...
@Ann Althouse "The President is trying to move on, but why should the NYT (or other anti-Trumpers) let him? His face will have to be rubbed into this defeat, even as he'll act like nothing significant has happened, nothing that affects him."
I don't agree with your analysis of what is happening here. The Doug Jones victory is only a few hours old (has Moore even conceded yet?) and all sides - GOP establishment, Bannonites. the Dems, Trump (in as much as he is a "side" of his own) - have to take some time to absorb the surprise and try and work out what it means for each of them and their strategy going forward.
To describe the NYT as "rubbing this defeat in Trump's face" is an unfair description of that.
It is fascinating to see Trump want to *not* talk about it! Already!
Also, I would be amazed if the first tweet (the one that was measured and calm) was actually Trump. Amazed.
"My own personal view (based on nothing more than what I read, just like you) is that his denials were unconvincing and the accusations as a whole persuasive"
-- Based on what? Several key facts turned out false. He was never banned from the mall. His signature was tampered with, calling in to question the entire narrative. I think he's scummy, and it wouldn't surprise me if he did try and date younger women. But, so many of the facts used to accuse him were false that, if I were on a jury, I couldn't find him guilty within a reasonable doubt. You may not believe him and believe them, but that's just a personal belief. There's not enough evidence to condemn him.
"I carefully read all the allegations against Moore yesterday and I have to admit I'm happy he didn't win."
-- As many recent elections are turning out, I am always left wondering if they can't both lose.
How the hell was there "consistency to the stories that made them credible"? 40 year old accusations with exactly one piece of physical evidence provided that was admitted to be doctored. I'm literally grasping to imagine a way in which the accusations could be objectively less credible, and failing spectacularly. The ONLY thing we know for sure is that Wilson doctored that yearbook and lied avout it.
If thse accusations are to be deemed credible, we really are doomed. No man anywhere can possibly be found innocent.
If you don't have power, vae victis. No "institution" will protect you. Nor law. They are all illusions.
Yes. In the Soviet Union, people were deemed nonviable and disappeared under a layer of privacy. In America, they are deemed nonviable and lynched in public.
I wonder who will be deemed unworthy, inconvenient, or profitable next.
That said, go along to get along... or, rather, go along and hope the State ignores you. Nothing has changed.
flip flopping again.
I am a pessimist because of the simple fact of the balance of power. They have it, you don't. They have enormous resources available to put into politics, as needed.
This has been the case for several decades, probably sorting out like this during the Clinton administration, which succeeded in connecting to Wall Street, and sidelining Main Street.
What you are is an incipient insurgency, fighting a more powerful, established enemy, with all the institutional advantages. The models I see are of the Vendee, or Carlists, where traditionalists fought a brave fight against the new liberal-totalitarian state. These were failures, because the Vendeens/Carlists could not reach and destroy the resources of the central government, and were ultimately overwhelmed.
The only way an insurgency like this can succeed is to throw out all illusions, quibbles, "decency", and comfort, and become utterly ruthless, especially in ruining institutions.
I need to write this to get my frustration out of my system. First I am not happy Moore lost, but once beyond that it is easy to see that he, like Clinton, had just too much baggage to overcome. Removed from the bench twice, and then bombarded by these accusations of sexual "misbehavior" were way to much for him to overcome in a low turnout special election. In essence he was a bad candidate. Given the current climate in DC it is just a well that Moore will not be available as a whipping boy for the Dems. One vote is certainly critical at this stage in the Senate, but as we saw with Obamacare repeal even a slim majority is not enough sometimes.
This certainly proves McConnell's point that the R's have to offer electable candidates and, I hope, will damage Bannon's loose cannon attempts to interfere the R primary process.
When Richard Shelby announced his opposition to Moore we should have known that the local Republicans had generally turned against Moore and that he was not going to win.
@Mac McConnell "This loss isn't a negative reflection of either Trumps or Bannon...this loss is at the feet of Mitch McConnell and GOPe"
I see your point. But I disagree. Bannon was trying very very hard to win this. It is in that sense at least partly a negative reflection on his strategy because he didn't manage to wring a victory out of these circumstances.
A hostile GOP establishment, an interested media, a geared up Dem party...these are the circumstances of this particular race. He did a bad job.
Any politician or campaigner can always point to the reasons they lost and say "That's why I lost!" But that's the trick - to win under those particular circumstances.
I'm honestly not saying this because I hated Moore (I did) and because I am pleased with the result (I am). I feel this about all politicians btw - including Clinton. Her job was to win - under those circumstances! Against Trump. With a hostile right-wing press. With all her bagage. With the fact that some people are misogynist. With the unfair electoral college etc etc I am a left-leaning person, but I didn't "forgive" her for losing. I thought she did a terrible job.
Chuck Schumer + 49 = 50, and McCain and Flake or Collins = clear majority. The rest of them see which way that is going, and a half dozen or more follow.
So, McConnell will have the title of majority leader, but it will be an empty one; Schumer has the power.
The power has shifted away from Trump, and you can tell that from this morning's commentaries. The pundits are rushing to conform with the new reality.
He's right the deck was stacked against Moore and it was cut by Trump who was holding the Joker card called Bannon. See Sykes' analysis of the post-moral Republican Party in today's. NYT for an interesting take on how the Republicans got to Alabama.
Oh, and don't forget, Allred's "handwriting expert" validated the ENTIRE yearbook signature as being written by Moore, including the parts Wilson wrote. So it's not just Wilson that we know lied, we know they bribed corrupt "experts" to lie too.
And this is called "credible"!
We are seriously fucked. This is 1984.
"With a hostile right-wing press."
-- The press was in the bag for Clinton. We have the emails proving that they did things like provide her with debate questions, coordinate stories with her, and hold off on printing damaging things about Trump until he won the primary as she had pushed them her strategy to want to engage Trump over the other Republican nominees.
Any illusion there was a "right-wing press" against Hillary means that you've missed everything we know about the press in the recent presidential election.
I agree except the Deep State is not competent at governing.
These were failures, because the Vendeens/Carlists could not reach and destroy the resources of the central government, and were ultimately overwhelmed.
These guys are a clown show. Two senior agents sleeping with each other and exchanging high school level taunts about the President?
The Soviet Union fell because they were able to hold power but unable to run a country.
Obama got a lot of harmful people into government, converting political appointees into civil service, for example.
But they are drones. They don't know how to run an economy or a foreign policy.
It sounds like Tillerson is cleaning house at State.
Venezuela shows us what these people are capable of when thy have to actually run things,
Roosevelt had to turn to Knudson, the hated "Malefactor of Great Wealth," to win WWII.
We are back to "conflicting edits."
This is definitely a local election with very little to say about national politics no matter what the MSM says. I was cheered yesterday by the signing by Trump of the NDAA which breaks the "caps" Obama negotiated for defense spending by $150 billion and begins to rebuild the armed forces. I was also happy to see that the Navy has finally recognized that they ( and I am sure all the other services) have been wasting money on everything else except training sailors how to actually operate their ships. We are making progress every day no matter how depressed the MSM may make us.
Mac McConnell said...
This loss isn't a negative reflection of either Trumps or Bannon, but this is how the media and Dems will spin it. This this loss is at the feet of Mitch McConnell and GOPe, they abandoned the Republican candidate long before the WAPO allegations...
That's right. And it is because Moore was a horrendous candidate even before the WaPo story.
What is so hard about accepting the obvious conclusion that Mitch McConnell was right; Moore was the wrong candidate from the start? If Bannon didn't run Moore, the seat would have remained safely in Republican hands. Period. Proximate cause, and effect. Luther Strange would not have lost to Doug Jones.
If you like Trump, and if you feel some kinship to Alabamians, just imagine a Senate race where Strange campaigned without the Moore baggage. And had Trump enthusiastically campaigning for Strange all along. With as much money as was needed from the RNC. (And it wouldn't have been much money, because Strange would have been at least 10 points ahead from start to finish.)
"With the unfair electoral college"
-- The electoral college is one of the fairest government compromises ever done, protecting the interests of the minorities. Large states have power in the House, along with the natural advantages a large population gives in politics in general. Smaller states are given a balance via the EC and Senate. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the EC.
Trump needs to take responsibility for his part in the Moore fiasco. Trump has a habit of blaming others for things that rightfully he is to blame for. I recall when he blamed the generals for the mission that failed and resulted in the death of a Navy Seal.
As Roy Moore's campaign team gathered in Montgomery to watch the results come in, journalists from the Post were told they would have to report on the evening from outside.
Great stuff. Reporters want to be the enemy. Don't shy away from it, don't pretend it isn't happening. Recognize and react to it.
"If Bannon didn't run Moore, the seat would have remained safely in Republican hands. Period. Proximate cause, and effect."
-- I mean, possibly. Or, Allred would have found someone to accuse them of sexual misconduct and present false evidence to prove it.
We'll never know.
@FIDO: "YOU believe the victims." Right. And millions of Ingas and Kittys.
It doesn't matter whether you think they are "believable." It doesn't matter whether the "evidence" is forged.
What matters is what women feel.
They feel they have been wronged. They feel many men are mean. They feel We Must Believe the Women. They feel it's their time. It is.
Just checking for future reference - what exactly IS the standard by which a man can be considered innocent until proven guilty in the current climate? Because if Wilson admitting she doctored the yearbook isn't enough to get even 50% of the voters to doubt the allegations (per an ABC poll), I literally cannot imagine what possibly could. Accusation IS conviction.
Michael,
The incident re the agents was minor, irrelevant foolishness among some flunkies. The whole Mueller thing is tactical; if it did not go down that way it would be something else. If no Mueller, there would be some other Mueller. What matters are the goals and the strategy.
As for being incompetent - the people in power are quite competent, at staying in power. They just ran into a very special case in Trump. History plays tricks like that, a Napoleon upending every notion of military professionalism. A Genghis. A Cortez.
The question is whether Trump is special enough.
When people have no options but bad ones, I don't hold it against them for going with any one of the bad options.
Matt
I thought there was already a law suit by Moore against Allred, Moore tweeted that Allred had called to settle on election eve, Moore told her he would see her in court. I swear I read a tweet to this , but it could have just been political theater on Moore's part.
FIDO: Now it is all on Mendez and Franken...with the Right properly calling upon the Left to do deal with their perverts.
Why do people keep talking nonsense like this? The left will "deal with their perverts" by leaving them right where they are, and they won't even have to go to the trouble of ignoring the right and brassing it out, because the right won't do diddly. Inside the Beltway, Democrats only holy-roll on Republican perverts, and Republicans only holy-roll on Republican perverts. Regardless of recent anomalous tactical diversions re Conyers, Franken, and pretending to care about Bill Clinton after all these years.
"his denials were unconvincing and the accusations as a whole persuasive"/"-- Based on what?"
The woman who cried on camera and said he told her no one would believe her, because he was the DA" — she seemed pretty convincing. If she were lying, that would be acting, and I don't think people are that good at acting.
I saw one of Trump's accusers on camera in the past few days, and she sounded like she was just reading from a script. That doesn't mean she is lying, but it does mean her speaking doesn't make me think it would be too hard to speak like that if it were not true. She was speaking in a way that she could deliver any statement at all.
As to Venezuela - those guys, Maduro & co., are simply brilliant at holding on. I would have given odds against them holding out this long. They are in a terrible position, ripe for a coup, which would have had overwhelming support.
They opened themselves up to a Pinochet.
But as yet, no Pinochet.
They must be really good at internal discipline.
Yes, they are terrible at managing an economy, but that is not job #1.
Inga said...
Trump needs to take responsibility for his part in the Moore fiasco. Trump has a habit of blaming others for things that rightfully he is to blame for. I recall when he blamed the generals for the mission that failed and resulted in the death of a Navy Seal.
Inga, respectfully, I remind everyone of the obvious; that Trump wisely accepted the advice of Mitch McConnell and supported Luther Strange in the primary and runoff. So Trump's personal responsibility is limited. It's not zero responsibility, but it's not the greatest responsibility.
The greatest responsibility is with Bannon, and Trump needs to make it clear that it was Bannon's fault and Trump should be blaming Bannon.
Mitch McConnell said it very succinctly: Steve Bannon specializes in backing losing candidates.
Quinn
In politics "Accusation IS conviction". It puts ones opponents in a defensive mode which is pretty hard to recover without media support. Campaigns always playing defense lose.
"I don't think people are that good at acting"
*headdesk*
Would a person picked randomly from a crowd be that good an actor? No.
Would a person handpicked by Democrats to levy false accusations be selected randomly? No!
Chuck
Trump needs to be very careful blaming Bannon, he represents Trump's base. Mitch McConnell does not.
Trump has, like Cortez, bluffed his way into Tenochtitlan, and enraged the human-sacrificing priests.
He is now besieged there.
What happens next?
Here's a piece in the Federalist that underscores the local issues surrounding Strange's loss to Moore. Takes some of the onus off Bannon and places it back on the damn GOP establishment. Apparently Mo Brooks is the guy to run in 2020.
If he is, he shouldn't let her settle.
They forged evidence, knowingly. If he didn't assault her (note, not asked her out, etc. All he cares about is the accusation he attempted to rape her in the parking lot here). At this point, all they have is truth as the ultimate defense, which if they can prove, good.
A "handwriting expert" was handpicked by Democrats to claim that the entire signature was Moore's.
We know, for a fact, that what he said was false (her writing doesn't even remotely look like the writing above it, FFS). But Wilson, Inga, etc. all insisted that Wilson's writing was Moore's.
Consequences? None. Loss of credibility? Apparently NONE.
What is the possible basis for simply discarding that information as irrelevant to the credibility of the accusations?
How rational is it to believe that every single woman that came out with allegations against Moore and Trump are lying?
50 Democratic Congresswomen have called for an investigation into the allegations of sexual misconduct by Trump. Will every last one of those women lie under oath, should an investigation ever get off the ground ( unlikely under Republican majority)?
So when does Sen. Menendez resign?
Matt
I think the Yearbook Gal has pretty much been discredited already if the many people that work and patronized The Olde Hickory at the time are to be believed.
"The woman who cried on camera and said he told her no one would believe her, because he was the DA" — she seemed pretty convincing. If she were lying, that would be acting, and I don't think people are that good at acting."
-- She's also the one who lied to us about what Moore wrote, walking back part of her statement. Again, I personally think Moore is scummy -- I believe he probably tried to date young girls. I'm not sure I believe that particular accuser any more though, since she lied to us. Which is why I want them to get to the bottom of it at this point, because that was a major accusation, and we deserve to know the truth. Someone is lying to us, possibly both parties are.
Now, the Governor of MN is a real piece of work, and perhaps he didn't get the message, but still...
Agreed. But he can appoint anyone he wants, but he can't fire Franken. If Al chooses he can stay and fight it out.
“We know, for a fact, that what he said was false (her writing doesn't even remotely look like the writing above it, FFS). But Wilson, Inga, etc. all insisted that Wilson's writing was Moore's.”
Wrong, I said the inscription and signature was Moore’s as per the handwriting expert. Nelson admitted that she added the place and date. This doesn’t make the entire entry a forgery. For the umpeenth time now. This discussion of the supposed FORGERY! is getting old and worn out.
"A "handwriting expert" was handpicked by Democrats to claim that the entire signature was Moore's."
-- Theoretically, given the new, revised accusation, the signature *could still be Moore's*. And, frankly, I'd like to know. So submit it to a neutral party and one of Moore's choosing for independent verification.
"Wrong, I said the inscription and signature was Moore’s as per the handwriting expert."
-- Which doesn't matter. We were told Moore wrote the whole thing, and the accuser *knew that was a lie.*
She's not trustworthy at this point, and unless the yearbook is independently verified, it is useless.
“So when does Sen. Menendez resign?”
When the victims or the witnesses to the assault come forward, most likely. Where are they?
Inga most of the women accusing Trump say dumb things like he kissed me on the lips the first time we met and some guy groped me at a bar in 1980s NY and then I looked up and thought it was DT. Seriously? That's not even Franken territory.
When will you be calling on Menendez to resign?
Nelson EVENTUALLY admitted she added the time and place, but initially stated explicitly that Moore wrote them.
That. Is. The. Fucking. Definition. Of. Forgery.
And yes, you alter ONE SINGLE word of a piece of writing and claim it to be the original writer's, the whole thing is a fucking forgery. Otherwise, anyone can take anyone's legit signature, add a few words and fabricate a crime. It could be done to you, Inga. And you would deserve it.
I said the inscription and signature was Moore’s as per the handwriting expert.
Don't you understand that was never in doubt? It was Moore signature from a rubber stamp he used as a judge, initialed by his assistant Delbra Adams. The issue was, how did it get in the yearbook from the future? Moore had just started working as a Deputy District Attorney at the time of the alleged assault. Moore became a circuit judge in 1992.
Inga, there's video proof apparently .
So I could find a real signature by George Washington. Inga writes "I killed Jimmy Hoffa, Love, George W." just above it. We discover Inga wrote all but the signature. Inga's answer: "It is NOT a forgery, that really is George Washington's signature, you liar!"
Yes, that's exactly how absurd this has gotten.
"Inga said...
How rational is it to believe that every single woman that came out with allegations against Moore and Trump are lying?
50 Democratic Congresswomen have called for an investigation into the allegations of sexual misconduct by Trump. Will every last one of those women lie under oath, should an investigation ever get off the ground ( unlikely under Republican majority)?"
Let's ask Hillary!
McConnell, Ryan, and the rest of the Congress GOPe provided the margin of victory for Jones, and they get to live with the results.
Unfortunately, so do we.
Everyone knows, even the democrats, that Menendez is a crook. But, because (D) - it's not a problem.
I recall many in the GOP who wanted Moore to step aside. Moore did not. This is all on Moore.
White woman remembers something from 40 years ago against a Republican, Inga believes. Video evidence of the exploitation of poor brown girls by a corrupt Dem who don't live in the country, let's see if they come forward. So I have that right?
The incident re the agents was minor, irrelevant foolishness among some flunkies.
I disagree they were "flunkies." Maybe they should be flunkies but they were pretty senior people.
The real task for the intelligence services is to recuit people who can be competent.
IN stead, we have the dilemma of The Prussian field marshall
General Freiherr von Hammerstein-Equord, the present chief of the German Army, has a method of selecting officers which strikes us as being highly original and peculiarly un-Prussian. According to Exchange, a Berlin newspaper has printed the following as his answer to a query as to how he judged his officers: “I divide my officers into four classes as follows: The clever, the industrious, the lazy, and the stupid. Each officer always possesses two of these qualities.
Those who are clever and industrious I appoint to the General Staff. Use can under certain circumstances be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy qualifies for the highest leadership posts. He has the requisite nerves and the mental clarity for difficult decisions. But whoever is stupid and industrious must be got rid of, for he is too dangerous.”
The FBI and CIA are full of stupid energetic people.
How rational is it to believe thay Democrats have the means, motive, opportunity and cash to bribe 50 women to make false allegations?
Pretty fucking rational, actually. I wouldn't expect anything less at this point.
It's not like there's even a hint of punishment for false accusations. 100% risk free to do it. All upside, no downside. All it takes is for Democrats to be willing to lie to attain power. Heh.
So. Yeah. 100% rational to believe it.
Mac McConnell said...
Chuck
Trump needs to be very careful blaming Bannon, he represents Trump's base. Mitch McConnell does not.
Yeah, that is sort of what I am driving at, in fact. Trump needs a new base. And Bannon needs a new avocation. I'd like for Trump to be as careful about blaming Bannon as Trump is "careful" about most things.
Not.
Losing a Senate seat in Alabama -- Alabama! -- is de jure political malpractice. Like Alabama football losing to Mercer.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/11/21/media-ignores-key-alabama-witness-reports-that-refute-roy-moore-accuser/
Read this or shut up about the subject.
The “D.A.” does not stand for District Attorney, it stands for “Delbra Adams”, Judge Moore’s former assistant who started working for him in 1987, ten years after the “DA” which appears in Mrs. Nelson’s yearbook.
The evidence showing Beverly Nelson and Gloria Allred manufactured the yearbook as support for a thinly veiled political hit and scurrilous claim seems overwhelming and presumably that’s why she is refusing to allow independent inspection.
In addition to being a dubious lawyer with a career containing several fraudulent claims against republican political opposition (ex. Herman Cain and Donald Trump), Gloria Allred is also a DNC delegate political activist.
“Inga, there's video proof apparently .
White woman remembers something from 40 years ago against a Republican, Inga believes. Video evidence of the exploitation of poor brown girls by a corrupt Dem who don't live in the country, let's see if they come forward. So I have that right?”
Birches, where is the video evidence? I read the article you linked to, all I saw there were allegations. I’m not saying there is nothing to the allegations against Menendez, I’m asking why we haven’t seen the accusers, the witnesses or the video that you say exists?
I don't know if you can blame Moore or Trump or Bannon for predicting this, or even Jones.
Could anyone have predicted multiple accusers coming forward against Moore? Especially given his history, these shots would have been fired years ago. Without those, he would have won. Moore lost due to a black swan event. Even if we believe this, it requires us to assume people thought, "Hey, what if... what if people Moore sexually assaulted have been quiet for two generations or so and finally decide to speak up?"
This was unpredictable, and hard to credit or hold against anyone.
Well, Romney certainly failed spectacularly when he bullyingly cut that kids hair in high school.
And McCain failed when he had that affair. Remember that?
Oh, those were bullshit unproven and discredited stories, and it's blaming the victims of the smears to hold them accountable?
Yeah. Thought zo.
"Chuck said...
Losing a Senate seat in Alabama -- Alabama! -- is de jure political malpractice. Like Alabama football losing to Mercer."
Dude, the group that you are a cuck too is the culprit. Mitch McConnell can't get his guy to win a primary, WITH TRUMP'S SUPPORT, against Bannon. The GOPe are fucking eunuchs.
As to predictions, the Dems could see the handwriting on the yearbook.
Some great tweets embedded in this story:
www.businessinsider.com/republicans-blame-steve-bannon-for-roy-moores-loss-2017-12
Inga knows that Menendez's victims are still under the control of the traffickers who provided their services to Menendez, and so can't come forward.
Which is precisely why Inga demands they come forward before she'll do anything.
Seems legit! As long as they're *still* enslaved, well, they can't come forward, so Inga doesn't have to care!
Curious George said...
"Chuck said...
Losing a Senate seat in Alabama -- Alabama! -- is de jure political malpractice. Like Alabama football losing to Mercer."
Dude, the group that you are a cuck too is the culprit. Mitch McConnell can't get his guy to win a primary, WITH TRUMP'S SUPPORT, against Bannon. The GOPe are fucking eunuchs.
The Bannonites are fucking losers. Winning primaries isn't the point. Winning general elections is the point.
“Inga knows that Menendez's victims are still under the control of the traffickers who provided their services to Menendez, and so can't come forward.
Which is precisely why Inga demands they come forward before she'll do anything.
Seems legit! As long as they're *still* enslaved, well, they can't come forward, so Inga doesn't have to care!”
Where are the witnesses to the assaults? Where is the video? How can one make an opinion of guilt or innocence without any evidence whatsoever? The women in the Moore case came forward and told their stories, we got to hear them and draw our conclusions. How can you expect anyone to come to any conclusion based on allegations of some shadowy figure? Obviously much more information regarding the allegations against Menendez are out there somewhere, hopefully the video is presented as proof, as the girls won’t be testifying.
"Chuck said...
The Bannonites are fucking losers. Winning primaries isn't the point. Winning general elections is the point."
How'd that work out for Strange dumbfuck? Your masters lost. Bannion beat you. Your guy wasn't even in thew hunt. If Bannon is a loser, what does that make McConnell? And you Cuck?
You're eunuchs.
Chuck: The Bannonites are fucking losers. Winning primaries isn't the point. Winning general elections is the point.
Uh, Chuck, you have to win a primary to win a general election. If the GOPe can't even carry a primary against fucking Bannonite losers, what kind of fucking losers does that make them?
"How rational is it to believe that every single woman that came out with allegations against Moore and Trump are lying?"
Bill Clinton.
This isn't even hard.
Aside from the question whether the accuser is lying, there's the question whether she's mistaken (misremembering) or committed to a subjective interpretation of an event that was subjectively perceived differently by the person she's accusing.
The accusations against Trump are — some of them anyway — things like he gave a kiss. From his perspective (and maybe from a neutral perspective), it was a social kiss, a kiss hello or goodbye in a milieu where people exchanged greetings of that sort. But the individual woman might have been ideating about what he might want from her, what he might be offering and what she might be asked to do, and what will happen in the next encounter, etc. etc.
Haven't we all had experiences like that? You encounter someone who could be important to you, and you have a short interaction (words, gestures) and you go off and think about it a lot, with all sorts of hopes and fears and dreams and nightmares swirling about in your head. If the person later becomes a significant political figure and there's a cultural climate that says you can come forward and share your feelings with impunity and you strongly oppose the politics of this guy... well, what might you do?
"Chuck said...
Some great tweets embedded in this story:
www.businessinsider.com/republicans-blame-steve-bannon-for-roy-moores-loss-2017-12"
Good tweets? "A top Republican in close touch to the White House says: “This should be a wakeup call" -- of President Trump following Bannon's lead in Alabama. Silence now at the White House."
Trump opposed Bannon's candidate Cuck. You eunuch friends couldn't beat Bannon with Trumps support. What good is McConnell to Trump? About as much good as he is to America. Worthless.
Instead of Republicans fighting each other about who is or is not a loser, how did no one come up with this oppo research? Remember: The WaPo allegedly was not approached and didn't have any leads about this.
They just started asking random people: "Hey, do you have any dirt on Roy Moore? Oh, you were sexually assaulted! What serendipitous happenstance we happened to ask you at random!"
How did the Republican field somehow not find this out?
What is so hard about accepting the obvious conclusion that Mitch McConnell was right; Moore was the wrong candidate from the start?
Moore lost by under 21,000 votes, which means you have to believe either that McConnell's loud disavowal is partly responsible for Moore's loss, or the (now nominal) Senate Majority Leader's opinion isn't worth 21,000 votes two states over from his own.
just imagine a Senate race where Strange campaigned without the Moore baggage
Hell, just imagine a combat veteran Rhodes Scholar candidate who looked like Cary Grant and promised to vote like Calvin Coolidge, if you're going to waste time fantasizing about alternate universes.
Are all the women lying is a very crude and deliberately unsophisticated way to frame the question.
But that's the way we talk in American politics and Trump himself is the master of blunt simplification.
"just imagine a Senate race where Strange campaigned without the Moore baggage"
-- Can I imagine in that where Strange is also accused of sexual assault by multiple witnesses, one with forged evidence?
Because, Moore's baggage wouldn't have sunk him without that.
"Aside from the question whether the accuser is lying, there's the question whether she's mistaken (misremembering) or committed to a subjective interpretation of an event that was subjectively perceived differently by the person she's accusing."
-- That's dangerously close to Franken's "I remember it differently" defense. I think with certain actions, this defense doesn't work (like Franken's allegedly sticking his tongue down someone's throat or the alleged Moore assault in his car), whereas in the situations mentioned later (kiss hello/goodbye) it might work.
"Chuck said...
Yeah, that is sort of what I am driving at, in fact. Trump needs a new base."
Like Senator Strange's base? President Jeb Bush's? Or maybe President John McCain's? No? President Mitt Romney? Governor Ed Gillespie? Whose Cuck? Whose?
Ann Althouse said...
Are all the women lying is a very crude and deliberately unsophisticated way to frame the question.
But that's the way we talk in American politics and Trump himself is the master of blunt simplification.
I don't expect Althouse to agree, but to me "master of blunt simplification" is an oxymoron. Trump is, to be sure, a blunt over-simplifier. That much is true. But it's because he isn't much of a "master" of language, or policy, or human understanding.
Example: Trump called for "a ban on all Muslims entering the United States until our representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." Trump never got that ban, and not even anything close to it, and his having uttered that bluntly over-simplified pronouncement, made it more difficult to get even a much more carefully-considered immigration order --a serious one that might have an actual effect -- past the scrutiny of the federal courts.
Being "a master of blunt simplification" as with Trump is like being a "master" of overeating, or over-drawing your checking account, or abusing your wife.
"Chuck said...
The Bannonites are fucking losers."
Moore crushed Strange in the primary. Bet Trump won't trust that eunuch McConnell again.
Trump doesn't need a new base. The GOPe needs to jump on the TrumpTrain. As do LLR and TT.
Let's say that in the coming months, Moore sues Allred, and in discovery it comes out that even the first part of the yearbook signature was by someone named "Ray", the "Moore" was added, and Roy Moore never wrote a damn thing in that yearbook.
Does even THAT make the accusations "less credible"? Or will Wilson's acting skills still be too damn good to question?
And assuming even that won't just be dismissed as irrelevant to the accusers' credibility, where can Moore then go to get his reputation back?
And if Jones was behind it all, will his "punishment" be anything other than being Senator for 3 years?
It's been alleged that in at least one Moore stronghold county due to voting machine glitches votes where cast on provisional ballots that have not been counted yet. Could be BS.
Winning primaries isn't the point. Winning general elections is the point.
I thought losing with integrity was the point. "No vote, no majority is worth losing our honor, our integrity", said GOPe stalwart Mitt Romney. "Country over Party", said Jeff Flake.
"Chuck said...
Ann Althouse said...
Are all the women lying is a very crude and deliberately unsophisticated way to frame the question.
But that's the way we talk in American politics and Trump himself is the master of blunt simplification.
I don't expect Althouse to agree, but to me "master of blunt simplification" is an oxymoron. Trump is, to be sure, a blunt over-simplifier. That much is true. But it's because he isn't much of a "master" of language, or policy, or human understanding.
Example: Trump called for "a ban on all Muslims entering the United States until our representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." Trump never got that ban, and not even anything close to it, and his having uttered that bluntly over-simplified pronouncement, made it more difficult to get even a much more carefully-considered immigration order --a serious one that might have an actual effect -- past the scrutiny of the federal courts.
Being "a master of blunt simplification" as with Trump is like being a "master" of overeating, or over-drawing your checking account, or abusing your wife."
But he got the ban didn't he. How's the blunt simplification of the GOPe "Repeal and Replace" going Cuck? Or immigration? Or any of their policy initiative we heard about over and over. There's a reason that they couldn't get Strange in Alabama, or anything done. Eunuchs. And liars.
"Could be BS."
-- The GOP has won, what, exactly 0 recounts in, what, living memory? I seriously doubt any claims of "a bunch of uncounted ballots for our guy are there! Just wait!"
If Moore pulls a recount upset with cars found in trunks of cars, while it would be oddly poetic justice to stick the knife in Franken, I'd be suspicious.
With votes found in trunks of cars.
But, cars in cars like a Russian doll would ALSO be oddly poetic.
Curious George said...
"Chuck said...
Yeah, that is sort of what I am driving at, in fact. Trump needs a new base."
Like Senator Strange's base? President Jeb Bush's? Or maybe President John McCain's? No? President Mitt Romney? Governor Ed Gillespie? Whose Cuck? Whose?
What I'd like to know, is the identity of anyone who now supports Trump, but who voted for Obama in 2008 and/or 2012.
I'd like to who now supports Trump, but who couldn't be bothered to have gotten out to vote for McCain in '08 or Romney in '12.
I have left Gillespie out. (Although Trump's coattails and abilities as a co-campaigner seem to be mostly nil. Has Trump helped anybody get elected yet? Most Republicans currently in Congress ran better in the general than Trump did in their districts, or states.) Gillespie's 2017 problem was the same as Trump's 2016 advantage; that is, history. In Virginia's 4-year/off-year gubernatorial elections, the party that just won the White House nearly always loses. And with the presidential elections, the party that has been out of power for two terms usually wins.
It is not all the women who came forth with allegations against Moore. There is only two that count, the then 14 and 16 year olds, and neither of those can get their own relatives to believe them. The 17 and 18 year olds were - and are - not off limits, and actually are where you would go to look for someone to marry if you were a fundamentalist Christian with a hang-up about "virginity" in Etowah County 40+ years ago.
Let the record show that the voters of Alabama declined to elect a candidate accused of hitting on minors and teen agers. Let the record show that the Academy voters chose to give an award a man convicted of raping a child and to give that man a standing ovation......Moore lost and Trump got bruised, but the big loser was the media. They're the one that broke this story forty years after the fact. Why did the women feel constrained from testifying during the primary but unleashed during the general election? Were there some hidden machinations going on? Can you depend on the people who engineer these machinations to report on these machinations.....I'm pretty sure that four of the next five scandals will involve people who are more known for their liberal beliefs than otherwise. These liberal beliefs will be treated as incidental to their misconduct. If some conservative gets snared, his misconduct will be treated as the inevitable outgrowth of his ideology.
Curious George said...
...
But he got the ban didn't he. How's the blunt simplification of the GOPe "Repeal and Replace" going Cuck? Or immigration? Or any of their policy initiative we heard about over and over. There's a reason that they couldn't get Strange in Alabama, or anything done. Eunuchs. And liars.
"I love the poorly educated."
No, Trump never got a "ban on all Muslims entering the United States." Do you think he did? The Administration's lawyers have spent thousands of hours briefing and making the argument that the Trump EO's are not a ban on Muslims. And I agree with them; the re-worked orders are NOT a ban on "all Muslims."
Trump's stupid statement was silly from the start. That is to say, silly from a real and rational perspective. Maybe not silly, I suppose, for some poorly-educated yokel who thinks that he is losing his job in a factory or a coal mine, or is threatened in his little town in Georgia or Alabama or Iowa, because of "Muslims."
So, no; reading the Administration's filings in court, Trump never put into writing, and never got, a "Muslim ban." Maybe Trump wants people to think that. He seems to have gotten you to think that. How stupid are you?
"So, no; reading the Administration's filings in court, Trump never put into writing,"
-- Then why are we pretending like he did? Trump's statement about the ban can no more be legally held up by the court than Clinton wanting abortion to be safe, legal and rare being able to be cited.
It was something said in a campaign -- it should never have been considered by the courts, and only was done so to deliberately knee cap the president and #RESIST #BAMN. I'm not a huge Trump fan, but I know perfectly well the judge who tried to shut down the travel ban was deliberately politicizing it.
"I disagree they were "flunkies." Maybe they should be flunkies but they were pretty senior people."
They aren't very senior, in the set of actual decision-makers. They implement, they do minor tactics, but they take instructions and do nothing unless directed. The orders came from much higher than their level, certainly from the Obama administration.
Chuck:
What I'd like to know, is the identity of anyone who now supports Trump, but who voted for Obama in 2008 and/or 2012.
There seem to be lots in
Howard County, Iowa.
Yeah, we had JUST gotten done claiming that a million claims by Democrats everywhere that the Obamacare individual mandate was NOT A TAX was irrelevant to the Court's decision that it is too a tax.
Only the text of the law matters!
Unless it's Trump. Then, and only then, do other statements matter to the Court.
1984. We are fucked.
His face will have to be rubbed into this defeat, even as he'll act like nothing significant has happened, nothing that affects him.
Maybe he could just accept the results of the election and move on.
Isn't that how we're told democracy works?
Chuck:
Trump's stupid statement was silly from the start. That is to say, silly from a real and rational perspective. Maybe not silly, I suppose, for some poorly-educated yokel who thinks that he is losing his job in a factory or a coal mine, or is threatened in his little town in Georgia or Alabama or Iowa, because of "Muslims."
To lead you must first pace.
If he'd have said "Immigration policy is a complex subject and I'm don't have enough experience at such things, but I'll appoint a blue ribbon commission to study the matter if you vote for me... Please clap." He'd have never been able to lead people to a more minor policy.
Those statements about a "Muslim ban" were not off the cuff. They were planned. It might have brought in Howard County, Iowa voters for example.
What I'd like to know, is the identity of anyone who now supports Trump, but who voted for Obama in 2008 and/or 2012.
You mean like the person who writes this blog you read every day?
Kevin said...
"What I'd like to know, is the identity of anyone who now supports Trump, but who voted for Obama in 2008 and/or 2012."
You mean like the person who writes this blog you read every day?
I don't know that.
@MichaelK 10:10 Astute observation and a great quote from the Prussian General. It is so true and there are so many stupid, energetic and ambitious people in DC.
Al Franken: "Damn it"
Donald Trump, Master of Hindsight.
Ha! Hillary is still trying to convince everyone she really won.
Maybe Trump could loan her a cup of hindsight should they ever meet up.
Did I miss something?
Al Franken's successor has been appointed, but Franken has not resigned yet?
Hagar said...
Did I miss something?
Al Franken's successor has been appointed, but Franken has not resigned yet?
I had the same thought, but only for a moment. Franken was going to resign "in the coming weeks." I'm quite certain that Franken and his leadership in the Senate agreed that his vote might be needed before the holiday break and so he could not resign then.
The Franken successor is to be "named" now. I confess I am not sure what, how, or why the successor couldn't be immediately sworn in; but we all know that it is really a critical time for Senate votes.
There's been some talk about Franken's staff being given time to get new jobs or to arrange with the new boss to stay on. But I'd think those issues could be handled pretty quickly.
From my linked story, "In 2015, the defense moved to throw out the entire prosecution on the grounds that those allegations were false. But the U.S. Attorney argued in a filing that the government had "specific, corroborated allegations that defendants Menendez and Melgen had sex with underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic."
I guess the US Attorney's Office isn't a good enough source.
"I guess the US Attorney's Office isn't a good enough source."
-- To prove it, no. No they aren't. To prove the allegations exist?
Sure. (I think Menendez is probably dirty -- but I don't think he should hang because of just an accusation. Politically though? Politically he should be done.)
Meh. I am either stupid and lazy or clever and lazy.
So either way, I am golden.
Two more of my comments removed from this thread.
This just in from Doug Jones (Tom Perez still strangely not doing the schilling):
Friend --
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
Last night, you helped bend that moral arc a little closer to that justice -- right through the great state of Alabama. I will be forever grateful for your support -- without it, we would have never been able to achieve what many thought was an impossible victory.
Our campaign showed what's possible when you cut through the noise and talk to voters about what matters to them. We made an unprecedented effort to reach out to millions of Alabamians, and we mobilized the grassroots in this state like I've never seen before.
Over the last seven weeks, with the help of the Democratic Party, we made over 1.3 million phone calls, sent over 1 million text messages, and knocked on the doors of 325,000 voters.
If we organize in every state like we organized in Alabama, there's no place Democrats can't win. In fact, we can get started right now.
Chip in $10 or more, and let's go win more races.
Walter is giving in-kind donations.
Go to the Althouse portal and donate, walter.
More on the FBI seeking "an insurance policy that Trump can't be elected.
“Maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace,” Page wrote.
“I can protect our country at many levels, not sure if that helps,” Strzok replied.
Like many of the exchanges, the full context of the message is not entirely clear.
Strzok also offered praise for Clinton while suggesting that he planned to vote for her.
In a March 2, 2016 text Strzok said he would likely vote for Clinton. In another exchange he wrote that if Trump won the Republican primary, Clinton would likely win the presidency.
“God Hillary should win 100,000,000 – 0,” he told Page.
Busy little beavers. FBI is dirty.
@walter, “get out the vote” (GOTV) is to politics as blocking and tackling are to football. Moore’s loss is partly on the Alabama GOP organization but even more so on Moore’s campaign. You have to make your case to the voters and then get the people you expect to vote for you to come out. Turnout in the areas that lean Democrat was high relative to the past statewide elections, turnout in Republican areas was down compared to past elections. The Alabama has 11 months to figure it all out or lose congressional seats.
"What I'd like to know, is the identity of anyone who now supports Trump, but who voted for Obama in 2008 and/or 2012."
I'm honestly not sure The Professor supports Trump but is quick to turn her keen eye to how the media deals with Trump, and Rs vs. Ds in general.
If you want to find those people, you needn't go far. There are hundreds of them in Trumbull County, Ohio.
Well..despite the bizarre in kind suggestion, just pointing out how fast the Dem overreach is put in motion.
is there more to thr bama defeat other than "No Moore"?
I'm beginning to wonder if Perez is in some sort of trouble.
He was doing multiple email pitches per day and then a sudden drop-off with only misc people subbing in now.
LLR Chuck: "What I'd like to know, is the identity of anyone who now supports Trump, but who voted for Obama in 2008 and/or 2012."
Not a chance, given your history of wanting to doxx underage posters and rumor-mongering against children.
We have already seen what your lefty allies do to children such as Ajit Pai's.
"What I'd like to know,"
Nobody gives a fuck what you would like, you shiveling mangina pretending to be a Republican, Attorney, and a man. Worthless cuck.
How rational is it to believe that every single woman that came out with allegations against Moore and Trump are lying?
Maybe it's due to a vast, left-wing conspiracy.
Praying to Jesus Christ, our savory lard, Moore sues Alred, Alabama, and contests the election until next November.
I predict that Jones will retire in disgrace within a year when it's discovered that he once had an erection.
Chuck said...
Kevin said...
"What I'd like to know, is the identity of anyone who now supports Trump, but who voted for Obama in 2008 and/or 2012."
You mean like the person who writes this blog you read every day?
I don't know that.
12/13/17, 11:43 AM
Never mind that you are implying that Althouse is a liar. We do have a secret ballot, yes. So you are wishing for a thing you cannot possibly have, and you know it. Unless you are God, as you wished in a prior comment, or unless you have super or totalitarian powers.
So you're being a jerk. Do you get that?
You and McConnell are the dog in the manger. You can't get power on your own bit you can deny it to another.
Logically, you should be killed. But of course Republicans don't do that. Maybe that's why you want to throw power to the Democrats.
I'd like to who now supports Trump, but who couldn't be bothered to have gotten out to vote for McCain in '08 or Romney in '12.
I will help you Chuck. I have a family member who voted Obama, Romney, Trump.
Why Romney and Trump but not McCain? Because he was so upset at the economy tanking and the banks going under at the end of Bush's 8 years, that he voted for Obama out of spite.
I know there are people on the other side who truly hated Hillary. They hated how she ran against Barack in 2008 and pledged to do anything to keep her out of the White House. That would be Obama, Obama, Trump for them.
Those are just two cases you could consider.
Bad Lieutenant I'd like very much to live my life in complete ignorance of you, but since you are suggesting that I have somehow called Althouse a "liar," I am going to respond. I'm sure I'll regret it.
First, if somebody tells me who they voted for, I believe them. I am nothing like the miserable jackasses who comment here and who claim, without any evidence whatsoever that I have been untruthful in writing that I cast a vote for Trump in the 2016 general election. I even described how I cast that vote. In Michigan, thanks to a lawsuit filed by Democrats, our "straight ticket" voting option was preserved for 2016 (state legislators passed a law to do away with straight ticket voting, since it has historically helped Democrats in down-ballot statewide races) and I used it to vote a straight Republican ticket, which spared me the minor misery of putting my mark next to the name of Trump.
Second, I have never asked Althouse how she voted in 2016, and to the best of my knowledge she has never said. Has she? If so, I am not aware of it.
I am NOT calling Althouse a liar. When I say that "I don't know" how she voted, it is a 100% true statement of my knowledge. And your post is some of the nastiest garbage I have ever seen from you. Which is saying quite a lot in your disgusting case.
I'll ask what Althouse thinks.
I think that Althouse thinks that she has said repeatedly that she voted for Obama and then Romney. I thought you were a longtime commenter here. But I wouldn't want to accuse you of lying. So, then, stupid or merely ignorant? The point has been repeated since your purported tenancy began here. You could even try searching.
As for nasty, a) I don't know what you're talking about, b) to retort, I can't even be bothered to dredge up the vitriol in daily currency spewing from your virtual mouth, but aside from Kitty, perhaps, I don't think you'd have a lot of backup here.
Oh and, my own father voted for Obama twice, and then Trump, with gusto. So there's one for you. (I could be lying, of course, but would hardly invent such shame for myself.)
I am a member of no party, a registered independent, but have never voted D in my life IIRC, and definitely not for federal office. In fact, if one pol has both the D and R (and usually all other) ballot lines, I won't vote for him. Or her.
Oh, excuse me, Chuck. I beg your pardon, quite.
Althouse has disclosed voting for O in 08, R in 12, but is still playing coy about who for in 16. She did say that it was not third party. Please accept my apology. I guess I just presume she voted T. Quite possibly she voted HRC.
Blogger Jim at said...
How rational is it to believe that every single woman that came out with allegations against Moore and Trump are lying?
Maybe it's due to a vast, left-wing conspiracy.
Thread winner.
This wasn't a rebuke of Trump by Alabamans so much as a sign that his endorsement isn't enough to get a candidate over the top. The lesson here is that a "Trumpist" candidate (i.e., one endorsed by and adopting Trump's tactics and positions) cannot simply rely on Trump's support to get them the turnout needed to win a general election (or in the case of Corey Stewart, the primary election).
The loss of the seat isn't that big a deal for the GOP--it comes open again in 2020, and they won't have the Moore drama in Washington. They'd be better off making up the Senate numbers by brining pressure on Manchin et al, and it surprises me that they haven't really done that.
Post a Comment