Comments on: Attempt to clear up some of the legal details connected with the Moore accusations

By: William Graves

William Graves — Thu, 16 Nov 2017 21:28:42 +0000

Good analysis, two weaknesses:

“The statute of limitations can be extended buythe legislature.

As applied in a particular case, as long as the original statute of limitations has not expired, the plaintive gets the benefit of the extension.

However, a cause of action once barred by the statute of limitations cannot be revived by an amended statute of limitations.

I expect the result is the same in a criminal case.”

https://www.quora.com/How-does-statute-of-limitations-law-apply-when-it-changes-after-commission-of-crime

Also:

The laws in place in 1979 did not define sexual assault the same way today’s laws do. I tried to research it, but it would take a full law library in Kentucky to figure it out. I seem to recall, that in my state, many of the offenses cited were not offenses in 1979?

But that’s not the point, anyway. None of these so-called cases will ever come to trial because they are politically motivated and will be dropped the day after the election. The real question is who will vote for the guy?

There’s an awful lot of circumstantial evidence accumulating as we speak. Nevertheless, if it went to trial, all the accusers would be cross-examined on their whole personal sexual histories and tied up in court proceedings for years. So this is about the vote.

There is a way forward. The governor can postpone the election, and the Republican Party can put another name forward. Let’s see what happens.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 13 Nov 2017 07:53:17 +0000

That also explains why she still holds a grudge against him, because he rejected her…all just speculations of course

By: Matt_SE

Matt_SE — Mon, 13 Nov 2017 03:26:46 +0000

Nope, it’s all lies. Until there’s rock-solid evidence, I refuse to entertain the fantasies of the left.

By: n.n

n.n — Sun, 12 Nov 2017 22:20:24 +0000

I believe that Moore preferred to date young women, but other than this single event, there is no evidence that he attempted to date underage girls. Given that he does understand boundaries, and that he does not have a history of crossing them, it seems that the likely scenario is that Moore did date the 14-year old girl, but upon discovery of her status cut the courtship short.

By: R.C.

R.C. — Sun, 12 Nov 2017 21:02:23 +0000

Re: Disparity of Age:

I’ve long thought there ought to be some kind of well-known and widely-culturally accepted formula for what qualifies as Cool or Sketchy or Nasty, when it comes to older guy involved with younger gal.

But I’ve never been able to derive exactly what it should be.

For example,

Where M = age of Male,
and F = age of Female,
let the dividing-line between Cool and Sketchy be:

F = M – ((M – 13) / 2)

In this system M of 50 dating F of 31.5 is “Cool,” but M of 50 dating F of 30 is getting “Sketchy.”

Likewise, it allows a 20-year-old guy to be involved with a 16-and-a-half-year-old without it being “Sketchy,” but calling it “Sketchy” if she just turned 16.

Seems about right.

Thoughts?

By: blert

blert — Sun, 12 Nov 2017 18:56:08 +0000

We’ve seen this play before: Mr. Cain, 2012.

It eventuated that EVERY single gal was a liar against Cain.

In the present instance, the players are linked to Moore’s opponent, so far as we know… starting with Hillary’s sign language interpreter, 2016.

By: LindaF

LindaF — Sun, 12 Nov 2017 15:56:23 +0000

That age is why I call that story bullshit. It’s SO convenient, that – in other alleged stories, he carefully avoided breaching that age of consent – so, as a result, a 14-year-old accuser pops up.

Statute of limitations bars further action on his accusers?

Presto! A new accuser appears, who is magically just young enough that SoL doesn’t apply.

How convenient.

By: Lowell

Lowell — Sun, 12 Nov 2017 13:04:51 +0000

As I remember the Anita Hill hearing, what really happened was that she WAS verbally abused with sexual innuendos, but NOT by Clarence Thomas, but by a subsequent boss. Janet Napolitano was instrumental in muddying up the timeline of Hill and her “supporters”.
Ever since then, I’ve always wondered about whether accusations of sexual abuse may be true, but directed toward the wrong perp. The accuser gets all the details right, but she just changes the abuser to someone who is the political enemy of the moment.

By: AesopFan

AesopFan — Sun, 12 Nov 2017 05:42:41 +0000

Frog Says:
November 11th, 2017 at 9:12 pm
The WaPo is the new National Inquirer? What does its owner, Bezos, want?
* * *

The National Enquirer was right about John Edwards.
Right now, their track record is better than WaPo

By: Frog

Frog — Sun, 12 Nov 2017 02:12:21 +0000

parker:
I am not a skeptic.
I am deeply troubled, indeed outraged at the sudden rush of women making unproveable allegations about remote “inappropriate” conduct by men on the Right, Weinstein and some Hollywood fags excluded.
The Hollywood stuff is a separate struggle over $ and power.
But the psychologically wounded female stuff, all verdicts without trials or even hearings, is scarier than Alice in Wonderland with the Red Queen. We are talking America the Beautiful here, and it is being snuffed out because of allegations of inappropriate touching?

The WaPo is the new National Inquirer? What does its owner, Bezos, want?

Remember, Gates, Bezos and Buffett, three men, are more wealthy than the bottom 50th percentile of Americans!