Posted on

Sexual Accusations Fly ,Who to Belive and What to think ?

U

November 16,2017

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, U.S. Senator Al Franken, D-Minn., has been accused by a California TV host and sports broadcaster of kissing and groping her without her consent in 2006. This seems to be epidemic  at this point .First Hollywood ,sports now politicians. Lets put politics aside for the moment  and focus on your take on the idea of making accusations from 40 years ago ? Do we really think that is legitimate?

Are all accusation to be believed on face value ?  Are some of the charges politically motivated ? Should there be equal punishments for false accusation ?  What about Bill Clinton why this all OK for him ?  And what about our own Bob Menendez who was accused of gallivanting off to the Dominican Republic  for hookups with under age hookers.

Before the Hollywood blow up , media was often the chief  enabler of Democrats ,”gone wild” ,Republicans much less so .

Many of you have been following the Judge Roy Moore accusations , and most likely your point of view reflects your point of view on his candidacy .

Jack Hellner, of the American Thinker ,pointed out,  “I find it odd that this story came up after the primary and after decades of service by Roy Moore. Why did the Washington Post reporters wait until after no one else could be put on the ballot to run a 40-year-old story? Isn’t it also strange that a supposed sexual predator would have all of a sudden quit going after young girls 40 years ago? Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, and Bill Clinton never quit. Clinton couldn’t control himself even when he was in the White House.”

To us these are very serious accusations ,but false accusation make it that much harder for women in the future to prove legitimate claims. On a case by case basis , different situations and different sets of facts  lead to different conclusions ,but as we have seen in our own home town the rush to jump to conclusions seems hard to resist.

An Open Letter to Sean Hannity.

Dear Sean:

I am suffering the same treatment other Republicans have had to endure.

A month prior to the general election for U.S. Senate in Alabama, I have been attacked by the Washington Post and other liberal media in a desperate attempt to smear my character and defeat my campaign.

Over the last 40 years I have held several public offices, including Deputy District Attorney, Circuit Judge, and Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. In addition to running five statewide and three county campaigns for public office, I have been involved in two major controversies that attracted national attention, one about the Ten Commandments and the other the sanctity of marriage.

The Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission, Court of the Judiciary, and Attorney General have investigated, scrutinized, examined, and vetted me, not to mention every opposing candidate against whom I have run.

I have been married for almost 33 years to my wife Kayla. We have four children and five granddaughters.

We are in the process of investigating these false allegations to determine their origin and motivation. For instance, we have documented that the most recent accuser, Beverly Nelson, was a party in a divorce action before me in Etowah County Circuit Court in 1999. No motion was made for me to recuse. In her accusations, Nelson did not mention that I was the judge assigned to her divorce case in 1999, a matter that apparently caused her no distress at a time that was 18 years closer to the alleged assault. Yet 18 years later, while talking before the cameras about the supposed assault, she seemingly could not contain her emotions.

My signature on the order of dismissal in the divorce case was annotated with the letters “D.A.,” representing the initials of my court assistant. Curiously the supposed yearbook inscription is also followed by the same initials—”D.A.” But at that time I was Deputy District Attorney, not district attorney. Those initials as well as the date under the signature block and the printed name of the restaurant are written in a style inconsistent with the rest of the yearbook inscription. The “7’s” in “Christmas 1977” are in a noticeably different script than the “7’s” in the date “12-22-77.” I believe tampering has occurred.

Are we at a stage in American politics in which false allegations can overcome a public record of 40 years, stampede the media and politicians to condemn an innocent man, and potentially impact the outcome of an election of national importance? When allegations of events occurring 40 years ago—and never before mentioned during a 40-year career of public service—are brought out and taken seriously only 30 days before a critical election, we may be in trouble as a country.

I adamantly deny the allegations of Leigh Corfman and Beverly Nelson, did not date underage girls, and have taken steps to begin a civil action for defamation. Because of that, at the direction of counsel, I cannot comment further.

– Roy S. Moore.

Posted on

Al Franken Misrepresents the Censorship Power Democrats Are Demanding

al-franken-msnbc

Al Franken Misrepresents the Censorship Power Democrats Are Demanding

Jacob Sullum|Sep. 9, 2014 7:26 pm

MSNBC During today’s debate about SJR 19,  a proposed constitutional amendment that would restrict freedom of speech in the name of “democratic self-government and political equality,” Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.)claimed the measure would merely “restore the law to what it was before Citizens Unitedwas decided.” Not so. True, the amendment would allow Congress to re-enact the speech restrictions overturned in that case, which barred unions and corporations, including nonprofit advocacy groups, from criticizing federal politicians on TV or radio close to an election. But as I noted yesterday, the amendment would go a lot further than that.

The amendment would allow Congress and state legislatures to “regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.” That means it would overturn Buckley v. Valeo, the 1976 decision in which the Supreme Court upheld limits on donations to candidates but rejected limits on spending by candidates, reasoning that such caps amount to restrictions on speech, since communicating with a mass audience requires money.

The amendment that Franken and at least 48 of his colleagues favor also would allow legislators to impose limits on independent spending by individuals, which the Court has never upheld. Section 2 says legislators “may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law,” but there is no requirement that they do so. Congress might decide, in the interest of “political equality,” that opinionated billionaires such as George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Sheldon Adelson, and the Koch Brothers should shut the hell up and let other people have a turn. It could even ban political ads featuring celebrities,  on the theory that they have an unwarranted influence on voters.

Given the breadth of this authority, the examples of possible censorship listed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed piece—including bans on the distribution of voter guides by the National Rifle Association, on pro-life or pro-choice advocacy close to an election, on get-out-the-vote efforts by churches or unions, and on documentaries critical of politicians running for office—are not at all fanciful. In fact, that last example is exactly what Citizens United involved. Under this amendment, such a documentary could be squelched even if it were the work of an independent filmmaker unaffiliated with any group organized as a corporation.

https://reason.com/blog/2014/09/09/al-franken-misrepresents-the-censorship