Mitch McConnell Leads Establishment Republicans in Effort to Push Roy Moore Out of Alabama Race

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and several other Republican senators said on Thursday that if allegations of misconduct are true, Alabama Senate Republican candidate Judge Roy Moore should drop out of the race.

The Washington Post released a story on Thursday alledging that Roy Moore initiated a sexual encounter with a 14-year-old girl when he was 32, as well as other cases of sexual misconduct.

In a written statement, Moore denied the allegations.

“These allegations are completely false and are a desperate political attack by the National Democrat Party and the Washington Post on this campaign,” Moore said.

Axios has compiled the calls for Moore to step aside.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “If these allegations are true, he must step aside.”

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) argued, “If there is any shred of truth to the allegations against Roy Moore, he should step aside immediately.”

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) said, “If there is any truth at all to these horrific allegations, Roy Moore should immediately step aside as a Senate candidate.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said, “I’m horrified and if this is true he needs to step down immediately.” Murkowski also said that she spoke to Luther Strange about becoming a write-in challenger to oppose Moore in the December 12 election.

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) said, “It was very troubling … if what we read is true and people are on the record so I assume it is,” adding that “Moore should step aside.”

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) tweeted on Thursday, “The allegations against Roy Moore are deeply disturbing and disqualifying. He should immediately step aside and allow the people of Alabama to elect a candidate they can be proud of.”

Roy Moore defeated Sen. Luther Strange (R-AL) in the primary run-off in September to replace former Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), who now serves as U.S. attorney general.

The Roy Moore campaign said in a subsequent statement that if the allegations were true, they would have surfaced during his previous campaigns. “This garbage is the very definition of fake news,” he added.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/09/mcconnell-leads-...

Views: 94

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Who Wrote the Roy Moore Dossier?

Who Wrote the Roy Moore Dossier?

The so-called Trump Dossier, financed by the Hillary campaign and provided by the KGB through a former British intelligence agent, has fizzled out. It has been supplanted by the Moore Dossier, concocted by Washington Post reporters working for their billionaire owner, P.T Barnum-like Jeff Bezos.

This variation of the ploy, with a new target, seems to have legs. Many Republicans and conservatives are falling for it.

Related: Trump is the Next Target after Roy Moore

Why do the liberals need the Southern Poverty Law Center when Republicans will pin “guilty as charged” labels on conservatives?

But is there really any reason to believe the Moore Dossier has any more validity than the Trump Dossier?

A big red flag appeared when feminist attorney Gloria Allred raised her head in the Roy Moore case. Suddenly another accuser surfaces, under suspicious circumstances, and even “conservative” Republicans are running for the hills. It stinks.

Why do the liberals need the Southern Poverty Law Center when Republicans will pin “guilty as charged” labels on conservatives?

Look at Colorado Republican Senator Cory Gardner and the rest. Senate Republicans are so scared of being charged with a “war on women” that they have decided to wage war, with no moral or legal basis, on the GOP Senate candidate in Alabama. They deny him due process and have accepted unverified claims of sexual harassment against him. Some are threatening to expel him from the Senate if he wins.

No wonder these Senators can’t get anything done. They are too busy posing for the cameras and looking politically correct. Why don’t they just put on dresses and pretend to be feminists? Perhaps this will win them the transgender vote.

The Washington Post, the source of the charges, is a partisan Democratic paper which thinks billionaire hedge fund operator and Democratic Party money bags George Soros is a blessing for America. It said so in an editorial. Yet this paper is dictating what Republicans should be saying and doing in the Moore case.

 

The Post hates morality and traditional values

The Post hates morality and traditional values. Its religion columnist, Washington insider and party giver Sally Quinn, believed in the occult and admits casting hexes on her enemies.

The Washington Post once published a Pulitzer Prize-winning story about a child heroin addict that turned out to be a total lie.  Google the name “Janet Cooke.” Her editor was Watergate reporter Bob Woodward. Perhaps she used a Ouija board to write her stories.

Referring to the Post’s initial story, legal expert and commentator Gualberto Garcia Jones says, “The obvious question is who informed The Washington Post of the allegations? And who located the women and put them in touch with Washington Post reporters?” He adds, “It is simply impossible to believe that their simultaneous allegations happened organically after nearly 40 years of silence.”

The follow-up accusations, fed to the media by Gloria Allred, make the whole thing even more questionable.

Garcia Jones writes, “The Washington Post’s political motivations to destroy the reputation of Judge Roy Moore are evident and the tactics used against him uncannily resemble those used against President Donald Trump. A month before the presidential election of 2016, The Washington Post published accusations of sexual misconduct against candidate Donald Trump while endorsing his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.”

Yes, indeed, why not probe the motives of the paper that helped usher Barack Hussein Obama into the presidency and has been working to destroy the Trump presidency? The Post had endorsed Moore’s opponent while working on the hit piece against Moore. The same modus operandi was evident in the Trump case.

Continued below...

It didn’t work with Trump but it looks like it could work with Moore

It didn’t work with Trump but it looks like it could work with Moore. Which means that if they destroy Moore, they will return to undermining Trump, probably with new sex charges. Or perhaps they will try something else. The new Janet Cookes at the paper are probably working on that right now. 

We’re heard the mantra about frightened women scared to take on a powerful man with sex charges. But Moore has been powerful for decades in Alabama. Only now they decide to come forward, when Moore is leading in the polls and about to become a Senator on the national stage?

What’s surprising is the reaction of Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz, whose father was charged with being involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. Cruz says, in the case of Roy Moore, that “as long as these allegations remain unrefuted,” Cruz is “not able to urge the people of Alabama to support his candidacy.” How does one refute charges from decades ago, for which there is no evidence in the first place? You would think Cruz would have more sympathy for Moore, considering that Cruz’s father was unfairly targeted with the JFK allegations. How is Moore supposed to “refute” the charges against him? Go back in time in a time machine to take pictures?

Cruz, a lawyer, says Moore “needs to come forward with strong, persuasive rebuttal demonstrating” that the charges are untrue. I am not a lawyer, but since when does the accused have to prove his innocence about charges from decades ago concerning his dating habits? I thought the burden of proof was on the accusers. 

Do Moore’s accusers have anything other than a signature on a high school yearbook? So far, they rely on claims, accusations, and charges. These are easy to make. Tears can be faked. All of this is supposed to carry more weight than his decades of service to the cause of traditional values and God-given rights?


Why does McConnell fear Moore?

Garcia Jones says, “It should come as no surprise that people like the editors of National Review and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would publicly convict Judge Roy Moore in less than 12 hours solely on one article published by a politically partisan publication.”

True. It’s no surprise. These are cowardly “conservatives” and Republicans. In McConnell’s case, he’s actually an enemy of Moore, having supported one of his Republican opponents in the primary race.

Why does McConnell fear Moore? As Garcia Jones told me in a phone interview, Moore is a doer, not just a talker. Moore actually gets things done. Because of that, he has made real enemies, such as those in the Southern Poverty Law Center. Moore can be expected to actually force conservatives in the Senate to do something about the issues we face as a nation. He will embarrass McConnell & Company.

Moore would be more than justified, if he wins the Senate seat in the face of this bipartisan assault, to go to Washington and fight to get his reputation back. Let Moore challenge his accusers, in and out of the liberal media and the Republican Party, to produce the evidence against him. Let’s get to the bottom of this.

http://canadafreepress.com/article/who-wrote-the-roy-moore-dossier


Search and Destroy Mission Against Roy Moore Is Really A Message from Mitch McConnell to Bannon

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/limbaugh-search-and-destro...

Thats a lot of stuff, kind of gets you upset a bit.

Thank you LOL Tif

THE RAILROADING OF JUDGE ROY MOORE

By the standards of those who want to shake the Bible in people’s faces, insisting and demanding that Judge Roy Moore be one who wears that symbol of purity, the virginal white dress, Moses and King David of the Bible would now reside in Hell.

Keep in mind that both Moses and David were great sinners, that both went through long periods of time before they became wholly acceptable to God. That period of time correlates closely to the time spent by Roy Moore who supposedly “did the ugly” about 40 years ago. With Moses and King David, we see their greatest works for God recorded in the Bible. Of course, though, this parallel is supposing for the moment that what the pure-as-the-fallen-snow alarmists are decrying about Roy Moore actually happened.

There’s no unquestionable proof that Judge Moore is guilty in contrast with what we see with the Hollywood Liberal Crowd with their claims relating to their sexual activities. In fact, we see some rationale evolving with Moore’s case that at least some of the charges are baseless, at least as pertains what happened and to any actual harm being done. This is also in contrast with the charges against that other man from the south, Bill Clinton.

“Innocent until proven guilty” is a nice little ditty quoted by Legal Beagles (it’s a Constitutional principle) but they too often fail to live by those words. The assumption of guilt is their bread and butter — it’s the mainstay of their lives and careers.

Political figures in the Media want to appear to stay above it all in their feeble attempts to be fair and balanced but that is merely a façade for public consumption. They try to be even greater than the ideals that we have traditionally set in society. They point the ugly finger and “give Moore chances to tell the truth.” The Truth is as they want to define it, though, and it’s tilted toward their ambitious goals as kingmakers and breakers, using vacuous rhetoric designed to sway the masses in some way.

When a women cries out hat some sort of sexual harassment has occurred, it is usually unquestioned even if decades after the occurrence took place. She is assumed to not have revealed it when it happened because of fear from threats, real and imagined, of vengeance or some shame that derived from it. The men who did it are also mum about their sexual adventures and seldom brag about it in public; they know it is a reputation-killer and can cause reprisals, both legal and societal. Traditionally though, adherence to what is considered good, upright and proper social character norms are common and are much like the guidelines we are taught in the Ten Commandments.

Not only have women frequently failed to reveal that they were ‘sexually assaulted” or “sexually outraged” at the time it supposedly happened, some men often also have a history of privately bragging to their pals of sexual exploits that are seldom based entirely on fact. This mostly happened in their youth, though. With maturity, they came to realize that it is an empty boast that can expose them as ordinary bragging/immature people.

There are both men and women who have told their peers of things that happened to and with them that were either somewhat untrue or built up a little. It was done in an attempt to either get empathy and/or somehow elevate them in the eyes of those around them. These days, however, politics appears in some ways to be the impetus for “finally” admitting to claimed experiences that happened decades ago. As for the Hollywood people who at last bring out what happened to them, it may well also be a bid to become more visible and relevant in the public eye after experiencing a decline in their entertainment careers.

Much of the above is assuming that Roy Moore is somehow guilty even though undeniable proof is lacking. However, in this we must take care. Remember Tawana Brawley who said she was raped and this eventually proved to be a lie? Remember those who were in her boat until they found that boat sinking and how they grew silent, becoming even more irrelevant?

Now we have sanctimonious talking heads that subtly condemn Roy Moore while giving ultimatums that he ‘fess up or explain what they assume he did. Do they want to find themselves in the same kind of boat used by Tawana Brawley when more proof comes out and it is revealed that most of the action came from political promoters who see their greatest successes result in not promoting the truth but, instead, pushing a lie? In most cases, when one element of a prosecutor’s case has proved to be deceptively wrong and can be attacked by the same law that they propose to support, ALL elements of the “proof” against the person being prosecuted falls into question and the case can even be thrown out if it follows a pattern.

What if it proves out that Roy Moore was put into a Pearl Harbor situation by politicians and those dedicated to propagandizing the news and what they were saying about him is found to be wrong? Let’s then hope that the memory of their gleefully taking on Roy Moore for nothing more than politics are properly labeled and that their place in history is never forgotten. What a shame it is that many who should want to be known as Conservative and on the Right are in the same camp with Liberals on the Left where it comes to Roy Moore since those on the Left have the most to gain by the downfall of Judge Moore.

There is a rampant feeling that both the Left and RINO Right have a great fear of Moore fining a place on the Washington scene. These people are most easily identified as part of the DC Swamp. Why is it that they fear him so much? Could it be that they see Judge Moore in Washington as a foretaste of what is coming to drain that swamp and it must be eliminated at once “by hook or crook” (as Rahm Emmanuel once stated when contemplating winning the Obama electing of 2012)?

When have there been other cases of politicians, even presidents, who have been targeted and attacked with lies and innuendo designed to take them down? And when the truth comes out that it was not what it was proposed to be, the attackers have “moved on” to some other crusade and ignore questions about it. They then become busy avoiding taking any blame for it. No doubt that nearly everyone can cite at least one time this has happened or, at least, can remember scenarios that were invented to achieve that end.

Those of the Liberal Left, where most of this nonsense originates, would go blind to the charge of inventing a lie to further their goals because it would reveal this as part of their standard way of operating. Why, then, are supposedly good Conservatives/Republicans joining hands with those who care so little about the well-being of the country?

Ok, Frank

The election of Judge Roy Moore possibly will tip the balance in the appointment of upcoming justices. The left is always three steps ahead. If the election throws to the demrat, an abortion lover, what will that do for Trump's nominee's?

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.

TEA PARTY TARGET

Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service