More Foolishness From Roy Moore’s Camp

“He’s a lawyer, too?” “Ma’am, I was already a blood-sucking parasite. All I needed was a briefcase.” Those are lines from the ending of The Bee Movie. The question is asked by a cow. The answer is given by a mosquito.

The jest is this: the only difference between a mosquito and a lawyer is that the latter carries a briefcase.

I consider that jest to be an insult . . . to mosquitoes.

I certainly don’t believe that mosquito would be as foolish as the lawyer who is currently representing Alabama senatorial candidate Roy Moore.

From Politico:

“Meanwhile, Moore’s attorney, Phillip L. Jauregui, held a news conference Wednesday evening outside the Alabama Republican Party’s headquarters to dispute Nelson’s accusation. Jauregui called on Nelson and her attorney, Gloria Allred, to produce the hard copy of the high school yearbook that she said Moore signed. Jauregui also said that Moore presided in 1999 over divorce proceedings between Nelson and her husband at the time. ‘We demand that you immediately release the yearbook to a neutral custodian … so that our expert can look at it,’ Jauregui said.”

From ABC News:

“Jauregui said that Moore’s legal team has sent a letter to Allred demanding the original copy of the yearbook be released so that a ‘neutral custodian’ can examine the handwriting.”

It is foolish for one to demand something when one doesn’t have the authority to get what one demands.

Meanwhile, The Hill reports, “The Washington Post’s top editor is accusing Roy Moore’s campaign of lying about the newspaper’s journalistic practices and political motivations in the wake of its reporting on sexual misconduct allegations against the Republican Alabama Senate candidate.”

As for the claims made against Moore, here is an excerpt from an editorial by Alabama Media Group, owner of AL.com:

“As a news organization, we have independently investigated as many of these claims as possible and have found no reason to doubt the accounts outlined in the Washington Post. If anything, the stories we’ve heard in Etowah County have only further corroborated them.”

One can hope that enough Alabama voters will see fit to reject Moore at the ballot box. Moore being a Republican is no excuse to send him to the U.S. Senate. Alabama voters might as well send a mosquito instead.

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
Drumbeat Continues to Drive Moore from Alabama's Senate Race & OPEN THREAD
  • jim_m

    It is foolish for one to demand something when one doesn’t have the authority to get what one demands.

    OK, David. Let’s play.

    Do you believe that someone being held to account for a crime at the cost of their livelihood and reputation should be allowed to see the evidence being used to accuse them? Are you for repeal of the 6th amendment, which guarantees the right to confront your accusers?

    Which other amendments are you wiling to revoke?

    • Retired military

      Well for David the 2nd admendment must go. Also the right to freedom of assembly especially if confederate statues are around. I am sure that there are Moore.

      “It is foolish for one to demand something when one doesn’t have the authority to get what one demands.”

      Well if someone was slandering me and it goes to court than the court says that the PERSON DOING THE SLANDERING HAS TO PROVE THEIR ACCUSATIONS. Of course since this is a republican none of that matters to David.

      BTW I was wondering when he was going to jump on the leftist bandwagon. Gee I dont remember David minding when dems demand that Trump prove he didnt collude with Russia.

    • fustian24

      Of course, in fairness, this doesn’t kick in until Mr. Moore is charged with a crime and is in a courtroom at trial.

      Currently he’s being fairly successfully assassinated in the court of public opinion, but in this particular court the 6th amendment does not yet apply.

      • jim_m

        True. But David is saying that it is foolish to demand that one should be able to see the evidence against him when he lacks the authority to enforce it. He makes a blanket statement and he adds the provision that one must be able to compel compliance by one’s own authority.

        David makes an appeal to mob rule where people who can enforce their will get their way. Rights are not authority. Rights are also not from the government. David reduces rights to whatever you can force form someone else. I don’t want to live in David’s America, which is a nation of criminal gangs enforcing their will over a helpless population.

        • fustian24

          My sense is that David did not understand that this “demand” was directed at the voters and was never a real demand. It was just an attempt to create doubt.

          • jim_m

            It was just an attempt to create doubt.

            And hence a dishonesty on his part.

  • Retired military

    Alex I will take words which dont matter to David if a republican is the subject for $1000

    slander
    n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another, which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements, such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease or being unable to perform one’s occupation, are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much as if not more than printed publications.

    • jim_m

      Feel free to slander David in any manner that you see fit and call for Kevin to remove him from Wizbang as a consequence to David’s alleged misdeeds. Apparently, David doesn’t feel that you need to provide any proof of your statements so he won’t try to defend himself against whatever allegations you choose to make.

    • pennywit

      The problem in Roy Moore’s case is that he’s a public figure, which means he’ll have to prove actual malice. This means he will have to show — to the “clear and convincing” standard — that the allegation is either false or that those who made the allegation acted with a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statement.

      In this respect, the WaPo covered its bases pretty thoroughly — i.e., interviews with the accusers, and interviews with friends and others, up to (as I recall) around twenty people interviewed. I don’t know about AL.com’s coverage.

      • Scalia

        “[P]retty thoroughly”?? You might want to rethink that one.

        • pennywit

          Right. I don’t see anything there that indicates the Post reporting demonstrates actual malice.

          • Scalia

            My comment is on its thoroughness. If the reporter were being objective, the accusers’ credibility problems would have been provided. This was clearly a hit piece.

          • pennywit

            Doesn’t quite look that way from where I sit.

          • Retired military

            Color me surprised.

          • Scalia

            Really? Please point out where the WaPo gave the easily accessible information about the accusers’ credibility.

          • pennywit

            As I said above, Scalia. The Post interviewed multiple sources regarding the allegations, then reported what they learned. That speaks to the thoroughness of the report.

          • Scalia

            Was the Post being thorough when they were told by Corfman that she would not come forward unless they found other women? Was the Post being thorough when the other women they found in their lead story alleged nothing illegal, but were added to the story as “teenagers” to taint Moore with something nefarious?

            If Corfman is to be believed, why reject her insistence that she would not come forward unless the Post found other girls. If her allegation is true, then the Post’s “other girls” were merely inducement to get Corfman to come forward. Sounds malicious to me.

          • pennywit

            Additionally:

            According to campaign reports, none of the women has donated to or worked for Moore’s Democratic opponent, Doug Jones, or his rivals in the Republican primary, including Sen. Luther Strange, whom he defeated this fall in a runoff election.

            Corfman, 53, who works as a customer service representative at a payday loan business, says she has voted for Republicans in the past three presidential elections, including for Donald Trump in 2016.

            As to thoroughness:

            Corfman described her story consistently in six interviews with The Post. The Post confirmed that her mother attended a hearing at the courthouse in February 1979 through divorce records. Moore’s office was down the hall from the courtroom.

            Neither Corfman nor any of the other women sought out The Post. While reporting a story in Alabama about supporters of Moore’s Senate campaign, a Post reporter heard that Moore allegedly had sought relationships with teenage girls. Over the ensuing three weeks, two Post reporters contacted and interviewed the four women. All were initially reluctant to speak publicly but chose to do so after multiple interviews, saying they thought it was important for people to know about their interactions with Moore. The women say they don’t know one another.

            That’s pretty damn thorough. And I would bet you dollars to doughnuts that the Post had the story thoroughly lawyered before publishing it.

          • Scalia

            None of that addresses their credibility issues. Note, the Post sought them out and was able to elicit the information after “multiple interviews.” That validates the suspicion that they created a hit piece. They fell all over themselves to get the information, but they failed to vet their sources. That’s not thorough at all.

          • pennywit

            IMO, if they sought out the Post and the Post published, you and your ideological confederates would likely call it a hit piece. So there’s no winning on that score.

            Seems to me that they were vetted well enough.

          • Scalia

            I’m really curious at your persistence here, pennywit. We’ve posted numerous examples of their credibility problems and yet you’re insisting that the Post was thorough. They were clearly not.

            Speaking for myself, if the Post had reported on the accusers’ credibility issues, I would not have accused them of nefarious motives. It appears they never bothered to vet them properly. That’s Investigative Reporting 101, pennywit.

          • pennywit

            I’m really curious at your persistence here, pennywit. We’ve posted numerous examples of their credibility problems and yet you’re insisting that the Post was thorough. They were clearly not.

            1) I have yet to see sufficient evidence that the Washington Post acted with actual malice.

            2) I do not believe the “credibility problems” amount to evidence sufficient to completely impeach the women — a growing number of women — who have accused Moore of inappropriate conduct.

            3) I think the Post vetted their sources sufficiently for the initial article on the subject.

            4) Even if the Post planned to vet or investigate the story further, Roy Moore tried to get out in front of the story via Breitbart — which basically put the Post in the position of publishing what it had.

          • Scalia

            The fact that they didn’t vet their sources is evidence of malice whether or not that was their intention.

            Whether or not the additional information about the accusers is sufficient to impeach their credibility is irrelevant. It is the responsibility of a reporting agency to provide ALL relevant information to its readers.

            It is also irrelevant that Breitbart jumped in front of the issue. If the Post had done its job properly, their initial piece would have included the information that Breitbart provided.

          • pennywit

            The fact that they didn’t vet their sources is evidence of malice whether or not that was their intention.

            Again, you have not demonstrated that this meets the standard of actual malice.

            Whether or not the additional information about the accusers is sufficient to impeach their credibility is irrelevant. It is the responsibility of a reporting agency to provide ALL relevant information to its readers.

            All relevant information … that is has available. The Post may not have had that information available at the time.

            It is also irrelevant that Breitbart jumped in front of the issue. If the Post had done its job properly, their initial piece would have included the information that Breitbart provided.

            Not quite how things work in the news biz. When somebody starts the critique ahead of what you’re about to write, you perform your due diligence on what you have and run it.

            Second … that’s also not how stories develop in the modern news biz. These days, there’s an initial story, then multiple outlets working from multiple POVs develop the story on their own.

          • Scalia

            I am not trying to prove “actual malice.” I merely stated that the failure to vet is evidence—and it certainly is.

            All the information was available. The Post simply chose not to look for it. You won’t find what you’re not looking for, pennywit.

            Of course “you run with what you have.” If you “have” properly vetted sources, no problem. They didn’t properly vet them, and that’s why we’re finding fault. If you understand the “news biz,” you know that vetting your sources is essential.

          • pennywit

            You stated above that this was evidence of malice. Still haven’t proved it.

          • Scalia

            ??

            That’s all I stated in that respect. When looking for malice, you have to find evidence of it. Whether or not it is actually proved is another matter. When a reporter doesn’t do what anybody who’s been trained to be a reporter should do, that is evidence that something is wrong.

            Whether or not the reporter acted in malice, a very standard job wasn’t done. Hence, the reporter was not thorough.

          • pennywit

            One more thing. Did you see the demand letter that Roy Moore’s attorney sent to AL.com? It’s probably one of the worst lawyer letters I’ve ever seen. If he can’t hire competent defamation counsel, it really doesn’t speak well to Moore’s own credibility.

          • Scalia

            I don’t see the letter in the link you provided. I tried a quick Google search, but came up empty.

          • pennywit

            Did not mean to link to the Web site; it automatically plopped in the link code. Try here.

          • Scalia

            The full letter is HERE. It was linked in your link.

            It’s pretty awful, but I’ve seen worse. How a fella made it through law school without being dinged time and again for his awful grammar and atrocious writing style is beyond me. And if he had his knuckles rapped for it, he should have had the sense to hire a grammarian to fix his letters before sending them out. One would think that after reading the tons of material required in law school, a little understanding of how to construct sentences would rub off. This guy’s an embarrassment.

            Shifting gears, I see the Skins lost another heart-breaker yesterday. They had the Saints on the ropes but couldn’t hang on. For me, the Lions tried to give another game away yesterday. I have a feeling they’ll be mighty generous on Thursday.

          • pennywit

            It’s pretty awful, but I’ve seen worse. How a fella made it through law school without being dinged time and again for his awful grammar and atrocious writing style is beyond me. And if he had his knuckles rapped for it, he should have had the sense to hire a grammarian to fix his letters before sending them out. One would think that after reading the tons of material required in law school, a little understanding of how to construct sentences would rub off. This guy’s an embarrassment.

            Additionally, the letter doesn’t really build a credible defamation case against AL.com. This same lawyer also tried to call CNN’s Don Lemon “Don Lemon Easy-Squeezy” on the air.

            Shifting gears, I see the Skins lost another heart-breaker yesterday.

            I was at a sports bar and throwing things at the TV. Blowing a lead like that is completely unacceptable. Your Lions, honestly, have a respectable record at 6-4, and they certainly could use a trip to the post-season.

            Meanwhile, I see that over in the AFC East, Bill Belichick’s annual virgin sacrifice continues to pay dividends.

          • Retired military

            You know sabotagueing someone’s election chance is only malice if the person being malice is a democrat. At least that is the way the libs view it.

          • pennywit

            Again, my comment is confined to the legal definition of actual malice.

      • Jwb10001

        If (and I do mean IF) the allegation is false it would clearly be malicious but not reckless, more like malicious and calculated.

        • pennywit

          Keep in mind that I’m speaking strictly of the legal standard of actual malice, and of the Washington Post’s reporting.

  • Sky__Captain

    Since David will NEVER actually come back into this thread to participate in actual debate, I propose an alternative title for his post:

    “More Foolishness From David Robertson”

    David’s views on this issue are from the left side of the political spectrum (as are all of his links), so I never again want to hear him claim that he is a “moderate”. He is not.

    • Scalia

      David doesn’t venture to debate any longer because he gets his backside handed to him when he tries.

      Is he under any obligation to debate? Of course not, but make no mistake, he reads the comments to his posts. If he would at least address the substantive objections to his arguments, I would respect that. As you know, that’s not what he does. He simply repeats his arguments and pretends that answers everything.

      On top of that, since he’s incapable of rationally engaging the community, he resorts to making fun of them and calling them names. Coupling that with his refusal to engage the debate renders him beneath contempt.

    • Retired military

      How about

      “MOORE Foolishness From David Robertson”
      instead.

  • Paul Hooson

    You know you’re really Judge Roy Moore when….

    1. You dress up like the cowboy Woody from TOY STORY because “the kids dig it!”.

    2. When you bed a “woman” they leave their baby teeth under the pillow waiting for the Tooth Fairy…

    3. You’re removed from the Alabama State Supreme Court twice, but removed from a high school girl’s vagina many more times by her parents…

    4. You’re both the judge and defendant in your own case…

    5. Your defenders try to look for some minor goof in a high school girl’s yearbook signature to attempt to prove you’re not a child sex offender after all…

    6. You tell your friends that you’re a “TV star”, but they tell you that “CATCH A PREDATOR” doesn’t count…

    So why did I post this way? Well, it’s funny, and it says what many in the country believe to be true, and in the Falwell v. Hustler Magazine case the U.S. Supreme Court decided that freedom of speech in parody, satire and comedy has a wider sense of constitutional protection from libel and other press restrictions. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/834be13a4e1138d82b72447859937b7adfeed016e9915d918a194c6d3eea992d.jpg

    • Sky__Captain

      Your post is about as funny as Al Franken.
      Good humor has a least a passing resemblance to the truth. Your points are, at best, made up falsehoods.

      “…and it says what many in the country believe to be true, …”

      Please cite names of those who believe it to be true.

      “…freedom of speech in parody, satire and comedy has a wider sense of
      constitutional protection from libel and other press restrictions.”

      Except that your points are veiled personal attacks against one individual, as evidenced by the picture. As such, it is not parody, satire or comedy, but merely showing that you are incapable of being civil in public.

      • Paul Hooson

        My post is a parody of a Jeff Foxworthy styled routine…

        • jim_m

          Yeah, but you aren’t funny.

    • jim_m

      Please Paul, tell us how it is that you think pedophilia is funny.

      • Paul Hooson

        First, explain how Roy Moore is somehow senator material or deserves defenders or apologists…I think my jokes pretty well expressed my own personal disgust with Mr. Moore’s conduct.

        • jim_m

          I never made that claim you pedophile

          • Paul Hooson

            That response is just plain wrong, Jim. – Some here didn’t defend Moore’s claimed conduct, nor did they condemn it. They stood by him and acted as apologists.

          • Scalia

            You’ve been a member of this community for a long time, Paul. You can name who you’re referring to.

            Let me SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU:

            A person is INNOCENT until proven guilty.

            Why aren’t his accusers pressing charges? Let’s hash this out in a court of law. If Moore committed crimes, why hasn’t he been arrested? Why won’t these women file charges? In Alabama, there is no statute of limitations for sexual assault on a person under 16. If you believe that a person is guilty by accusation, then you need to move to North Korea. You and Kim Jong Un will get along fine.

            Moore, when unmarried in his early 30s, apparently liked to date teenaged girls. The age of consent in Alabama is 16. No matter how uncomfortable we may be with the age differential, there is nothing illegal for a man in his 30s to date a girl 16 and above.

            He’s also been accused of attempted rape on a 14-year-old and another woman. These charges are, of course, very serious, but as I pointed out in my last column, the 14-year-old has very serious credibility problems. If she wants to put her credibility against his in a court of law, I think he’ll win.

            You don’t care about justice. Paul Hooson is judge, jury and executioner. That’s un-American, Paul. You should know better. Shame on you.

          • Paul Hooson

            In my view the eight accusers have made a compelling enough case that Moore likely committed some offense at some point, however maybe nothing is recent enough to be within a statute of limitations. – When eight women, none of whom know each other and have similar stories of outlandish conduct by Moore, that establishes what criminal justice teaches is an M.O.

            At this point no criminal charges will come. But, this doesn’t mean that this unfit candidate should not be replaced with a more suitable candidate.

          • Scalia

            So typical. You’re dodging and playing judge, jury and executioner. You’re entitled to your opinion, but again, there’s nothing illegal with his wanting to date teenagers above the age of consent.

            You’re believing unsworn allegations of criminal behavior. Yet, you steadfastly refuse to look at the credibility issues we’ve been raising. That renders your “compelling enough case” meaningless. You believe them because you want to believe them. You’ll twist every fact into something against Moore because you’ve made this a partisan thing. I’ve never said there wasn’t a more suitable candidate than Moore. That doesn’t mean I’ll adopt you accusation-warrants-conviction approach.

            Your lame reply to my post shows that you’re all in for the notion that we can condemn somebody based on unsworn, unproven accusations.

            Don’t you realize where this is going? Anybody with political axes to grind can accuse anybody they’ve met of sexual crimes. This is un-American, Paul—root and branch.

            AGAIN, if crimes were committed, somebody needs to file charges. Put up or shut up!

          • jim_m

            Yes, the insult was gratuitous. However, you makes the mistake of confusing a reluctance to condemn Moore over allegations, of which some are clearly questionable, and where the timing is clearly reminiscent of previous dem dirty tricks that turned out to be entirely bogus.

            So your calling us hypocrites because we demand proof of allegations before destroying a man’s life is unreasonable. Furthermore, most republicans who can’t stand Moore are establishment types that can’t stand anyone who wants to reform DC.

            I am not a Moore enthusiast. I think his ideas about the constitution are ill formed and inconsistent. I think like other outsiders he is more interested in promoting himself than he is about a conservative agenda (McCain). But I am not going to jump on a left wing bandwagon to destroy a man because of documents that appear forged(see Rathergate) and 11th hou, bogus accusations of sexual misconduct (see Anita Hill). If that makes me late to the party then so be it, but that is not a fault in my character but a consequence of the lies and deceptions from the left that make it impossible to credit ANY allegations they make.

            That being said I find it repugnant that you make jokes about pedophilia and then accuse others of not taking these accusations seriously. And no, your jokes did not express any disgust.

          • Scalia

            Well said.

          • Scalia

            But I am not going to jump on a left wing bandwagon to destroy a man because of documents that appear forged…

            Something else has been pointed out that I had not previously seen. The ‘M’ in Moore is completely different from the ‘M’ in Merry Christmas.

          • Scalia
          • Retired military

            Paul
            If allegations are all it takes for you then why aren’t you calling for Hillary to be in jailing serving numerous life sentences?

        • Jwb10001

          Please help us understand how Al freakin’ Franken is senator material. Or that matter any number of other senators. Your shooting with a bb gun when a sawed off shotgun would be better.

      • Wild_Willie

        Paul Hooson has exploited young women for many years paying them to strip and dance. His moral core is not there.

        Allred saying the yearbook can’t be examined by an independent handwriting expert speaks loads to the credibility of the witness.

        There is no pattern of behavior that is constant in predators.

        The timing is just incredible after decades of statewide campaigns.

        Paul and his party have a senator on trial for corruption and another with pictures of his belittling and harassing a woman. Both still seated. Both being ignored by Paul even though strong FACTS are out.

        Paul and his party gave permission in the 90’s to abuse women without repercussions when they and the feminists gave Bill Clinton a pass. The message is those in democratic power can’t be touched or you’ll be destroyed trying. They are reaping what they have sown.

        I am not apologizing for Moore as I an neither a supporter or opponent. But just saying something does not mean it happened or happened the way stated. This is an Alabama issue only. Why the Washington Post got involved is telling.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      Paul, please stick to writing what you know about – strippers and your Jewish heritage. Hustler Magazine, Inc. v Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) did not hold that “…freedom of speech in parody, satire and comedy has a wider sense of constitutional protection from libel and other press restrictions.” Instead, it merely held that a “public official”/”public figure” plaintiff, could not circumvent the constitutional protections afforded under the tort of libel by suing under a different tort – intentional infliction of emotional distress.

      Thus, because the trial court jury found that the parody could not “reasonably be understood as describing actual facts . . . or events,” Falwell could not recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

      From the syllabus:

      Respondent [Falwell], … filed a diversity action in Federal District Court against petitioners [Hustler], … to recover damages for, inter alia, libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury found against respondent on the libel claim, specifically finding that the parody could not “reasonably be understood as describing actual facts . . . or events,” but ruled in his favor on the emotional distress claim,….

      Held: In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with “actual malice,” i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true.

      Thus, the question becomes: given the context of your “parody,” could some of your statements “… reasonably be understood as describing actual facts …. or events?” Your statements nos. 3 and 5 may make you liable for libel.

  • Retired military

    Gee David has written a column stating that Moore shouldn’t serve in DC as a representative of the people. How about a list of folks whom David apparently feels should be able to serve in DC as he hasn’t written a column stating they shouldn’t

    Bill Clinton – Rapist, lost law licesnse due to perjury

    Hillary – Per the FBIC chief who covered her ass guilty of mishandling classified informtaion, generally considered guilty of pay for play and corruption

    Robert Byrd – KKK member

    Chris Dodd – Google Kennedy Dodd Sandwich

    Ted Kennedy – Chappaquidick

    Dennis Hastert – pedophile

    Marion Barry – Who BTW is getting a statue of himself in DC. drugs and hookers

    Maxine Waters – Google “maxine waters brain freeze”

    Hank Johnson – Worried that Guam is going to capsize

    Menendez – Currently on trial for corruption

    Rod Blagojevich – Jailed for corruption

    Mario Biaggi – Federal official bribery and gratuity, mail fraud, Hobbs Act, and RICO

    Frank W. Boykin – House of Representatves -Federal official conflict-of-interest and conspiracy to defraud the United States

    Ernest K. Bramblett – House of Representatves Payroll fraud to cover kickbacks

    Frank J. Brasco -House of Representatves Conspiracy to defraud the United States

    Albert Bustamante House of Representatves Bribery

    Frank M. Clark House of Representatves Bribery

    Duke Cunningham House of Representatves Bribery mail fraud

    Charles Diggs – House of Representatves Mail fraud

    David Durenberger Senator Misuse of Public Funds

    Frank Thompson House of Representatves Bribery

    James Traficant House of Representatves Bribery

    J. Irving Whalley House of Representatves Mail fraud

    Harrison A. Williams Senator Bribery

    Corrine Brown – House of Representatves Tax Fraud

    Michael Grimm – House of Representatves Tax Fraud

    Charlie Rangel – House of Representatves Tax evasion

    Larry Craig – Senate – Sex at airport

    Bob Packwood – Senate – Sex Scandal

    • jim_m

      I’m willing to bet that he has never said word one about the dems but has probably condemned every last Republican.

      • Retired military

        There have been over 260 payments between 1997-2017 for sexual harrassment complaints made. The names of the people accused are being kept secret. Yet David seems to believe that Moore who has only been accused (in an Oct suprise fashion) with no payments made to anyone is unworthy to serve in this body of lawmakers.

    • Jwb10001

      That list is very long but also very incomplete. I realize it’s just because there is only so much time in a day to compile the list of creeps that infest our institutions. We’ve let these people get away with all sorts of misdeeds in the name of team politics. I read today some moron on a twitter rant that basically blamed Franken’s victim because she was in playboy and appeared on Hannity and by golly people just don’t like her, they like Stu Smalley much better. If Roy Moore is indeed guilty of these actions he’ll be right at home with the rest of the degenerates.

    • Retired military

      Meanwhile David remains silent on Al Franken being a member of congress. This speaks volumes about David’s judgement on who should be a public official.

    • Retired military

      David also remains silent on Joe Biden’s behavior.

      Tell us David. Look at the video here and explain to us why Biden felt it necessary to put his hand on the breast area of this 11 year old girl.

      http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/11/bad-touch-video-shows-biden-groping-breast-11-year-old-girl-15-seconds-straight-senate-ceremony/

  • glamdeluxe

    Wizbang. Kowtowing to the establishment one page at a time. Nice collection of fake news Dave.

    • Scalia

      “Wizbang” isn’t kowtowing to anybody. We have one columnist who likes to suck up to the Establishment. Nobody else does.

      • glamdeluxe

        Thank you for clearing that up.
        Suck ups tend to down grade the integrity of a news outlet in the long run.

  • Retired military

    Meanwhile a major donor to Hillary ($1m in 2016) “Committed suicide” unexpectantly. Isnt is strange how that seems to happen A LOT. And yet David wants to talk about confederate statues.