@leon
"My response:
1. That's not at all what you said. You said, and I quote, "keeping in mind that every confirmed voter of the accusers I've seen have been Trump supporters (takes away the 'plant' story)". I'm pretty sure that Beverly Nelson is not every accuser, and I've already proven that at least one of the accusers is an active Democrat. Beverly has, moreover, the least credible story, so she doesn't even really count."
and I think you're overestimating the likelihood of a plant. project veritas already got embarrassed by washpo, and PV is one of the best in the business with this kind of sting work. and Nelson isn't the only trump support, and also I don't think her account is the least credible.
"3.The point is that she never mentioned that adding anything until she got exposed. It's pretty likely that she just made up the story to cover up her lies. As for he family, it's pretty plausible that they're just going along with it to save their daughter from national humiliation."
all she said she added was the fact the slight sentence that he became assistant DA, after the fact. the rest of the message, as the handwriting analysis I linked earlier, matches him.
Moore said he NEVER met her: this is by multiple witnesses and the likely veracity of the yearbook: false. I understand, this isn't even enough to go to court with, but it's damn suspicious that he's not even budging on the fact that he met her.
"4. We live in the information age. It's pretty easy to get a hold on some document containing Moore's signature and forging it onto a new document."
ok. now I KNOW you didn't read the handwriting analysis.
https://www.scribd.com/document/366939922/Handwriting-Analyses-Report-Dec-6-2017?secret_password=2Poj4YrvvPpsrLqPklFu#from_embed
even if you find a scanner copy of the signature online, you cannot get the pressure patterns from a scanned copy: which the report meanwhile, showed were consistent with hard copies. answer me THAT
but even more... why would a TRUMP VOTER do that? if you really are just looking for the spotlight, shouldn't your need for attention, be attention from the people you revere? a false story against Doug jones would be more likely.
"5. You asked for a motive. I provided one. Can I prove it? No, I can't, but it at least proves the possibility that Moore did not in fact molest these (at the time) teenage girls."
I don't think there's enough to go to court here on, I'll openly admit that. but it's also been by the way Roy Moore at several times, with multiple witnesses coming out against him, has had falsehoods in his story. saying he never spoke to one of the girls when one mom clearly remembered he did, saying he never met another when there are witnesses and a signature that said he did, SO many things that aren't by themselves proof of further malicious actions, but the fact that he denies even those GROUND facts is suspicious. if he said "yeah I knew all of these girls, but I never raped them" then there'd be room to maneuver, but the fact he's outright denying ever meeting them... it's suspicious. why lie about THAT? the conclusion I'm coming to is that there's further truth to these claims and he's trying to cut it all off.
"6. I believe the Hollywood scandals, not because of the evidence, but because the perpetrators have admitted to their wrongdoing. If Weinstein were to have vehemently denied all allegations, I would give him the benefit of the doubt as well."
the predators have "all" admitted their wrongdoing. well with spacey and Weinstein I agree, but from what I can see (perhaps I'm wrong on this, I find it hard to be shocked by HOLLYWOOD being full of scumbags) many aren't admitting to it.
but this is a secondary point though, and I suppose I'll concede it in order not to get sidetracked
)
Please Help
)
)
)