Ephemera vs Evidence or Roy Moore vs Clinton/Rose/Franken/Weinstein/Conyers et/all

Readability

Ephemera vs Evidence or Roy Moore vs Clinton/Rose/Franken/Weinstein/Conyers et/all

[cap­tion id=“attachment_102993” align=“aligncenter” width=“768”] Via JohnWiskeyman.Wordpress.com[/caption]

Brock: And those are the facts, Madam Chair­man.
Mena: Does that con­clude the evi­dence?
4th Doc­tor: Evi­dence? Evi­dence? You couldn’t hang a hat on that.

Doc­tor Who The Leisure Hive 1980

PM James Hacker: Nobody knows it’s not true. Press state­ments aren’t made under oath

Yes Prime Min­is­ter A Vic­tory for Democ­racy 1986

Harry Faver­sham: One moment, sir. Your famous account of Balaclava’s not accu­rate, you know.
Gen­eral Bur­roughs: Not -
Harry Faver­sham: Not accu­rate, sir.
Gen­eral Bur­roughs: Not accu­rate?
Harry Faver­sham: No, sir.

The Four Feath­ers 1939

One of the smartest say­ings I’ve ever heard was this: There are three sides to every story, your side, my side and the truth.

There is how you remem­ber events, how I remem­ber events and how events actu­ally took place. Some­times we get them right, some­times we get them wrong. Some­times a par­tic­u­lar piece of an event stands in our mem­ory, other times over the years they get embell­ished from repeated retelling and human nature being what it is, such sto­ries as they change never tend to make us look worse they always tend to make you either look bet­ter or make your­self the object of pity.

The best exam­ple I can think of this is the clas­sic and slightly comic, scene from the end­ing of the clas­sic 1939 move the Four Feath­ers (the start of which I quoted above) where Harry Faver­sham, to elim­i­nate the final feather of cow­ardice given to him, cor­rects the General’s record on the story hehas been repeat­edly telling all through the film:

Harry Faver­sham: Let me recall the posi­tion. Out of the way, Peter. Here are the Rus­sians, behind the wal­nuts. Guns. Guns. Guns. Here’s the British Infantry. The thin red line. [dips fin­ger in the red wine and draws a line on the table] Here’s the com­man­der in chief. [places an apple on the table] And here are you… [puts a pineap­ple down on the table] at the head of the old 68th, cor­rect?
Gen­eral Bur­roughs: Absolutely.
Harry Faver­sham: You were rid­ing a horse called Cae­sar, which my father sold you… because, fine horse­man though he was, he could never hold him him­self.
Gen­eral Bur­roughs: Quite right. Quite right.
Harry Faver­sham: Then, accord­ing to your story, you said… “The 68th will move for­ward. “
Gen­eral Bur­roughs: Quite right. Quite right.
Harry Faver­sham: Yes, sir. The trou­ble is, you never said it.
Gen­eral Bur­roughs: — Né -
Harry Faver­sham: You never said it, sir.
Gen­eral Bur­roughs: Never said it?
Harry Faver­sham: No, sir. You never had time. At that moment, my father told me, Cae­sar — uh, Cae­sar — Cae­sar… [puts a spoon under the Pineap­ple ] star­tled by a stray bul­let, took the bit between his teeth… and dashed straight at the Russ­ian lines. Away went Cae­sar, away went you, away went the 68th…away went the com­man­der in chief, away went every­body… and another mag­nif­i­cent mis­take was added to an already mag­nif­i­cent record. But nobody ever said, “The 68th will move for­ward. ” Unless it was the horse. Come on, sir. Own up.
Gen­eral Bur­roughs: Well, well, well, well, after all these years, it’s rather dif­fi­cult to remem­ber all the details… but… con­found the boy!
I shall never be able to tell that story again!

Harry Faver­sham: [Turns to the General’s daugh­ter] Ethne, your feather.

This is why body cam­eras are such a good idea for police, as it gives an accu­rate (if occa­sion­ally incom­plete) sequence of events with­out favor to either the police offi­cer or the sus­pect (the later being the rea­son why the left, hav­ing insisted on them for year sud­denly as a prob­lem with them).

And that brings us to the dif­fer­ence between the alle­ga­tions against Roy Moore and Al Frankwn, Bill Clin­ton, John Cony­ers and Har­vey Weinstein.

With Char­lie Rose we have an apol­ogy. With Al Franken, we have pho­to­graphic evi­dence and an apol­ogy. With Har­vey Wein­stein we have decades of large cash set­tle­ments, with rep­re­sen­ta­tive John Cony­ers we have inves­ti­ga­tions and set­tle­ments paid out. In all those cases there were admis­sions of guilt or pay­ments to set­tle claims made.

That leaves Bill Clin­ton who repeat­edly denied what was going on until two things took place: He was forced under oath when Paula Jones launched her sex­ual harass­ment suit, and the phys­i­cal evi­dence of the semen stained blue dress was pro­duced. Con­fronted with these two things Bill Clin­ton came at least par­tially clean.

So in other words in all of the cases above we have one or more of the following:

  1. An admis­sion of guilt
  2. Set­tle­ments paid
  3. Inves­ti­ga­tions by a com­pe­tent body
  4. Phys­i­cal evi­dence of wrongdoing
  5. Accu­sa­tions made under oath.

What do we have in the Roy Moore case? None of these things. No admis­sion of guilt, no set­tle­ments paid to accusers, no inves­ti­ga­tions made by a com­pe­tent body. The entire body of phys­i­cal evi­dence is an old year­book sig­na­ture that the lawyer of the claimant not only refuses to release for exam­i­na­tion but admits she has not even asked her client if she saw Mr. Moore sign said book,

As for accu­sa­tions, we have plenty of peo­ple say­ing all kinds of things from the Icky to the crim­i­nal but all of these state­ments have one thing in common.

None of them are part of a com­plaint to the author­i­ties, none of them have been made as part of a civil suit, none of them have been made as responses to inves­ti­ga­tions in progress or as tes­ti­mony before a com­pe­tent body.

Or put sim­ply none of them have been made under oath. Nobody from the man claim­ing they had to watch Moore near cheer­lead­ers to the woman mak­ing the accu­sa­tion of assault at age 14 have been will­ing as of this writ­ing to make such claims under oath either in the form of a civil or crim­i­nal com­plaint or as sworn tes­ti­mony con­cern­ing them.

They have no hes­i­ta­tion to tell all kinds of nar­ra­tives to the press or on TV, but not if there is the slight­est hint of legal jeop­ardy from per­jury or even the much smaller crime of fil­ing a false police report or the slight­est chance that said nar­ra­tive would be chal­lenged by cross exam­i­na­tion or evi­dence to counter it.

Now as I’ve repeat­edly said, if Roy Moore is lying I think he should be toast, even if it means the tem­po­rary loss of a sen­ate seat in Alabama (after all the if the GOP won’t pass the bills they promised with 52 votes being down to 51 won’t make much of a dif­fer­ence). On this point I dif­fer with some of my friends on the right. Fur­ther­more it is not out of the realm of pos­si­bil­ity that one of those five con­di­tions might be met con­cern­ing Roy Moore before elec­tion day.

But until I see that hap­pen I will not only con­tinue to sup­port Moore’s cam­paign for the sen­ate but will call out the dis­hon­or­able left/​media for lump­ing Roy Moore with the increas­ing num­bers of proven repro­bates from the Har­vey Wein­stein left based on ephemera.

Update: Linked by old friend Jim Hoft at Gate­way Pun­dit, and by the folks at Canon 212 who I would ask to pray for me. Thanks much both of you.


If you like the idea of new media on the scene at for these time of things and want to sup­port inde­pen­dent jour­nal­ism please hit DaTip­Jar below.




Please con­sider sub­scrib­ing, Not only does that get you my weekly pod­cast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which gra­ciously car­ries it on a weekly basis but if you sub­scribe at any level I will send you an auto­graphed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Per­fect Protes­tant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Sub­scrip­tion level



(or you can buy one here)

Via JohnWiskeyman.Wordpress.com

Brock:  And those are the facts, Madam Chairman. 
Mena:  Does that conclude the evidence? 
4th Doctor: Evidence? Evidence? You couldn’t hang a hat on that. 

Doctor Who  The Leisure Hive 1980

PM James Hacker: Nobody knows it’s not true. Press statements aren’t made under oath

Yes Prime Minister A Victory for Democracy 1986

Harry Faversham: One moment, sir. Your famous account of Balaclava’s not accurate, you know.
General Burroughs: Not –
Harry Faversham: Not accurate, sir.
General Burroughs: Not accurate?
Harry Faversham: No, sir.

The Four Feathers 1939

One of the smartest sayings I’ve ever heard was this: There are three sides to every story, your side, my side and the truth.

There is how you remember events, how I remember events and how events actually took place. Sometimes we get them right, sometimes we get them wrong. Sometimes a particular piece of an event stands in our memory, other times over the years they get embellished from repeated retelling and human nature being what it is, such stories as they change never tend to make us look worse they always tend to make you either look better or make yourself the object of pity.

The best example I can think of this is the classic and slightly comic, scene from the ending of the classic 1939 move the Four Feathers (the start of which I quoted above) where Harry Faversham, to eliminate the final feather of cowardice given to him, corrects the General’s record on the story hehas been repeatedly telling all through the film:

Harry Faversham:  Let me recall the position. Out of the way, Peter. Here are the Russians, behind the walnuts. Guns. Guns. Guns. Here’s the British Infantry. The thin red line. [dips finger in the red wine and draws a line on the table] Here’s the commander in chief. [places an apple on the table] And here are you… [puts a pineapple down on the table] at the head of the old 68th, correct?
General Burroughs:  Absolutely.
Harry Faversham:  You were riding a horse called Caesar, which my father sold you… because, fine horseman though he was, he could never hold him himself.
General Burroughs:  Quite right. Quite right.
Harry Faversham:  Then, according to your story, you said… “The 68th will move forward. “
General Burroughs:  Quite right. Quite right.
Harry Faversham:  Yes, sir. The trouble is, you never said it.
General Burroughs:  – Ne –
Harry Faversham:  You never said it, sir.
General Burroughs:   Never said it?
Harry Faversham: No, sir. You never had time. At that moment, my father told me, Caesar – uh, Caesar – Caesar… [puts a spoon under the Pineapple ] startled by a stray bullet, took the bit between his teeth… and dashed straight at the Russian lines. Away went Caesar, away went you, away went the 68th…away went the commander in chief, away went everybody… and another magnificent mistake was added to an already magnificent record. But nobody ever said, “The 68th will move forward. ” Unless it was the horse. Come on, sir. Own up.
General Burroughs: Well, well, well, well, after all these years, it’s rather difficult to remember all the details… but… confound the boy!
I shall never be able to tell that story again!

Harry Faversham:  [Turns to the General’s daughter] Ethne, your feather.

This is why body cameras are such a good idea for police, as it gives an accurate (if occasionally incomplete) sequence of events without favor to either the police officer or the suspect (the later being the reason why the left, having insisted on them for year suddenly as a problem with them).

And that brings us to the difference between the allegations against Roy Moore and Al Frankwn, Bill Clinton, John Conyers and Harvey Weinstein.

With Charlie Rose we have an apology.  With Al Franken, we have photographic evidence and an apology.  With Harvey Weinstein we have decades of large cash settlements, with representative John Conyers we have investigations and settlements paid out.  In all those cases there were admissions of guilt or payments to settle claims made.

That leaves Bill Clinton who repeatedly denied what was going on until two things took place:  He was forced under oath when Paula Jones launched her sexual harassment suit, and the physical evidence of the semen stained blue dress was produced.  Confronted with these two things Bill Clinton came at least partially clean.

So in other words in all of the cases above we have one or more of the following:

  1.  An admission of guilt
  2.  Settlements paid
  3.  Investigations by a competent body
  4.  Physical evidence of wrongdoing
  5.   Accusations made under oath.

What do we have in the Roy Moore case?  None of these things.  No admission of guilt, no settlements paid to accusers, no investigations made by a competent body.  The entire body of physical evidence is an old yearbook signature that the lawyer of the claimant not only refuses to release for examination but admits she has not even asked her client if she saw Mr. Moore sign said book,

As for accusations, we have plenty of people saying all kinds of things from the Icky to the criminal but all of these statements have one thing in common.

None of them are part of a complaint to the authorities,  none of them have been made as part of a civil suit, none of them have been made as responses to investigations in progress or as testimony before a competent body.

Or put simply none of them have been made under oath.  Nobody from the man claiming they had to watch Moore near cheerleaders to the woman making the accusation of assault at age 14 have been willing as of this writing to make such claims under oath either in the form of a civil or criminal complaint or as sworn testimony concerning them.

They have no hesitation to tell all kinds of narratives to the press or on TV, but not if there is the slightest hint of legal jeopardy from perjury or even the much smaller crime of filing a false police report or the slightest chance that said narrative would be challenged by cross examination or evidence to counter it.

Now as I’ve repeatedly said, if Roy Moore is lying I think he should be toast, even if it means the temporary loss of a senate seat in Alabama (after all the if the GOP won’t pass the bills they promised with 52 votes being down to 51 won’t make much of a difference).   On this point I differ with some of my friends on the right. Furthermore it is not out of the realm of possibility that one of those five conditions might be met concerning Roy Moore before election day.

But until I see that happen I will not only continue to support Moore’s campaign for the senate but will call out the dishonorable left/media for lumping Roy Moore with the increasing numbers of proven reprobates from the Harvey Weinstein left based on ephemera.

Update: Linked by old friend Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit, and by the folks at Canon 212 who I would ask to pray for me. Thanks much both of you.


If you like the idea of new media on the scene at for these time of things and want to support independent journalism please hit DaTipJar below.




Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level



(or you can buy one here)