Thread by @MaleTruthSayer

(1) Judge Moore is innocent. He did nothing wrong except to stand for Biblical truth and run against the Establishment. Consider the facts:

(2) There were five main "accusers": Four from the WaPo hit piece, and one represented by radical feminist sensationalist Gloria Allred.

(3) Of the four women from the WaPo article, only one even ALLEGED anything improper. The other three were smoke and mirrors.

(4) Out of the "other three" women from the WaPo article, one was a girl that Judge Moore supposedly asked out AT THE MALL when she was a teenager. They never dated, and nothing else improper (other than "asking her out") is even alleged to have happened.

(5) He supposedly asked that girl out over 30 years ago. And again, this was supposedly at the mall. Now, according to WaPo, the women didn't come forward on their own. Rather, WaPo supposedly tracked them down.

(6) So if the WaPo's claims about this girl AND their own methods were all true, then how'd they find out THE NAME OF A GIRL THAT JUDGE MOORE ASKED OUT AT THE MALL 30+ YEARS AGO? And if they didn't find out the name in advance, then how'd they track her down?

(7) Another of the "other three" women in the WaPo article is this lady, who campaigned for Hillary Clinton & calls Doug Jones a "dear friend." Any reason for her to lie? And why didn't WaPo mention her allegiances, when they were quick to mention that one lady was a Trump voter?

(7b) Also, this woman doesn't even ALLEGE anything improper. Again, she was added to create an illusion, for smoke and mirrors, and to help increase the "witness count" to 30.

(8) Speaking of that "witness count," ever wonder how 30 people "witnessed" a single event that took place, if at all, in private? They're not even alleged to have done so. WaPo was trying to build credibility to sell their story, but lost credibility through lies instead.

(9) The third of those "other three" women is supposedly someone that he briefly dated, no sex at all (let alone any illicit sex) or anything else "illegal" going on there. Again, more smoke and mirrors. If one of the four is a lie, they all are.

(10) So that leaves one actual alleged "victim" (and one actual alleged "witness") from the WaPo hit piece: The 14 year old that Jugde Moore supposedly assaulted in his house. (And, of course, the Gloria Allred yearbook lady who still won't produce the yearbook for inspection.)

(11) The 14 year old said that he called her on the phone in her bedroom. This supposedly took place in the 1970's. Back then, families only had landlines, and often (although not always) only had one phone number per household.

(12) The detail about the phone is important, because even a very bold adult man would not call a family's main line (in the 1970's) and ask for their 14 year old daughter. Remember, the phones were corded with limited reach.

(13) So presumably anticipating this (obvious) problem, the WaPo article said that he called the 14 year old on the phone IN HER BEDROOM. That was all well and good up to the point where that lady's mother said that SHE DIDN'T HAVE A PHONE IN HER BEDROOM.

(14) The 14 year old also said that he picked her up at an intersection right around the corner from her house. But when people dug into the actual locations involved, the intersection that she named was ~1 mile away -- not exactly "right around the corner," especially by foot.

(15) Moreover, and to the point of last night's #NetNeutrality thread, you can also tell a lot by looking at the players involved.

(16) Mitch McConnell's Super PAC spent at least $8M (and by some accounts, closer to $30M) trying to defeat Judge Moore in this summer's Republican primary and runoff.

(17) But yet, somehow, incredibly, almost magically . . . McConnell's Super PAC missed these stories completely -- stories which WaPo now claims were public knowledge all along.

(18) That necessarily means these so-called "stories" weren't public knowledge as recently as this August. But yet, after being dormant for more than 30 years, they magically arose like a plague of locusts at the exact "right" time, just over a month before the special election.

(19) Moreover, the WaPo reporters were somehow the only ones to supposedly find out about these "stories," even though they were supposedly public knowledge. There's also this bridge . . .

(20) On top of all of that, consider the reactions of McConnell and McCain the MORNING this story broke -- and compare those reactions to how the swamp responded to Conyers, et al.

(21) They COULDN'T WAIT to throw Judge Moore under the bus. Why?

(22) Sen. McConnell at least feigned a half-hearted "if he did this" type of response. But McCain was even more brazen and direct: "The ALLEGATIONS against Roy Moore are deeply disturbing and disqualifying. He should immediately step aside..."

(23) Here's the link to the actual McCain tweet from the day this story broke:

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @SenJohnMcCain view original on Twitter

(24) And that only leaves the Gloria Allred women. That's been THOROUGHLY debunked by many. If we believe ANYTHING known fake rape accuser Glorida Allred has to say at this point, then we should probably all get out of politics and public debates.

(25) But as a very brief recap, here's the picture of the supposed yearbook signature, the key AND ONLY piece of actual evidence in this case -- and evidence which Gloria Allred still continues to produce for inspection by a neutral party.

(26) Some key questions:
1. The original message is black/navy, but the "signature" from "Moore" onward is blue. Why?
2. Who dates the same message twice?
3. The natural M in "Merry" is different than the forged M in "Moore," which mimics his publicly-available signature. Why?

(27) And that picture is from the CNN Twitter feed, and they're hardly ones to do conservatives any favors, so you know it's not doctored. Also, if I'm not mistaken, did they only hand out BLACK AND WHITE copies to the press, but no inspection of the actual yearbook. Why?

(28) This is yet another Establishment smear job against a person who threatens their joint monopoly / cartel. The targets may change, but the motivates rarely do.

(29) End of #TwitterStorm on @MooreSenate and the #ALSen race. Thanks for reading.