Woman Says She Was Offered Big Money to Accuse Roy Moore of Misconduct
As allegations that Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore had sexual contact with an underage girl almost 40 years ago roil the nationally watched race, other reports have surfaced that are taking the whole story into even more bizarre directions.
On Thursday, The Washington Post reported allegations about an incident that allegedly took place in 1979 between then 32-year-old Moore and a 14-year-old girl.
Now, a Twitter user identified as Doug Lewis, whose Twitter profile portrays him as a supporter of President Donald Trump and a Navy veteran, posted on the social media site that a family friend had contacted him regarding the situation.
The unidentified woman reportedly told Lewis that a Washington Post reporter — identified only as “Beth” — had offered her a substantial sum of money to accuse the GOP candidate of wrongdoing.
“A family friend who lives in Alabama just told my wife that a WAPO reporter named Beth offered her 1000$ to accuse Roy Moore,” Lewis tweeted.
TRENDING: Over 200k Members of Facebook Group Vow to Boycott NFL for Veterans Day Weekend
In subsequent tweets, Lewis further reported that the friend had pictures of the journalist who contacted her and had even recorded the conversation on her phone.
Lewis said he advised the friend to take the recording and the picture to the local district attorney’s office, but to make sure she kept a copy for herself, just in case.
Another Twitter user — JustBrenda — responded to the report, saying she “wouldn’t be surprised” if the allegations regarding the reporter were true. She also noted that those who make up sexual offenses “make things harder” for real victims.
Lewis replied to JustBrenda, assuring her that they would “find out” the truth. He also noted that “Jean” — presumably the friend who was allegedly contacted by the Washington Post — had reached out to the Etowah County District Attorney in regards to the evidence she had.
Someone from the office was reportedly sent to pick up the phone.
RELATED: Report: Fmr Maricopa County Sheriff Eyeing New Career on Senate Floor
Another Twitter user, Bradd Powless, advised that Lewis report the situation to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Secret Service.
Lewis responded that he had done so, but “Jean” reportedly did not trust the federal agencies, so she opted to deal with her local law enforcement instead.
“Can’t blame her with FBI in stories every day,” Lewis commented.
We must point out that these allegations have not yet been substantiated — and might not be at all real.
But with reports of sexual misconduct swirling, it’s important that any and all evidence and reports be adequately aired and investigated so voters can find out the truth.
Moore has contended that the sexual accusations were unfounded.
“These allegations are completely false and are a desperate political attack by the National Democrat Party and The Washington Post on this campaign,” he said, according to Newsweek. “After over 40 years of public service, if any of these allegations were true, they surely would have been made public long before now.”
With the Alabama special election coming up on Dec. 12, Moore only has a few weeks to shut down these allegations and reassure conservative voters that he is the right choice to fill the vacant Senate seat left behind by former Sen. and current Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Like and share this article on Facebook and Twitter and tell us what you think about this claim that a Washington Post reporter offered money for accusations against Republican Roy Moore. https://conservativetribune.com/report-lady-claims-roy-moore/
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
72 visitors
Thank you for seeding this.
I am not surprised at all. It reeked from the high heavens. Judge Moore has to stand tall in front of these allegations. It doesn't matter what one's opinion is regarding Judge Moore....right is right and wrong is wrong.
I am waiting for the left to show up claiming "unsubstantiated rumors" regarding your post.
Unsubstantiated rumors are only true if a Republican is the target of them.
>-.---.-
zoom zoom!
Yeah, thought that would be your reaction.
LWNJ's race to get propaganda like this into print before tidying up all the loose ends.
So the seeder is a LWNJ who raced to post this propaganda. Is it too late for the seeder to tidy up the loose ends?
There's as much proof this story is true as the unproven accusations are.
Not really, yes, there is the possibility that this story is true, it is remote but, it is there. The Post checks sources before printing and, if they find that a story isn't true then they withdraw it and, print a retraction, I doubt the man on twitter will do either, in fact we have no proof that he didn't make this up out of whole clothe as the saying goes.
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the notes section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
Bias: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Fake News
Notes: Pacific Pundit, like most questionable news sources does not provide an about page to describe their mission or ownership. In review, Pacific Pundit exhibits extreme right wing bias through wording and story selection that always favors the far right. For example, this headline: NFL THUGS WHO DISRESPECTED THE NATIONAL ANTHEM IN WEEK 7 uses a derogatory racial term to describe protesters of inequality and police violence. Pacific Pundit also does not source to credible media, for example they use Infowars: “CRAZY LEFTISTS PLAN ‘SCREAM HELPLESSLY AT THE SKY’ EVENT” and Blacksphere: “MAJOR DNC SHAKEUP – MEDIA SILENT.” Overall, Pacific Pundit is a questionable source based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of propaganda/conspiracy and use of sources that publish fake news. (M. Huitsing 10/23/2017)
Nuff said.
And your original source has a long history of fake conspiracy theories on twitter....He's been busted almost as much as Infowars.
Like CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, Kos, Huffpo, WAPO, NYT to name a few on the left?
WAPO uses questionable sources all day, so I guess they fit into the definition. How many times have their confidential sources been debunked over the last year? Throw it on the line, then we'll figure out if it's true or not. That's sensationalism, not journalism.
So a dozen named sources from the victims themselves and contemporaries who were told what happened by the victims at the time is the same as an unnamed source twitter claim with zero evidence? How exactly does that add up in conservative land? Does 2 + 2 = banana down there?
And to add weight to their twitter claim they quote another anonymous twitter account "JustBrenda" saying she “wouldn’t be surprised” if it were true... It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad seeing actual people cling to such nonsense in order for their little conservative reality not to come crashing down around their heads.
Wondering if she took the money, not evident in the article. Also would like to know what "Beth" wanted the person to say, was the reporter offering a backstory?
Lewis describes this individual as a family friend...where's the rest of the story? I'm trying to image a family friend coming to me with a headline moment and I guarantee I'd have every detail, lighting up twitter like a Christmas tree!
Lynn, take this story with a grain of salt, coming from twitter doesn't mean it can be trusted as the truth.
GMR ~ We've not interacted much but trust me when I say I'm not buying into the article
It's a load of garbage evidenced by the lack of information that would certainly be reported.
So far, two of the sources for this story have proven to be RW propaganda sites.
This link says is that WAPO reporters who reported on Moore may have a serious conflict of interest and, at least one of them, has campaigned for Moore’s opponent. If any of these allegations are true, WAPO may have just elected Roy Moore by a landslide, exposed another democrat shenanigan, and damaged the credibility of those who rushed to condemn him.
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the notes section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
Bias: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy
Notes: The D.C. Clothesline promotes extreme right wing propaganda and conspiracies and does not source to credible information. (8/10/2016)
In my opinion, all news sources are currently exhibiting bias in reporting. It’s just a question of degree. Information is not true or false based simply on the source. I read multiple sources to be better informed and then I judge for myself.
Then you should check out the link I provided, it says plainly that they lie, and, that they don't check ANY source at all, propaganda with a Far Right lean is all they know how to do.
It doesn’t matter whether they lie or not because we’re in the court of public opinion not a court of law. No standards, no fairness, no reason . . . just mud to throw back and forth.
As the Republicans in Congress have been saying since the story came out, if there is a grain of truth to any of the accusations then Moore should step down or, as Mitt Romney has said, this isn't a court of law it is a political race and, because of this Moore should step down. In politics the court of public opinion makes a difference, if it wasn't for that Hillary would be in the White House not Trump.
This is a political fight in the court of public opinion and anything goes. Everybody is free to believe whatever they like based on whether they like or dislike the person saying it. As such, it’s become a partisan mudslinging contest. If Hillary didn’t step down, under the accusations against her, then Moore certainly doesn’t need to do it.
The voters in AL can use their public opinion to decide on Judge Moore's fate, We don't require any outside help. We don't need McCain, Romney to decide what Moore should do. They, certainly, are entitled to their opinions, but that's it.
When someone posts something on here that is from a site that is totally biased I will call them out on it, Right or, Left. So far, the Right has been the only ones who have put anything up that is "totally biased".
Prove the story wrong. If story is true, the source is irrelevant.
That would be like proving a negative and, if you know anything about debates that is not possible, it would be like you asking me to prove God exists or, doesn't exist.
"We don't need McCain, Romney to decide what Moore should do. They, certainly, are entitled to their opinions, but that's it."
I wonder what you'll be saying when the Republicans carry out their threat to freeze out Moore so he is impotent....but of course you don't need their help.
And Alabama will remain the backwater insestual shithole they made it in to.
"We don't need McCain, Romney to decide what Moore should do. They, certainly, are entitled to their opinions, but that's it."
I wonder what you'll be saying when the Republicans carry out their threat to freeze out Moore so he is impotent....but of course you don't need their help.
And Alabama will remain the backwater incestual shithole they made it in to.
You think so?
They’re not stupid enough to confuse the boys with the girls or take their children to drag clown story time to learn to aspire to be drag queens.
How can we prove it false when they won't name their source. With the Washington Posts article they have numerous named sources that can be questioned and verified, but here all you have is a single unnamed source who supposedly told a friend. I'd say the WAPO story disproves the un-sourced twitter claim on the face of it.
Even if the allegations about WAPO aren’t true, it would be a clever way of fighting fire with fire and combating one unsubstantiated allegation with another.
You used to sometimes make sense. Then you followed all these right wing fairy tale tellers over the deep end.
I’m not following anybody. The WAPO story is based on an unsubstantiated claim about something that allegedly happened 40 years ago. Anti-Moore people jumped on it immediately as though an allegation is proof. Now allegations are floating around about the authors of the WAPO story. New allegations are also floating around about the accusers (one suggests that the woman who claimed to have been 14 was actually at least 17 and is a known liar). Although the new allegations against WAPO and the woman are, themselves, unsubstantiated they underscore why allegations can’t be treated as proof. In any event, whether the new allegations are true or not, they will undermine the original WAPO story.
No they won't most of those story's that dispute the WaPo story come from real Fake News sites like the Pacific Pundit and, DCClothesline.
I think they will undermine the WAPO story in the minds of the voters, whether it’s fake or not. The WAPO story essentially put Moore on trial in the court of public opinion, a forum with no standards, and left him with no viable means of defending himself. For that reason, it amounts to character assassination. The new stories flip it back on WAPO and the accusers. But they can all sling mud back and forth and we’ll see what happens.
Hahaha..reddit. And yet the DA's office hasn't seen the recording and nobody has showed up with any evidence.
Your source has a long history of posting things the weak minded have run with only to find they were rubes...
Who's the tool?
Who cares? The case is being tried in the press where apparently anything goes. Anybody is free to say anything whether the allegations are timely or stale, true or false, relevant or irrelevant, fair or unfair. WAPO supports Moore’s opponent and is throwing mud on Moore. Moore’s supporters are throwing it back. So now it’s just a mud slinging contest between partisans.
I think that you are correct on it not making much of a difference, I think that the Republicans in the south have lost their moral compass and, they will vote for a POS like Moore since they voted for the POS that's in the White House.
Hmmmm, sounds like the same thing you guys were doing and, still are doing to Hillary.
try again
that chick actively works for the dnc, the same dnc that paid russians to fabricate lies against a presidential candidate.
you wonder why no one believes the left anymore? as a party, the left does not even own one moral between them all.
ya'll are simply too damn funny... ya crack me up every time
Given the alternative, the one thing that was certain was that a POS would be in the White House.
And liberals blew it off so they shouldn’t be surprised when conservatives blow it off the same way.
Links. Keep in mind that I will check the source of the link.
The Orange One is the only one of the two who has ties to the Kremlin and, wants to start a nuclear war.
And Hillary is still a POS for reasons too numerous to list.
I think that you are correct on it not making much of a difference, I think that the Republicans in the south have lost their moral compass and, they will vote for a POS like Moore since they voted for the POS that's in the White House.
So you discover you have lost the debate, and then resort to usual leftist blaming, hating, name calling, and generalizing??
Actually, the Dims and the Clinton's links to the Russians are becoming more apparent all the time.
Wants to start a nuclear war? Really? You might be in contention for the daytime Emmy for dramatics.......
"and then resort to usual leftist blaming, hating, name calling, and generalizing??"
Hilarious that you state that after using "dims" for democrats...
Hypocrite much?
The WAPO article is substantiated with numerous named sources on the record. Do they have DNA evidence? No, but about as close to it with contemporaries willing to go on the record and testify what they know. The twitter claim is unnamed and un-sourced and doesn't even have the full name of the supposed WAPO journalist. It's basically saying "I heard it from this guy who heard it from this girl that 'Beth' tried to pay for negative stories against Roy Moore...". Is anyone really taking that seriously? I guess tens of thousand of half wits bought the "I heard it from a guy who heard it from a gal who heard it from a Pizza parlor employee name "Jim" that Hillary Clinton is running a child sex prostitution ring out of their basement...". If conservatives want to believe something I guess there's no limit to the kind of baseless rhetoric that will convince them.
The allegation of attempted child molestation hasn’t been substantiated by anybody because they didn’t witness anything. It’s just her word against his. What you call substantiation seems to be her telling people her story. That doesn’t make it true any more than it’s true that you were abducted by aliens simply because you told the story to others.
We have the same "her word against his" evidence against Harvey Weinstien, Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby, Donald Trump, Bill O'Reilly, Roger Ailes, Kevin Spacey, Mark Halperin, James Tobak, Brett Ratner and the rest of the ever growing list of accused. Why do you jump to Roy Moore's defense while casting stones at any of the others who are supposed "liberals"? Admit it, if this was a woman who claimed she was assaulted by Bill Clinton when she was 14 back in the late 1970's you'd be more than willing to believe her and spread the story on every right wing website from here to the Kremlin. Conservative Republican hypocrisy truly knows no bounds.
So? It’s still her word against his in each case. The burden of proof should be on the woman making the claim and none of these women have given me a reason to believe the accusation over the denial.
I’m not defending Roy but rather examining the stories and motives because the MSM won’t do it.
In my opinion, the MSM basically gave Bill Clinton the benefit of the doubt while in Moore’s case it’s presented as though there’s no doubt that he’s guilty. It’s the hypocrisy that catches my attention especially when the MSM is supporting Moore’s opponent. In any event, I’m not going to believe a woman’s allegations just because she says it’s true and I’m not going to seriously entertain accusations 40 years after the fact because it’s unfair to the person accused.
But you'll believe the man claiming it's not true, even though it's just his word?
Not exactly. First of all, lying is one activity at which women have always been the equal of men. I have known women who have flat out lied for a variety of reasons and sometimes they have made things up because there’s something wrong with them (and should probably be on medication). Secondly, if someone makes an accusation, they should be required to prove it rather than expect the accused to disapprove it, especially 40 years after the fact. If she can’t prove it (and just her saying it isn’t proof), then I have no more reason to believe the accusation than the denial.
As mags put it, it’s just gossip. And she implied that gossip regarding wrongdoing creates a lynch mob mentality and she wants no part of it. The lynch mob mentality comment is an astute assessment that’s being overlooked.
So in your estimation, anything a man does to a woman in private can never be prosecuted or believed because women are liars? A woman requires a third party to verify any bad behavior or abuse or have some DNA evidence and a rape kit done showing she was abused before anyone can do anything?
I have a mother, two sisters and two daughters and I believe they deserve more respect than to be just dismissed as liars. The facts show that women are often assaulted and you're basically telling them to "suck it up" or prove it with video evidence or prepare to not be believed because you and other men simply think women are liars.
I think there are far more men who get away with abuse, assault and misconduct than the tiny fraction of cases where the woman actually lied about an encounter just to mess up some innocent guys life. Real men support and empower the women around them, they don't tear them down with doubt and spurious claims of them being liars you just can't trust.
I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s not a question of dismissing someone as a liar but rather recognizing that someone’s self-serving statement by itself is not proof. If you charge someone with a crime, the government has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I have a reasonable doubt if the sole evidence is just one person’s accusation against the other person’s denial. That goes for both women and men. Anybody (male or female, adult or child) that makes any allegation of criminality needs to prove it. So, no, your wife’s, daughter’s, grandma’s word is not good enough to destroy someone else. Same goes for your word, your son’s and grandpa’s word. Prove it. I’m not dismissing you or them as liars but I’m not going to call someone else a liar just because you or someone says he is. Prove it.
When it is a vulnerable teenager and a powerful adult, your "evenness" merely allows this type of behavior to continue. It's the attitude that all sexual molesters count on. She even recounts that Moore told her that since she was a child and he was a DA, she would never be believed. Evidently, he was right. Sad.
I wonder if all right wingers are this gullible?
It's more like wilful ignorance, they believe what they want to believe. Truth and evidence are meaningless.
Skirting the CoC [ph]
Y'all can never come up with any credible evidence, let alone the truth.
The ugly reputation of liberals always precedes them.
Skirting the CoC [ph]
Gullible wouldn't be my first choice of words.
gullible is defined as:
believing anything the DNC says after they paid the russians to fabricate lies against a presidential candidate.
You'd better stock up on seasick pills. The next year is going to be a rough ride for you and fellow travelers.
They did? Show the link, or is this another bullshit line like you supposedly quoted Donna Brazile?
Why would have to lie about such things? Maybe because the truth hurts so much?
Newstalkers is now reporting ravings by Twitter cranks as "fact".
Doug Lewis appears to be a run of the mill right wing twitter crank. His latest crusade on his twitter feed is to allege that John McCain was going to be executed for treason until he was secretly pardoned by Richard Nixon and given a dishonorable discharge from the Navy.
Lewis is a conspiracy nut and all his ravings need to be put in that context, not the context of believability.
These were pretty good:
.
.
Sick but funnnneeeeeee!
You seem to have some anal retentive issues.
Then why didn't you?
Here we go again.
Oh, ye gods and little fishes--who doesn't see this anonymous source as not just a desperation move to try to help Moore but basically a confirmation that this sick POS is guilty? I do love it when people who're accused of these things seem to do everything they can to confirm it.
I love the hype about being offered " big money" and then spewing $1000 like it was a fortune..just a tad over 1 day's earnings in my house.
The reason that these women popped out of the woodwork 40 years after the fact is because WAPO went looking for dirt on Moore. According to Moore’s wife WAPO reporters are calling everybody (including Moore’s friends) to ask what they think of him. When they said good things about him, the reporters asked whether they know anything bad. When they finally found something bad, the reporters coaxed the reluctant women to publicize their stories.
That’s being passed off as ordinary journalism but WAPO has endorsed Moore’s opponent, Jones, and is only looking for bad information on Moore. WAPO then used the information to damage Moore (as essentially a negative campaign ad for Jones). There’s nothing that prevents WAPO from pretending to be engaging in unbiased journalism but it’s clearly biased and they should be called out on it.
Of course, WAPO and others will say people have a right to know before they vote. Yet these same people ignore the hypocrisy of taking the opposite position when they said Comey was wrong to let Congress know when he reopened his investigation (as he promised to do) because letting the public know could sway the election (even though that would be a potential consequence not the purpose). WAPO did its Moore hit for no other apparent purpose than to sway the election to its candidate Jones. Their hypocrisy and gall is breathtaking.
And they found it. That's the price of being a prominent politician. See: Denny Hastert, Larry Craig, Mark Sanford, Anthony Weiner. Did I miss the rightwing outrage about digging up dirt on Bill Clinton?
Get back to me when the MSM endorses a Hillary opponent, digs up dirt on Hillary, and then publishes it just before the election to damage her as though it’s unbiased reporting. Democrats have no problem labeling Fox as a right wing cheering squad (and they are). This is really in response to the question “why now?” My point here is to recognize the WAPO article for what it is and it’s a “cheap shot” negative ad campaign masquerading as a news article.
It seems the difference is that the journalists didn't have to invent a story about Moore. That's probably the main difference between actual journalism and the nutty RW conspiracy theories of the sort found on InfoWars, Breitbart and Faux News.
Desperation, thy name is Republican. $1,000.00 dollars to lie to the press? I wouldn't worry so much. All Moore needs is to have the evangelicals vote for him, and as evangelicals have already shown that they do not care about religion or morals, only political power, he should have little problem.
In fact, that seems to be a prerequisite to earn their votes.
Maybe they'll make their decision the same way we did about Bill Clinton. IE ..He made for a good President despite being a terrible human being.
Now, a Twitter user identified as Doug Lewis, whose Twitter profile portrays him as a supporter of President Donald Trump and a Navy veteran, posted on the social media site that a family friend had contacted him regarding the situation.
The unidentified woman reportedly told Lewis that a Washington Post reporter — identified only as “Beth” — had offered her a substantial sum of money to accuse the GOP candidate of wrongdoing.
“A family friend who lives in Alabama just told my wife that a WAPO reporter named Beth offered her 1000$ to accuse Roy Moore,” Lewis tweeted.
A Hoax Robocall Claiming to Be From the Washington Post Offers Cash for Roy Moore Dirt
Alabama Robocalls Are Allegedly Spreading Twitter-Fueled Roy Moore Conspiracy Theories
Now, someone has allegedly continued to push the Twitter garbage on Alabama voters with an anti-Semitic twist . Per WKRG , Creola pastor Al Moore says he received a robocall claiming to be a non-existent reporter named “Bernie Bernstein” from the Post offering money for “damaging remarks about Roy Moore. Here’s the text of the alleged call:
Why is the dollar sign after the amount? That’s where it’s placed in other countries so it makes me think Doug Lewis might be in another country. The fake robo calls are a smart way to undermine the WaPo story (to say that the Post paid for dirt to help their candidate) and try to drive Moore’s poll numbers back up.