As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Trump Gets Behind Roy Moore

President Trump Tuesday offered a de facto endorsement of GOP Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore by criticizing his opponent, Democrat Doug Jones.

From remarks at the White House before heading off to spend Thanksgiving in West Palm Beach:

Trump: I can tell you one thing for sure: We don’t need a liberal person in there, a Democrat — Jones. I’ve looked at his record. It’s terrible on crime. It’s terrible on the border. It’s terrible on the military. I can tell you for a fact, we do not need somebody that’s going to be bad on crime, bad on borders, bad with the military, bad for the Second Amendment.

Reporter: Is Roy Moore, a child molester, better than a Democrat? He’s an accused —

Trump: Well, he denies it. Look, he denies it. I mean, if you look at what is really going on, and you look at all the things that have happened over the last 48 hours, he totally denies it. He says it didn’t happen. And, you know, you have to listen to him also. You’re talking about, he said 40 years ago this did not happen. So, you know —

Reporter: Are you going to campaign for Roy Moore?

Trump: I’ll be letting you know next week.

6 Responses to Trump Gets Behind Roy Moore

  1. Child molester – now Moore is a child molester? What are they claiming he did to that teenager – attack her, force her to do sexual things, touch her all over?
    No, that’s not what he is accused of doing – he maybe asked her out on a date, maybe didn’t realize how young she was..who knows?
    I call BS, political smear job, and a terrible thing to do to someone.

  2. Trump has made it clear that he supports Moore’s politics over his opponents’. That’s different from giving all out endorsement to the man himself. Trump is right – are we going to vote for a candidate because of what he has promised to do while in office or vote against him because at the last minute his character has suffered unproven accusations?

    I’d vote for Moore and wait for any trial to prove him innocent or guilty instead of voting for the other guy and being assured of having my values violated every day.

  3. Let’s pretend the Republicans nominated a female philanthropist who was well-regarded for her character and generosity.

    And let’s suppose that, a month before the election, some liberal outlet runs a story that reports that this candidate’s charity had taken money from a businessman that had recently been convicted for embezzling about half a billion bucks from his employees’ pension fund. The philanthropist says she genuinely had no idea that any of it was going on at the time.

    And let’s suppose that, right on cue, the surrender monkeys in Republican, Inc., demand that the philanthropist step aside, and also assume that the conservative talking heads are all over the map.

    Now, in this scenario, we’re not talking about a he-said she-said. The embezzlement is documented; the question is, what did the candidate know? She says she knows nothing, but come on…embezzlement to the tune of half a billion?

    Now, assume you’re the state party director in this scenario. Keep the philanthropist, or substitute another candidate?

    If you decided to cashier this candidate, then you just gave the heave-ho…

    …to Mother Teresa.