convincing so he could be won over. as one does before they file a criminal complaint. sew. we have documented the most recent accuser, buehrle melson was a party in a divorce action before me in etowah county circuit court in 1999. no motion was made for me to recuse. in her accusations, nelson did not mention that it was judge assigned to her divorce case in 1999. this is interesting on many levels. he claims he didn t know her. he also forgot. he has a problem with that too. he is going to say, well, i don t remember her because there are hundreds of litigants that come before me. but she would have remembered me because it was her divorce. there s not going to be a trial.
what do you see? well, you see a general overall similarity, but in the end it could be a genuine signature, which is why they look a lot alike or it could be an attempt to copy or trace the signature, which would also make it look a lot alike. but more importantly, we don t see any known signatures from around the time frame of 1977. what did mr. moore write like back in 1977? in addition to that, there is a lot of cursive writing prior to the signature, and that is some excellent material for comparison purposes. but again, we need to have comparison material from within about two or three years, either before or after, 1977, sod an to do an adequate and proper comparison.
no. his name is going to be. but it s tax payer moment. it s cool. i ll give him that. how he handled it, criticism. president trump no question he s ducking questions about roy moore. why? we ll talk about that. more women have come forward. it is a double edged sword. why aren t we hearing more about the alabama candidate. but at the same time what is the right solution in terms of democracy next. [vo] quickbooks introduces jeanette
speak to a former united states senator. i won t say who that is at this point, but i did, and i said could they do that? this former senator said absolutely. they can do whatever they want. they could have that hearing. okay. so let s ask them, are they going to have that hearing or not. and i will get to the signature issue now. i do. i have a lochlt so just brevity, if you can. there s a lot of questions i need to get to. the team put out documents that showed that judge moore was assigned to beverly s divorce case in 1999. did judge moore preside over her divorce? was this just filing of papers? clear this up for us. did she have involvement with him? what s going on here? we will answer and all questions about that issue and any issue that they would like to bring up at the hearing, which should be held within two weeks.
mentioned. in terms of the divorce proceeding, it doesn t necessarily mean she had to go into a courtroom in front of roy moore. right. maybe it was just paperwork. maybe it was so pro forma. if you don t have to encounter somebody, you re not necessarily it s a shiny object for roy moore it s a shiny object for his supporters to grab onto. moore, didn t he say but look. i get that. on that one you would have think it mattered more to her. we would have to know more about the circumstances whether he was just assigned to the case but there was no trial in front of him. that is a lot. if he just signed a piece of paper, that is testifying in front of someone you had a bad experience with. absolutely no question about that. but there is a bigger consideration. one is the monkeying with the timing, should this be left up