(Boston Ma 10/10/15) Attorney Gloria Allred makes a brief statement on the status of the deposition involving Bill Cosby, Saturday, October 10, 2015, at the Omni Hotel in downtown Boston. Herald Photo by Jim Michaud

I said it a few days ago. Gloria Allred’s inclusion into the Roy Moore ordeal only muddies the water. In fact, I’d say she’s actually helping Moore at this point (who most definitely will not make any attempt to help himself).

Allred has a history of piling on in situations like this with additional accusations, most of which seem to begin and end with a teary press conference, only for the accuser to never be heard from again.

Roy Moore’s lawyer seems to be the kind of guy you’d find sleeping on a park bench waiting for an ambulance to go by, but he did make one smart move by demanding the yearbook be turned over to a neutral party for analysis.

Why is this smart? Because we all know Allred would never do so and it casts doubt by default on the allegation.

Keep in mind, there’s no legal proceeding here and no reason to hoard evidence. If this is really about simply finding the truth, there’s no legitimate reason for the yearbook to not be turned over.  Sure enough, Gloria is refusing to play ball and was asked about the yearbook in several interviews yesterday.

Via lawandcrime.com

Among the several allegations made by women against Roy Moore, one characteristic that seemed to give Beverly Nelson‘s extra credibility was the physical proof she offered: a high school yearbook signed by Moore himself while Nelson was a student, the same day he allegedly assaulted her. Comparisons to more recent Moore signatures show a striking similarity, yet the Moore camp is claiming that it’s a fake. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer addressed this issue with Nelson’s attorney, Gloria Allred, on Wednesday, but Allred didn’t appear to want to talk about it.

“Can you say flatly that was not a forgery?” Blitzer asked.

Allred did not directly address the question, only saying that questions about the signature would be welcome at a Senate hearing.

“That is not a flat denial,” Blitzer pressed.

“All I’m saying is, we’re not denying, we’re not admitting, we’re not addressing, we will not be distracted,” Allred countered.


You aren’t denying it but you aren’t admitting it? Is it really that hard to say “No, this is not a forgery and my client is being 100% truthful?”

It gets weirder though. Later that evening on Don Lemon’s show, she avoided answering even the most basic questions. Props to Lemon for at least pushing her on it.

Via theblaze.com

“Did Judge Moore preside over her divorce?” Lemon asked. “Was this just filing of papers? Clear this up for us. How much involvement did she have involvement with him? What’s going on here?”

He was referring to a case that Moore’s lawyer brought up during a news conference that would dispute a claim by Beverly Young Nelson.

“We will answer any 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,” Allred responded.  “If they do not have that hearing, then we’ll go to plan B and I will say at that time what plan B is. So I’m not gonna comment on that at this time. I will talk about the yearbook.”…

…“Well, of course, there is no legal process except the one I am proposing which is essentially a political process combined with a legal process,” Allred responded.

“So then why can’t you say if he presided over her divorce case, Gloria,” Lemon pressed.

“Well I’m saying we’re not going to put out bread crumbs of pieces of evidence,” Allred deflected. “We have evidence that we have not revealed to the press, and we’re not going to reveal it, bread crumb by bread crumb. We will be happy to answer all questions and provide all evidence at the hearing, if there is one. We think that’s the way to do it.”

“OK, so what about the signature?” Lemon asked. “Roy Moore’s attorney denies Moore ever wrote in Beverly’s yearbook. Can you say definitively that this is his signature?”

“I think what they wanted was a handwriting expert to examine it and we are willing if there is a hearing that is conducted by the Senate to allow an independent expert to examine the signature in the yearbook,” she continued. “In addition, of course, that handwriting expert would compare it to exemplars of Mr. Moore’s handwriting, signature, at the time that he signed the yearbook. So we are certainly open to that, assuming there’s going to be a hearing.”

This is a red herring.

Why would there be a hearing within the next two weeks? Roy Moore isn’t in the Senate yet and he’s not under their oversight.

I’m not saying it’s not legally possible to subpoena him under some guise, but there’s little chance that happens. It’s not within the Senate’s normal purview to look into this at the committee level. Especially since there’d be no legal outcome for the Senate to recommend because of the statute of limitations. It just doesn’t make sense.

So what Allred is really saying is “we aren’t going to answer any questions or have any evidence examined unless we have this thing that is not going to happen and has no reason to happen.” Well, that’s convenient.

Who here thinks it’s a coincidence that her demands center around a Senate hearing, which would be like catnip for a media hound such as Allred? Show of hands?

Let me be clear. This allegation is one of many, several of which are very persuasive. Gloria Allred’s involvement doesn’t absolve Roy Moore of much of anything. In fact, I posted this morning, given the pattern we are seeing, that I could not vote for Roy Moore if I lived in Alabama.

But her dodging in these interviews is a reminder of exactly who Gloria Allred is and why anything she says should be thoroughly questioned and vetted. We’ll see where this specific allegation leads.