Connect with us

People in Roy Moore’s Home Town Say He Was Banned From the Mall for Trying to Pick Up Teen-Aged Girls

Published

on

More Than a Dozen Alabamians Say Roy Moore ‘Repeatedly Badgered Teen-Age Girls,’ Reporter Says 

Roy Moore has vigorously denied he has ever committed any sexual misbehavior while not wholly denying he dated teenaged girls when he was in his 30’s. In fact, in a Friday interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, designed to give him the opportunity to clear his name, Moore did the opposite: “I dated a lot of young ladies,” Moore said. He added that he “generally” did not date girls under 18, and added he always got their mother’s permission first.

Monday evening The New Yorker published a stunningly detailed report: “Locals Were Troubled by Roy Moore’s Interactions with Teen Girls at the Gadsden Mall.”

In his article, Charles Bethea reveals the many conversations he had with locals from Roy Moore’s home town. Using the Washington Post’s bombshell report last Thursday as his starting g point  Bethea notes that two of the four women who went on the record to say Moore pursued them “say that they first met Moore at the Gadsden Mall,” and notes that “the Post reports that several other women who used to work there remembered Moore’s frequent presence—’usually alone’ and ‘well-dressed in slacks and a button-down shirt.'”

And despite many local Alabamians who spoke with CNN and MSNBC over the past few days insisting that Moore is innocent until proven guilty and insisting that if he had done anything inappropriate with teen girls people would have known, it turns out they did. Or at least they say they heard.

“This past weekend, I spoke or messaged with more than a dozen people—including a major political figure in the state—who told me that they had heard, over the years, that Moore had been banned from the mall because he repeatedly badgered teen-age girls,” Bethea writes in The New Yorker.

“These people include five members of the local legal community, two cops who worked in the town, several people who hung out at the mall in the early eighties, and a number of former mall employees,” he adds.

And there’s plenty more. Some excerpts:

“Sources tell me Moore was actually banned from the Gadsden Mall and the YMCA for his inappropriate behavior of soliciting sex from young girls,” the independent Alabama journalist Glynn Wilson wrote on his Web site on Sunday.

 

Teresa Jones, a deputy district attorney for Etowah County in the early eighties, told CNN last week that “it was common knowledge that Roy dated high-school girls.” Jones told me that she couldn’t confirm the alleged mall banning, but said, “It’s a rumor I’ve heard for years.”

59-year old Greg Legat worked at the mall from 1981-1985. 

Legat says that he saw Moore there a few times, even though his understanding then was that he had already been banned. “It started around 1979, I think,” Legat said. “I know the ban was still in place when I got there.” Legat recalled a Gadsden police officer named J. D. Thomas, now retired, who worked security at the mall. “J. D. was a fixture there, when I was working at the store,” Legat said. “He really looked after the kids there. He was a good guy. J. D. told me, ‘If you see Roy, let me know. He’s banned from the mall.’ ” Legat recalled Thomas telling him, “If you see Moore here, tell me. I’ll take care of him.’ ”

That former police officer, J.D. Thomas, “declined to discuss the existence of a ban on Moore at the Gadsden Mall.”

“I don’t have anything to say about that,” he said.

Two Gadsen police officers “I spoke to this weekend,” Bethea writes, “both of whom asked to remain unnamed, told me that they have long heard stories about Moore and the mall.”

“The general knowledge at the time when I moved here was that this guy is a lawyer cruising the mall for high-school dates,” one of the officers said.

To all those folks who insisted that if there was something going on with Roy Moore, people would have heard about it before now.

Some did.

And yet that apparently didn’t stop Roy Moore.

Until now.

And that’s why we have a free press.

To comment on this article and other NCRM content, visit our Facebook page.

If you find NCRM valuable, would you please consider making a donation to support our independent journalism?

 

 

 

 

 

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Alleged Trump Note to Jeffrey Epstein Quotes Maurice Sendak Children’s Book

Published

41 minutes ago

on

September 8, 2025

By

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee have released the note attributed to President Donald Trump that appears in sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s 50th birthday book from 2003. The opening line is a quote from a children’s book by beloved author Maurice Sendak.

On Monday, the Epstein estate released a number of documents and files to the House Oversight Committee. While the bulk of the documents the committee received is currently unknown to the public, the official X account (formerly Twitter) of the Oversight Dems released a copy of the note.

Though the note had not been publicly seen until Monday, earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal reported that its journalists had seen the letter in a book compiled by Epstein’s friends for his 50th birthday. The note features a drawing of a young female form with what appears to be Trump’s signature at the bottom. It depicts a fictional conversation between the author—identified only as “Donald”—and Epstein, opening with a line from a “voice over.”

“There must be more to life than having everything,” the voice over says.

READ MORE: ‘He’s So Frustrated’: Johnson Defends Trump Over Explosive Epstein Birthday Letter

That line comes from Higglety Pigglety Pop by Sendak. The 1967 book is about Sendak’s pet dog Jennie going on adventures. The link to the book—which has also been adapted into an operetta in 1999—was first surfaced on Bluesky by journalist Ben Collins.

Has anybody noted that the first line in this is from the Maurice Sendak children's book Higglety Pigglety Pop?

— Tim Onion (@bencollins.bsky.social) 2025-09-08T19:31:32.083Z

This is not the only time Maurice Sendak has been linked with Donald Trump. In 1993, Sendak wrote the picture book We Are All in the Dumps with Jack and Guy, which adapted two nursery rhymes. The book addresses the AIDS crisis and homelessness as well as other news of the day; though intended for children, the depth of the artwork means that adults can find much to enjoy as well. One page features an illustration of homeless children outside of Trump Tower. The children say “Lost!”, “Tricked,” “Trumped,” and “Dumped!” as a concerned moon looks on.

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

CORRUPTION

Despite Jeffrey Epstein ‘Hoax’ Comments, Speaker Claims Trump ‘Wants Everything To Come Out’

Published

2 hours ago

on

September 8, 2025

By

In an attempt to walk back his previous claim that President Donald Trump had been an FBI informant in the case against sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) said that Trump wants to see all the files released. This runs counter to many statements from Trump calling the files’ release “foolish” and that the files themselves are a “hoax.”

On Friday, video of Johnson telling CNN’s Manu Raju that Trump had been an FBI informant in the Epstein case went viral. Over the weekend, Johnson’s office released a statement clarifying that he meant Trump “was the only one more than a decade ago willing to help prosecutors expose Epstein for being a disgusting child predator.”

In a new video, Raju asks Johnson again about the claim. Though Johnson said he didn’t know if he “used the right terminology,” the fact that Trump was willing to assist prosecutors and had previously ejected Epstein from Mar-a-Lago was “common knowledge.” Raju asked if Trump had been “asked to wear a wire,” but Johnson said he had no knowledge of that, only that Trump “was helpful in trying to get Epstein for law enforcement.”

READ MORE: Trump Launches Bizarre Epstein Files ‘Scam’ Rant When Asked About Russiagate

“The President and I have talked about the Epstein evils many times. He’s disgusted by it as everybody else. He has long had a history of acknowledging that, and he has said repeatedly he wants everything to come out, all credible information, everything for the American public to decide,” Johnson added.

Despite Johnson’s statement, Trump has had varied reactions to the Epstein files. While many in his orbit said his administration would release the Epstein files in full during his 2024 campaign, Trump himself was less keen on the idea, according to Time. While Trump suggested he may release the files, he also warned of inaccuracies in the data.

In a June 2, 2004 appearance on Fox & Friends, Trump said, “I guess I would [declassify the Epstein files. I think that less so, because you don’t know—you don’t want to  affect people’s lives if there’s phony stuff in there, because there’s a lot of phony stuff in that whole world. But I think I would.”  A few months later, Trump told Lex Fridman that he’d “certainly take a look” at releasing the client list.

On the other hand, Vice President JD Vance, during the campaign told comedian and podcaster Theo Von, “Seriously, we need to release the Epstein list. That is an important thing.” FBI Director Kash Patel also repeatedly called for “ALL of it to be released” during the campaign. Former advisor Elon Musk called for Trump to beat former Vice President Kamala Harris, because if he won “that Epstein client list is going to become public. And some of those billionaires behind Kamala are terrified of that outcome.”

Trump’s own son also demanded the release of the client list during the campaign.

“Everyone knows Bill Clinton was on Jeffrey Epstein’s plane and island a lot. Literally no one is at all surprised that he’s all over the release. What we want to know is ALL THE OTHER NAMES that the government has been hiding & running cover for. That will actually be revealing!” Donald Trump Jr. wrote on X (formerly Twitter) in January 2024.

But after Trump’s election, his administration released a portion of the Epstein files—though most of the files released had already been publicly available. Trump had also dismissed calls from fellow Republicans to release the rest of the files.

“Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this ‘bullsh*t,’ hook, line, and sinker,” he wrote on Truth Social this July.

Around the same time, he called Republicans still interested in the Epstein files “former supporters” who had been “duped by the Democrats.”

On Monday, Politico reported that the House Oversight Committee had received additional files from the Epstein estate. The committee is led by James Comer (R-Ky.). It is yet unclear what from these latest files will be released publicly and when.

Comer’s fellow Kentucky Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie, has been behind a push to compel the Department of Justice to release all information on Epstein publicly. Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Ca.) say they have the votes to force the DOJ to release the information.

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

CORRUPTION

Sotomayor Slams SCOTUS Over Ruling ‘Declaring All Latinos Fair Game to Be Seized’ by ICE

Published

5 hours ago

on

September 8, 2025

By

Justice Sonia Sotomayor had harsh words for the Supreme Court in her dissent in a ruling allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to continue to arrest people based on profiling Latinos working low-wage jobs.

Monday morning, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an emergency decision in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo. The case concerns “Operation At Large,” which deployed ICE agents in the Los Angeles area to car washes, bus stops, farms and other locations believed to be frequented by Latino people who may or may not be undocumented immigrants. On July 11, the Central District Court of California ruled that ICE had to stop Operation At Large until appeals in the case could be heard.

The Court’s ruling contained no official explanation for the ruling, however Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence. In his concurrence, Kavanaugh said the law allowed ICE to “‘briefly detain’ an individual ‘for questioning’” if they have “a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts, that the person being questioned . . . is an alien illegally in the United States.”

READ MORE: Loyalty Litmus Test? Trump Allies Quietly Prep SCOTUS Short List

Operation At Large, he said, represented “reasonable suspicion” to detain someone on the following factors: “(i) presence at particular locations such as bus stops, car washes, day laborer pickup sites, agricultural sites, and the like; (ii) the type of work one does; (iii) speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; and (iv) apparent race or ethnicity.”

He added that “apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion” but could be a “‘relevant factor,” and that if someone detained by ICE turned out to be a citizen, they would be “free to go after the brief encounter.”

Sotomayor disagreed that this is what was happening, citing what had happened to other citizens. Jason Gavidia worked at a Los Angeles tow yard that ICE stopped at. Agents repeatedly asked if he was a citizen. They then took his phone, pushed him against a metal fence, twisted his arm, and took away his identification, according to Sotomayor’s dissent.

“Other Operation At Large encounters have included even more force and even fewer questions. For example, agents pulled up in four unmarked cars to a bus stop in Pasadena; ‘the doors opened and men in masks with guns started running at’ three Latino men who were having their morning coffee, waiting to be picked up for work,” she wrote.

“In Glendale, nearly a dozen masked agents with guns ‘jumped out of . . . cars’ at a Home Depot, and began ‘chasing’ and ‘tackl[ing]’ Latino day laborers without ‘identify[ing] themselves as ICE or police, ask[ing] questions, or say[ing] anything else.’ In downtown Los Angeles, agents ‘jumped out of a van, rushed up to [a tamale vendor], surrounded him, and handled him violently,’ all ‘[w]ithout asking . . . any questions.'”

Sotomayor concluded that Operation At Large and the Court’s decision “all but declared that all Latinos, U. S. citizens or not, who work low wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction.”

She also condemned the court for not issuing an explanation beyond the concurrence. She alleged that the Court had been eager to “circumvent the ordinary appellate process” when it comes to President Donald Trump and his administration.

“Some situations simply cry out for an explanation, such as when the Government’s conduct flagrantly violates the law,” Sotomayor wrote, adding that Operation At Large and the Court’s ruling clearly violates the Bill of Rights.

“The Fourth Amendment protects every individual’s constitutional right to be ‘free from arbitrary interference by law officers.’ After today, that may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little. Because this is unconscionably irreconcilable with our Nation’s constitutional guarantees, I dissent,” she wrote.

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.