Posted on 11/14/2017 9:54:35 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Was a 14-year-old girl molested by Alabama Senate Republican candidate Roy Moore, or is she lying? It’s a yes-or-no question.
Was a 16-year-old girl sexually assaulted by Moore, or is she lying? Again, it’s a yes-or-no question.
Finally, do you believe that there are conditions under which a child molester should sit in the United States Senate? Again, this question is binary.
Yet many conservatives seem to be seeking a third answer to all three of these questions, mostly to avoid giving straight answers.
Let’s begin with the first question: Did Roy Moore molest a 14-year-old girl? Did he meet her at an Alabama courthouse, get her phone number, pick her up from her mother’s home, and drive her to his own, proceed to undress her and touch her sexually, then force her to touch him? Or was this all made up?
Moore says it’s all made up; the alleged victim, Leigh Corfman, says it happened. So, here’s what we know. We know that Corfman and her mother were at the courthouse at the time in question; we know that Corfman apparently has told others over the years about the incident; we know that she didn’t want to talk about the experience publicly but was convinced to do so by the Washington Post; we know that three other women have come forward stating to the Post that Moore attempted to date them when they were between the ages of 16 (the age of legal consent in Alabama) and 18; we know that a former Moore colleague said it was common knowledge that Moore liked to date high-school girls when he was in his 30s; we know that Corfman says she voted for President Trump.
We also know that Moore has denied the allegations; we know that Moore says he didn’t “generally” date teenagers when he was in his 30s, adding, “I’m not going to dispute anything, but I don’t remember anything like that”; he has threatened to sue the Washington Post for running the story; he claims he “never talked to or had any contact” with Corfman. We also know that these claims surfaced only 30 days from a heavily publicized election.
You get to decide whether Corfman’s claims are credible, or whether Moore’s denials are. Or you can say that you don’t have enough evidence to make a judgment — which is making a default judgment against the credibility of claims as they currently stand.
Now, the second question: Did Roy Moore sexually assault a 16-year-old girl named Beverly Young Nelson in 1977? Here’s what we know. We know that Nelson claims to have worked at a restaurant and met Moore there; we know that he signed her yearbook; we know that she quit the restaurant; we know that she claims he brought her into his car and then groped her breasts and grabbed her by the neck, attempting to force her head down into his crotch; we know that she, too, claims to have supported Trump.
We also know that Moore denies the allegations and says that the alleged victim’s lawyer, Gloria Allred, is a publicity hound.
Now, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the claims against Moore are credible. (I believe they are, for the record.) Let’s ask the final question: Does it matter enough that Roy Moore has been credibly accused of child molestation for him to possibly lose his Senate seat to a Democrat?
A few conservatives say yes: the National Review editorial board, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.,), Senator Mike Lee (R., Utah), Senator Cory Gardner (R., Colo.), and some others. But the more common response seems to be no: Other considerations take precedence over Moore’s alleged crimes.
This argument takes three specific forms.
The first argument: Moore hasn’t been convicted of anything, and due process requires us to consider him innocent until proven guilty. This argument is empty, because our decision to vote for or against a particular candidate doesn’t require due process — Hillary Clinton wasn’t convicted of anything, either, except in the minds of the public. Due process determines whether you go to jail. The public determines whether it thinks politicians ought to be handed power.
The second argument is supposedly pragmatic: Democrats routinely pooh-pooh the crimes and misdeeds of their own candidates, so Republicans would be at a systemic disadvantage if they were to clean their own slate. But this, again, supports the notion that the people can’t be trusted — that the people will overlook crimes in order to get what they want. More commonly, scandal-ridden candidates end up on the outs with voters. Just ask Hillary.
Finally, there’s the third argument, which is the most honest and also the most morally horrifying: David Horowitz’s argument that Democrats are so disgusting that even if Moore did it, he wouldn’t care, because the Democrats must be stopped. This binary thinking would justify a vote for anyone who votes the right way on legislation; President Trump could have literally shot someone on Fifth Avenue, and Horowitz would have supported him. In this view, character doesn’t matter at all and we aren’t destroying the social fabric of the country when we prize policy outcomes over basic decency. In fact, the Horowitz angle holds that basic decency can be ensured only by desired policy outcomes: All that matters is politics.
This argument goes too far. If we’re really at the point in American politics where political opposition requires electing credibly accused child molesters, then we ought to put down ballots and pick up guns. Any evil so grave that we must elect sexual abusers to stop it is an evil that merits a violent response.
How will Republicans decide on Roy Moore? Perhaps they’ll convince themselves that Moore is innocent; perhaps they’ll convince themselves that the ends justify the means. Or perhaps they’ll make an objective judgment about the allegations against Moore and remind themselves that character still matters in life and even in politics.
I pray for the latter — and for a write-in candidacy for Jeff Sessions, too.
AMERICA PRAYER VIGIL
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3604518/posts
Not for nothing, but I do believe it is possible to get phone records that far back.
The real question is not about who should be crucified in the court of public opinion.
The real question is who has repented. All have sinned. Nobody in the Senate or in the media has the glory belonging to God.
If Judge Roy Moore or anyone else as much as looked at a woman with lust forty years ago, they sinned according to what God tells us.
Anyone who has repented in their heart and trusts in The Lord Jesus is innocent of past wrongdoings.
Swamp creatures are revealing themselves by the dozens in their response to Roy Moore’s situation. It always amazes me that the most abundant substance in Washington is fake moral outrage on the part of the transparently depraved residents of the swamp. Trump made a comment about the swamp a few months ago which is being illustrated now - “the swamp is really a sewer”.
We’re back to the allegations are enough to convict. But Judge Moore needs to fight back, we can’t save him if he won’t save himself.
This statement here is pure BS, and outs Shaprio as a faux-servative fraud!
Per the FBI, there was PROOF of Hillary’s maleficence, but Comey didn’t have the balls to do anything about it.
There is ZERO proof against Moore... only speculation and well choreographed smears and lies.
[The first argument: Moore hasn’t been convicted of anything, and due process requires us to consider him innocent until proven guilty. This argument is empty, because our decision to vote for or against a particular candidate doesn’t require due process — Hillary Clinton wasn’t convicted of anything, either, except in the minds of the public. Due process determines whether you go to jail. The public determines whether it thinks politicians ought to be handed power.]
Even though the molestation and jail-bait claims are probably bogus, the left did succeed in bringing out the fact that Moore apparently dated teenagers when he was in his thirties. There was nothing illegal about it, but is adds an "eeeeew factor" to his candidacy that is likely to stick.
Until Bannon and conservatives start playing as dirty as McConnell,
this is what u end up with.
As to “...we know he signed her yearbook....”, I have seen a thread or two this morning, which seem to indicate that he did not sign her yearbook.
I think this “fact” has yet to be proven, which could take apart the entire story of that accuser.
This author is a lost ball in high weeds. Everything he says is a$$ backwards. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything. According to him every candidate should drop out if anyone accuses them of anything ... because they may be guilty.
The burden of proof is on the accusers and not Roy Moore.
Did Doug Jones molest a 13 year old soccer girl?
Did Mitch McConnell molest a 14 year old babysitter?
The people want answers, not denials.
Not for extension phones (as we used to call them.)
RE: There is ZERO proof against Moore... only speculation and well choreographed smears and lies.
I would really like to give Moore the benefit of the doubt.
But his response to Hannity’s questions were anything but assuring...
Just read this:
“I’m not going to dispute anything, but I don’t remember anything like that”
Why not just say — I DISPUTE IT. IT DID NOT HAPPEN. PERIOD.
And here is the giveaway — he said he “didn’t “generally” date teenagers when he was in his 30s,”
To me, that means he did. If the girls were 17 and the age of consent in Alabama is 16, then there’s nothing illegal in what he did. The only question then is — did anything untoward happen during the “date”.
The mother said she did NOT have a phone in her bedroom.
A question Shapiro fails to include is....”Do we know the swamp is capable of launching a fake character assassination exercise?”
For me, the answer is YES. Examine the motives and you will find your answer.
The best answer is to leave this to the voters of Alabama who know Judge Moore the best.
To repent, you have to first confess. Moore hasn’t done this.
Yet you have a point that Moore has led a legally blameless life for 35 years, with no hint of impropriety.
“perhaps they’ll make an objective judgment about the allegations against Moore and remind themselves that character still matters in life and even in politics. “
This is the reason to vote FOR Moore.
After spending hundreds of thousands of dollars examining his life the worse credible claim his enemies can find is that he flirted with young, but legal, women.
There is nearly an infinite number of mistakes a person can make in their life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.