I'm sure my readers are familiar with the sexual harassment allegations against former Judge Roy Moore, a Republican Senatorial candidate in Alabama. Let me admit at once that I don't know whether or not they're true . . . but the way in which they've suddenly surfaced, decades after the alleged events, gives me pause.
The passage of time is the biggest single barrier to credibility. The alleged incidents occurred plus-or-minus 40 years ago - yet we haven't heard a peep about them out of the accusers until Judge Moore became the Republican candidate for Senate. Why not? The Judge has been a prominent and politically polarizing figure for many years, including having been removed from office, twice, because of his insistence on following biblical moral norms rather than the law of the land. Surely, if he was so hot on biblical morals, some of his accusers would have called him a hypocrite long before now? Yet, they didn't. Why not then? Why now? Your guess is as good as mine . . . but mine is that both the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party establishment - the swamp, in other words - are determined not to allow such a maverick into Senatorial ranks. Why, they couldn't predict, much less control, what he might say or do! That's simply unacceptable! Let's knock him out of the running before the election, by fair means or foul, in order to avoid such a disaster!
What's more, the accusers did not come forward of their own accord. They were contacted by the Washington Post, which wholeheartedly disapproves of President Trump, Roy Moore, and everyone else of their ilk. The newspaper, by its own admission, spent weeks hunting down potential accusers and "convincing" them to come forward. I find that highly suspicious, too. If the accusers were so hot and bothered about what had allegedly been done to them, why did they not come forward earlier? Why wait until outside pressure was applied?
What's more, the substance of the allegations themselves is ludicrous. There is literally not one single allegation of inappropriate sexual contact. The most that occurred, according to the accusers themselves, is a kiss or two. What's inappropriate about that? Please tell me. I really want to know - and don't, for the love of Mike, tell me that a kiss between a thirty-something man and a teen-something woman is inappropriate in and of itself. In that case, you may as well convict half of Congress and the Senate of the same crime, right now - not to mention former President Clinton too! (Of course, it wouldn't help to accuse Congress or the Senate; they've exempted themselves from most sexual harassment statutes. One wonders why they found that necessary?)
Karl Denninger puts it in perspective.
If there is proof that Moore is guilty of soliciting a 14 year old (for "dates" or anything else) who he either knew or had reason to know was 14 at the time then he has no business in Congress or anywhere else. But the evidence does not support that. Let's go through it.
There is one actionable allegation from a person with credibility problems. The other allegations are that an adult asked other persons of the legal [age] of consent to go on date(s), in fact asked their parents even though not legally required to do so for consent and received same, that the other party consented to said date(s) as well and the worst "behavior" exhibited during such dates were some number of...... kisses.
I repeat: I have yet to read any allegation of force, coercion, abuse of an unequal power relationship, sexual harassment, unwanted touching, attempted sex whether consensual or not (of any sort, such as with Herr Clinton and his stinky cigars) and unlike so-called "men" today the so-called accused asked the parents of the young women if it was ok to date their daughter before doing so.
Now if you have an issue with him being 30ish at the time, well, then you do. I get that, but such is neither illegal or immoral. I remind you that the age of sexual consent in Alabama was (and is) 16, and the age of consent to drink in Alabama at the time was 19. Therefore, if 16, 17, 18, or 19 then she was a "teen", but perfectly legal and, if whoever "she" was was 19 then it was legal for her to drink too.
Despite this even the accusers admit that said "terrible cad" not only asked for his dates' parents blessing (which he had no requirement to do) and received it, and despite alleged consensual alcohol consumption (by a legal adult) his "horrible conduct" included such things as playing a guitar and singing, with the worst of said "conduct" being a kiss, probably of the "goodnight" variety.
If you are going to hang a man politically who by admission of his accusers is more honorable than 99.9% of the men in the nation today, who I remind you believe there is no requirement in honor or otherwise to ask a young woman's parents if it is ok to date their daughter say much less **** her brains out and then the worst conduct you can accuse him of is a goodnight kiss you're certifiably insane.
There's more at the link. It's hard to argue with logic like that, isn't it?
Of course, "logic" has little to do with the current brouhaha. It's all about "feelings" and "perceptions" and "appearances" and emotions and patriarchy and oppression and blah blah blah. Facts are just minor obstacles, speedbumps in the way of convicting Roy Moore in the court of public opinion - and, therefore, in the mind of the Alabama electorate. That, in my opinion, is the real reason for this whole mess.
I repeat: I don't know whether the allegations against Roy Moore are true or false. Nevertheless, the way in which his accusers have chosen this, of all times, to come forward, stinks to high heaven of political opportunism, particularly given the fact that they could have done so at any time in the past four decades. The fact that some choose to believe their allegations, despite no evidence whatsoever to corroborate them, is a sign of the current moral and ethical sickness of our society.
I'm forced to conclude that political operators are capitalizing on what's been called the "Weinstein Effect", and are using it as a tool to damage Roy Moore (and presumably, in the near future, other political opponents). Unless and until hard evidence, usable in court, is presented against Roy Moore, I shall continue to believe that, rather than the allegations against him.
Peter
15 comments:
I refuse to listen to witches.
If there was crime/is a crime, NOTIFY THE POLICE. Wait 40 years and I gaurantee I care as much about the allleged crime as you did. Give me 40 years to give a crap.
meme at 'gorgesgrouse' from mark twain about the ability of 'journalists' to destroy a man's honor.
saw an alleged victim.
her tears seemed real, so either she is mentally unstable or she is being blackmailed and forced to make accusations.
truly something is rotten, and stinks to high heaven, in denmark.
Moore wasn't my first choice (or tenth) as a replacement for Jeff Sessions, but when The Swamp endorsed his opponent, he got my vote. The timing of these "revelations" is pegging my BS meter so hard that the needle is bending!
Stefan Molyneux did a good analysis, providing good benchmarks on how to analyze allegations like these. IIRC, the benchmarks include:
time btw event and public announcement;
character/credibility of accuser;
credibility of media sources;
discussion of event after the fact with friends/family;
timing of announcement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqiGBFvBtlQ
I cannot help but note that the left has had great success with similar tactics in removing at least two major thorns in their side in recent memory.
Both Bill O'Reilly and Eric Bolling were removed from positions of influence in conservative media based on allegations of impropriety.
Now I do not condone abuse of power or physical assault upon anyone, but I defy any adult male to state categorically that they never in their younger days did anything ill advised towards some object of their affections.
And then there is this double standard. The left always jumps on such as this when it serves their purpose while turning a blind eye for years when it's one of their darlings such as Harvey Weinstein or Bill Clinton, both guilty of many acts of abuse of power for sexual gratification with subordinates.
Peter, Roy Moore was also accused of sexual assault (forcible groping, trying to force a girl's face into his crotch):
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/13/politics/gloria-allred-roy-moore-alabama/index.html
I don't know if he is guilty or not, but given his use of religion to get political power for himself, I don't find it unlikely at all.
Any sworn statements to law enforcement yet? Probably not, cuz that would possibly make them subject to prosecution for making false statements.
Lying in a news conference? No penalties for that.
A lot of vested interests want Moore gone, and I expect slander is the easiest way to achieve their goal. No way to prove anything, and no ramifications until after the vote is counted.
Not seeing a down side for a complete fabrication or for the fabricators, while it is a no-win for the candidate.
Conclusion: I go with 5% chance allegations are accurate, 95% chance they are fabricated.
Anonymous at 11:00AM,
I would put more credibility to that person's complaint if that person was not associated with the hatchetwoman Gloria Allred.
Gloria's involvement in this whole brou-ha-ha was the 'jump-the-shark' moment, pushing credibility from 'this may, may have some, repeat, some validity' to the 'Oh, hell no, Bullscat' level.
When will the Dems or Congress demonize Teddy Kennedy for doing ten times worse during the same time period, or Clinton, or well, most of those sick twisted asses who are our 'senior' politicians?
This is a cheap attack, and so far the citizens of Alabama recognize it as such.
And an analysis of the signature from the latest accuser's yearbook is already calling the signature a forgery. And who signs a yearbook in December? mine always came out shortly before the school year ended in May. And pretty much never left my bedroom after that - in fact all 4 of them are still in my old room at my parent's house.
Not to mention that about the only people who most will ask to sign yearbooks are classmates, favcrite teachers, and fellow students from other years. And you generally do it during the first few days after the yearbooks arrive.
Look harder at the woman who claimed that he 'made her touch his (semi-clothed) penis.'
Three divorces, which are a signal. Take that together with "product of a broken home," and the fact that in HER story, Moore did something that none of the OTHER stories told. I suspect that this poor woman's father was an abuser, and performed those acts on her.
As to the Allred client: pure bullshit.
Hey Peter;
And as I recall, at least one of the accusers was working for the Hillary campaign, this strikes me as rank political opportunism
And none of the media or anyone else mentions the fact that Alabama isn't Louisiana. The man is innocent until proven guilty. The Left has changed that criterion for justice, just as they have changed so many other aspects of our culture and our legal system (like progressive judges legislating from the bench).
Think of Herman Cain, Anita Hill's attempt to prevent Clarence Thomas from being appointed to the Supreme Court, etc., etc. The Left wields character assassination like a broadsword, and has successfully damned and damaged far too many good people. The originators of such claims - and those who help swing the sword (like the media) - should suffer dire consequences, perhaps imprisonment, if and when the claims are found to be false. To destroy the reputation of a good man or woman, which often remains damaged, even if acquitted of any misbehavior, is a vile, filthy thing to do to a person.
Yet, the Right does not play the game of the Left. The Right doesn't make claims about Obama's sexual orientation, or why some people who knew Obama years ago sometimes refer to him as "Bath house Barry". Sometimes, though, turnabout does _indeed_ seem like fair play.
A few things come to mind: first, as pointed out my many, the alleged offense happened 40 years ago. I can, in theory, understand that the social climate has changed in 40 years which woudl allow discussions and reveals now that would not have been "usual" then, but over 40 years there was ample time for this to surface, even if only in small quantities. If he was/is as bad as the WaPo claims, keeping it under wraps over four decades is a Consipracy of the First Order and all involved are supremely qualified to run the CIA or the Trilateral Commission.
Second, the WaPo. It's fingerprints are all over this, and as a filthy, far-left commie rag, I'm immediately suspect of anything it publishes, on grounds of journalistic accuracy and pollitical corruption of journailistic practice (which comes from me being that rarest of rareties, a native Washingtonian, and having several instances of very direct involvement with the WaPo's inaccuracies and distortions).
Third, we're in the opening phase of a revolution, albeit so far a quiet one, and Moore is on The Wrong Side according to the Powers That Be which, to me, is enough reason to send him to D.C. for one term. That'll give Alabamians 6 years to locate and present a worthy replacement (although, given his most recent performance, Jeff Sessions as an example does not bode well for the political intelligence of Alabamians, but Senator and AG are two quite different positions).
And, fourth - and perhaps most important - if The Left can successfully sink Moore with 40-year-old allegations, accusations and insinuations from marginal characters and random suspects then that will become the default for every single political campaign in the United States, from dogcatcher in Podunk to the Presidency, until The People decide it isn't and the revolution goes hot. For it to be any other way is to succumb to The Left's choice for candidates being the only choice offered.
Frankly, I don't care whether he's guilty or not. The fact that--as you stated--he was removed from office twice for failing to follow the law of the land--for thinking his opinion, and therefore he himself, is above the law--is sufficient to tell me that he has no place in law, whether judging it or writing it.
Post a Comment