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.