58

Roy Moore and Thirty-Eight Year Old Allegations

The Washington Post delivers a trade mark  eleventh hour hit piece on Roy Moore, the Republican candidate for Senate in Alabama:

 

Corfman, 53, who works as a customer service representative at a payday loan business, says she has voted for Republicans in the past three presidential elections, including for Donald Trump in 2016. She says she thought of confronting Moore personally for years, and almost came forward publicly during his first campaign for state Supreme Court in 2000, but decided against it. Her two children were still in school then and she worried about how it would affect them. She also was concerned that her background — three divorces and a messy financial history — might undermine her credibility.

“There is no one here that doesn’t know that I’m not an angel,” Corfman says, referring to her home town of Gadsden.

Corfman described her story consistently in six interviews with The Post. The Post confirmed that her mother attended a hearing at the courthouse in February 1979 through divorce records. Moore’s office was down the hall from the courtroom.

Neither Corfman nor any of the other women sought out The Post. While reporting a story in Alabama about supporters of Moore’s Senate campaign, a Post reporter heard that Moore allegedly had sought relationships with teenage girls. Over the ensuing three weeks, two Post reporters contacted and interviewed the four women. All were initially reluctant to speak publicly but chose to do so after multiple interviews, saying they thought it was important for people to know about their interactions with Moore. The women say they don’t know one another.

Go here to read the rest.  The only story that has mileage is the one with Corfman who was fourteen at the time.  I am skeptical.  I have followed Moore’s career for a very long time.  He has been controversial for his stances, and hated for them, not only by Democrats, but by the Republican establishment in Alabama for decades.  Every piece of dirt imaginable has been thrown at him, but never a hint of sexual scandal, until yesterday.  If there were even rumors that he was chasing underage girls, this would have been front page news long ago.  For my sins, I have been an attorney for 35 years and I have learned that the older an allegation is, the more skepticism is warranted.  The burden of proof is on the accuser, and that burden isn’t close to being met.  Just one example is the undisclosed fact of who put the Washington Post in contact with Corfman and the other women.  If this allegation were brought in court it wouldn’t survive a motion to dismiss drafted by a new attorney who graduated last in her class.  In politics however, evidence and allegations are often not on speaking terms.

 

Update 1: 

One of Moore’s accusers is a far left partisan, now trying to conceal that fact.  Go here to read about it.  You can toss on the ash heap the myth that all the accusers are apolitical people, reluctant to come forward.  I am shocked, shocked I tell you!

 

Share With Friends
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Donald R. McClarey

Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three and happily married for 35 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.

58 Comments

  1. First, I like the photo of Roy Moore withdrawing his sidearm and wearing a cowboy hat with the American flag in the background. I truly wish that that is the face of what is coming. It is high time liberals are put in their rightful place.

    Second, I disbelieve this whole story that Roy Moore sexually abused girls when they were teenagers. My reasons are not related to the actual circumstances surrounding these allegations but to my own personal experience.

    I do not discuss this hardly at all, but I was abused in that way when I was a teenager back in the early 70’s. The person who did it is now incapacitated and likely remembers nothing of what happened. Further, no one here needs to know any details beyond what I have stated. In fact, I have no desire to open old wounds which have been thoroughly discussed and laid to rest with my 12 Step sponsor and my priest. It’s over and way past time to move on.

    So if these women were really abused in a sexual manner long ago (in fact, decades and decades ago), then why are they now so willingly opening old wounds into which the news media and the popular pundits will liberally rub salt? In my view this isn’t worth any amount of money or vengeance. This is being done for one and only one reason – to smear a conservative Christian Republican candidate with the very sins that liberal progressive feminist Democrats want normalized, legalized and glorified for themselves. Democrats would do well to focus on repenting for the abominable perversions of popular liberals like Kevin Spacey and Harvey Weinstein and Bill Clinton, not to mention the booty-shaking of the likes of Beyonce and Miley Cyrus.

  2. So if these women were really abused in a sexual manner long ago (in fact, decades and decades ago), then why are they now so willingly opening old wounds

    They aren’t. The Post tracked them down. The principal accuser had no intention of going to the press.

    This is being done for one and only one reason – to smear a conservative Christian Republican candidate with the very sins that liberal progressive feminist Democrats want normalized, legalized and glorified for themselves.

    Only a naif would think the press doesn’t track these stories down more gleefully when a Republican is involved. Only a blind partisan would dismiss these allegations out of hand.

  3. If Roy Moore is fighting to put up the Ten Commandments, then how can anybody with a decent bone in their body dare to try to stop him? Fighting for Justice requires the Ten Commandments.
    Murder is the only crime that has no statute of limitations. Why do teachers have sovereign immunity from prosecution for sexual child abuse? In New York the statute of limitations was 90 days, but they give Roy Moore 35 years and counting? Repressed memory? This allegation did not come forth while he was recently running for office because the Democrats did not think Roy Moore was going to win.

  4. I like Moore from a distance, his brand of constitutionalism is mostly on the mark if heretical to the judicial establishment. But let the evidence play out. If it can be corroborated reliably, he should step down. If it can’t, it should be disregarded.

  5. The smart money says you check their bank statements and those of their first degree relatives, you’ll find some recent cash infusions from shell companies.

    The conduct of Addison Mitchell McConnell in all this is radically unsurprising. The Capitol Hill nexus just runs the tape from their last failure again and again.

  6. Only a blind partisan would dismiss these allegations out of hand.

    It’s refers to an ‘event’ which supposedly occurred in 1979, which cannot be corroborated unless there’s an antique girl’s diary lying around, which was timed by the Washington Post to do maximal injury a politician who has been under public scrutiny for 3 decades, and is credited to the sort of person most easily bought. I’ll pay it just as much mind as I do the latest banner headline in the National Enquirer.

  7. I believe NOTHING that the Democrat news media says.

    Unless, presumably, the accused is someone you don’t like. Because then, presumptions of innocence are thrown out the window.

    It’s certainly possible these allegations are untrue, and I don’t think an allegation of wrongdoing should disqualify someone, because that leads to all sorts of slippery slopes. But some of the mental contortions I’ve seen people go through to dismiss these particular allegations are staggering.

  8. I’m old enough to remember when Dan Rather (professional liar) and his staff (professional liars) typed, forged, and back-dated a letter to libel George W. Bush.

    I’m even old enough to remember that time in 1968 when professional liar Walter Cronkite told America its sons had lost the Vietnam War even though the US Army and USMC had destroyed the VC and ran out of South Vietnam the NVA.

    Imagine if the intelligentsia,the MSM lie factory, and the progressive aristocracy pilloried all gays and all Dem males over Kevin Spacey’s sex assaults on boy-children and Harvey Weinstein’s myriad sex assaults.

    Republicans are denied the presumption of innocence (“innocent until proven guilty”).

  9. But some of the mental contortions I’ve seen people go through to dismiss these particular allegations are staggering.

    What ‘mental contortions’?

  10. 30 years ago, a guy supposedly did something that would have any reasonable parent’s eyebrows going through the roof, with several teenage girls– and it doesn’t come up until reporters start asking for reports?

    Contrast with the Hollywood guys, where not only is there evidence, including of a cover-up, but it’s an “everyone knew” thing.

  11. But some of the mental contortions I’ve seen people go through to dismiss these particular allegations are staggering.

    What ‘mental contortions’?

  12. I’ll just quote Jim Geraghty.

    If you believe Moore’s denials, you have to believe that four of these women, with no evidence that they know each other or ever met each other, all decided to lie when the Washington Post showed up at their door, that they all spontaneously made up a story that they were able to recount in detail in multiple retellings to reporters over a period of weeks, and they all chose to make up similar stories about Moore’s sexual pursuit.

    The angry statement from Moore called the women’s claims “completely false” but so far, no one has been able to point to any contradictions, incongruence, or demonstrably false claims within their stories. For example, if events did not occur as they describe, did Moore know these women? Did he ever interact with them? Was he not in the time and place they described in their stories? Did he ever have an interaction with them that would provide a potential motive to make a false accusation against them? Did he ever rule against any of them, or a member if their families or a friend in his years as a judge? If a part of the accusers’ story does not check out, it changes the calculus of this story. But so far we just have a blanket denial with no further details.

    A variation of Occam’s Razor declares that the simplest explanation is the most likely one. You can either believe that Moore behaved in the way the women describe – accounting for any faults of memory in the forty or so years since then – or you can believe that they all chose, spontaneously, to partake in an elaborate conspiracy to destroy his reputation, an effort that they no doubt understood would lead to making enemies.

    I guess you can believe a Republican voter engaged in the conspiracy with the media to bring down a Republican. Go ahead. I’m just not going to join you in such fevered dreams.

  13. Paul, I interview four women who’ve crossed paths with you at some time. I write an article which stitches together interviews with all four, selectively extracting certain details to show a ‘pattern’. One of the four accuses your subject of something creepy which would have been a minor crime at the time. Ergo, the accusation of that one is demonstrated. I don’t think this is ace epistemology or forensics.

  14. Art, that doesn’t even remotely parallel what we’re talking about here.

    I’m describing precisely what’s up here. The concatenation of accusations is supposed to sustain the money shot, which is the woman who says Moore molested her when she was 14. The accusations are collated by the Post. The only common element is that they met Moore at one time (so they say) and he had an interest in them (so they say). Paul, there will be a string of such women in the life of any man who marries late in life. There’s nothing sinister about that. Since the man’s been married for over 30 years, their memory isn’t likely to be stellar and, in fact, shaded in ways which reflect a fundamentally emotional response to the meeting in question, Paul. (I’m taking it your sister wasn’t much of a pub crawler).

  15. Art, did you actually read the story? The independently verify that Corfman had some type of relationship with Moore.

    Paul, there will be a string of such women in the life of any man who marries late in life

    There aren’t usually a string of 14-16 year olds in the life of such men.

  16. 30 years ago, a guy supposedly did something that would have any reasonable parent’s eyebrows going through the roof, with several teenage girls– and it doesn’t come up until reporters start asking for reports?

    Foxfier, apparently the parents were cool with it. Or one of them at least.

    From the linked article:
    “Debbie Wesson Gibson says that she was 17 in the spring of 1981 when Moore spoke to her Etowah High School civics class about serving as the assistant district attorney. She says that when he asked her out, she asked her mother what she would say if she wanted to date a 34-year-old man. Gibson says her mother asked her who the man was, and when Gibson said “Roy Moore,” her mother said, “I’d say you were the luckiest girl in the world.””

  17. There aren’t usually a string of 14-16 year olds in the life of such men.

    Technical point, Paul. Also from the article:
    “The legal age of consent in Alabama, then and now, is 16.”

    That would mean that those relationships with women who were 16 and up was technically legal – so only those girls 14-15 would be of concern. Judging from the article, that would be 1 person. The other incidents would be legal.

  18. Art, did you actually read the story? The independently verify that Corfman had some type of relationship with Moore.

    They verify that the two of them were in the same place at the same time. He worked at the courthouse, Paul. So did I at that time of my life.

    There aren’t usually a string of 14-16 year olds in the life of such men.

    I saw what you did there.

  19. “Art, did you actually read the story? The independently verify that Corfman had some type of relationship with Moore.”
    Seems they maintained Corfman said she had some type of relationship maybe with a guy named Roy Moore.
    Do conservatives even care what gets written by National Review? I stopped reading them years ago. I think the RNC or DNC never much cared about Moore until he was a threat to have an influence beyond Alabama then they started sharpening the knives.

  20. Well, Roy Moore’s reputation has already been successfully smeared. I hope you all are happy because the damage has been done. We KNOW Democrats like Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein and Bill Clinton have a long history of sexual perversion and abuse successfully hidden and minimized by the liberal news media. But four women who come out with accusations against a Republican decades after the alleged events are supposed to be believed. And I care not that conservative NRO (anti-Trump as it is) feeds the allegations. The smear is done. Let’s see if the accusations are true. How many will recant when they are found to be false? And what can then be done to reverse the damage?

    I am no RINO lover myself. I find Republican hypocrisy as appalling as Trump’s one man circus show and twitter tweets. But waiting till now to bring out Roy Moore’s supposed sexual misconduct is done for one and only one reason – to get a baby murdering, sodomy sanctifying Democrat into office. Of course the question will now be asked: “Can I vote for a baby murdering, sodomy sanctifying Democrat when his opponent is a sex abusing pervert like Roy Moore?” Yup, that’ll be the inevitable question. My answer would be to vote 3rd party, but that’s not what people will do. They’ll vote Democrat. After all, it’s only reproductive rights and equal marriage rights. It’s not like the politician who supports those things committed sex abuse. Well done, folks, for increasing Democrat ascendancy. This whole thing makes me sick.

    And yes, I still say Roy Moore is innocent, NRO and the Democrats be damned.

  21. “Those of us who still actually remember what conservatism is do still read National Review, yes Ken.”

    There is nothing conservative about letting Hillary pack the courts.

  22. Those of us who still actually remember what conservatism is do still read National Review, yes Ken.

    Just about anyone Richard Lowry’s managed to recruit to write for the publication in the last 15 years is either (1) a capon or (2) writes bland and uninteresting pieces. As the years go on, their better contributors drip away for one reason or another. One abiding element is the managing editor, Jason Lee Steorts, a vapid character notable for having driven away Mark Steyn, one of the magazine’s most engaging contributors. I cannot help but note that the two most capable starboard opinion journalists to have emerged in the last 15 years or so (Megan McArdle and Ross Douthat) have had almost nothing to do with National Review. The one firecracker they employ is the odious Kevin Williamson. Things are even worse with Commentary, which is now a collecting pool of geriatrics. Its primary institutional purpose appears to be to provide employment to John Podhoretz.

    Whatever True Conservatism (TM) is or is not, one cannot help but notice that the interaction between opinion journalists, policy shops, and Republican politicians produces little other than stasis and failure. The most capable and accomplished officials are little emulated. Over a period of a dozen years, I’ve seen little or nothing examining why this has been.

  23. And yes, I still say Roy Moore is innocent, NRO and the Democrats be damned.

    Whether he’s innocent or not, the arguments employed to demonstrate his guilt are bad ones and the behavior of Messrs. Romney and McCain nothing short of disgusting. The conduct of these men (and the Bushes, pere et fils) leave on with a retrospective sense that they had occult shortcomings not perceived when they were at the top (not perceived by some of us willing to cast a ballot for them, if nothing else).

  24. There is nothing conservative about letting Hillary pack the courts.

    Good thing then this isn’t something they advocated. At any rate, we’re long off topic, although one senses that’s a feature and not a bug of current discourse.

  25. The Washington Compost began life as a Democrat Party house organ and has not deviated from that throughout its existence. Even Norman Schwartzkopf remarked in his book that one of his sisters, a lifelong DC area resident in her adult life, believed everything she read in the (Com)Post. I worked in The Swamp for six years. The nonsense in that so called newspaper was nauseating to any clear thinking conservative.

    National Review isn’t conservative. It’s a bunch of Never Trumpers and FWIW, Trump can send off tweets all he wants. NeverTrumpers give me a pain in the neck.

  26. Why Nobody Trusts The Media.

    Hey! None of the media rats had a problem with this “stuff” when Clinton ran for POTUS in 1992. It’s different because Moore has an “R” behind his name and many others with “R’s” behind their names hate Trump

    This 40 year-old “whatever” is at worst false witness and at least detraction; and it surfaces in time so that no GOP candidate can be on the ballot. Coincidence? [expletive deleted].

    The Bush dynasty and NeverTrumpers apparently prefer a democrat majority in Congress.

    I remember reading TNR for many years. That brand of conservatism gave us GHW Bush, eight years of Clinton, and Dubya = no child left behind, the Iraq War, massive added entitlements, the housing bubble and 2008 financial crash, and eight years of Obama. I think they would prefer Hillary in the WH. I think the conservative elites march hand-in-hand with the liberal elites.

    “Those of us who still actually remember what conservatism is do still read National Review, yes” And, if those guys had their way, “Jeb in 2016”, Hillary would be President. And, they’d be happy.

  27. “One abiding element is the managing editor, Jason Lee Steorts, a vapid character notable for having driven away Mark Steyn, one of the magazine’s most engaging contributors.”

    I believe that was over a mildly off-color remark Steyn made about Gays. I can’t remember if it was Steorts or some other editor that wrote that gay marriage was going to be a fact and we had to get used to it. Nothing conservative about that. That’s when I cancelled my subscription.

    All that aside, if Moore dated 16 and 17 year olds and it was legal, who cares. If he dated a 14 year old, that’s weird and one wonders where her parents were. My uncle started dating his first wife when she was 12 and he 22. Illegal even in the late 50’s. Her parents had no complaints but don’t know why not. My uncle is still married to his first wife after 45 years

    There should be some witnesses to the ladies claims and haven’t read the article so don’t know if its there. Or is it another Clarence Thomas?

  28. When I was first in the Navy at 19 or 20 years of age, I dated a 16 or 17 year old girl (I also operated a nuclear reactor in a sealed metal tube under the north Atlantic). Shall the purified and sanctified Pharisees among us condemn me as they do Roy Moore, or am I not important enough? Such is the current “orthodox conservative” tendency to declare:

    “If he isn’t as perfectly conservative and as perfectly free from sin as I, then I would rather have a baby murdering, sodomy sanctifying Democrat in office. In that way I can feel self-righteous and pious and clean because I did not accept a man on my side accused of crimes however unproven they were. I remain unsoiled and unstained.”

    The objective of such slander and calumny is obvious to all except the self-righteous and the sanctimonious.

    BTW, did not the prophet Isaiah call Cyrus of Persia the Lord’s Anointed – a pagan king with all his concubines and wives, many of whom I would wager to be what we today call underage?

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah+45&version=RSVCE

    I am NOT saying Roy Moore is the Lord’s Anointed. Hardly! Rather, I am saying that the alternative certainly isn’t and God’s ways are not our ways and it’s high time to trash can this false sense of sanctimony and piety which always leads to slander.

  29. Re:National Review. I subscribed for over 30 years. Their so-called stand on principles in the service of “never Trump”, as noted elsewhere here, would have led to the unmitigated disaster of a Hillary presidency had all conservatives followed it. That’s when my subscription ended. Conservative shouldn’t mean stupid.
    Re: Ancient allegations. Any trial lawyer or judge can tell stories most people would find amazing about the unreliability of “eyewitness testimony”, even of relatively recent events. People frequently think they see or hear something other than what they actually see or hear. In addition, human memory is extremely subject to deterioration, distortion and error, even if one actually sees what one thinks one sees. People frequently have recollections they sincerely believe are correct, to the point of easily being able to pass a well-administered polygraph examination, but which are proven by other objective evidence to be seriously flawed. Investigators take detailed statements from witnesses precisely to avoid the nearly inevitable failure or alteration of recollection over time. The older a recollection, the less reliable it is, no matter the person or the topic. This is why we have statutes of limitations, and why witnesses in court must be subject to cross-examination. In short, until these accusers have had their stories subjected to cross-examination, they are unworthy of belief. The same, by the way, goes for all the accusers of Weinstein, Spacey, etc., to the extent they have not been admitted by the accused.
    My general impression here is that something stinks about these stories. We need to know more about who these women are and what their motivations might be, and we need a chance to explore what a good cross-examiner would explore. Believing uncritically what any present-day newspaper reporter writes, not to mention what s/he says to defend a story s/he has written, is absurdly naive.

  30. I believe that was over a mildly off-color remark Steyn made about Gays. I can’t remember if it was Steorts or some other editor that wrote that gay marriage was going to be a fact and we had to get used to it. Nothing conservative about that. That’s when I cancelled my subscription.

    Steorts hit the ceiling when Steyn’s column included a brief discussion an old Dean Martin joke: Q “How do you make a fruit cordial?” A “Be nice to him” and executed one of his signature maneuvers, dumping a late-night commentary on the site denouncing Steyn. Steorts fundamentally emotional reaction was warped and bizarre. Richard Lowry has employed this twit for 13 years.

    The editor who wrote ‘suck it up’ about ‘gay’ ‘marriage’ was Kevin Williamson. The IRS 990 form has revealed that that character is paid in excess of $200,000 to write topical commentary for National Review. In 1985, top dollar for a syndicated columnist was about $60,000 a year. George Will, the most extensively syndicated columnist in the United States at the time, made 10x as much in speaking fees as he could have with his column. Given the changes in nominal compensation per worker in the intervening years, what Williamson is paid to write for a publication which has a subscriber base somewhat in excess of that of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is contextually similar to what was top dollar 30 years ago, even though the economy of journalism has imploded in the intervening years. I am not inclined to contribute or subscribe so Richard Lowry can run a patronage mill for his buds, particularly when the buds are repellent characters.

    A while back, Richard John Neuhas was asked why he referred to Union Theological Seminary, still in operation, as ‘defunct’. His reply was that by ‘defunct’ he meant ‘finished a course of life’, which, he maintained, applied to Union even though there was corporation there collecting revenue and paying salaries. By that standard, National Review is defunct, and sucking up philanthropic donations that might go to an enterprise that merited them.

  31. My first time on this site and it will certainly be the last. I have never read so much biased junk anywhere. This competes with FIX news.

  32. Frank, your remarks on National Review and on the
    ancient allegations are both spot-on. Couldn’t agree more.

    I only hope the majority of Alabama voters share your common
    sense.

  33. I’m old enough to remember when the Catholic Church was being accused of decades-old incidents of sexual abuse, nearly all of which turned out to be true. Fortunately, there’s no parallel here, huh?

  34. The overwhelming majority were true, and there was worse out of Ireland. But then, there’s no need to argue about whether people who have been abused could keep silent and hide their suffering for years. We know it’s true from countless examples.

    And nice pivot to the ad hominem.

    Interesting to see that Roy Moore

  35. “The overwhelming majority were true, and there was worse out of Ireland.”

    Completely false as to this country. It is always so convincing when people accuse others of wrongdoing decades later, especially, as was the case with many of the accused priests, the person accused is safely dead. In the case of Roy Moore he has been a public figure for decades and, surprise, suddenly these allegations are made a month out from a pivotal Senate election. Purely a coincidence I am sure, especially with one of his accusers being a rabidly partisan Democrat, who attempted to conceal that fact.

    Calling you an anti-Catholic troll is descriptive not ad hominem.

  36. As has already been noted, the article in WaPo itself explains that reporters heard rumors when covering the election this year and investigated.

    What does it matter if 95% of the accusations of sexual abuse against priests were false (which they weren’t)? If even 5% are true (a very low estimate), that’s scandal enough and provides enough examples of people not coming forward for decades.

    As for Ireland, it was in many ways worse, and Benedict himself even apologized officially for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sexual_abuse_scandal_in_Ireland

    Sorry, it was name-calling instead of an ad-hominem argument? My bad, but I’m glad to see your adherence to good Christian morality.

  37. “As has already been noted, the article in WaPo itself explains that reporters heard rumors when covering the election this year and investigated.”

    Oh what charming innocence! They heard rumors? Down at the local supermarket? Please. This is a partisan hit piece that the Washington Post is attempting to implement in order to allow the Democrats to steal a Senate seat they cannot win at the ballot box.

    “If even 5% are true (a very low estimate), that’s scandal enough and provides enough examples of people not coming forward for decades.”
    Oh there were certainly real and terrible cases, but the vast majority never complained until big money could be made by doing so.

    “Sorry, it was name-calling instead of an ad-hominem argument? My bad, but I’m glad to see your adherence to good Christian morality.”

    Actually it was neither, but rather an accurate description of someone who shows up on a Catholic website and introduces himself by a snide comment attempting to make political hay out of the abuse scandal.

  38. A person who prides himself on being the paragon of conservative orthodoxy accused me (elsewhere – not here at TAC) of being a one issue person because I think that the pro-abortion stance of Roy Moore’s opponent is WORSE than the content of the slander against Roy Moore – calumny that that person insists on disseminating and promoting because after all every unproven accusation against a politician not measuring up to his conservative principles must be given credence.

    I am sick and tired of these principled people who think 55+ million unborn babies are but one issue. And no, I believe in NOTHING the news media says about Roy Moore, and yes, I believe that perverts like George Takei, Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey and Bill Clinton are the ones to be stopped. They are members of the party that openly touts sexual perversion. That is who they are and what they are. But nooooooo……………we will ignore the obvious evil and believe everything said against Roy Moore because we just gotta be principled and pure and pious and self-righteous and sanctimonious. I am proud to be a caricature against this sort of nonsense.

  39. Must have hit close to home if I got blocked AND had the conversation is carried over to another venue.

    I notice that Don is the only one who seems to be able to divorce emotion from his feelings on this issue. I disagree with Don’s assessment, but can understand coming to the conclusion that allegations don’t measure up, and therefore Moore should be given the benefit of the doubt. I think otherwise, and think it likely the story is true. So be it.

    However, some don’t seem to be concerned as to whether the story is in fact true, contenting themselves with a black and white view of the world wherein one other political party is pure evil, and so we should just close our eyes to all wrongdoing to this side of the political aisle. This rank hypocrisy only discredits the cause of social conservatism, because it makes it seem like we only care about moral wrongdoing so long as as it’s those bad people with D’s next to their name. I’m sorry to say, but we’re going to have trouble moving the needle on abortion when to many outsiders it seems our principles are selectively applied.

    TL/DR version: I don’t think being opposed to abortion gives anyone a pedophilia pass.

  40. What hits close to home is enabling a self admitted baby murderer get into office on the slander of his opponent. What gets to home is calling 55 million murdered babies a single issue. Such people take self righteous sanctimonious pride in their conservative principled orthodoxy. In the meantime the baby murderers win.

  41. Paul, you’ve already said it doesn’t matter if the story is true, so you’re full of crap on this. You think that being anti abortion is enough to get one off on a pedophilia charge, just so long as it keeps a pro abort out of office. That’s a shameful view of things.

  42. I see you want the last word as the purveyor of conservative moral principles. You got it. I am full of manure according to you. I say it is a blessing for you to accuse me as such. Feel good with yourself when the Senate turns Democrat because of your holy principles.

  43. Having read way too much about this during the weekend, I am coming down where fellow attorney Paul Mirrengoff is at Powerline:

    “The Washington Post’s story about Roy Moore persuades me that, when he was in his early 30s, he liked to date teenage girls. It does not persuade me that he engaged in inappropriate sexual touchings with the 14 year-old girl who claims he did.

    There are three main reasons why.

    First, the other teenagers the Post interviewed don’t allege inappropriate touchings. It seems likely that, if Moore inappropriately touched one teenager, he would have inappropriately touched others. Allegations that he did may surface, but so far they haven’t, to my knowledge.

    Second, the alleged misconduct is from 38 years ago. Roy Moore has been a major and polarizing figure in Alabama politics for years. It seems likely that, if he committed the misconduct, the victim would have come forward before now.

    Third, the accuser clearly has had a troubled life. She does not appear stable. I would not, for this reason alone, conclude that she probably is not telling the truth. But, for me, it reinforces this conclusion.

    The Post found four women whom Moore dated as teenagers. His conduct towards all four might well have been basically the same. The unstable woman of the four might well have embellished.

    I’m not saying she has. Her allegations may be true. But based on what has been reported so far, I think her most serious allegations — the ones that, if true, would constitute criminal conduct — are more likely false than true.”

    Having listened to Moore talk about the accusations, he is evasive about dating teenagers, but forthright about not having done anything to Leigh Corfman, the fourteen year old. I suspect he does not recall her at all, and probably doesn’t know her. In regard to the other teenagers, he got permission from the mothers, and where one mother denied permission he backed off. He was being cautious, something that is obviously not the case in the tale told by Corfman. Dating teenagers when one is a thirty plus man does strike me as somewhat creepy, but is not unknown in rural areas. My paternal grandparents got married when my grandmother was 15 and my grandfather was 19 with my oldest uncle being born in 1928 when my grandmother was 16. (Their union endured until my grandfather’s death in 1973.) However, times change and we will see if the voters of Alabama view Moore’s dating of teenagers almost four decades ago as disqualifying. It would not disqualify him in my eyes. If he did what Corfman claimed, that would disqualify him in my eyes, but I do not believe it and I do not think it has come close to being proven.

    I hope all of us can debate this without having our personalities brought into the mix. That is not what this blog is for.

  44. Paul, you’ve already said it doesn’t matter if the story is true, so you’re full of crap on this. You think that being anti abortion is enough to get one off on a pedophilia charge,

    Your unemotional self has forgotten the definition of paedophilia.

    Dating teenagers when one is a thirty plus man does strike me as somewhat creepy,

    My mother had two sets of grandparents and knew all four. One set were ages 18 and 34 respectively at the time of their marriage. The other set were 1st cousins. My aunt was also pursued by a 1st cousin (just prior to the war). Is it overly emotional to bring this up?

    If you think it’s creepy, you might ask just what were the alternatives for a 32 year old bachelor. His own contemporaries would have been already married, divorcees, the veteran of a decade of train-wreck ‘relationships’, carrying around occult problems, &c. As for co-eds, he likely dated those too, but the WaPoo isn’t stupid enough to attempt to make that fodder for scandals.

  45. Well ultimately Art he found his wife who was twenty-four when they married, and he was thirty-eight. I do admit that finding a spouse can be hard for a professional in a rural area, based on the experiences of some of my friends of both sexes.

  46. “I notice that Don is the only one who seems to be able to divorce emotion from his feelings on this issue.”
    Paul,
    I might make the same claim for you. Having said that, nothing I write supports Moore if he dated a 14 year old. But there are many reasons such accusations stink. Here, in the interest of time, is one set I found in another article:

    “…but why might GOP voters view this ultra-convenient revelation with suspicion? Here are some reasons:

    A critical Senate seat is at stake, and this ancient news only dropped after it became impossible to replace him.
    Moore denies it.
    It is a uniquely deadly charge that cannot be refuted (or proven) except by believing one of the alleged participants.
    We’ve seen many false sex crimes accusations.
    We’ve seen Fusion GPS paid by Never Trumpers and/or the Democrats manufacture a fake dossier to falsely accuse the President of sex weirdness.
    The Washington Post is a rabidly partisan liberal paper and part of a mainstream media whose members have, in the era of Trump, decreed that they are no longer to be objective put instead advocate for their partisan agenda.
    We have not heard directly from the woman. Yes, the WaPo article contains alleged quotes, but those quotes are processed through the paper (Raise your hand if you’ve ever been misquoted – yep, that’s everyone). Her claims have not been subject to cross-examination. That makes her WaPo statements hearsay, which is traditionally viewed skeptically if admitted at all.
    The WaPo did not reveal that one of the (legal age) girls worked for Hillary. That seems like a potentially relevant fact, right?
    The WaPo found this woman when no one else – either in Alabama’s media or among opposition researchers over decades of Moore’s political life – did, no doubt via the extensive web of contacts that WaPo maintains in rural Alabama. Doesn’t that seem…odd? What’s the real story about how this all came out?
    I don’t know if Moore is guilty – if he is, the hell with him and let’s replace him on the ballot a la Robert Torricelli – but I know that the facts around this claim should make any reasonable person want to know more before they judge.”

  47. Those of us who still actually remember what conservatism is do still read National Review, yes

    For what? To practice your “compare and contrast” skills?

  48. (1) I see more evidence that throwing around the “Never Trump” accusation darkens the intellect.
    (2) Alabama voters have a choice, elect Roy Moore to the US Senate or elect a Democrat whose party would make all that this 11th-hour accuser claimed happened perfectly legal–and with boys too.
    (3) The Salem Witch Hysteria began when women made false accusations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *