Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[Juvenal]

The Morning Plum has a reasonable analysis of the likely fallout of the Moore candidacy as of today. I'm going to spin off of that.

If Moore stays in and wins, McConnell will launch an ethics probe which can have only one outcome. He will certainly launch the probe, because even if he isn't all in on the 38-year-old misdemeanor charge, he surely doesn't want another loose cannon in his caucus.

Alabama may love him, but everyone else thinks he's toxic, and has been thinking that even before the current scandal broke. At that point, Governor Kay Ivey will make an interim appointment of another Republican, which will safeguard McConnell's majority.

Alternatively, if Moore stays in and loses, which is actually possible, the seat will shift to the Democrats, who have a strong candidate in Doug Jones.

If Moore drops out, any replacement would have to run as a write-in, which may have worked out okay for Murkowski in Alaska, but she was already well known, and incumbent. The analogous incumbent in Alabama already has a job, though it's not shaping up to be as fun as he might have thought when he went in. I think Sessions could win as a write-in, but doubt anyone else could. I think this could be the perfect excuse for him to jump ship.

No Republican write-in can win if Moore stays in. He'll split the vote.

Sans a Sessions write-in, the least worst option for McConnell is to have Moore stay in and win, which will still freeze the Senate until he's removed, which will effectively sideline the only adults in the house as North Korea turns the last bolts on a nuclear missile that could hit the US.

I'm not liking this option. Moore should drop out, for the good of the country.

Republican partisans should start appealing for Sessions to recapture his seat.

[Mountain Man]

And all because of unsubstantiated accusations.

[EvoUK]

I thought it was the going after teenage girls which was one of the main side issues?

Regardless of whether or not some of the more extreme accusations are true, going after people so young in your 30’s, though technically legal at the time, is creepy, as others have already mentioned.

[Cow Poke]

I thought it was the going after teenage girls which was one of the main side issues?

Regardless of whether or not some of the more extreme accusations are true, going after people so young in your 30’s, though technically legal at the time, is creepy, as others have already mentioned.

It's all about politics and winning at any cost. Nancy Pelosi said: “Somewhere in the 90s, Republicans decided on a politics of personal destruction as they went after the Clintons, and that is the provenance of it, and that is what has continued.”

Since then, the Democrats have excelled at this.

[Cow Poke]

It's all about politics and winning at any cost. Nancy Pelosi said: “Somewhere in the 90s, Republicans decided on a politics of personal destruction as they went after the Clintons, and that is the provenance of it, and that is what has continued.”

Since then, the Democrats have excelled at this.

Oh, yeah, and this.....

Perhaps even more to the point, Congresswoman Pelosi seems to have forgotten that the phrase “politics of personal destruction” was coined for the purpose of describing Hillary Clinton’s mean-spirited attacks against women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault (though, admittedly, it was later resurrected by Bill Clinton himself to rebuff the criminal investigation of him arising out of those credible accusations). Lest we forget, Gennifer Flowers was “trailer trash” in Hillary Clinton’s public statements; Monica Lewinsky was a “narcissistic loony toon;” the string of accusations of sexual impropriety were simply “bimbo eruptions;” the woman solicited by state troops for a sexual tryst on Bill Clinton’s behalf had to have her story “destroy[ed].”

[Teallaura]

Because this isn't simply about the criminal nature of the alleged act, the statute of limitations I would assume is up anyway, but this is about sitting a pedophile not to mention a religious hypocrite in the U.S. Senate. I see absolutely no reason why I should disbelieve all these women who have similar stories concerning the moral character of Roy Moore.

1) You're correct, the statute of limitations long ago passed.
2) You're incorrect. There is no issue of pedophilia here. A girl of 14 is not young enough for that (too young is not the same thing as pedophilia).
3) Irrational. Hypocrisy is doing one thing while asserting another - even if true, this occurred nearly forty years ago and would not constitute hypocrisy unless he was still doing it - and there are no such allegations.
4) Four women, two different sets of allegations.

Let's look at Number Four.
1) Only one allegation of actual legal misconduct - which Moore denies.
2) Three allegations that are only similar in that the girls in question were significantly younger than Moore.
2a) In those cases, there are no legal issues as they were of age.
2b) In those accounts, Moore obtained and respected parental permission. FYI - this is the primary mitigation that I see for otherwise questionable behavior.
2c) None of those cases allege misconduct of any sort.
3) Although I have personal issues with dating between that particular disparity (a similar disparity in people over twenty would not have the same issues for me) there is no moral issue here unless the one allegation is actually true. Dating younger women isn't immoral - and there is no allegation from the corresponding group that asserts misconduct or sexual contact. There's neither a legal nor moral issue with the three that simply dated him (presuming that they did - I have no problem granting that but it should be notated).

Okay, back on the topic I was questioning you about - using a civil standard in a criminal matter is ethically untenable. If you are going to condemn someone for a criminal act then it's only reasonable that you prove that criminal act beyond a reasonable doubt.

In this case, I don't think you can even get 'preponderance of evidence' - this thing would have to be balanced on a tightrope to make it any more shaky. It's not collaborated - not even close. No supporting evidence at all (we did have cameras back then). And then we get into both the suspect timing and the accuser's factual errors (her mom might not remember everyone she dated but she'd darn well remember paying for an extra phone - they were rented, not bought, back then). Still, it's unfair to reduce the standard just because you want to believe the accuser.

[Obsidian]

All the people saying that Roy Moore can't hold public office anymore because of acts 40 years ago be like --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0SW..._channel=HX264

[Teallaura]

The answer is logical, simple and clear in the testimony. The overwhelming power of Bob Moore, and the social environment demanded silence at the time. There are also psychological issues of social guilt that many girls and young women believe they share the blame.

There is also the social stigma of not believing women as in the hearings for the appointment of the Judge Thomas to the Supreme Court. Biden on the committee believed the testimony, and voted against Thomas, but the majority voted for him. The pattern is continuing even on this forum.

*emphasis mine

Evidently this 'overwhelming power' doesn't include the power to have his name properly recalled.

It's also complete fiction - Moore is a prominent figure in Alabama politics but not anywhere near that prominent.

[Teallaura]

Why now? Because apparently the rumors about Moore abound in Gadsden Ala. and the media sought out the victims of those rumors. Simple as that, the victims didn't all of a sudden come forth, the media did their job, which as we know you conservatives no longer appreciate, and found the victims.

About that - The NYT is evidently scraping the bottom of the barrel for reporters - absolutely NO primary sources yet the one source named a person and the mall would have records of its former employees - it can't be that hard to track down former admins. Yet the only ones they talked to couldn't confirm the allegation.

Pathetic reporting doesn't impress rational people.

[Teallaura]

The Morning Plum has a reasonable analysis of the likely fallout of the Moore candidacy as of today. I'm going to spin off of that.

If Moore stays in and wins, McConnell will launch an ethics probe which can have only one outcome. He will certainly launch the probe, because even if he isn't all in on the 38-year-old misdemeanor charge, he surely doesn't want another loose cannon in his caucus.

Alabama may love him, but everyone else thinks he's toxic, and has been thinking that even before the current scandal broke. At that point, Governor Kay Ivey will make an interim appointment of another Republican, which will safeguard McConnell's majority.

Alternatively, if Moore stays in and loses, which is actually possible, the seat will shift to the Democrats, who have a strong candidate in Doug Jones.

If Moore drops out, any replacement would have to run as a write-in, which may have worked out okay for Murkowski in Alaska, but she was already well known, and incumbent. The analogous incumbent in Alabama already has a job, though it's not shaping up to be as fun as he might have thought when he went in. I think Sessions could win as a write-in, but doubt anyone else could. I think this could be the perfect excuse for him to jump ship.

No Republican write-in can win if Moore stays in. He'll split the vote.

Sans a Sessions write-in, the least worst option for McConnell is to have Moore stay in and win, which will still freeze the Senate until he's removed, which will effectively sideline the only adults in the house as North Korea turns the last bolts on a nuclear missile that could hit the US.

I'm not liking this option. Moore should drop out, for the good of the country.

Republican partisans should start appealing for Sessions to recapture his seat.

Jones has very little chance of winning as of now.

Only one poll even shows him in the lead.

A more likely analysis is that Moore stays, wins and serves. McConnell finds other things to occupy his time because the Republican party can't afford to tick off its base over something highly likely to just blow over. It cannot afford to lose a red state in the Deep South - which is unlikely but not as unlikely as McConnell being stupid enough to launch an ethics probe over unsubstantiated allegations about something that may or may not have happened forty years ago. That would shake up that wrong people - his supporters in the Senate that would quickly start wondering if they are next on his witch hunt.

[Sparko]

the solution is simple:

Moore declares himself a "independent Democrat"
The liberals then decide that the accusations merely show what a stud he was back in the day and call him a good ol' boy.
He wins by a landslide
Then he changes back to Republican.
It's now too late for the liberals to denounce him after they already excused him.

[Teallaura]

I thought it was the going after teenage girls which was one of the main side issues?

Regardless of whether or not some of the more extreme accusations are true, going after people so young in your 30’s, though technically legal at the time, is creepy, as others have already mentioned.

It is a side issue and I'm one of the ones that has issues with it. But it's not even close to grounds for an ethics probe or any such nonsense.

The criminal accusations do matter (although not to the courts), but the personal ones, not so much. Further, they are mitigated by the accounts themselves where Moore obtained parental consent and behaved acceptably. I still find the idea creepy - but giving the parents final say protects the girls which is the only substantive objection.

[JimL]

It is a side issue and I'm one of the ones that has issues with it. But it's not even close to grounds for an ethics probe or any such nonsense.

The criminal accusations do matter (although not to the courts), but the personal ones, not so much. Further, they are mitigated by the accounts themselves where Moore obtained parental consent and behaved acceptably. I still find the idea creepy - but giving the parents final say protects the girls which is the only substantive objection.

What it is grounds for is for the people of Alabama to decide who they believe, do they believe the stories of all these different women, or do they think they all got together to conspire against the good judge. It isn't about criminal or civil court, it's simply a question concerning the mans character. If Alabamans believe the women, then they have to decide whether they want this man representing them in the U.S. Senate. Thats all.

[Teallaura]

What it is grounds for is for the people of Alabama to decide who they believe, do they believe the stories of all these different women, or do they think they all got together to conspire against the good judge. It isn't about criminal or civil court, it's simply a question concerning the mans character. If Alabamans believe the women, then they have to decide whether they want this man representing them in the U.S. Senate. Thats all.

If we believe three of the four, then I see no problem with his character - even if I don't agree with dating people that young when you are much more mature.

But since this all happened 38 years ago, it tells me only what he was like then (the parts that are corroborated, anyway) - doesn't tell us a heck of a lot about now, however.

Today, he's a married man with no allegations that he has been seeing young girls during his marriage. The other choice is a guy that thinks killing babies because the woman wants to is a good idea.

If we vote on character alone, Jones stands no chance.

[alaskazimm]

the solution is simple:

Moore declares himself a "independent Democrat"
The liberals then decide that the accusations merely show what a stud he was back in the day and call him a good ol' boy.
He wins by a landslide
Then he changes back to Republican.
It's now too late for the liberals to denounce him after they already excused him.

They could go the John Kerry route and proudly proclaim that they denounced him before they excused him.