Subscribe for free to the America First Report newsletter.
As many of you know, I don’t often write an opinion piece on big news just as it happens like many others do. These “hot takes” more often than not are based on emotion and not rational thinking. They lead to more clicks than I often get on my articles, but I dare say my views are more likely to stand the test of time and new information.
As to the recent scandal of Judge Roy Moore, the Republican candidate for Senate in Alabama, I can see both sides of the argument.
Now, before anyone loses their mind over that, let’s do a little background. First of all, I’m not a Roy Moore fan. I haven’t been since before this scandal broke. First of all, he’s a lawyer, and I don’t personally feel lawyers should be elected to the Executive or Legislative Branches of the Federal Government; they have an entire branch of government that is set aside for basically only lawyers. Second, Moore is the latest in a long line of GOP Senate candidates who have lost or made an election much closer than it should be through sheer stupidity.
The Moore scandal stems from a Washington Post article in which four women claim he dated and/or made inappropriate sexual advances toward them while he was in his 30s and they in their teens. Now, three of the women were 17 or 18 when this allegedly happened, so there’s no real “pedophilia” there, though there is a definite creepy vibe a la Jerry Seinfeld, but let’s stick a pin in that.
The fourth woman claims that she was in some way sexually harassed and/or assaulted by Moore when she was just 14 years old.
Full stop. If this allegation is true then there is no excuse for it. I’ve seen every argument out there justifying this in some way or another, from the idea that this 14-year-old girl “consented” to the contact with Moore, to the idea that the age of consent at that time was 12, to the belief the girl’s mother consented to the relationship.
The clock is winding down for Roy Moore. He needs a stronger response and soon, or he’s done.
It is really remarkable that a Republican Party that hates his guts and worked to get him pitted against Luther Strange in a run off so as to beat him was too staggeringly incompetent to find this information about Roy Moore’s accusers. Moore is being accused of inappropriately touching several girls around 40 years ago. He has not been convicted, but the story is deeply troubling because these are multiple victims who do not know each other, all have similar looks, and they all have similar stories.
Hot takes
Every single one of these justifications are complete crap, and I find anyone making them reprehensible. The fact that this even needs to be said is mind-boggling. I think my friend, The Foo, said it best:
https://twitter.com/PolitiBunny/status/928814036422135809
Well said, Foo. Right there with you.
Now, there’s the political side of the argument, which I also get. Why isn’t this coming out 40 years after the fact, and AFTER the primaries. Additionally, Moore has not exactly toiled in obscurity before his Senate run. He has been in the public eye nationwide while on the Alabama Supreme Court for some controversial moves including putting a Ten Commandments monument up in the middle of the night, defying a US Supreme Court order.
Many saw his actions at the time as courageous. I agreed that SCOTUS was out of line in making such a demand, but if Congress isn’t willing to use their checks and balances authority to reign them in, then Moore was out of line to openly defy them.
So if Moore has been in the public eye for so long, why didn’t all of this come out earlier?
A good friend of mine, Jeffrey Clark, who is a brilliant man and former military officer, had this question to ask:
Let me get this straight…Mitch McConnell spent $30 million opposing Roy Moore but his opposition research somehow missed scurrilous allegations about him until just now? You are right there is no excuse for that but here is food for thought.
— Jeffrey Clark (@WarriorRN61) November 11, 2017
Good question, Jeff. I’ve spent the last day pondering that. I have a theory.
Now, as I pointed out on the radio show America Off the Rails with Rick Robinson (a great show on KLRN at 11PM Eastern, Check it out) I’m not big on aliens at Roswell or government mind control type conspiracy theories. However, I find political conspiracy theories very plausible. Why? Too much about many of them fits for none of them to be true.
A cold conspiracy theory
So here’s mine in this situation, and feel free to disagree with me:
I think McConnell DID know about the accusations, but wanted to have an ace in the hole as it were, should his preferred candidate, Luther Strange, fail to secure the nomination. If the allegations against Moore come out during the primaries, the GOP voters of Alabama may have flocked to candidate Congressman’s Mo Brooks, who made perhaps McConnell couldn’t find any dirt on. Perhaps Moore might have even stepped aside and endorsed Brooks who, while far from ideal, was far more conservative than the liberal in Republican clothing, Strange.
By saving the information about the alleged sexual abuse until the general election, McConnell is nearly guaranteeing Moore cannot clear his name in time for the election. I don’t think any principled conservative would have a hard time believing that McConnell would rather have a fire-breathing, pro-partial birth abortion Democrat than a Republican he can’t control. It is, as Jeff Clark said to me, not atypical for the establishment Republicans to go for a scorched-earth policy when the voters don’t do what they want. We saw that when the Bush Presidents decided to vote for Hillary Clinton rather than Donald Trump, when they could have voted 3rd Party.
And yes, I understand the hole in my theory. This only works if Moore is guilty, or concocted by the woman herself, perhaps with Democrats helping. If they are a complete fabrication, as Moore claims about the 4th woman, then it doesn’t hold water. McConnell could have just as easily fabricated a story against Brooks.
I honestly have no idea if the allegations against Moore are true or not. I do know the timing is suspicious. I also know that if this IS true, there is no excuse for supporting Moore. I know Moore isn’t helping himself by refusing to debate his Democratic opponent over “his support of transgenderism.”
David Horowitz, a man who I USED to have respect for, suggested that even if the allegations are true people should still vote for Moore because not to do so would allow his far-Left opponent to gain the seat formerly held by Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
I had to read Horowitz’s tweet several times before I could believe what I was seeing. He was actually suggesting the voters of Alabama elect a pedophile to keep the other side from winning.
As I wrote about a while back, credibility isn’t a delicate thing, and like glass once it is broken it is not easily repaired. In the age of Trump, with so many members of the Republican Party having thrown theirs away, embracing a guilty Roy Moore isn’t as big a leap as some would like to think.
Moore will never be prosecuted. The statute of limitations has LONG run out. But as failed Presidential nominee Mitt Romney pointed out:
Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections. I believe Leigh Corfman. Her account is too serious to ignore. Moore is unfit for office and should step aside.
— Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) November 10, 2017
Good point, but I’m curious where Romney has been for the last couple years as Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) faces actual charges of bribery and soliciting underage prostitutes? The lack of consistency is astounding.
Speaking of which, the faux outrage from the Democrats is laughable. I think the reasons are fairly obvious and I’ve written about them before at length, so I won’t reiterate them here.
The takeaway
The final point I’d like to make is the conundrum the GOP finds itself in. If Moore drops out over 40-year-old allegations, then the Democrats will never lose an election again. All they have to do is convict credible but false charges late in the game, and their candidate wins. We all know the reverse isn’t true. Democrats are never held to the same standard. Just look at Menendez.
Quite the pickle indeed. The solution of course is for people to lead lives that are above reproach. No one isn’t blameless. We all have things we regret. And yet we have Vice President Mike Pence, who was vilified by the Left for not meeting with women who are not his wife or family member alone. Bet you won’t see any credible allegations of a nature against him. Just food for thought.
Covid variant BA.5 is spreading. It appears milder but much more contagious and evades natural immunity. Best to boost your immune system with new Z-Dtox and Z-Stack nutraceuticals from our dear friend, the late Dr. Vladimir Zelenko.
I was a teenage girl in rural Alabama about a decade earlier.
Understanding of the cultural setting of the rural south seems to be missing in many commentaries. It was completely normal for girls to marry quite young in Alabama. They weren’t going to college, and already by 15-16 they were considered old enough to be courted. In my own family, several women married at 15-16 and had long and happy marriages. I went off to college, but I was very much the exception.
A boy or man was expected to meet with the parents first to have his intentions and worthiness evaluated. If he passed that scrutiny, especially with the mother, the couple was allowed to date with the expectation that things might proceed to marriage in a year or so (and immediately if a girl got in the family way).
By the standards of the time, Roy Moore’s dates with the 16-18 yr.-olds were perfectly normal. Parents wanted a potential husband who was older and in a position to support a family. A man who was ready to marry wasn’t looking for a mate in her 20s because the desirable girls were already married. The ones who were left were the rejects or the divorcees with kids.
What I see in the Moore scandal is: 1) The women with the allegation about a 14 yr, old is of very poor character. The allegation does not match anything else in the judge’s life, and it is not credible. 2) A deliberate, malicious attempt to give credence to #1 by conflating it with dates that were innocent by the standards of the time. This is racist because it essentially labels Southern culture itself as perverted and anyone belonging to that culture as unworthy of public office.
“Pedophile” refers to a molester of pre-pubescent children, not the case here if the accusations are true. Unfortunately, the incident happened so long ago, we will never know. In this climate of uncertainty giving the Democrats who support open borders, the Hitlerites in Teheran, and many other evils, more power is yes in my view worse than electing a man who may or may not have made an inappropriate advance to a 14 year old about whose attitudes and behavior at the time we know nothing
A ‘cool’ rebuttal:
“through sheer stupidity”
Stupid judgement; no one can protect themselves against false accusations; and no, your closing ‘argument’ on the matter fails to establishes otherwise (see below).
“three of the women were 17 or 18”
Breitbart reports “all three of them were of legal age”. Regardless, there was no criminal misconduct connected to any of them. Moreover, all conduct WAS within social norms at the time.
“all have similar stories”
False.
Of the relevant matter (sexual misconduct), the one that alleges sexual misconduct is anomalous. None of the other “stories” claim sexual misconduct; and they collectively establish no criminal misconduct.
“A 14 year old can’t give consent”
Absolutely true.
However, the point lost is that allegations are merely that; they not a conviction – therefore, any necessity for “consent” is immaterial; another matter. If and when the allegation is established, then arguments of consent will become relevant. Getting ahead of matters (irrelevance) is invalid and illegitimate; a fools game.
“Now, there’s the political side of the argument”
“A cold conspiracy theory”
All irrelevant, useless conjecture.
“timing is suspicious”
Sadly, also irrelevant; however, see my additional comment: “What Everyone Seems to Have Forgotten” (issue: timing was at best unfair/irresponsible; bordering malicious).
“isn’t helping himself… transgenderism.”
WUT? Absolutely irrelevant!
“should still vote for Moore because not to do so would allow his far-Left opponent to gain the seat”
Several points:
1) He may have said it poorly, but might he not be trying to say what you say: “then the Democrats will never lose an election again…”
2) A convicted criminal pays their debt to society, and, recidivism notwithstanding is ‘forgiven’; their past record no longer to be held against them. There are (compassionate) arguments that hold Statutes of Limitation are partially intended to mitigate sanctions.
A crime committed 40 years ago (and demonstrably not repeated), should this also not merit, grace be given vis-à-vis statutes of limitation, mitigated sanctions?
3) “pedophile”
Recognizing that this is not, strictly speaking, your term, but rather a (technically) accurate distillation of Horwitz’s tweet, it nevertheless seems an unfair invective moniker as it implies a judicial conviction. (Note: Even with a civil judgement of “wrongful death,” calling OJ a “murder” is still a defamation-bridge too far; noting the essential, if pedantic, distinction between expressing a belief that he murdered Nicole and Ron, and actually LABELING him a murderer.)
“Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections.”
False.
The legal principle, the civil guidance it establishes, sets a civil standard.
“Her account is too serious to ignore.”
The author seems to be conflating “credibility” with “seriousness.”
Returning to the issue of credibility, again, the only allegation on criminal misconduct is anomalous to ALL other reports; this makes it incredible, not credible.
The ONLY evidence that could make the allegation credible would have to be of a sexual nature – which this affair is entirely devoid of. Moreover, any such evidence being produced now (late) must be regarded highly suspect, as the matter has become so widely disseminated, enabling confederates to supply such intimate details.
“solution… to lead lives that are above reproach”
The evidence shows that, in Alabama – 40yrs ago, their “social norms” WERE considered to be “above reproach.” And while I hold great respect for Pence’s old-fashion reserves, your ‘solution’ only seems workable with saints.
The solution is to demand adequate evidence, and to dismiss (possible by legal order) if not provided; and, where time is inadequate, to dismiss by legal order (similar to judicial practice where a “disproportionate response” is evident in an otherwise legitimate case of self-defense) – least your prophecy be fulfilled.
Lastly, a cultural norm for dating teens may not diminish the wrongness of the alleged criminal misconduct, but, as no repetition is evident, it should mitigate any sanction when observing statutes of limitation.
To conclude, your “cold take” seems to be a bit hotter than you thought.
What Everyone Seems to Have Forgotten
‘Statutes of limitation’ are not created to allow criminals to go free if they just ‘lay low’ for a while; nor are the intended to reduce the case-load of the courts.
They are designed to protect everyone’s rights to fair “due process,” by balancing a self-claimed victim’s right to justice with everyone else’s right to have a fair chance to defend themselves against allegations of criminal misconduct.
That is to say, the older an allegation is, the less fair it becomes for the accused to defend themselves.
In this case, there is one accusation of Statutory Rape, and three additional notices of non-sexual dating with “of-age” women. (Note: The three notices do not in any way constitute corroboration to the statuary rape allegation.)
While rape is a most serious matter, so is defamation of character on this scale.
Recognizing the justification for creating statutes of limitation, it becomes patently unfair and even irresponsible to publicly make such allegations after 40yrs. Moreover, to do so with this timing (so close to an election), where no reasonable defense may be mounted before an unjust injury might be caused by it is egregious to say the least – indeed, it should be criminal in itself.
Lastly, while it is fair to call for investigations and later for indictments (if and when adequate evidence is found), and noting “due process” only limits the government’s actions (after indictment), it is still troublesome that government officials (Senators, et al) would ‘convict’ on the bases of a mere allegation alone; ie, the risk of unjust injury makes them little better than the crime they condemn – period.
Shame on McCain et al.