AtrumEtAureum wrote: VandyWhit wrote:
AtrumEtAureum wrote:Backed-up? The Menendez trial is in jury deliberations at this very moment. Clearly, those allegations had enough merit to proceed to trial. By contrast, the allegations against Moore lack considerable credibility, as they are decades-old, have never surfaced previously, and lack corroboration.
I agree that Melendez and Moore are apples and oranges. But I found the allegations extremely credible.
I don't mean that I believe they could be proven in a court of law. There wouldn't be a paper trail like I assume there was in the Menendez case. It would be a he-said she-said.
I do understand that the incidents happened decades ago and that they hadn't ever surfaced to the public eye before (although apparently in some cases they had been shared privately).
But that doesn't make the stories any less credible to me, and I really don't understand how people believe that undermines their credibility. Could you explain?
It's the timing of the release. Moore has been a public figure in Alabama for decades and not exactly a popular one throughout the state for that time. He has been the subject of various state investigations throughout his career, several bar complaints, and a number of contentious races. He was even removed twice from the Alabama Supreme Court through ethics proceedings which are typically quite political.
Multiple stories have come out saying that Moore's predilection for teenagers was common knowledge beyond just Gadsden throughout this time period, but at no point did this information come out. Nor did it come out before the primary. Instead, it came out after it was too late for an alternative to be placed on the ticket to Moore and without enough time to actually investigate the allegations. That makes the timing of the allegation suspect and less credible because it smacks of political opportunism that this story is now coming to light, as similar claims have been made against Republicans in the past only to fade after an election (Reagan, Trump, Thomas, etc.). Opportunistic timing alone does not mean that the claims are not credible, but the claim is also based solely on testimonial evidence that is decades-old which is often less reliable on its own and do not present a fair opportunity for cross as the accused has little opportunity to gather evidence in defense. Taken together, the timing and age of the claims reduces the credibility of them. That does not mean that the claims against Moore are not true. It makes this a credibility issue. It very well could be true, but at the moment, you have a he said/she said. And we happen to presume innocence, and I don't think that should be different in the court of public opinion.
Thanks. I understand that as an initial response to hearing the claims. But I don't think evaluating credibility ends there. It's a starting point. The obvious next question is, is there a good reason why the allegations came to light when they did, instead of at an earlier time?
In general, I find it believable when any woman decides to keep an unpleasant or inappropriate sexual encounter quiet, so the question boils down to -- if these encounters in fact took place, and the women didn't go public over the years, why do it now?
The answer seems pretty straight forward to me. The Senate campaign is of more importance nationally than any of Ray Moore previous races, so it drew attention from the national media, even more so because it's not in the midst of a jillion important races across the country.
So does it seem credible that the WP would have sent a reporter down there? Yes. Is it credible that a reporter would have worked on a story about Moore supporters? Yes (really, just look at how much coverage Trump supporters have gotten in the past year or two.) Is it credible that while talking to townspeople she might have gotten a lead that led to her tracking down and contacting women who allegedly had had encounters with Moore? I think so.
What the women then had, that they never had had before in all those decades, were two things. First, there was a competent journalist from a well-respected national newspaper who thought their stories were important to tell, and second, it comes at a time when many women have been coming forward about inappropriate (or even criminal) sexual conduct. Lately there have been many women coming out with stories of incidents that happened long in the past, and these women aren't any different.
Without the interest from the journalist, the stories wouldn't have become public. They'd simply have remained part of small town gossip.
I think that more than adequately explains the timing of the public disclosures.
And the alternatives are far less credible to me. Do you think it's likelier that the reporter lied about how the story came to be? Do you think it's likelier that five different women, who mostly didn't know each other, each decided to fabricate a story and call up the Washington Post to see if anybody wanted to pick up their stories (which would also require believing that the reporter lied)?
If not that, then what? Can you put together a narrative, up through the publishing of the story in the WP, that's more credible? If so, I'd like to hear it.