Apparently, the GOP is now the party of CHILD MOLESTATION! At least the media tell me that's the meaning of President Trump's endorsement of Senate candidate Roy Moore.
Are we allowed to mention that Moore denies the charges?
It's hard to disprove accusations from 40 years ago -- that's why we have statutes of limitations -- but, despite that, there are a surprising number of problems with the allegations against Moore.
One accuser has been called a liar by her own stepson, who says he's voting for Moore. Another neglected to mention that Moore sent her brother to prison.
In defense of one of Moore's accusers, Gloria Allred produced a yearbook allegedly signed by Moore, apparently in two different inks and giving his title as "D.A." He was not the district attorney and didn't sign his name that way. Allred refuses to produce the yearbook for handwriting analysis or to deny that it's a forgery.
Contrary to what you have heard one million times a day on TV, there aren't "multiple accusers." There are two, and that's including the one with the fishy yearbook inscription whose stepson says she's lying.
The other "accusers" claim he dated them when they were 16 to 19 years old and Moore was in his early 30s -- or younger than Jerry Seinfeld was (39) when he dated 17-year-old Shoshanna Lonstein.
That would also make Moore 15 years younger than Bill Clinton when he had a 22-year-old intern performing oral sex on him in the Oval Office. Moore's date "accusers" say he did nothing more than kiss them.
The media throw the dating claims in with the molestation claims so they can keep howling about "multiple accusers." In fact, only two women are alleging anything that, if true, would merit national attention.
TV anchors think it's very clever of them to ask anyone who isn't bowled over by the claims of Moore's (two) accusers: So you're calling the women "liars"?
There's a lot of room between HE'S A CHILD MOLESTER and THE WOMEN ARE LIARS.
They could be misremembering. They could be confusing Moore with someone else. They could be suggestible. They could be delusional. They could have repeated the story to themselves so many times that they believe it. They could be really, really disgusted with Jerry Seinfeld.
The main accuser has gotten a lot of her facts wrong, such as where she was living at the time (she moved to another town 10 days after meeting Moore); the corner where she allegedly met Moore for their liaisons (she named a corner more than a mile away from her house, across a busy intersection); and when she began to get into trouble with boys and alcohol (it was before meeting Moore, not after).
It was 40 years ago! But it's just weeks before the election and that's the media's favorite time to produce wild accusations against Republicans.
Four days before the 1992 presidential election, Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh dropped an indictment of Reagan's defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger, which seemed to implicate President George H.W. Bush in a lie. Bush lost the election, and about a month later a judge threw out the indictment.
In the middle of the 2004 presidential campaign, CBS's Dan Rather produced forged documents allegedly proving that President George W. Bush had shirked his National Guard service decades earlier.
In September 2006, just before the midterm elections, the media released GOP congressman Mark Foley's creepy emails to House pages. No physical contact was alleged. The corpus delicti was that Foley told pages they looked "hot" in their soccer shorts.
The entire GOP was crucified by the media for not having discovered this "pedophile" in its midst. Republican congressmen who had never met Foley lost their seats because of the media's timing of the email release.
More than 20 years earlier, a Democratic congressman, Gerry Studds, who had actually buggered a 17-year-old page, indignantly defied his House censure and proudly stood for re-election. His outraged Massachusetts constituents elected him six more times. Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy denounced the "witch hunt" against Studds, saying his critics wanted "to torch the congressman for his private life."
When Studds died in 2006, The Washington Post's headline on his obituary was: Gerry Studds; Gay Pioneer in Congress. The New York Times' headline was, Gerry Studds Dies at 69; First Openly Gay Congressman.
I supported Rep. Mo Brooks in the primary, but Alabamians would be crazy to let the media vilification of Moore affect their vote. Moore's real crime is that he's a believing Christian who goes around wantonly quoting the Bible on sodomy. Journalists react to that like Linda Blair in "The Exorcist."
The media say that Republicans support Moore just because they want another GOP vote in the Senate. I support Moore just because I hate the media.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.