The difference between Roy Moore and Clinton/Rose/Franken/Weinstein/Conyers

What makes the Roy Moore case different from all the other sexual assault scandals springing up, almost every day since Harvey Weinstein was outed as a sex predator?

The Da Tech Guy Blog, explains that it is all about ephemera vs evidence…as finding the truth behind the crimes hinges on an these five components: Admission of guilt, settlements paid, investigations by a competent body, physical evidence of wrongdoing, and accusations made under oath. 

Brock:  And those are the facts, Madam Chairman. 
Mena:  Does that conclude the evidence? 
4th Doctor: Evidence? Evidence? You couldn’t hang a hat on that. 

Doctor Who  The Leisure Hive 1980

PM James Hacker: Nobody knows it’s not true. Press statements aren’t made under oath

Yes Prime Minister A Victory for Democracy 1986

Harry Faversham: One moment, sir. Your famous account of Balaclava’s not accurate, you know.
General Burroughs: Not –
Harry Faversham: Not accurate, sir.
General Burroughs: Not accurate?
Harry Faversham: No, sir.

The Four Feathers 1939

One of the smartest sayings I’ve ever heard was this: There are three sides to every story, your side, my side and the truth.

There is how you remember events, how I remember events and how events actually took place. Sometimes we get them right, sometimes we get them wrong. Sometimes a particular piece of an event stands in our memory, other times over the years they get embellished from repeated retelling and human nature being what it is, such stories as they change never tend to make us look worse they always tend to make you either look better or make yourself the object of pity.

The best example I can think of this is the classic and slightly comic, scene from the ending of the classic 1939 move the Four Feathers (the start of which I quoted above) where Harry Faversham, to eliminate the final feather of cowardice given to him, corrects the General’s record on the story hehas been repeatedly telling all through the film:

Harry Faversham:  Let me recall the position. Out of the way, Peter. Here are the Russians, behind the walnuts. Guns. Guns. Guns. Here’s the British Infantry. The thin red line. [dips finger in the red wine and draws a line on the table]Here’s the commander in chief. [places an apple on the table] And here are you… [puts a pineapple down on the table] at the head of the old 68th, correct?
General Burroughs:  Absolutely.
Harry Faversham:  You were riding a horse called Caesar, which my father sold you… because, fine horseman though he was, he could never hold him himself.
General Burroughs:  Quite right. Quite right.
Harry Faversham:  Then, according to your story, you said… “The 68th will move forward. “
General Burroughs:  Quite right. Quite right.
Harry Faversham:  Yes, sir. The trouble is, you never said it.
General Burroughs:  – Ne –
Harry Faversham:  You never said it, sir.
General Burroughs:   Never said it?
Harry Faversham: No, sir. You never had time. At that moment, my father told me, Caesar – uh, Caesar – Caesar… [puts a spoon under the Pineapple ] startled by a stray bullet, took the bit between his teeth… and dashed straight at the Russian lines. Away went Caesar, away went you, away went the 68th…away went the commander in chief, away went everybody… and another magnificent mistake was added to an already magnificent record. But nobody ever said, “The 68th will move forward. ” Unless it was the horse. Come on, sir. Own up.
General Burroughs: Well, well, well, well, after all these years, it’s rather difficult to remember all the details… but… confound the boy!
I shall never be able to tell that story again!
Harry Faversham:  [Turns to the General’s daughter] Ethne, your feather.

This is why body cameras are such a good idea for police, as it gives an accurate (if occasionally incomplete) sequence of events without favor to either the police officer or the suspect (the later being the reason why the left, having insisted on them for year suddenly as a problem with them).

And that brings us to the difference between the allegations against Roy Moore and Al Frankwn, Bill Clinton, John Conyers and Harvey Weinstein.

With Charlie Rose we have an apology.  With Al Franken, we have photographic evidence and an apology.  With Harvey Weinstein we have decades of large cash settlements, with representative John Conyers we have investigations and settlements paid out.  In all those cases there were admissions of guilt or payments to settle claims made.

That leaves Bill Clinton who repeatedly denied what was going on until two things took place:  He was forced under oath when Paula Jones launched her sexual harassment suit, and the physical evidence of the semen stained blue dress was produced.  Confronted with these two things Bill Clinton came at least partially clean.

So in other words in all of the cases above we have one or more of the following:

1.  An admission of guilt
2.  Settlements paid
3.  Investigations by a competent body
4.  Physical evidence of wrongdoing
5.   Accusations made under oath.

What do we have in the Roy Moore case?  None of these things.  No admission of guilt, no settlements paid to accusers, no investigations made by a competent body.  The entire body of physical evidence is an old yearbook signature that the lawyer of the claimant not only refuses to release for examination but admits she has not even asked her client if she saw Mr. Moore sign said book,

As for accusations, we have plenty of people saying all kinds of things from the Icky to the criminal but all of these statements have one thing in common.

None of them are part of a complaint to the authorities,  none of them have been made as part of a civil suit, none of them have been made as responses to investigations in progress or as testimony before a competent body.

Or put simply none of them have been made under oath.  Nobody from the man claiming they had to watch Moore near cheerleaders to the woman making the accusation of assault at age 14 have been willing as of this writing to make such claims under oath either in the form of a civil or criminal complaint or as sworn testimony concerning them.

They have no hesitation to tell all kinds of narratives to the press or on TV, but not if there is the slightest hint of legal jeopardy from perjury or even the much smaller crime of filing a false police report or the slightest chance that said narrative would be challenged by cross examination or evidence to counter it.

Now as I’ve repeatedly said, if Roy Moore is lying I think he should be toast, even if it means the temporary loss of a senate seat in Alabama (after all the if the GOP won’t pass the bills they promised with 52 votes being down to 51 won’t make much of a difference).  On this point I differ with some of my friends on the right. Furthermore it is not out of the realm of possibility that one of those five conditions might be met concerning Roy Moore before election day.

But until I see that happen I will not only continue to support Moore’s campaign for the senate but will call out the dishonorable left/media for lumping Roy Moore with the increasing numbers of proven reprobates from the Harvey Weinstein left based on ephemera.