Analysis: 14 Reasons Why the Roy Moore Story Is Not Credible
It’s been four full days since The Washington Post ran their “hit” piece on Judge Roy Moore to try and tilt the coming special election in Alabama to the Democrats. There has been many things said since that time, and predictably the narrative has become about how he dated teenage girls almost 40 years ago. All of that is done to obfuscate the fact that the crime leveled against him—molestation of a 14-year-old—simply does not have any credibility to it.
Below follows a list of reasons as to why the story of Moore’s alleged crimes against a young Alabama girl in 1979, as printed by the Post, are simply not believable as rendered in that narrative.
Before laying out the case against the Post article, and the fiction they weaved, let me say categorically, that if Moore did do what he is accused of regarding the sexual contact with the 14-year-old no one should vote for him—he deserves a prison cell, and worse. However, that’s a big if, as I will lay out here.
1. The way the Post’s story was written was done specifically to try and create a narrative that would cause the average person, including me, to go ‘eww’ on first notice. Predictably, when people first hear about it—he dated “teenagers”—they are immediately shocked, and made uneasy. And of course, who wants to defend that behavior in public. Aside from creating a straw man that no one wants to tear down, this is also purposefully done to give greater credence to the main charge—that he dated a 14-year-old and had inappropriate, and illegal sexual contact with her. It is all set-up to show that he had a pattern as a predator. This tactic obfuscates from the fact that no actual proof is offered to substantiate the charge leveled.
2. The Post’s own story does not show the pattern they hoped to set-up, if one bothers to read it! How many people have actually taken the time to go over the words printed by the Post? I would be willing to bet not as many as the number of people who are commenting on it. By Moore’s own admission in an interview with Sean Hannity, he dated lots of “young ladies” and never denied knowing the other three women in the story, or even the possibility of having dated them. Some people find that troubling, but it’s actually far more common then most of us are willing to acknowledge, and it is neither immoral, or illegal. Dating teenagers is not a crime! Molesting children is, and that pattern of abuse is nowhere found in the article, nor in Moore’s life in the years that followed.
3. Moore flat out denied even knowing Corfman, so someone is lying here. This should be easy to verify one way or the other, yet, no one is coming forward to claim that they did in fact know each other at all. No. We are supposed to believe that after a chance encounter at a courthouse, he then set-up all these clandestine meetings with her, until things ended abruptly, and at no time did anyone, anyplace know anything about it for nigh on 40 years! No mutual friends, or connecting points from there on out.
4. Setting aside the 14-year-olds claims for a moment, before screaming that he shouldn’t be dating 16-18 year olds at all, you should look at the laws on the books. In both the United States, as well as the rest of the world, 16 as the age of consent is normative. In 30 out of the 50 states the age of consent is 16, and it’s that for most of North America, including progressive Canada. It is not unusual for people to engage in relationships with people who are “teenagers”—the operative word used by the Post throughout—and even the Post’s piece doesn’t imply that it was thought so. The mother of the 18-year-old is quoted as telling her daughter that she thought it was wonderful she was dating such a fine man as Moore. Go on the internet and you can find a ready list of celebrities and other famous people who married people who were vastly disparate in age from them, and in fact did so while teenagers! So, not only do people date teenagers, they also marry them!
5. Aren’t leftists always telling people not to judge others for who they love? 16-years and above for most places, is considered legally an adult for the purposes of sexual contact. I didn’t know that until I researched it. Having lived in Arizona, where it is 18, I just assumed. This is important when looking at the Post’s piece. Why the totally selective, and subjective outrage over Moore dating teenage girls decades ago? His wife is 14 years his junior and he married her when she was 24. So he liked younger women, is that a crime? And, why are his detractors making it into one, other than the very obvious political motivation?
6. As to pattern of behavior, all of Moore’s other dates’ stories indicate that he was entirely above board with them and their parents. This very glaring reality totally undercuts the Post’s story. If he was indeed a man with a pattern of molestation, and especially if he so easily got away with it, as this woman didn’t come forward until now, then there most certainly would have been other accusers. There are none.
7. One of Moore’s “dates” says explicitly that he asked her out when she was 16, but that she had known him since she was 14. This implies that he knew the law, and in her testimony, she says he asked her out in front of her mother, which backs up Moore’s assertion that he always went out with people after asking their parents. He wasn’t hiding in the shadows.
8. Another of his “dates,” the 18-year-old claims she had alcohol with him—the legal age is 19 in Alabama—this is done to set-up the narrative that he gives alcohol to underage girls—a pet trick of predators. However, by that girls own testimony, she couldn’t remember if he had wine with her before her 19th birthday—though she claims she thought it was—because she said that she dated him for a few months and turned 19 during that time. So, even that story is fuzzy.
9. This brings us to the biggest holes in this story: Corfman’s own testimony. She claims he asked her for her phone number. This reads like it is happening in modern times, however it was 1979! She didn’t have a cell-phone. He would have had to use her land-line, and there is no possible way that he could have made sure to keep this from the mother if he was calling the house. They story tries to cover this by saying it was her own phone in her bedroom, but that doesn’t fly either, unless we are to believe that she had her own line! It is highly doubtful that the 14-year-old girl is receiving phone-calls to a house where she is not the adult and that adult has no idea, unless the 14-year old Corfman was designated phone secretary of her home—very dubious. Her whole testimony is that he would call her and they would arrange to meet away from her home so that the mom would be left in the dark! That strains credulity in the age without cell-phones!
10. She claims all of this misbehavior with Moore, when all the other women say he never did anything even slightly inappropriate with them. Absolutely no improper sexual contact is alleged by any of them.
11. It is already highly suspicious that Corfman would wait 40 years, and that this piece would drop 1 month before the Alabama Senate special election. Why didn’t anything about this surface earlier? Don’t tell me Moore didn’t have his enemies. The Post covered her claims that she just wanted to protect her children who were in school, yada, yada, yada. None of that passes the smell test. However, I’m much more concerned about her mother. The Post says she told her mom when she was 24. Then they claim the mom says she was livid! Apparently not that livid, as she sat silent for another 29 years herself! I’m sorry, but this mother is the worst “concerned” parent that I’ve ever known.
12. Then there is the Post saying they had to track these women down and practically arm-twist all of them to come forward. Well, regarding the first three, there is nothing to come forward about, unless placed in the context of this story. With then 14-year-old Corfman, her testimony on that end is also not believable. By her own admission she said after much prayer she just couldn’t be silent any longer. She had to remove the mask. Then the Post has her saying she was physically ill for years seeing and hearing about the rise of Moore, yet it was the Post reporter who tracked her down 39 years after the fact that got her to tell all? Yeah, okay?
13. Then there is her “corroborating” friends. These two people are supposedly the back-up to her claim. Again, read the Post’s piece. They do no such thing. It’s very cleverly written to make it seem like they do, but they don’t. They say that Corfman dated someone fitting Moore’s description, not necessarily Moore himself, and one corroborates her having told them about the sexual contact with this person when she was—pay attention to the language— a “teenager.” There is literally no immediate corroboration with the actual account. It is only written to make it seem like there is. Again, we don’t even know who these sources are, because they went unnamed.
14. To just jump to the conclusion that he is guilty is ludicrous—though fashionable amongst Republican establishment types. I know all to well the damage done by false accusations of sexual harassment—I had it done to me. An accusation does not a case make.
The important thing here is to search for truth, one way or the other. For all the reasons listed, I do not believe the core charge of the Post article is correct, and believe that it may be entirely fabricated!
Latest posts by Joseph Morgan (see all)
- CNN Caught with Pants Down Again on Russia Story - December 11, 2017
- Confirmed: Foiled Pipe-Bomb Terrorist in New York City ISIS Inspired - December 11, 2017
- MAGA: Trump Begins Process To Send Americans Back To Moon - December 11, 2017