The Moore Matter

One of the most temperate and perspicuous analyses of the Roy Moore matter, in the midst of a jungle of intemperate screeds and silly apologias, is a piece written by Jazz Shaw at Hot Air.

Roy Moore, the Republican candidate in Alabama for the U.S. Senate, has been accused by a woman of having a sexual encounter with her 38 years ago when she was 14 and he was 32. If true, Moore would be guilty of statutory rape since 14 is under the age of consent in Alabama.

The details are available elsewhere, but a couple of things about this story are of particular interest to me. One is the rush to condemn Moore simply on the basis of the woman's allegation, and the second is the failure of the media to treat similar allegations against a Democrat senator with equal reprehension, or any reprehension at all.

Jazz Shaw's essay expresses my first concern better than I could. Here are some highlights:

We have one camp of people who claim that the original Washington Post story, combined with a few bits of follow-up material, are sufficient for a conviction in the court of public opinion and Roy should be run out of town on a rail, preferably covered in roofing material and chicken plumage. Another group has already determined that this was a politically motivated hit job by the WaPo, the accuser is lying and everyone should get behind Moore on this.

Both of these positions have a series of glaring flaws in them which I’m seriously hoping can be at least acknowledged, allowing a bit of reason to prevail....

Jazz Shaw goes on to discuss the flaws before concluding with this:

So am I saying Roy Moore is innocent? Absolutely not. For all I know he’s guilty of precisely what his accuser is claiming. Or perhaps he really never did know her. I don’t know. And the main point I’m making here is… you don’t either unless you were there. We simply need more information. Unfortunately, that’s not stopping a lot of people with very visible platforms from making up their minds already. Steve Bannon is declaring Moore free of guilt and blaming the Washington Post. Conversely, Max Boot at USA Today declares this a reason for the entire GOP to disband, going further in arguing that, the presumption of innocence applies to criminal defendants, not political candidates.

Can we all pause for a moment, re-read that last statement from Max and be just a little bit... horrified? The presumption of innocence is indeed a cornerstone in criminal cases, but his conclusion means that any accusation which isn’t immediately refutable with solid evidence which would stand up in court is sufficient to derail a political campaign, end someone’s career, wreck their marriage or any of the other penalties which arise from a conviction in the court of public opinion. Is that truly the standard we’re going to aspire to?

And if it is, and we’re going to apply it to Roy Moore, will we also apply it to George Takei? [Takei] has been accused of awful things by a male model and actor. Much like Moore, this is a single accuser who provided very detailed accounts of when, where and how it happened. (And many are saying those details lend credence to the accusations against Moore.) But he has flatly denied the claims, similarly saying that he has no memory of meeting the actor. And yet that interview he did with Howard Stern ... certainly makes it sound as if forced, unwanted sexual contact was nothing new for him. Shall we convict Takei now as well?

This will all take time to sort out, assuming that there is enough information out there to come to a mostly definitive conclusion. And if that means it takes until after the Senate election, so be it. There are still ways to remove a sitting Senator found to be culpable in such things. But the point is, if you’ve already made up your mind one way or the other, you’re engaging in mob behavior without sufficient evidence to justify your conclusions. And that’s not healthy for society, to say nothing of this one specific case.

What else is bothersome about this sordid episode is the difference between how a Republican senatorial candidate accused of sexual impropriety is being treated and how Democrat senators are treated. Senator Robert Menendez is currently on trial for corruption, but you would hardly know it from the media coverage.

Moreover, when asked whether Menendez should be removed from the Senate if found guilty prominent Democrats refuse to answer. Even more analogous to the Roy Moore situation, however, is the fact that Menendez was accused by a woman of having sex with her when she was an underage prostitute in the Dominican Republic (though this is no part of the current charges).

The accusation was retracted under peculiar circumstances (the girl suddenly refused to press the matter further), but the point is that there's no appetite at all in the media for pursuing these allegations against Menendez even as the allegations against Moore are receiving round-the-clock coverage and his reputation is being forever damaged.

Perhaps it deserves to be, but, if we're going to set aside the presumption of innocence in Moore's case and accept a priori the claims of the woman who was allegedly assaulted by Moore almost 40 years ago, why do we not do the same in the case of Senator Menendez? Is it because Moore is a Republican and Menendez is a Democrat?

Update: Another woman has now come forward to claim, credibly, in my opinion, that Moore assaulted her when she was 16 and he was in his thirties. It's not looking good for Mr. Moore.