This morning Michael Brown published a defense of accused pedophile Roy Moore titled “A Christian Response to the Allegations Against Judge Roy Moore.” I provided a response in the comment section which I have reproduced below.
I believe this is one of those Rubicon moments (of which there have been so many these last 12 months). Evangelicals like Brown are discrediting themselves, Christianity, and the Republican Party as they circle the wagons around a sexual predator.
* * *
Thanks for your article Michael. No surprise, I disagree with your analysis.
When assessing a he said/she said (or he said/she, she, she, and she said) case, we need to look at the credibility of witnesses, motive, and corroborating witnesses and evidence. And please keep in mind what should be obvious: individuals can make reasoned judgments based on the available evidence irrespective of any conclusion being reached in a jury trial.
So here’s the evidence. In the last couple days Moore has conducted a handful of interviews. In that time he stated that when he dated young women while in his 30s he always asked their parents for permission. That statement implies that he was dating girls of the age where parental consent would be required, and that is already a damning fact.
Second, when he was interviewed by Hannity, Moore initially hedged on whether he had dated teenagers. I can say without qualification that I never dated teenagers when I was in my 30s. I presume you can too. But Moore didn’t say that. Instead, he said initially that he didn’t remember dating them. It is only after Hannity returned from a commercial break and attempted to reframe the question that Moore began to give a fuller response.
Third, regarding motivations, Moore has a clear motivation to lie. By contrast, these four women have no clear motivation to lie. At least one of them voted for Trump. And all of them knew full well that they and their lives would be subjected to scrutiny, to ridicule, to skepticism, and worse.
Fourth, the WaPo article carefully investigated their claims and sought corroborating witnesses to various details of their reports. Thirty witnesses all told were interviewed. All of this attests further to the credibility of the witnesses.
Fifth, the WaPo journalists were not contacted by these women. Rather, they gradually came across their stories when they were doing research in Alabama and began to encounter rumors of Moore’s past.
So to sum up, Moore has thus far not been a credible witness and he has a motivation to lie. By contrast, I find the witness of the women sober, clear and detailed and supported at various points by multiple corroborating witnesses. Even Tucker Carlson has admitted he finds the witness of these women to be credible. And they have absolutely no reason to lie.
At the very least, you have very credible evidence that Moore may very well be a sexual predator, pedophile, and liar. You need not believe the charges as yet to have adequate reason to withdraw all support for him in this election.
Consider, if you had any inkling that a man might be a sexual predator, pedophile, and liar, would you allow him to take care of your grandchildren? Surely not! So why would you continue to support his political career?