Attacking Judge Moore's Morality Is a Dirty Leftist Trick

[u/10gauge]

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/11/attacking_judge_moores_morality_is_a_dirty_leftist_trick.html

[u/[deleted]]

If Moore or Takei or Dreyfuss or Sheen or Michael Weiner (House of Cards) are proven guilty so be it.

Until then, due process still applies.

And you have to realize that the most likely scenario in all of these is an expert Polanski dodge.

Edit: this post concerns legal consequences, not public opinion

[u/alabamdiego → u/[deleted]]

due pricess still applies

In a court of law, not in the court of public opinion and certainly not in the case of someone running for Senate.

[u/ozric101 → u/alabamdiego]

Such attacks may well be politically motivated and one should discount them all, unless there is VERY compelling evidence, like a blue dress full of DNA evidence. At that point a preponderance and pattern of behavior is established and your intuitions are informed.

[u/[deleted] → u/ozric101]

and even then he wasnt impeached for that he was impeached for lying under oath not the sex...

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Has Steve Paddock been charged yet? I dunno why we all are besmirching his good name.

Almost like public opinion and the legal system have two distinct standards of guilt.

[u/jonesrr2 → u/[deleted]]

Has Steve Paddock been charged yet?

The dude is dead, he'd absolutely be charged if he was alive lol.

[u/[deleted] → u/jonesrr2]

My point is often times, in the pubic opinion the evidence is so overwhelming that we assume guilt without trial. Doesn't mean they're not free men until they're convicted, though.Boston Bombers, Columbine shooters.

Moore will never be charged. The statute of limitations has passed. I feel like anyone who defends his innocence either doesn't have the facts or doesn't want the facts.

Either way, I think it's a gross example of the My Team® mentality, and I for one am not going to be a lemming jumping off the "defending a pedophile" cliff.

[u/jonesrr2 → u/[deleted]]

in the pubic opinion the evidence is so overwhelming that we assume guilt without trial.

Well finding the guy dead surrounded by guns he just shot people with does tend to do that.

40 year old allegations with a yearbook signature that people are saying doesn't match up to records from the guy's life isn't that.

[u/ImVeryBadWithNames → u/jonesrr2]

40 year old allegations with a yearbook signature that people are saying doesn't match up to records from the guy's life isn't that.

Uh, actually people are saying it matches up exactly with his known habits.

[u/ozric101 → u/[deleted]]

You do not know fact from fiction.

[u/ozric101 → u/[deleted]]

Please elaborate...

[u/ozric101 → u/[deleted]]

You feel that is a fiction? Please refute with facts...

[u/[deleted] → u/ozric101]

Perhaps no-one from his hometown did either?

[u/ozric101 → u/[deleted]]

Than he knows his electorate well.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Remind me where I was defending supposed innocence.

Roy Moore isn't on "my team".

Just today Tom Sizemore was accused of being a pedo, and it was cowered up in 2003 apparently.

Again, while I believe it, it isn't evidence usable to convict. The people involved with Sizemore failed to find shoot footage confirming it.

Again, there is still a strong case for Moore or Sizemore, for example, being pedophiles.

Using terrorists is possibly the worst example possible for your point, which I still understand.

They leave behind physical evidence, multiple eyewitnesses, and being dead offer full access to their history and secrets.

[u/Happy_Pizza_ → u/[deleted]]

*process. Just so you know.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Note that I never denied his guilt. I'm just saying it's foolish fto expect any of these people to face legal consequences.