>>>Emotion doesn't have anything to do with if I believe 9 victims and zillions of witnesses - it's called 'common sense'. Any emotional feelings you describe are merely my disgust with your lack of understanding any of what's happening/happened here - which as I mentioned before actually makes you part of the problem for not just the victims in this case, but all victims of sexual abuse.
>
>What you call "common sense" boils down to "there's no need for facts because of the strength of my feelings in this matter." Despite the depth of your feelings: civilization and the social compact says what you're proposing, is a lynch mob. I'm not sure how else I can explain it to you.
>
>>>The test factor here for the 9 victims and zillions of witnesses boils down to who you believe and why.
>
>There are those feelings again. Why are we expected to "believe" based on feelings when there's easily testable physical evidence that helps confirm truth? Having waved it around to support her client's veracity, why would the lawyer block verification? If you're so sure that your feelings determine honesty in others, why would you fear the outcome of such a reliable test?
>
>>>That's exactly how it works. The women have come forward now because, as I already pointed out, that an reporter heard the rumors and when down there to investigate and in the processes found some of the victims and a huge number of witnesses.
>
>And as I already pointed out, that's also how the Salem Witch Hunts began, ending up with numerous witnesses to levitation and other witchy behaviors. That this coincidence (look it up) was arranged by a WAPO journalist seeking never-before revealed memories from 40 years ago, makes any physical evidence more important than ever to ensure that fairness is maintained. Yes, we are lucky there is some physical evidence. I don't know how else I can explain this to you.
>
>>>It's disturbing that you choose to ignore 9 victims and dozens upon dozens of witnesses who have nothing to gain by lying and accept the word of a person with this history. Again - your judgement sucks.
>
>It's disturbing if you can't follow that declaring war without waiting for easily accessible evidence that will confirm who is telling the truth, is not the behavior of a reasonable person. The ignoring I see is by you, refusing to acknowledge anything that deviates from your prejudgment.
>
>>>There is not going to be a trail about any of this, you know that right? So the police don't want it, there is no point or reason for them to ask for it. If he gets elected and tries to fight being expelled then congress may ask for it.
>
>Sigh Alabama voters don't need him to be charged by Police to assess this really simple proposition about who is telling the truth. Let me walk you through it again:
>
>Physical evidence is an absolute bonus when talking about events from 40 years ago. This is why a yearbook with endearment purportedly from Moore, was solemnly presented at the announcement event. It added credibility.
>
>But then Moore did not follow the swamp rulebook. Rather than the usual weasel words, Moore came out with an absolute denial that he signed the yearbook, staking his personal and political future on it, and calling for an immediate professional examination.
>
>This gives Alabama voters a rare opportunity to see who is telling the truth- because only one of them can be.
>
>It also gives the accuser the rare opportunity to absolutely establish her own veracity.
>
>Following so far?

One part of one story from one of the 9 victims (so far) -- following so far?

>What happens next, is that the yearbook goes to examination by people who can examine pen pressure and trajectory even 40 years later to reach a firm conclusion. The result is of huge assistance to Alabama voters who want to do the right thing.
>
>Except that it's not what happens next. The accuser who produced the yearbook, suddenly does not want it examined until later. Why not?
>
>This is where feelings can be expected to enter the fray, with Alabamans saying "hmm" and forced to form judgment about a man who stakes his future on his denial versus somebody who won't let their evidence to be examined.
>
>A cynic might conclude that the activist lawyer is so accustomed to swamp words that she was taken off guard by Moore's firm declaration that scuppers rolling thunder of innuendo all the way up to the election. Hoist on her own petard.
>
>>>Even if the Alabama voters are as stupid as their governor and this child molester gets elected - he will be the first senator expelled since 1862 - unless he resigns like republican Bob Packwood of Oregon. He resigned in 1995 as it became clear he would almost certainly be expelled for sexual harassment and other misconduct.
>
>I won't do you the disservice of pointing out your "whataboutism" when it suits you. Though there's no need to go back to 1862: Bill Clinton was accused by numerous women who of course were instantly believed by you and yours, because that's how sexual abuse works, which forced Clinton to resign. Oh no that's right, they weren't instantly believed, instead they were vilified publicly because that's not how sexual abuse works after all. So Clinton wasn't forced to resign but uh oh, along came physical evidence (a dress rather than a yearbook) and he was caught out lying, so he was impeached and expelled by Senate. Oh no that's right, he wasn't expelled by Senate as you insist will happen to Moore- they gave him a pass. But that's just "whataboutism", right?

Ok - so you choose to defend the child molester and not believe the women. Got it - disgusting as it is - I get it.