Why has Shapiro condemned Roy Moore, called his accusers credible and slammed Trump because he will not throw Moore under the bus?
Ben Shapiro contends that we conservatives need to be above the fray. He repeatedly states that it is possible that two things can be true at the same time. Genius. This is his attempt at persuasion, to point out that we have been too narrow in our us vs. them thinking. Maybe Democrats and many Republicans are each bad in their own way.
I agree that there is enough blame for our national decline to go around, however I roundly reject the reductionist view that we can sit on the sidelines hurling rocks and insults.
Ben believes that Roy Moore is a pervert and the Democrats who support abortion should not hold office. So, Ben says that if he lived in Alabama instead of California he would not vote for either Roy Moore or Doug Jones.
This is a typical response from a California Republican, he’s gotten used to being rendered moot and useless. Now he’s willing to abstain from races that he has no input into. Why not let the people of Alabama decide? Why not respect their ability to judge the credibility of both the Democrat press attacks and Moore’s defense? Why try to convince people to do something that is not in their interest? Should we sit out of an election and thus acquiesce to the will of the establishment that wants to control the electorate?
Trending: Obama’s Deep State Corruption of the FBI
Ben’s non-sequitur is typical of a pseudo-intellect. It’s obvious that Ben is very smart person, but the danger of intellectual elitism is that he’s living in a world of platonic ideals rather than reality. Statements of principal for Ben become statements of circular reasoning. We should not support child molesters, therefore if Moore is a child molester then we should not support him. But, what if Moore is not a child molester and this is a political assassination? Ben again points out that both statements may be truth, that this is certainly political, but Moore is a pedophile. I hesitate to endorse the truth of these claims against Moore.
People who take a position that there is not enough known about the events in question do not necessarily deny that there are other alternatives. But we make a choice based on our own principles. These principles lead to clarification and yes even a simplification of the choices at hand. At this point it is either Moore or Jones in the Senate. Trump has pointed this out. One seat lost or gained in the Senate is a big deal. At this stage, many bills can turn on one vote.
Ben seems to want to complicate things beyond what is necessary. This is a common tactic of wanna-be-lawyers. While Ben is an actual lawyer who practiced law in 2007 and maintains his license, he has given up being an attorney to become a commentator. I agree with his decision but I’d like to help him think through this topic.
On Roy Moore, Ben claims that we need to maintain the moral high ground and our consistency by attacking both liberals and conservatives who are accused of sexual misconduct harassment, assault and even rape. Ben uses the comparison of Roy Moore to Bill Clinton in order to highlight his ethical fidelity. He says that if we are going to attack Bill Clinton because of the accusations of women we need to believe the woman who has accused Moore of inappropriate behavior and sexual assault.
Ben does not seem to understand that there are a number of other factors that militate against belief in Bill Clinton’s denials related to his character and the media’s willingness to defend him. There is a significant difference between who Roy Moore is and Bill Clinton is. The definition of “is” aside. A man’s character must be taken into consideration.
Ben should know that the character of the accusers and accused, the witnesses and defendant need to be assessed. These factors would be taken into consideration in a court of law. Impeaching a witness is a common approach in a trial. Ben barely practiced law so maybe he’s never learned this, because it wasn’t a textbook or classroom. Who is more credible?
Moore has served the people of Alabama for years in distinguished legal career. He has demonstrated his faithfulness to his wife and the people of Alabama repeatedly over those 40 years. This track record matters.
I’m inclined to believe that a number of young women were approached by Moore in his early 30s. The details of these events are still suspect in my mind, but I think that some of these women remember Roy Moore ogling them.
When the liberal media says nine women have accused Moore of sexual misconduct, this is a gross misrepresentation of the case. One woman, Leigh Corfman, has actually come forward with detailed accusations of an under-aged account of misconduct. A number of women said that he looked at them funny at a mall. Another woman claims she was assaulted in Moore’s car. One woman said that while he was a district attorney he touched her.
Moore’s entire life is being overturned after the accusation of one woman, Leigh Corfman. And this character assassination is based on something that happened 40 years ago which we have no evidence for. I find her interview compelling. But this story makes for a good interview on the Today Show by Savannah Guthrie because it is a salacious story. It may be embellished as many memories of people are. It is wrong to call her a credible witness unless she were to testify to this under oath in a deposition and cross examined. Ben should know this.
There are no legal consequences available to prosecute Roy Moore. This is a mob riot led by the media. If Corfman wants to make a legal claim she needs to take these legal procedures forward. The fact that this happened beyond the statute of limitations precludes her from prosecuting a crime. But it also means that there is no way to get to the truth in a trial. And she is protected from making false charges and lying under oath. Because she will never take the stand and she is protected by the media she can simply tell her story. This is the time-tested Gloria Allred technique of being a lawyer for a woman that isn’t actually in a lawsuit.
Roy Moore was attracted to younger women when searching for a spouse. This isn’t entirely unusual, but the age difference and approach seems odd. His wife and he were married when he was 38 and she was 24. That’s a 14-year difference. Many men marry younger women. Roy and Kayla started dating when he was 37 and she was 23. Apparently, he found the right woman for him.
You can say that these events raise red flags. I agree that there is a pattern of attraction to young women and it indicates a certain approach to dating that Roy Moore took. However, that doesn’t lead to the conclusion that he assaulted a teenager. Most of the women said that he approached them in their late teens when he was in his early thirties. A 31-year-old man attracted to a 19-year old young woman is 12-year age gap and legal. It looks goofy, but that doesn’t mean Moore is a pedophile. That term is being misused on purpose to turn the stomach of easily influenced people, like Ben Shapiro. It appears that once married Moore has remained faithful to his wife Kayla and done nothing to indicate pedophilia. Does the term pedophile apply to a man that hit on younger women when single but has not assaulted children since being married?
Bill Clinton on the other hand was a known reprobate throughout his political career by those who could see through the media protection racket. We knew about his peccadillos, assaults, rapes and affairs. Broaddrick, Jones, and Wiley made credible accusations of a pattern of behavior. He had an inappropriate sexual relationship with a subordinate, Monica Lewinski. Clinton was 51 and she was 19 at the time, a 32-year difference in age. This is abusive because of the power differential between the President of the United States and an intern.
This is where liberalism is off the rails and must be called out for what it is. They are not only hypocrites but attempt to apply a double standard to us and them. By taking down political opponents and covering for Democrats they show their designs on power alone. Ben speaks calls out liberals in brief and direct terms but his denunciations of conservatives are more vociferous.
This is understandable if the goal to protect the brand of the moral wing of American political parties. But that ship has sailed. The left uses this instinct against us. Taking out our candidates is the cannibalism of #NeverTrump and Republicans that protect the establishment. #NeverTrump and the GOP want to shoot their own to eliminate competition and gain compliance. This circled firing squad would kill their own stated interests. This only makes sense if they don’t really believe what they say they do and benefit from this melee.
Maybe Ben doesn’t understand Clinton because he was in diapers during the 1996 impeachment trial. I remember his impeachment trial like it was yesterday.
We knew exactly what kind of person Bill Clinton was. The accusations built up since his presidential run in 1992. We said that character matters. Then the media shoved aside morality and supported Clinton while calling us prudes. Liberals, like Rose, Franken and Weinstein who are now accused of similar conduct or benefited from the Clinton agenda, covered for Bill. They made it seem like these charges were not credible accounts when we were aware of his past behavior. Roy Moore has done nothing that would lead me to believe that there is any kind of pattern in his life. In addition, the facts of the cases between Clinton and Moore differ.
Furthermore, the agenda of the press needs to be considered. We don’t trust the media. Ben does not fully understand the game being played. He overestimates the credibility of the accuser’s claims relative to Moore and doesn’t present a case against the Washington Post. This “newspaper” is the investigative wing of the Democrat Party. This the same paper that manufactured the case against Nixon, which led to the revelations that eventually got him to resign.
The source of this story draws into question its veracity. If this was generated at the local level, starting with a newspaper or television station in Alabama it would be more credible. If there was a lawsuit or police report at some point in the past this would gain credibility. If a church or other body not related to the Washington D.C. cabal was involved in this story either as an arbitrator, mediator or third party it increases the credibility of the claims.
But this story appeared in the Washington Post and then it was disseminated through the liberal media and the halls of congress one month from the December 12 date of a special election to replace the seat vacated by Jeff Sessions. The liberals know that they can’t win in races that are fairly fought, so they have to find and sling more mud to change the narrative.
Because this whole story reeks of a political hit job it is discounted on its face. It is known that liberal Democrats have violated laws, paid off informants and accusers as well as murdered threats to their power. This is not a level playing field. The Democrats are willing to do whatever it takes to defeat conservatives. We are not willing to destroy ourselves in the process of acquiring and using power. Roy Moore is in the category of people that have not stooped so low as to win at all costs.
The Saul Alinsky tactic of using conservative and Judeo-Christian principles against us is designed to force us to shoot our own soldiers on the pretext of moral turpitude. This game must change. We can and should judge the character of the men and women that represent us. However, we must consider that each and every person has some aspect of their lives that they would rather not reveal. And when an otherwise good man is accused of horrible deeds, if not crimes, we should consider his history and the source of the claims before we jump at the chance to preen as holier than thou like Ben Shapiro is doing.
It is not tribalism to make a distinction between the character of conservative men and women and liberals. Liberals are generally more relativistic in their morals and ethics. This has an impact on their behavior. It is not foolish to question claims against conservative while leaning toward the truth of claims against liberals. And, it doesn’t hurt when there are photos to back up the claims of assault against a disgusting liberal like Al Franken.
If Ben would think through these issues a little more deeply his intellect would be even more valuable and useful in the cause of truth, freedom, liberty and justice.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and are not not necessarily either shared or endorsed by iPatriot.com.