Are you worried that innocent people will insist they're innocent, or what?
Note: I'm not saying that Moore is innocent, I honestly don't know pretty much anything about that case. But being worried that people who aren't convicted of anything will deny they did something wrong just sounds... weird, regardless of the topic.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/woman-shares-new-evi...
One thing that struck me after the James O'Keefe sting blew up in his face [0] was how hard it is to backfill the details of a fabricated life, especially details, public records, witnesses and relationships for your whereabouts and actions 30 years ago. The WP has found 7 women who not only face terrific abuse for speaking up, but whose claims have stood up to deep research.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approa...
You should read about the case.
To each his own.
And Roy Moore has eight independent accusers to date.
Look at the fake accuser plant and the WP, they sussed it out very quickly.
But let's try again. What's the least amount of evidence that you would find dispositive?
The standard required in an actual legal court for anything other than a criminal conviction is much lower than what you demand, and even the criminal burden of proof is singificanrtly lower, as “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a far cry from “definitive proof that denials are wrong”.
Ironically, the standard you demand is exactly the standard many people apply in the court of public opinion for rejecting their priors, especially when those priors are tribal (e.g., political partisan) identity markers, like “the guy on my team is virtuous”.
As it stands now, there is evidence that Roy Moore is a liar.
On a side note, Man, you guys will go to some great lengths in your misinformation. I can understand some critical thought, but its like talking to defense attorneys.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/roy-moore-accuser-a...
At this time, the prosecution in the court of public opinion has offered reams of eyewitness testimony (even as unreliable as that category of evidence may be), and the defense has offered "nuh-uh, wazzenme" and a parade of character witnesses--that are strangely reticent to back up their assertions with their specific reasons for believing that it would be out of character for Roy Moore to have pursued and sexually molested children when he was younger. As I am a cynical anarchist atheist, "he votes Republican and regularly attends Christian churches" actually holds negative weight for me.
There is also the other thing, the thing that is undeniable fact, and a matter of public record. He has twice been evicted--dragged kicking and screaming--from public office, for flouting the law. He has twice proven himself to be incapable of upholding the parts of the U.S. constitution that he doesn't like, and it would have only taken once for me to consider him unfit to be a U.S. senator.
And besides all that, he gives me the same vibe as an Alabama politician that I got from Rod Blagojevich as a Chicago politician. It's as though all the bacteria in my intestines are screaming in unison: "That guy is a colossal piece of isht, and we know isht better than anyone! Do not allow him within 100m of your government, your bank accounts, or your children!"
I have no idea who the guy is.