I'm not going to enter the debate about whether Moore is innocent of the charges or guilty because that would take a trial, and we don't have one.
A court trial is not the sole manner in which people might determine a man's innocence or guilt;
a court trial is, really, nothing more than the legal apparatus by which we determine whether
he can be punished in legal terms for a crime, if he committed one. You
can determine
for yourself whether Mr. Moore is innocent or guilty based on the information you know---people
do it all the time, O.J. Simpson being only one of the most notorious examples. (Though I can
still remember hearing people who knew the real evidence pointed to his guilt still deciding he
was not guilty because, well, a court of law found him thus, never mind how incompetently he
was prosecuted, and never mind the oft-forgotten truth that court verdicts are neither infallible
nor, often enough, the final word.) Did we need a court trial to know Droopy Drawers Clinton was
guilty of perjury, suborning perjury, and obstructing justice? Or that he was a serial adulterer?
Have we needed a court trial to know Hilarious Rodent Clinton was guilty at minimum of using
the State Department as a clearinghouse for contributions to the Clinton Foundation, never
mind her culpability in Benghazi or in turning the Democratic National Committee into her
personal campaign piggy bank?
You simply can't do anything more to punish Mr. Moore, on your own, if you believe him guilty or
at least not quite so innocent, other than living in Alabama and voting against sending him to the
U.S. Senate. But you don't require a court trial to determine on your own whether he is guilty or
innocent or still Lucy-you-got-some-splainin'-to-do . . .