"Thinkprogress"....lol, and to think, I thought you worthy of consideration. My bad.
I went over and looked at the article. They are saying that because Moore's lawyer claimed they had contact because Moore was the judge that presided on her divorce case, he is lying, because they argue that the woman had no reason to see the judge.
They do not in fact prove she didn't see the judge, and they do not consider that the lawyer is making an erroneous assumption, they simply call the lawyer a "liar."
I always defined a "liar" as someone who tells you something that they know is not true. People telling you something that they
think is true, but which later turns out to be wrong, are not "lying."
So yeah, the article is pretty much Partisan crap in which the author is not telling the truth.