In our system of justice people accused of crimes are considered innocent until convicted in a court of law by a jury of their peers. Allowing the media to trial a person accused in the court of public opinion is contrary to the principles upon which our nation was founded.
If we allow a person to be found guilty in the court of public opinion, we make it possible for media to serve as the judge, jury and executioner.
Allowing the testimony of the people who claim they have been the victim of a crime that allegedly took place 30 to 40 years ago can not be proven with absolute certainty.
When a person is convicted in the court of opinion by a jury of their political opponents it is clear that the verdict was based on politics rather than the pursuit of justice.
When a woman remains silent for 40 years and then speaks up during an election, I can't help but be a little suspicious about what motivated her to speck up now
To be convicted of the crimes Judge Moore has been accused of, he must be unanimously be found guilty by an impartial jury of his peers and under those conditions I don't think it would be possible for him to be found guilty in a court of law.
I frankly don't know if he is guilty or not, but I don't think he should be put on trial in the court of public opinion. Most democrats believe he is guilty and most republicans think he is innocent. This is not an impartial jury.
If every President and/or Congressman who was guilty of a sexual impropriety was we could fill the seats of a football stadium.
1000 S. Gilbert Street #54
Hemet, CA 92543