Roy Moore's Accusers: Why Now?

[jwoodie]

I don't know their reasons for coming forward but it is obvious why they stayed silent for so long. They are being trashed by Moore's supporters and likely the statute of limitations for any crimes ran out long ago so they had little to gain and much to lose.

-From Gullible's Travels?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

As I noted in another thread:


Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy: Politics.

Moore is running for a Senate seat. The Dems want that seat in order to shift the balance of power. WAPO is a highly partisan rag owned by Bezos, who is a Dem Ally.

Also, establishment Republicans want Strange, ergo, they side with the Democrats.

 

[aaronleland]

Why are people nowadays still making the "Why now?" argument? This has been happening for decades in countless incidents where the accuser was proven to be right. But when it's your guy in the barrel you pretend likes it's some unheard of occurrence that a victim might stay silent for years.

 

[OldLady]

I haven't heard a single credible explanation for why his accusers decided to come forward after 40 years of silence. Can someone explain this?

P.S. Please spare me about living in fear, repressed memory, PTSD, etc. These women have been adults for a very long time.

The reporters reply:

For Roy Moore’s insistent defenders: Here’s why now.
By Philip Bump November 13
reporting that uncovered a 1979 incident in which Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore allegedly fondled a 14-year-old girl: Why now? Why is it only a month before the election that this story came to light, after being unmentioned for the past 40 years?

Here, for example, is Moore himself making the argument:

“To think grown women would wait 40 years before a general election to bring charges is unbelievable,” he said at an event in Alabama over the weekend. He later added, “Isn’t it strange after 40 years of constant investigation, that people have waited four weeks before a general election to bring their complaint? That’s not a coincidence.”

Of course it’s not a coincidence that the women came forward just as Moore is seeking election to the Senate — but not in the way Moore means.

Moore has been a controversial figure in American politics for some time but mostly at the edges. His fight to preserve a monument to the Ten Commandments in a state building 15 years ago gained him national attention — but not necessarily national importance. Now, he’s seeking election to the Senate, one of 100 people who make up one half of the legislative branch of government. It’s a much more important fight nationally, and, as a result, has attracted much more attention.

There’s a reason that people with skeletons in their closets are loath to seek elected office: Once they do, the scrutiny that is a natural part of the campaign process threatens to expose those skeletons. This is less true for lower-level elected positions, where there is less media attention and fewer resources. For something like the Senate or the presidency, though, that scrutiny is both intense — and should be expected.

In this case, reporter Stephanie McCrummen was in Alabama as part of The Post’s coverage of the race. She explained the genesis of the story to NPR last week.

I was in Alabama actually reporting another story on Roy Moore supporters, a story aiming to understand, you know, the basis of his support in the state. And it was at the end of a long conversation with someone there that these allegations surfaced. So none of these women — none of the women in this story sought out The Washington Post. No one promoted this story to The Washington Post. And all of the women went through quite a long process deciding whether to come forward.

We’ve seen a similar difficult deliberative process in other recent allegations that have made headlines. Moore’s claim that it’s “unbelievable” that it could take 40 years for these stories to come to light ignores dozens of recent examples of allegations against men in positions of power that took decades to surface.

It’s important to note that McCrummen wasn’t the only Post reporter covering the race. In late September, shortly before the primary, our Michael Scherer profiled Moore, including a two-hour interview conducted as the pair drove to visit Moore’s mother. When Moore came to Washington, our Sean Sullivan covered his visit. Had either Scherer or Sullivan heard the same rumors as McCrummen — rumors, we’ve learned over the past few days, that have been around for years — it’s safe to say that they, too, would have investigated further.

That, of course, is what reporting is about: telling important stories. Sometimes that means convincing people who know the stories to come forward, as The Post’s team did with the four women sharing stories about Moore’s alleged interest in teenage girls, including Leigh Corfman, the girl who was 14. The original story noted that “[n]either Corfman nor any of the other women sought out The Post.” After learning about them, “two Post reporters contacted and interviewed the four women. All were initially reluctant to speak publicly but chose to do so after multiple interviews, saying they thought it was important for people to know about their interactions with Moore.”

Why was it important? Presumably because of the timing. Becausenow.

For 40 years, as Moore and his defenders point out, the women kept their stories close, telling some friends and family (and, in Corfman’s case, one former boyfriend) but not the public at large. It’s important for Alabamians at large to know about those interactions now presumably because Moore is running for the Senate. The same reason it’s important for The Post and other outlets to cover who he is and what he believes, as Scherer, Sullivan and McCrummen all have.

The point of asking “why now” is not usually a good-faith effort to understand why the interactions only just came to light. It is usually simply meant to raise uncertainty about the women’s stories and, therefore, about the allegations against Moore. It is up to the voters of Alabama to decide if the allegations against Moore are a reason to oppose his candidacy; they may decide that they are not. The Post’s role is simply to bring the stories to light.

There’s a more subtle aspect to “why now” that’s worth pointing out. Why did the story drop last week? Because that was when the story was ready, after dozens of interviews and a great deal of verification, down to the date of court appearances 38 years ago.

Why now? Because that’s when an important story about a man who is right now seeking election to the Senate was unearthed, researched and vetted. It’s no more complicated than that.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Sort of like the Trump accusers....coming forward right before the election

Gee, you're right. No one knew he was a serial adulterer and pussy grabber until the election.

You don't find it odd that they all vanished after the election?

THey didn't. You've just been told they did. Listening to What Trump’s Accusers Have Told Us

Oh please...

LOL rehashing the same garbage that never went anywhere

 

[alang1216]

I don't know their reasons for coming forward but it is obvious why they stayed silent for so long. They are being trashed by Moore's supporters and likely the statute of limitations for any crimes ran out long ago so they had little to gain and much to lose.

-From Gullible's Travels?

I presume you said the same thing when Bill Clinton's accusers came forward.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I haven't heard a single credible explanation for why his accusers decided to come forward after 40 years of silence. Can someone explain this?

P.S. Please spare me about living in fear, repressed memory, PTSD, etc. These women have been adults for a very long time.

The reporters reply:

For Roy Moore’s insistent defenders: Here’s why now.
By Philip Bump November 13
reporting that uncovered a 1979 incident in which Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore allegedly fondled a 14-year-old girl: Why now? Why is it only a month before the election that this story came to light, after being unmentioned for the past 40 years?

Here, for example, is Moore himself making the argument:

“To think grown women would wait 40 years before a general election to bring charges is unbelievable,” he said at an event in Alabama over the weekend. He later added, “Isn’t it strange after 40 years of constant investigation, that people have waited four weeks before a general election to bring their complaint? That’s not a coincidence.”

Of course it’s not a coincidence that the women came forward just as Moore is seeking election to the Senate — but not in the way Moore means.

Moore has been a controversial figure in American politics for some time but mostly at the edges. His fight to preserve a monument to the Ten Commandments in a state building 15 years ago gained him national attention — but not necessarily national importance. Now, he’s seeking election to the Senate, one of 100 people who make up one half of the legislative branch of government. It’s a much more important fight nationally, and, as a result, has attracted much more attention.

There’s a reason that people with skeletons in their closets are loath to seek elected office: Once they do, the scrutiny that is a natural part of the campaign process threatens to expose those skeletons. This is less true for lower-level elected positions, where there is less media attention and fewer resources. For something like the Senate or the presidency, though, that scrutiny is both intense — and should be expected.

In this case, reporter Stephanie McCrummen was in Alabama as part of The Post’s coverage of the race. She explained the genesis of the story to NPR last week.

I was in Alabama actually reporting another story on Roy Moore supporters, a story aiming to understand, you know, the basis of his support in the state. And it was at the end of a long conversation with someone there that these allegations surfaced. So none of these women — none of the women in this story sought out The Washington Post. No one promoted this story to The Washington Post. And all of the women went through quite a long process deciding whether to come forward.

We’ve seen a similar difficult deliberative process in other recent allegations that have made headlines. Moore’s claim that it’s “unbelievable” that it could take 40 years for these stories to come to light ignores dozens of recent examples of allegations against men in positions of power that took decades to surface.

It’s important to note that McCrummen wasn’t the only Post reporter covering the race. In late September, shortly before the primary, our Michael Scherer profiled Moore, including a two-hour interview conducted as the pair drove to visit Moore’s mother. When Moore came to Washington, our Sean Sullivan covered his visit. Had either Scherer or Sullivan heard the same rumors as McCrummen — rumors, we’ve learned over the past few days, that have been around for years — it’s safe to say that they, too, would have investigated further.

That, of course, is what reporting is about: telling important stories. Sometimes that means convincing people who know the stories to come forward, as The Post’s team did with the four women sharing stories about Moore’s alleged interest in teenage girls, including Leigh Corfman, the girl who was 14. The original story noted that “[n]either Corfman nor any of the other women sought out The Post.” After learning about them, “two Post reporters contacted and interviewed the four women. All were initially reluctant to speak publicly but chose to do so after multiple interviews, saying they thought it was important for people to know about their interactions with Moore.”

Why was it important? Presumably because of the timing. Becausenow.

For 40 years, as Moore and his defenders point out, the women kept their stories close, telling some friends and family (and, in Corfman’s case, one former boyfriend) but not the public at large. It’s important for Alabamians at large to know about those interactions now presumably because Moore is running for the Senate. The same reason it’s important for The Post and other outlets to cover who he is and what he believes, as Scherer, Sullivan and McCrummen all have.

The point of asking “why now” is not usually a good-faith effort to understand why the interactions only just came to light. It is usually simply meant to raise uncertainty about the women’s stories and, therefore, about the allegations against Moore. It is up to the voters of Alabama to decide if the allegations against Moore are a reason to oppose his candidacy; they may decide that they are not. The Post’s role is simply to bring the stories to light.

There’s a more subtle aspect to “why now” that’s worth pointing out. Why did the story drop last week? Because that was when the story was ready, after dozens of interviews and a great deal of verification, down to the date of court appearances 38 years ago.

Why now? Because that’s when an important story about a man who is right now seeking election to the Senate was unearthed, researched and vetted. It’s no more complicated than that.

ROFLMAO it's from WAPO....good grief

 

[OldLady]

I don't know their reasons for coming forward but it is obvious why they stayed silent for so long. They are being trashed by Moore's supporters and likely the statute of limitations for any crimes ran out long ago so they had little to gain and much to lose.

-From Gullible's Travels?

It's no more gullible to believe them than it is gullible to believe Moore. Actually, there is a lot more corroborating evidence for the ladies than Moore's denials and threats.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Why are people nowadays still making the "Why now?" argument? This has been happening for decades in countless incidents where the accuser was proven to be right. But when it's your guy in the barrel you pretend likes it's some unheard of occurrence that a victim might stay silent for years.

And countless incidents where the accusation was shown to be false.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I don't know their reasons for coming forward but it is obvious why they stayed silent for so long. They are being trashed by Moore's supporters and likely the statute of limitations for any crimes ran out long ago so they had little to gain and much to lose.

-From Gullible's Travels?

It's no more gullible to believe them than it is gullible to believe Moore. Actually, there is a lot more corroborating evidence for the ladies than Moore's denials and threats.

What evidence?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

This woman claimed that in the 70's she couldn't open the car door. Problem, child locks didn't come about until the 80's.

 

[The Original Tree]

The Lying Left wants to take over The Senate and their candidate was 12 points behind with just 4 weeks left to go in the race.

That's why.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I don't know their reasons for coming forward but it is obvious why they stayed silent for so long. They are being trashed by Moore's supporters and likely the statute of limitations for any crimes ran out long ago so they had little to gain and much to lose.

-From Gullible's Travels?

It's no more gullible to believe them than it is gullible to believe Moore. Actually, there is a lot more corroborating evidence for the ladies than Moore's denials and threats.

What evidence?

Good question... probably in the same box with the Russian collusion evidence.

 

[playtime]

He had a trial...with witnesses and people under oath......are we now in agreement that the same needs to happen to Child-chaser Moore?

Considering that the Feds withheld exonerating evidence that would have helped Stevens, I can see why you would want Moore to get the same treatment.

You mean the same treatment as to having a trial where both he and his accusers are under oath and evidence is looked for by investigating authorities (i.e. the validity of Moore's handwriting in the yearbook)......Yes.

I'm perfectly fine with following actual due process in Moore's case. It's what I have said all along.

At this point, however, it's too late. The political damage has been done, which was the agenda all along.

This is "political damage" for Alabama GOPrs? Are you kidding? It's a badge of honor for them.

That's a stupid comment, even for you. Get back to your Kevin Spacey worship.

kevin spacey's career is over. rightfully so. & weinstein's, & CK lewis.... & anthony weiner's....

 

[playtime]

I haven't heard a single credible explanation for why his accusers decided to come forward after 40 years of silence. Can someone explain this?

P.S. Please spare me about living in fear, repressed memory, PTSD, etc. These women have been adults for a very long time.

The reporters reply:

For Roy Moore’s insistent defenders: Here’s why now.
By Philip Bump November 13
reporting that uncovered a 1979 incident in which Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore allegedly fondled a 14-year-old girl: Why now? Why is it only a month before the election that this story came to light, after being unmentioned for the past 40 years?

Here, for example, is Moore himself making the argument:

“To think grown women would wait 40 years before a general election to bring charges is unbelievable,” he said at an event in Alabama over the weekend. He later added, “Isn’t it strange after 40 years of constant investigation, that people have waited four weeks before a general election to bring their complaint? That’s not a coincidence.”

Of course it’s not a coincidence that the women came forward just as Moore is seeking election to the Senate — but not in the way Moore means.

Moore has been a controversial figure in American politics for some time but mostly at the edges. His fight to preserve a monument to the Ten Commandments in a state building 15 years ago gained him national attention — but not necessarily national importance. Now, he’s seeking election to the Senate, one of 100 people who make up one half of the legislative branch of government. It’s a much more important fight nationally, and, as a result, has attracted much more attention.

There’s a reason that people with skeletons in their closets are loath to seek elected office: Once they do, the scrutiny that is a natural part of the campaign process threatens to expose those skeletons. This is less true for lower-level elected positions, where there is less media attention and fewer resources. For something like the Senate or the presidency, though, that scrutiny is both intense — and should be expected.

In this case, reporter Stephanie McCrummen was in Alabama as part of The Post’s coverage of the race. She explained the genesis of the story to NPR last week.

I was in Alabama actually reporting another story on Roy Moore supporters, a story aiming to understand, you know, the basis of his support in the state. And it was at the end of a long conversation with someone there that these allegations surfaced. So none of these women — none of the women in this story sought out The Washington Post. No one promoted this story to The Washington Post. And all of the women went through quite a long process deciding whether to come forward.

We’ve seen a similar difficult deliberative process in other recent allegations that have made headlines. Moore’s claim that it’s “unbelievable” that it could take 40 years for these stories to come to light ignores dozens of recent examples of allegations against men in positions of power that took decades to surface.

It’s important to note that McCrummen wasn’t the only Post reporter covering the race. In late September, shortly before the primary, our Michael Scherer profiled Moore, including a two-hour interview conducted as the pair drove to visit Moore’s mother. When Moore came to Washington, our Sean Sullivan covered his visit. Had either Scherer or Sullivan heard the same rumors as McCrummen — rumors, we’ve learned over the past few days, that have been around for years — it’s safe to say that they, too, would have investigated further.

That, of course, is what reporting is about: telling important stories. Sometimes that means convincing people who know the stories to come forward, as The Post’s team did with the four women sharing stories about Moore’s alleged interest in teenage girls, including Leigh Corfman, the girl who was 14. The original story noted that “[n]either Corfman nor any of the other women sought out The Post.” After learning about them, “two Post reporters contacted and interviewed the four women. All were initially reluctant to speak publicly but chose to do so after multiple interviews, saying they thought it was important for people to know about their interactions with Moore.”

Why was it important? Presumably because of the timing. Becausenow.

For 40 years, as Moore and his defenders point out, the women kept their stories close, telling some friends and family (and, in Corfman’s case, one former boyfriend) but not the public at large. It’s important for Alabamians at large to know about those interactions now presumably because Moore is running for the Senate. The same reason it’s important for The Post and other outlets to cover who he is and what he believes, as Scherer, Sullivan and McCrummen all have.

The point of asking “why now” is not usually a good-faith effort to understand why the interactions only just came to light. It is usually simply meant to raise uncertainty about the women’s stories and, therefore, about the allegations against Moore. It is up to the voters of Alabama to decide if the allegations against Moore are a reason to oppose his candidacy; they may decide that they are not. The Post’s role is simply to bring the stories to light.

There’s a more subtle aspect to “why now” that’s worth pointing out. Why did the story drop last week? Because that was when the story was ready, after dozens of interviews and a great deal of verification, down to the date of court appearances 38 years ago.

Why now? Because that’s when an important story about a man who is right now seeking election to the Senate was unearthed, researched and vetted. It’s no more complicated than that.

ROFLMAO it's from WAPO....good grief

lol... didn't WAPO investigate & break the Watergate scandal wide open?

 

[playtime]

This woman claimed that in the 70's she couldn't open the car door. Problem, child locks didn't come about until the 80's.

or perhaps one is restrained by a grown man & COULDN'T open the fucking door.

ya- it happens.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I haven't heard a single credible explanation for why his accusers decided to come forward after 40 years of silence. Can someone explain this?

P.S. Please spare me about living in fear, repressed memory, PTSD, etc. These women have been adults for a very long time.

The reporters reply:

For Roy Moore’s insistent defenders: Here’s why now.
By Philip Bump November 13
reporting that uncovered a 1979 incident in which Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore allegedly fondled a 14-year-old girl: Why now? Why is it only a month before the election that this story came to light, after being unmentioned for the past 40 years?

Here, for example, is Moore himself making the argument:

“To think grown women would wait 40 years before a general election to bring charges is unbelievable,” he said at an event in Alabama over the weekend. He later added, “Isn’t it strange after 40 years of constant investigation, that people have waited four weeks before a general election to bring their complaint? That’s not a coincidence.”

Of course it’s not a coincidence that the women came forward just as Moore is seeking election to the Senate — but not in the way Moore means.

Moore has been a controversial figure in American politics for some time but mostly at the edges. His fight to preserve a monument to the Ten Commandments in a state building 15 years ago gained him national attention — but not necessarily national importance. Now, he’s seeking election to the Senate, one of 100 people who make up one half of the legislative branch of government. It’s a much more important fight nationally, and, as a result, has attracted much more attention.

There’s a reason that people with skeletons in their closets are loath to seek elected office: Once they do, the scrutiny that is a natural part of the campaign process threatens to expose those skeletons. This is less true for lower-level elected positions, where there is less media attention and fewer resources. For something like the Senate or the presidency, though, that scrutiny is both intense — and should be expected.

In this case, reporter Stephanie McCrummen was in Alabama as part of The Post’s coverage of the race. She explained the genesis of the story to NPR last week.

I was in Alabama actually reporting another story on Roy Moore supporters, a story aiming to understand, you know, the basis of his support in the state. And it was at the end of a long conversation with someone there that these allegations surfaced. So none of these women — none of the women in this story sought out The Washington Post. No one promoted this story to The Washington Post. And all of the women went through quite a long process deciding whether to come forward.

We’ve seen a similar difficult deliberative process in other recent allegations that have made headlines. Moore’s claim that it’s “unbelievable” that it could take 40 years for these stories to come to light ignores dozens of recent examples of allegations against men in positions of power that took decades to surface.

It’s important to note that McCrummen wasn’t the only Post reporter covering the race. In late September, shortly before the primary, our Michael Scherer profiled Moore, including a two-hour interview conducted as the pair drove to visit Moore’s mother. When Moore came to Washington, our Sean Sullivan covered his visit. Had either Scherer or Sullivan heard the same rumors as McCrummen — rumors, we’ve learned over the past few days, that have been around for years — it’s safe to say that they, too, would have investigated further.

That, of course, is what reporting is about: telling important stories. Sometimes that means convincing people who know the stories to come forward, as The Post’s team did with the four women sharing stories about Moore’s alleged interest in teenage girls, including Leigh Corfman, the girl who was 14. The original story noted that “[n]either Corfman nor any of the other women sought out The Post.” After learning about them, “two Post reporters contacted and interviewed the four women. All were initially reluctant to speak publicly but chose to do so after multiple interviews, saying they thought it was important for people to know about their interactions with Moore.”

Why was it important? Presumably because of the timing. Becausenow.

For 40 years, as Moore and his defenders point out, the women kept their stories close, telling some friends and family (and, in Corfman’s case, one former boyfriend) but not the public at large. It’s important for Alabamians at large to know about those interactions now presumably because Moore is running for the Senate. The same reason it’s important for The Post and other outlets to cover who he is and what he believes, as Scherer, Sullivan and McCrummen all have.

The point of asking “why now” is not usually a good-faith effort to understand why the interactions only just came to light. It is usually simply meant to raise uncertainty about the women’s stories and, therefore, about the allegations against Moore. It is up to the voters of Alabama to decide if the allegations against Moore are a reason to oppose his candidacy; they may decide that they are not. The Post’s role is simply to bring the stories to light.

There’s a more subtle aspect to “why now” that’s worth pointing out. Why did the story drop last week? Because that was when the story was ready, after dozens of interviews and a great deal of verification, down to the date of court appearances 38 years ago.

Why now? Because that’s when an important story about a man who is right now seeking election to the Senate was unearthed, researched and vetted. It’s no more complicated than that.

ROFLMAO it's from WAPO....good grief

lol... didn't WAPO investigate & break the Watergate scandal wide open?

Today's media is a far cry from the Watergate era. A far far cry

 

[playtime]

I haven't heard a single credible explanation for why his accusers decided to come forward after 40 years of silence. Can someone explain this?

P.S. Please spare me about living in fear, repressed memory, PTSD, etc. These women have been adults for a very long time.

The reporters reply:

For Roy Moore’s insistent defenders: Here’s why now.
By Philip Bump November 13
reporting that uncovered a 1979 incident in which Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore allegedly fondled a 14-year-old girl: Why now? Why is it only a month before the election that this story came to light, after being unmentioned for the past 40 years?

Here, for example, is Moore himself making the argument:

“To think grown women would wait 40 years before a general election to bring charges is unbelievable,” he said at an event in Alabama over the weekend. He later added, “Isn’t it strange after 40 years of constant investigation, that people have waited four weeks before a general election to bring their complaint? That’s not a coincidence.”

Of course it’s not a coincidence that the women came forward just as Moore is seeking election to the Senate — but not in the way Moore means.

Moore has been a controversial figure in American politics for some time but mostly at the edges. His fight to preserve a monument to the Ten Commandments in a state building 15 years ago gained him national attention — but not necessarily national importance. Now, he’s seeking election to the Senate, one of 100 people who make up one half of the legislative branch of government. It’s a much more important fight nationally, and, as a result, has attracted much more attention.

There’s a reason that people with skeletons in their closets are loath to seek elected office: Once they do, the scrutiny that is a natural part of the campaign process threatens to expose those skeletons. This is less true for lower-level elected positions, where there is less media attention and fewer resources. For something like the Senate or the presidency, though, that scrutiny is both intense — and should be expected.

In this case, reporter Stephanie McCrummen was in Alabama as part of The Post’s coverage of the race. She explained the genesis of the story to NPR last week.

I was in Alabama actually reporting another story on Roy Moore supporters, a story aiming to understand, you know, the basis of his support in the state. And it was at the end of a long conversation with someone there that these allegations surfaced. So none of these women — none of the women in this story sought out The Washington Post. No one promoted this story to The Washington Post. And all of the women went through quite a long process deciding whether to come forward.

We’ve seen a similar difficult deliberative process in other recent allegations that have made headlines. Moore’s claim that it’s “unbelievable” that it could take 40 years for these stories to come to light ignores dozens of recent examples of allegations against men in positions of power that took decades to surface.

It’s important to note that McCrummen wasn’t the only Post reporter covering the race. In late September, shortly before the primary, our Michael Scherer profiled Moore, including a two-hour interview conducted as the pair drove to visit Moore’s mother. When Moore came to Washington, our Sean Sullivan covered his visit. Had either Scherer or Sullivan heard the same rumors as McCrummen — rumors, we’ve learned over the past few days, that have been around for years — it’s safe to say that they, too, would have investigated further.

That, of course, is what reporting is about: telling important stories. Sometimes that means convincing people who know the stories to come forward, as The Post’s team did with the four women sharing stories about Moore’s alleged interest in teenage girls, including Leigh Corfman, the girl who was 14. The original story noted that “[n]either Corfman nor any of the other women sought out The Post.” After learning about them, “two Post reporters contacted and interviewed the four women. All were initially reluctant to speak publicly but chose to do so after multiple interviews, saying they thought it was important for people to know about their interactions with Moore.”

Why was it important? Presumably because of the timing. Becausenow.

For 40 years, as Moore and his defenders point out, the women kept their stories close, telling some friends and family (and, in Corfman’s case, one former boyfriend) but not the public at large. It’s important for Alabamians at large to know about those interactions now presumably because Moore is running for the Senate. The same reason it’s important for The Post and other outlets to cover who he is and what he believes, as Scherer, Sullivan and McCrummen all have.

The point of asking “why now” is not usually a good-faith effort to understand why the interactions only just came to light. It is usually simply meant to raise uncertainty about the women’s stories and, therefore, about the allegations against Moore. It is up to the voters of Alabama to decide if the allegations against Moore are a reason to oppose his candidacy; they may decide that they are not. The Post’s role is simply to bring the stories to light.

There’s a more subtle aspect to “why now” that’s worth pointing out. Why did the story drop last week? Because that was when the story was ready, after dozens of interviews and a great deal of verification, down to the date of court appearances 38 years ago.

Why now? Because that’s when an important story about a man who is right now seeking election to the Senate was unearthed, researched and vetted. It’s no more complicated than that.

ROFLMAO it's from WAPO....good grief

lol... didn't WAPO investigate & break the Watergate scandal wide open?

Today's media is a far cry from the Watergate era. A far far cry

it sure is. even the likes of breitbart & alex jones can get a press pass to the WH briefings.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I haven't heard a single credible explanation for why his accusers decided to come forward after 40 years of silence. Can someone explain this?

P.S. Please spare me about living in fear, repressed memory, PTSD, etc. These women have been adults for a very long time.

The reporters reply:

For Roy Moore’s insistent defenders: Here’s why now.
By Philip Bump November 13
reporting that uncovered a 1979 incident in which Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore allegedly fondled a 14-year-old girl: Why now? Why is it only a month before the election that this story came to light, after being unmentioned for the past 40 years?

Here, for example, is Moore himself making the argument:

“To think grown women would wait 40 years before a general election to bring charges is unbelievable,” he said at an event in Alabama over the weekend. He later added, “Isn’t it strange after 40 years of constant investigation, that people have waited four weeks before a general election to bring their complaint? That’s not a coincidence.”

Of course it’s not a coincidence that the women came forward just as Moore is seeking election to the Senate — but not in the way Moore means.

Moore has been a controversial figure in American politics for some time but mostly at the edges. His fight to preserve a monument to the Ten Commandments in a state building 15 years ago gained him national attention — but not necessarily national importance. Now, he’s seeking election to the Senate, one of 100 people who make up one half of the legislative branch of government. It’s a much more important fight nationally, and, as a result, has attracted much more attention.

There’s a reason that people with skeletons in their closets are loath to seek elected office: Once they do, the scrutiny that is a natural part of the campaign process threatens to expose those skeletons. This is less true for lower-level elected positions, where there is less media attention and fewer resources. For something like the Senate or the presidency, though, that scrutiny is both intense — and should be expected.

In this case, reporter Stephanie McCrummen was in Alabama as part of The Post’s coverage of the race. She explained the genesis of the story to NPR last week.

I was in Alabama actually reporting another story on Roy Moore supporters, a story aiming to understand, you know, the basis of his support in the state. And it was at the end of a long conversation with someone there that these allegations surfaced. So none of these women — none of the women in this story sought out The Washington Post. No one promoted this story to The Washington Post. And all of the women went through quite a long process deciding whether to come forward.

We’ve seen a similar difficult deliberative process in other recent allegations that have made headlines. Moore’s claim that it’s “unbelievable” that it could take 40 years for these stories to come to light ignores dozens of recent examples of allegations against men in positions of power that took decades to surface.

It’s important to note that McCrummen wasn’t the only Post reporter covering the race. In late September, shortly before the primary, our Michael Scherer profiled Moore, including a two-hour interview conducted as the pair drove to visit Moore’s mother. When Moore came to Washington, our Sean Sullivan covered his visit. Had either Scherer or Sullivan heard the same rumors as McCrummen — rumors, we’ve learned over the past few days, that have been around for years — it’s safe to say that they, too, would have investigated further.

That, of course, is what reporting is about: telling important stories. Sometimes that means convincing people who know the stories to come forward, as The Post’s team did with the four women sharing stories about Moore’s alleged interest in teenage girls, including Leigh Corfman, the girl who was 14. The original story noted that “[n]either Corfman nor any of the other women sought out The Post.” After learning about them, “two Post reporters contacted and interviewed the four women. All were initially reluctant to speak publicly but chose to do so after multiple interviews, saying they thought it was important for people to know about their interactions with Moore.”

Why was it important? Presumably because of the timing. Becausenow.

For 40 years, as Moore and his defenders point out, the women kept their stories close, telling some friends and family (and, in Corfman’s case, one former boyfriend) but not the public at large. It’s important for Alabamians at large to know about those interactions now presumably because Moore is running for the Senate. The same reason it’s important for The Post and other outlets to cover who he is and what he believes, as Scherer, Sullivan and McCrummen all have.

The point of asking “why now” is not usually a good-faith effort to understand why the interactions only just came to light. It is usually simply meant to raise uncertainty about the women’s stories and, therefore, about the allegations against Moore. It is up to the voters of Alabama to decide if the allegations against Moore are a reason to oppose his candidacy; they may decide that they are not. The Post’s role is simply to bring the stories to light.

There’s a more subtle aspect to “why now” that’s worth pointing out. Why did the story drop last week? Because that was when the story was ready, after dozens of interviews and a great deal of verification, down to the date of court appearances 38 years ago.

Why now? Because that’s when an important story about a man who is right now seeking election to the Senate was unearthed, researched and vetted. It’s no more complicated than that.

ROFLMAO it's from WAPO....good grief

lol... didn't WAPO investigate & break the Watergate scandal wide open?

No, that would have been Woodward & Bernstein. But, they did, and I believe still do, work for the WaPost.

 

[bendog]

I haven't heard a single credible explanation for why his accusers decided to come forward after 40 years of silence. Can someone explain this?

P.S. Please spare me about living in fear, repressed memory, PTSD, etc. These women have been adults for a very long time.

The reporters reply:

For Roy Moore’s insistent defenders: Here’s why now.
By Philip Bump November 13
reporting that uncovered a 1979 incident in which Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore allegedly fondled a 14-year-old girl: Why now? Why is it only a month before the election that this story came to light, after being unmentioned for the past 40 years?

Here, for example, is Moore himself making the argument:

“To think grown women would wait 40 years before a general election to bring charges is unbelievable,” he said at an event in Alabama over the weekend. He later added, “Isn’t it strange after 40 years of constant investigation, that people have waited four weeks before a general election to bring their complaint? That’s not a coincidence.”

Of course it’s not a coincidence that the women came forward just as Moore is seeking election to the Senate — but not in the way Moore means.

Moore has been a controversial figure in American politics for some time but mostly at the edges. His fight to preserve a monument to the Ten Commandments in a state building 15 years ago gained him national attention — but not necessarily national importance. Now, he’s seeking election to the Senate, one of 100 people who make up one half of the legislative branch of government. It’s a much more important fight nationally, and, as a result, has attracted much more attention.


There’s a reason that people with skeletons in their closets are loath to seek elected office: Once they do, the scrutiny that is a natural part of the campaign process threatens to expose those skeletons. This is less true for lower-level elected positions, where there is less media attention and fewer resources. For something like the Senate or the presidency, though, that scrutiny is both intense — and should be expected.

In this case, reporter Stephanie McCrummen was in Alabama as part of The Post’s coverage of the race. She explained the genesis of the story to NPR last week.

I was in Alabama actually reporting another story on Roy Moore supporters, a story aiming to understand, you know, the basis of his support in the state. And it was at the end of a long conversation with someone there that these allegations surfaced. So none of these women — none of the women in this story sought out The Washington Post. No one promoted this story to The Washington Post. And all of the women went through quite a long process deciding whether to come forward.

We’ve seen a similar difficult deliberative process in other recent allegations that have made headlines. Moore’s claim that it’s “unbelievable” that it could take 40 years for these stories to come to light ignores dozens of recent examples of allegations against men in positions of power that took decades to surface.

It’s important to note that McCrummen wasn’t the only Post reporter covering the race. In late September, shortly before the primary, our Michael Scherer profiled Moore, including a two-hour interview conducted as the pair drove to visit Moore’s mother. When Moore came to Washington, our Sean Sullivan covered his visit. Had either Scherer or Sullivan heard the same rumors as McCrummen — rumors, we’ve learned over the past few days, that have been around for years — it’s safe to say that they, too, would have investigated further.

That, of course, is what reporting is about: telling important stories. Sometimes that means convincing people who know the stories to come forward, as The Post’s team did with the four women sharing stories about Moore’s alleged interest in teenage girls, including Leigh Corfman, the girl who was 14. The original story noted that “[n]either Corfman nor any of the other women sought out The Post.” After learning about them, “two Post reporters contacted and interviewed the four women. All were initially reluctant to speak publicly but chose to do so after multiple interviews, saying they thought it was important for people to know about their interactions with Moore.”

Why was it important? Presumably because of the timing. Becausenow.

For 40 years, as Moore and his defenders point out, the women kept their stories close, telling some friends and family (and, in Corfman’s case, one former boyfriend) but not the public at large. It’s important for Alabamians at large to know about those interactions now presumably because Moore is running for the Senate. The same reason it’s important for The Post and other outlets to cover who he is and what he believes, as Scherer, Sullivan and McCrummen all have.

The point of asking “why now” is not usually a good-faith effort to understand why the interactions only just came to light. It is usually simply meant to raise uncertainty about the women’s stories and, therefore, about the allegations against Moore. It is up to the voters of Alabama to decide if the allegations against Moore are a reason to oppose his candidacy; they may decide that they are not. The Post’s role is simply to bring the stories to light.

There’s a more subtle aspect to “why now” that’s worth pointing out. Why did the story drop last week? Because that was when the story was ready, after dozens of interviews and a great deal of verification, down to the date of court appearances 38 years ago.

Why now? Because that’s when an important story about a man who is right now seeking election to the Senate was unearthed, researched and vetted. It’s no more complicated than that.

ROFLMAO it's from WAPO....good grief

lol... didn't WAPO investigate & break the Watergate scandal wide open?

Today's media is a far cry from the Watergate era. A far far cry

They made no effort to undercover anything about Nixon before the breakin.