Logic 101 for liberal dummies: Here’s the difference between Roy Moore and Clinton, Franken, Rose, Weinstein and Conyers

Judge Roy Moore began rising in the polls this week as the flimsy 38-year-old allegations against him started to fall apart.

(Article by Jim Hoft republished from TheGatewayPundit.com)

Nearly EVERY SINGLE DETAIL in Gloria Allred’s accuser allegations against Roy Moore have been debunked.
Beverly Nelson was not telling the truth.

Alabama voters are paying attention.
Roy Moore now leads ultra-liberal Doug Jones from 6 to 22 points in three new polls.

So what are the major differences between the accusations against Judge Roy Moore and the accusations against Democrats Bill Clinton, Al Franken, Charlie Rose, Harvey Weinstein, and John Conyers?

DaTech Guy put this list together:

All of the cases above we have one or more of the following:

** An admission of guilt
** Settlements paid
** Investigations by a competent body
** Physical evidence of wrongdoing
** Accusations made under oath.

What do we have in the Roy Moore case? None of these things. No admission of guilt, no settlements paid to accusers, no investigations made by a competent body. The entire body of physical evidence is an old yearbook signature that the lawyer of the claimant not only refuses to release for examination but admits she has not even asked her client if she saw Mr. Moore sign said book.

That about nails it.

Read the whole thing here.

Read more at: TheGatewayPundit.com