I don't really like the fact that there are posters here who are posting delusions on either side and it always turns into a cycle of arguments between two people who have no proof, partly because they honestly couldn't obtain proof if there was proof to gain.
And if I were to push for names you'd pick out the resident conservatives while giving the liberals a free pass. That kind of cognitive bias is what happens when emotions are placed above rational.
We're essentially arguing with theories half the time. Do we KNOW that the Moore allegations are true? No, but they are believable.
And you were ready to convict and destroy a mans career purely on the fact they are "believable". Lots of things are believable, few of them are truth. It's also believable the women's story is complete ***. Using the same logic you put forth, we should discard her story purely based on the fact it's "believable" she lied. It's the job of the accuser to prove their allegations not on the accused to dispute them.
It boils down to this, you don't like Moore because it's a Republican, End Of Story. You like the other two because they are Democrats, End Of Story. You will give allowances to the two Democrats while denying those same allowances to the Republican, for no other reason then it makes you feel good to do so.
So like I said, hypocrite.