Not at all. Obviously, innocent until proven guilty - but we also have to give the accusers the benefit of the doubt, using the same logic. I think Moore's comment from the OP are extraordinarily telling. Who doesn't remember stuff like that? It's not credible.
You're entitled to find Moore's comment as telling as you like. Perhaps the voters in Alabama will agree. Who are you to say what is and isn't credible?
Guilt or innocence doesn't enter into this. unless I am mistaken the statute of limitations would cover any supposed crime even if one was being alleged.
The damage has been done to Moore's chances of winning the election, and I suspect that was the plan all along.
It's strange to say the least that these women supposedly sat on this information for decades and were suddenly "accidentally" discovered by a news organization that is notoriously anti-conservative.
And just in time for an election that many people thought the
DEMOCRATS had no chance of winning. What a remarkable st of coincidences.
To address your point about Moore's demeanor, please recall that Bill Clinton was very convincing when he told the entire nation an outright lie about his sexual affair with a much younger women.
Perhaps you will concede the point that glibness and poise are hardly indicative of honesty, and the reverse is also inconclusive.
I would possibly be nearly incoherent with rage and shock if I were suddenly accused of something of the sort after decades.
