What if?

So I have stated (and maintained) that at least some of the allegations against Judge Roy Moore are certainly more believable than not. That being said, now that we have seen some of the "piling on" from other women, it is starting to appear that not everything is on the up and up.

• First the women who hired Gloria Allred has been under scrutiny over her suggestion that Judge Moore signed her yearbook. There now appears to be at least some real cause to doubt the legitimacy of the signature (as explained here). Given the reluctance of both the accuser and her attorney to turn over the yearbook for professional verification, Occam's razor is starting to logically point to a forgery. Added to this, is that her own step son is maintaining that she is lying for attention (and has a history of doing as much). 
• Next we had the woman who insisted that she had Roy Moore banned from the mall. This is now being disputed by the former Mall Manager who states that he saw no record of Moore ever being banned (and that Roy Moore was well known at the time so it would not have been something that flew under the radar). 
• Add to this, that the original woman (the most believable of the bunch) has had certain "details" of her story disputed by her mother. While the mother and father both support the story overall, the small details can cause some overall credibility problems. (In a criminal or civil trial, such small lapses in the truth can allow for a  jury to discount the entire testimony)
• Lastly, if you actually take the other three "allegations" against Judge Moore, it includes three women who claim that he pursued them when they were between the ages of seventeen and twenty two. None of them are suggesting he did anything other than show interest or ask them out. While this may seem unusual, it was not at the time (and still not today) actually against the law. 

So what if we literally gave Roy Moore the same benefit of the doubt that he would get if this was a criminal trial. First, the allegations are all nearly four decades old. Well past any statute of limitations (which exists for many real reasons). Second, there is literally no non-anecdotal evidence that can be verified. In fact, the only non-anecdotal evidence (the yearbook and the mall ban) at this point have not been verified. In one case, because the witness (and her attorney) refuse to turn over the potential evidence to be verified. In the other, there is actually anecdotal evidence (the former mall manager providing a statement) against the allegation.

What if this actually "is" what Judge Moore and his supporters allege it to be? What if it is a coordinated hit job from the Washington Post and others, who are looking to tear down a Senate candidates with allegations that cannot be adequately rebutted within the time period provided?

Would it really matter to those who are against Judge Moore's candidacy? Would the ends (winning a Senate seat) justify the means (dragging everyone through four decades old sexual allegations that were more hype than truth)?  Would we (as a country) want to see sexual allegations "weaponized" in this sort of manner?