Journalists and other Democrats are implying or stating that people, including President Trump, are unethical and immoral and don't care about abused women if they support or vote for Roy Moore.  Let's look at the origins of, and the lack of research and truthfulness in, the Roy Moore story itself:

Roy Moore won the primary in Alabama despite not being endorsed by journalists and establishment Republicans.  After he won and after decades in public life, a story was published in the Washington Post with four women's names.  We are told the women didn't come forward themselves, so who gave the reporters the names, and why did they wait for decades to tell their stories?

The only woman of the original four who had physical evidence was Beverly Young Nelson, and the actual evidence was only a signature and inscription in a 1977 yearbook that even she and her attorney Gloria Allred now admit was partially altered.  If they admit that part of the original story was a lie, why should we believe the rest?  Beverly Nelson also said she did not have contact with Roy Moore after 1977, even though he was the judge in her divorce case in 1999.  If Beverly Nelson lied about some things, why is she automatically considered credible by journalists and others? 

We have repeatedly heard that the Washington Post writers did a thorough job investigating the story, but how could they possibly not have known that the "D.A." after Roy Moore's signature was a forgery (he was not the D.A. until 1992) and not have known about the divorce case?  If the writers had known about those lies, would the story have been reported?  If the reporters had written accurately about the divorce and altered yearbook entry, would the story have as much credibility throughout the rest of the media, who just repeated the story with no questions asked?  Why are media outlets mostly ignoring the yearbook story today and ignoring the lie about not having contact after 1977?  It appears that the media care little about the truth when they have a candidate to beat. 

Why did the story end up in the hands of Washington Post reporters instead of Alabama reporters, since the story is about only Alabama?

It is tremendously hard to disprove forty-year-old accusations, but is it likely that a supposed serial accuser of young women all of a sudden stopped around forty years ago?  Why aren't there more current stories of harassment and abuse? 

Why should we believe that a paper, the Washington Post, wouldn't be willing to take another story about a Republican it wanted to beat when it has willingly run with the pretend Russian collusion endlessly for over a year?  How do we know that some group like Fusion GPS didn't hand the Washington Post the story about Roy Moore?

It is pathetic that journalists and other Democrats pretend they are moral, ethical, and truthful and care about sexual abuse of women in 2017 when in 2016, they wholeheartedly supported the clearly corrupt and unethical Clintons for president, who willingly and consistently physically and mentally abused a series of women over decades while seeking to destroy those women and anyone else who got in the way of their unending quest for power and money. 

The mission of journalists and Democrats the past year has been to destroy Trump and his agenda, and it helps if they destroy and beat Roy Moore.  Pretending they are now ethical and moral and all of a sudden caring about abused women is about destroying Trump, nothing more.