Here's the difference....
When Al Franken was elected, the voters did not know he did all these horrible things (correct me if I'm wrong)
When Roy Moore is elected, the voters are going to elect him even while knowing what he did.
So, should he really be recalled if they still elected him knowing everything he has done?
Their claim is they don't believe it...sonwait for him to get charged and then they will change their tune why it okay to keep him in the Senate.
Wait for him to get charged? That's not going to happen. These allegations are from over 30 years ago! Any statute of limitations, civil or criminal, has long since run.
So he's being tried by the media and voters. And that's a good thing from the alleged victims' point of view. But it's not really fair to Moore or our legal system, which has a presumption of innocence and statutes of limitation for a reason.
If he wins, what's the Senate going to do? Refuse to seat him? I don't think it would even be constitutional for the Senate to refuse to honor the Alabama vote. File ethics charges against him - based on claims that have already been decided by the voters and are too old to litigate?
The allegations against are vile and many, but they're too damned old. They also smack of political dirty tricks, waiting for over 30 years to come forth, after the final campaign deadline, despite him being a prominent public figure for decades.
For the record, I suspect at least some of the allegations are true, he's a creep and a nutjob. And I still think he is permitted to serve if he wins.