The media assumes Moore is lying because they're used to liars. They assume the accusers are telling the truth because they're used to the accused eventually admitting it. But Trump stated the truth that we should listen to Moore. That doesn't mean Moore is right but this is not clear cut like Franken (photos) or O'Reilly ($40 million).
I say that the stories are unproven, some of the the accusers are dubious in character (Corfman is known for making false accusations against her pastors, Reinhard is a volunteer for Moore's opponent, Gibson worked for Hillary Clinton). It seems to me that there is at least reasonable doubt so far. I'm not going to believe someone who has no proof.
Also, we continue to elect people like Moore and then wonder why we have a swamp?
Which means he's lying or being highly misleading - another strike against him. I'm making the best educated conclusion I can here. For most things in life you aren't going to get any better clarity. I can't say he's guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt or that it's been scientifically proven.
His initial reaction a weak denial which grew stronger over time is exactly what you would expect from someone who isn't telling the truth. Thinking it through like that at every stage of the story and the reactions of those involved leads to the conclusion that most of the accusations (but not all) are highly likely to be true.
@SteveD The evidence is pretty compelling. However since we don't really have a version from Moore (except "it's false") we can't try to find the truth between two accounts. Moore's reaction to the story is 100% political, designed to get him elected. It's scummy. It only makes the stories seem more credible. Those who believe "it's false" with no supporting evidence are suspending disbelief to arrive at their conclusion. Or they know the answer but value politics over character (like Moore clearly does).