There is good reason for a legal Statute of Limitations.

Witnesses die, others forget over time, papers get trashed, videos get written over, fingerprints get mishandled, lab results expire.

The evidence to prove or disprove a case disappears over time.

The importance of judicial damage also disappears over time, if not thought important to bring up earlier.

But if an accusation of criminal behavior brought up after the expiration of these legal limits is forbidden, then so too should there be a "reverse" Statute of Limitations to forbid "trials in the media" delivered as a "gotcha" accusation just before an important election deciding the fate of the entire country.

Especially, if the "trial in the media" are all done by NYC media outsiders highly influencing internal Alabama elections, as is being done in the Judge Roy Moore case.

How can the same NYC media harp on and on about Russian OUTSIDERS influencing our federal elections,; while they themselves work so hard as NYC OUTSIDERS influencing Alabama State elections?

We have often said that the most important place you will ever exercise your freedom of speech is in a courtroom. And yet, if you wait too long, you lose your right to free speech in a court room. You cannot file a lawsuit if the statue of limitations expire.

Right now, there is no statute of limitations to bring your case in the media.

Even 50 years after not a single accusation against Judge Roy Moore, long past any legal statutes of limitations, the media dredged deeper into Judge Roy Moore's past life than anyone I have ever heard of before, and dug up what it considers to be an airtight case to present to the voting jury of Alabama judging Roy Moore as not being worthy of being a US Senator.

These obviously DEMOCRAT -- most likely highly paid -- "women" in Alabama are conspiring with liberal media to flip a State election in a Red State.

OK, fair enough. Everyone gets to dig dirt on everyone else.  True or false. Fair or unfair.

Except, why was this not brought up before the primary election, when Republicans could have "weighed all the facts of the case", against each Republican candidate, and made an informed decision?

Why was every one of the dozen or so accusations brought just a month before the final election?  A time when it is now just one Republican running against one Democrat?

Too late!

This media's attempt, under cover of their constitutional right, to throw a Constitutional election should be as illegal as it is unethical.

This is nothing more than an attempt to disrail an Alabama Senate race, which should be based on the political merits of differing viewpoints, but instead is replaced with gotcha political correctness designed to shock the conscious of Alabama's moral Christian Republican voters into staying at home on election day, allowing an unmoral non-Christian Democrat to win.

If a law on limitations to bring grievances is good for a constitutional courtroom, it should be golden for a constitutional election.

This type of shenanigans happens so often in the Presidential general election it has even been given a name: October surprise!

We should stop running our elections with October surprises.

Unlike what you watch on Perry Mason, there are no surprises in court cases. All questions either side wants to ask have been raised and answered before the trial even selects the jury. 

This is deemed fair and just to both sides in a court case.

Should we not have the same standards for fairness and justice in a constitutional election?

Should not all questions about a candidate be asked and answered before the campaign season begins?

These shady tactics of the media are unfair. The media bias is unjust. It favors the Main-Stream-Media, who sit on politically explosive information, timing the release of their information to explode at just the right moment. Before anyone can counter or clean up the mess.

No one has time to duck for cover and we are left with mangled election results.

So to fix a serious problem, there needs to be a Statute of Limitations on media playing around with our elections.

---

---

Yes, the media could try to work around any statute of limitation laws.

For instance, they could say they reported on the scandal 5 years ago, at 2:00 AM, on a Friday night, which they would think allows them to put screaming blood headlines every night on prime time a week before the election.  Nope, not allowed.

Accusations should only be required to be reported at the beginning of the primary campaign, and then a gag order imposed between the close of the primary and the close of the general election.

Or at least no more coverage between those two elections as the media spent on them in the first place.

Yes again, judges constitutionally dictate gag orders on people, forcing them to remain silent, so freedom of the press and freedom of speech is not as absolute as the press wants us to believe.

Imagine discussing the morality of the Democrat and Republican candidates in the primary, then actually discussing the issues between them during the general campaign.

If a woman's breast was touched by a hand not her own, then she should shock the world at the same time she was herself supposedly shocked, not timed a month before a Senate or Presidential race.

If a woman's private parts were talked about being grabbed, then the audio of that recording should be presented at a respectable time prior to the first primary, not after the primary.
 
Pretty soon, in defense, our politicians will be authorizing Scarlet Letters be tattooed on the foreheads of women, so that everyone will know prior to the election who had been abused and who had not been.

The Puritans have returned - but they are by no means pure.