No, he hasn't done it because he's in the middle of a US Senate race, so he's not going to do it right away. I asked someone else on here the exact same question I'm going to ask you (with updated information), but he didn't answer the question and I want to see if you even will (I doubt it, but I hope I'm wrong):
Let's say instead of Roy Moore, it was you, same deal. You're running for a political office during a special election. Now, you win your party's nomination and have started to run against the opposing party. All of the sudden, a woman comes up and says you had groped her when she was younger, and then a group of other women started to accuse you of the same thing. One of them says at the place that she worked and the other says at the place that YOU work. The media, the opposing party, and some within your own party that were never for you to begin with, start exploiting the situation to the point, and want you to drop out. Now, just for this example, you didn't do any of what you're accused of and you begin to deny all the allegations that have been brought against you. The same people that are anti-you bring forth what they calling evidence to try and convince others that you did the dirty deeds. One of them is an activist lawyer who says she has a yearbook claiming she has your handwriting in it, and another woman who is also making the same claim. However 2 things:, the lawyer has been called to release this yearbook but doesn't do it for reasons unknown. The other woman said that she forged notes into her yearbook, one of which she inserts the date and the place she worked at, but still is claiming the rest of the writing is you (but has yet to reveal it to authorities for closer inspection on proving if the writing is legit). Now, given everything brought against you, knowing full well you didn't do it but haven't filed anything yet against these people, do you want your innocence to be proven by authorities so the accusers, the opposing party, the media, and members of your own party stop coming after you, or do you just simply let it happen, knowing what these people are saying is a lie and you have to live with it the rest of your life?
Forget politics for a moment because this case has nothing to do with it. We should all be living by innocent until proven guilty. No one knows what happened in this case. Not you nor me, or anyone else on here. Whatever we think, we still have to leave the possibility open that the opposite happened. So you think Moore's guilty as sin, which is fine and dandy (I don't agree with your assessment at all), but you should leave the possibility open that he didn't do anything. And vice versa with me. But it's foolish just to assume because X, Y, and Z without the authorities proving anything. I've seen good people get accused and burned over something someone else said they did, but they never did it. So that's why I'm saying further proof needs to be presented and proven by authorities. Otherwise you could be condemning an innocent person who didn't commit the crime. So what's your answer.