I agree. He could have easily owned the conversation/interview at that point by saying he dated a lot of charming women in those days and left if at that and return to the denial of the main accusation. His fumbling on the legal dating casts a shadow on his denial. Its a perception. I am not saying he is guilty of anything, its just that he should have done better in his most important interview.
Moore planned to sit for the interview. So his plan, with an advisor or two or four, was to fumble and dissemble? There is only one reason to lie and obfuscate, and he is a judge. THAT bothers me more than what possibly paid off accusers say.
Presuming at least one of the charges are true, he should admit is was wrong, yet whether true or false, he needs to take the offense and state the truth that what a young man did approx 40 years(!) ago is not evidence or his character in contrast to how he has lived since.
Those who are using this to disqualify him are the same media that would elect JFK or Bill Clinton in heartbeat, even knowing of their fornicating past.
In addition, great men of history often had character defects such as with the bottle or with women, and their are worse sins:
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. (Proverbs 6:17-19)
And a fair-minded book seems to be ‘Intimate Lives of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Fleming, ...