So Now What?

[Right_in_Virginia]

So Now What?
National Review, Sep 16, 2018, Charles C. W. Cooke   


Trouble is, while this is closer to how this is supposed to work, there’s still nothing much to investigate. The accuser has summoned a vague memory of an event from thirty years in the past — a memory she didn’t mention until six years ago, to which she cannot attach a time or place, and that is recorded in notes that neither line up cleanly with her current story nor name Kavanaugh as the perpetrator. The two other parties have both categorically denied it, and nobody else from that era has weighed in. In addition, there are no other accusers, and every thing else we know about the accused is positive. That doesn’t mean the accuser is not telling the truth, of course. But it does mean that there’s no way of preventing a classic he said/she said dispute.

Which is all to say that this has now become a political question. Unfair as it may be, the core calculation now will not be whether the charges are true (we don’t know) or whether the timings and assumptions are fair (they are not), but what the various players consider the least dangerous course politically. Perhaps Republicans will want to make clear that they will not be bulled by eleventh hour half-charges. Or perhaps they will cut their losses lest they help Democrats turn out women in the midterms. Who knows? Either way, this is a low moment in the history of the Senate — and one that has little to do with justice.


https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/so-now-what/

[DB]

How can she not know where it happened? You don't just forget something like that if it really happened - unless it happened to her often in those days or she was drugged, drunk and/or on drugs at the time.

Does she have a history of making these sort of claims against others?

Were they even in the same town/proximity for this to have happened?

What do the other witness at the party say? Do her claims of the number of people at the party match the number of witnesses at the part? She say said there were no other girls there, are there any female witness that say otherwise? Lots of questions, hopefully a good number of them can be answered.

[libertybele]

How can she not know where it happened? You don't just forget something like that if it really happened - unless it happened to her often in those days or she was drugged, drunk and/or on drugs at the time.

Does she have a history of making these sort of claims against others?

Were they even in the same town/proximity for this to have happened?

What do the other witness at the party say? Do her claims of the number of people at the party match the number of witnesses at the part? She say said there were no other girls there, are there any female witness that say otherwise? Lots of questions, hopefully a good number of them can be answered.

All of that is irrelevant actually.  The current pattern and strategy of the DEMS seems to be to hire a high profile lawyer and accuse the opponent of sexual assault until they are destroyed.

Yes absolutely, women who have been assaulted should have their day in court without a doubt.  What becomes suspect is when women come forward after years of being silent while their supposed perpetrator has held public office for decades or has been in the public eye for decades.