Really don't like this at all....
The justice system - of which this woman is a part - is structurally biased against the accused in sex crimes cases. Essentially, so-called "rape shield" laws prohibit inquiries into the sexual history of the accuser, while permitting those same inquiries of the accused. I'd be very concerned that a career prosecutor would follow that for this hearing. Federal Rule of Evidence 412 says:
Rule 412. Sex-Offense Cases: The Victim
(a) Prohibited Uses. The following evidence is not admissible in a civil or criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct:
(1) evidence offered to prove that a victim engaged in other sexual behavior; or
(2) evidence offered to prove a victim’s sexual predisposition.
Contrast that with Rule 413:
Rule 413. Similar Crimes in Sexual-Assault Cases
(a) Permitted Uses. In a criminal case in which a defendant is accused of a sexual assault, the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other sexual assault. The evidence may be considered on any matter to which it is relevant.
And FRE 415:
Rule 415. Similar Acts in Civil Cases Involving Sexual Assault or Child Molestation
(a) Permitted Uses. In a civil case involving a claim for relief based on a party’s alleged sexual assault or child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the party committed any other sexual assault or child molestation. The evidence may be considered as provided in Rules 413 and 414.
In other words, the law permits the introduction of what else he did in high school, but not what else she did. Granted, those are formal rules of evidence and this isn't a trial, but it's hard to imagine that a career prosecutor wouldn't be steeped in the mindset underlying those rules.
I'd have rather had the Senators questioning both because I think it would have been more even handed.
