Sometime 35 or so years ago a teenager supposedly attacked a girl at a party.
The accuser is not sure when the attack happened.
The accuser says she is not sure where it happened.
The accuser says that she is not sure if there were witnesses beyond the
But it was really, really traumatic.
The Former Attorney General from California thinks the FBI should investigate. One would think she would know the difference between a Federal Crime and a local crime. One would also think she would understand...evidence. You know stuff like when, where, and who?
Democrats say we should call witnesses; valuable witnesses like the therapist that the victim confided in. Or maybe the victim's husband. So we should believe two people whose only knowledge of the supposed incident is what the accuser told them? Are you sure he didn't toss a stray pubic hair on a Coke can too?
Of course the accuser having ties to anti-Trump factions, donations to the Democrat Party, a possible animosity to the Kavenaugh family, and a liberal history has nothing --do you hear me -- nothing to do with the sudden resurfacing of memories of an incident so traumatizing, so painful, so horrible that she forgot them for three decades and still finds the details a bit fuzzy.
I know the exact date I had the first kiss with my wife. I know the very spot I first got laid. Neither of these was an alleged assault. I would think that would be at least a bit memorable.
I wonder how many women on the Judicial Committee would give credence to a woman who claimed their husband assaulted her sometime in the past but the "victim" could not remember where or when?
Maybe we should ask Keith Ellison?