From the events described I dont know how it would be possible for either side to prove or disprove the allegations, it would only ever come back to her word against his. And she's a woman and he's a man therefore our progressive society is instantly certain that she's right and he's wrong. It's just funny that it's possible to have even a token investigation say "he's good" without also saying "she's full of shit", surely those are the same thing - unless you're willing to admit that we simply dont know for sure and never will so why bother?
It's not like this is a new thing, but the possibility of any woman at any time claiming anything they want with zero risk, to attempt to ruin a man's life is pretty hilarious. "Sexual assault ruins lives", sure, I'm also sure that convincing a good % of the nation that someone's guilty of sexual assault also has a pretty impact but noone likes to talk about that so much. The burden of proof is instantly on the man, and the woman risks nothing.
Leaving this here, not related but fun.
It just blows my mind that she waited close to 40 years, had absolutely no evidence, even her own friends don't back her claims, and only brings it up now that he's about to get elected to the Supreme Court. Keep in mind this lady is a professional Psychologist, Professor of Psychology and worked as a high paid consultant to Pharmaceutical companies, she is by no means the innocent naive dummy act she played in the hearing.
I think this is just another stunt in the " i'll do anything to win, dirty partisan politics atmosphere " here in the US . Both parties are guilty of it.
