What seems to be lacking here is context.
Again, what most likely occurred is two drunk teenagers having sex, an 18 yr old kid probably knowingly taking advantage of a situation he regretted soon afterwards. A teen female also regretting her decisions that night and unable to give consent.
Context matters.
He didn’t rape a 10yr old, he wasn’t some 30+ yr old trying to get frisky with HS girls, he wasn’t a predator. Was it sexual assault? Sure, but again context matters. It was a drunken bad decision he made as an 18 yr old with another drunken teenager. Like any of us at the time...he was trying to get some. It’s not an excuse, but I don’t believe the moral standard should be raised just because he’s a SCOTUS appointee. His professional conduct and more recent (this century?) personal conduct should be what decides this. Not some 35yr old stuff some Democrat drudged out of the creek just because it works in her favor in the current political climate and gives her brownie points heading into 2020.
I don’t think this situation merits further discussion as it relates to his SCOTUS appointment. We can agree to disagree.
The Democrats are “winning” here and they know it. It has nothing to do with the victim. It’s all theatrics. At least with Clarence Thomas it was a relatively recent act of indiscretion that called into question his professionalism.
Alan