You mean, of course, that what you stated was the DNC narrative for explaining their obviously manufactured attack on a perfectly good nominee, right?
What I’m saying is that a woman made a claim that cannot be confirmed in any way, refuses to identify herself, and is then forced to come forward when the story is made public.
I feel that in both cases, they were just making it up as they went along. In Anita’s case, I think she just said on a job application, under “reason for leaving last job” after she left Thomas’ office, “sexual discrimination”, so she didn’t have to say she was fired. Then some reporter dug it up, and she didn’t want to share it publicly (for obvious reasons) but they said they would break it publicly, with or without her. And the rest is history.
I have little doubt there is a similar theme here, especially when you consider how this story was broken.
BTW, memory can play tricks on your. I’ve told people for years about my daughter getting her broken arm fixed back in the early 90’s at a clinic. I just found out last month that it was her ankle. It is possible this thing happened to this girl, or something like it, but it wasn’t Kavanaugh. The story just morphed in her own brain over the years, and here we are. But that is just giving her at least SOME benefit of the doubt.
I blame the politicians and press more than I blame her or Anita.