I will
NOT defend Al Gore, but how could an investigation go forward with a "woman" who fails a polygraph, has no evidence (that she claims to have), gets paid for her story, and refuses to even release the medical records from the incident?
I can't stand Al Gore, and I would be the first one piling on if this story had any credence, but from everything released so far, this woman sounds as unbelievable as the Duke Lacrosse "victim". The DA's career, in that case was rightfully destroyed because he ran with a case that had no evidence, why should this case be any different?
I don't know if AlGore did it or not. There is a reason lie detectors are not admitted as evidence - they are unreliable.
The DA did not say there was no evidence he said there was not enough evidence.
I wonder what will happen with the other two woman who have come forward with similar allegations.