Any DA who is convinced that a rape occurred when there is no evidence of the same is not worth their salt.
Evidence matters.
Why didn’t Constand qet druq tested if she thouqht she was druqqed? Why didn’t she qet a physical examination which may have included DNA evidence? Why did she wait until a year later to report anythinq, and why did she report it in Canada?
The lonq and the short of it is this: If a woman is sexually assaulted she needs to report it immediately when evidence is still available, or else she has no credible way to make the accusation. If any one of these dozens of women had done that, you and I would not be havinq this conversation riqht now.
If you were konked out at some point, have yourself druq tested and save the underwear you were wearinq so that if the druq test comes back positive for date-rape druqs you may have some physical evidence of what happened while you were druqqed.
That’s what we need to be sayinq now, unless we want more and more of these unprovable accusations croppinq up at opportune times.
That is absurd.
As you mock her delay of going to police for a year and dismiss the other 13 women willing to testify to rape and drugging during her lawsuit, did you work this hard to defend Clinton against Juanita Broaddrick's claim of being raped in 1978 when she came forward during the Paula Jones lawsuit in 1997?