One person’s statement or belief about a fact (for example an alleged event) is not the fact itself. Another person’s statement or belief about a fact is not the fact itself. The two statements are offsetting. He said. She said. Then credibility of the two people can be compared.

Two people can and often do witness the same event/fact and report it differently. For example, assuming an event did in fact occur, I may have done or said something that hurt you, but I may be unaware that I hurt you. (Especially true if no one said anything about it for 36 years.) In that case, our respective recollection of the event would be different, and truthfully reported by both parties though different, assuming the event in fact occurred. A polygraph may confirm only what you believe, it cannot confirm the fact/event itself. The event/fact itself must be established as evidence before any legitimate trial: Where and when did it happen? What happened exactly? Is there any evidence from the alleged event? Can other people prove that they witnessed the alleged event?

In America (except possibly New Orleans where Napoleonic code may still exist) a person is innocent until proven guilty. And, there is no trial unless and until verifiable facts are submitted in evidence.  Normally, courts and Congress hold evidentiary hearings in closed chambers to protect the parties involved when the charges are potentially injurious.

Allegations which are not supported by factual evidence and which injure another person are legally defined as slander or libel. Such allegations should be heard in closed chambers. Courts and juries award substantial payments to defendents who have been injured by slander or libel, but the damage done may be permanent.

The alleged abuse victim may have legitimate cause against Senator Feinstein or whomever leaked the victim’s letter. The federal judge being tried in a public hearing probably does have legitimate damage claims against the alleged victim, unless facts are finally revealed. But so far there are no facts, no evidence except the victim’s statement, and the victim’s statement is contradicted by the judge. The judge’s credibility is corroborated by over 60 people, many of them women who knew him around the time of the alleged event. As far as I know, the victim’s credibility is not supported by anyone who knew her or the judge around the time of the alleged event.

Where’s the beef? The U.S. Senate is charged by the Constitution with the duty to advise and consent with a U.S. President’s nominations to certain high offices. The Constitution and laws do not specify this be done in public, much less in highly politicized show trials before the media and public. Once again, the U.S. Congress has acted irresponsibly, in a dis-service to their constituents. Many of the Senators have acted deplorably and should be censured or removed, especially Feinstein, Schumer, Hirono, Booker, Durban, Harris  and Gillibrand. These Senators are playing at partisan politics without regard for their victims or their constituents.