So, in one of her first posts about this, she claims that she wants to be a "voice for the voiceless." Note how she mentions how she wants to be put into "positions of power:"
Then she posted all of her vague claims against Cuomo. She said that "many saw it" and that they "watched."
Yet, she now says that she doesn't want to talk to any journalists about this because she doesn't want to have to retell/relive her story.
Even though she pretty much just did by her tweet-thread about it.
So, she's made vague but damning claims against a major public figure. Claims that there are "many" witnesses, though as of today, none have come forward or been identified. She refuses to name names so that people might verify her claims that there were "many" witnesses to this alleged repugnant behavior. She refuses to give any details whatsoever to anyone (e.g., journalists) who would be able to verify her story.
All we know is that she's trying to achieve political power positions and that the day before her accusations, Cuomo was rumored to be on the AG short list.
Again, not saying that her claims are false, but her claims and behavior are quite conveniently timed and fishy.
Produce some evidence, allow journalists and others to investigate, or GTFO.
Of course, the media is silent because they like Cuomo.
But besides the double standards for D's vs. R's, vs, the common man, the other thing that worries me is the fact that someone is making an accusation publicly, without any details and doesn't want to be questioned. Here's a story from a college in Canada.
Here, a female student accused a male student anonymously. She didn't want him to know who she was, or what he was accused of. The school allowed 4 other students to conduct a hearing without him knowing what he was accused of. He was 'convicted' and banned from certain events and lost his position in the student government he'd just been elected to. The school newspaper ran a story on it, without asking for his side, inferring he was a sexual predator. No details given. The accuser also sent in a column which was printed, naming the student, insisting she shouldn't have to give details, her name or be questioned in anyway. But she had no problem naming him.
He appealed and the school hired a lawyer to look into the matter. Now the student was told the details. They talked to witnesses, most of who came from the female student. They set aside the finding, saying consent was given throughout the entire event. Of course, that doesn't repair his reputation. He's suing for 1.5 million.
So is this the new thing? You can accuse someone publicly, without any details, insist nobody has the right to question you, know the details, and you have a right to be believed. And if you aren't a powerful Democrat, you're hung out to dry.