The court of public opinion was enough. Why testify under oath when all you have to do to destroy a career is get on the media and make all the accusations you want?

hearing would have required sworn testimony.

The Dems got it all backwards!

" After going public with her allegation last month, Nelson added, her children have been threatened and she's afraid to leave her home.

'I’m scared to go anywhere. Shopping, I have to have someone with me,' she said, adding that her father takes her to doctors' appointments."

How does the fact that she and her children have been threatened and are thus afraid to go out translate into any comment one way or another on whether she wants to confront her accuser?

In addition, for this to be analogous to the Franken case, you'd need to point us to all the threats directed against Tweeden, et. al. I've not heard about those. Won't you fill us in?

That said, it appears that Nelson doesn't want the thing to just go away:

"But Nelson, who said she’s a Republican and a Trump supporter, asked 'Is the party more important really than what happened? I feel like my incident is being swept under the rug, literally, because he’s a Republican.'"

Are those the words of a person who does not want to confront her accuser?

So how does your citation to this story respond at all to the OP?

by not making the allegation in a timely manner either through civil or criminal court or his employer or the government body he was a representative of.

I do not wish to be harsh because countless allegations are made long after the statute of limitations has passed. See Bill Cosby case. And there are legitimate reasons for this in some number of cases. So it's important to leave the door ajar for this.

But the woman/Trumpster/Roy-Moore-sycophant who complained about clutching/pinching her waist for a few seconds during a photo? Ditto for Leeann who seemed to speak well of Franken and socialize just fine with him for years after ... until Stone/Hannity/Don Jr seemed to entice her to male allegations that have been shown to be suspect since. I do not have much sympathy with these women for example because i'm suspicious of their claims.

they stood up exclusively for the victims. Instead, they made it all about Franken.

Anonymously, to bloggers with documented histories of defending rape-hoaxers (UVA, specifically) well after it was clear it was a hoax.

At the same time, we saw the Washington Post bust politically motivated fake accusers being funded and coordinated through the right wing smear machine.

Leann Tweeden lied, and the waist grab person seems to genuinely believe her self-serving, self-centered story was somehow sexual harassment. I’m sorry she had low self esteem at the same time she met a famous comedian, I guess?

and didn't come forward. I think this is entirely a right wing hit job.

only about the victiums. They made it about Franken and had to hang him.
IF Dems insisteted it was about the victiums then he would have gotten his ethics hearing.

Doesn't anybody get me?