In light of next Tuesday's announcement of the next step in the DSK case -- and the NYT story today on the political consequences to D.A. Vance whatever he does, consequences he is supposed to ignore and I assume he will -- one question is: If drops the charges, should he explain?
Some quoted in the NYT story say that to mend fences with the minority community and women he will need to explain a decision to drop the charges.
Wrong, I say. He should say nothing else. There are two civil cases pending. Just about any explanation he gives for not going forward -- assuming that's what he decides -- will interfere with the civil cases.
True, not going forward may itself carry an implication in the minds of some, but that is the unavoidable conseuquence of such a decision.
A statement that, hypothetically, reflected on the complaining witness's credibility or the strength of the proof would be gratuitous and improper.
Not that Vance's reasons won't leak out from one corner or another anyway, but they won't be directly attributed to him.