I initially thought the sexual misconduct allegations were a bad look. They seemed (I'm struggling for the word here)...convenient? Easily at risk of skepticism? I don't know the right phrasing. I don't want anyone to take that as the act itself was convenient for the victim or anything, but the timing seemed really hard to take at face value. But the victim coming forward, presenting more of the facts behind the case, and removing the anonymity gives it much more credibility. And I'm glad for that, without it the accusation probably has no real change to his chances of being appointed and it prevents the accusation from being a glaring mark against metoo type accustions. BTW, I'm trying really hard to balance my initial skepticism about the how/when the accusation happened and respect for the victim. I'm probably failing at it though.