Between 2 and 3 for me. I don't expect more evidence to come on the main allegation, but we could see more coming (especially if he did it--I think it's unlikely that someone would only do something like that once). As I said in the main thread, it would be better if the defense was just, "We'll never know the truth, and it's unfair to deny him the SCOTUS seat on the basis of unprovable allegations." Sickening that people actually defend him on the grounds that it was a long time ago, or that it wasn't that bad or express certainty that she's lying.