Did you actually watch the testimony or are you basing your feelings around it from what you’ve been told by the media? Because I watched every second of it and she presented herself as very credible. Even the Republican senators on the committee admitted that they found her to be credible. They then had to scramble for a way to discredit or minimize that because it didn’t suit their political needs. They would say things like, “I think something happened to her, but it just wasn’t him.”
Edit: Quoting the woman the Republicans hired to do their dirty work is hardly an unbiased source and prosecutors in general may or may not have the actual scientific/sociological knowledge to speak authoritatively on this topic. Some of the former prosecutors on the committee did a rather lackluster job of questioning Kavanaugh and let him get away with a lot of bluster and bullshit. Being a prosecutor does not in and of itself convey expertise or competence.
Kavananaugh was belligerent, evasive, rude to those questioning him, and made outright lies under oath (some of which I’ve already explained to you, but here are 29 more). He would answer direct questions with lists of his accomplishments that were irrelevant to the asked question.
“Did you ever drink until you blacked out?” The sputtering, indignant reply was that he went to church and worked with disabled youth. When someone does that, they are hiding something by attempted misdirection and also conveying that the rules of regular behavior do not apply to them, because they stand apart. Which is exactly what he was taught at Georgetown Prep. If you haven’t read the article about that I linked, you really should.
She answered every question to the best of her ability, even if it meant admitting that she needed to revamp or amend what she’d said before — an act of vulnerability that demonstrates a real attempt at honesty, even if it makes her not look good in the process, to say nothing of the fact that she passed a polygraph. He behaved the way someone who is hiding something behaves.
I don’t know why you think you know what my motivations are or think you have the right to ascribe to me belief systems that are separate from what I’ve presented to you as my reasoning? The OP was exactly about this — retreating to teams and political polarization rather than looking at the situation wholistically. I read people for a living. I have a lot of training about human behavior and how people act under certain sets of circumstances. Not only that, I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears his perjury. For the life of me, I don’t know why the committee let him get away with that, but they did.
She never portrayed herself as an innocent wallflower — and as you said, that isn’t relevant to whether or not it was OK to try to rape her. Again, I think you are taking this perception from media, which always has a bias and an angle. I’m taking my perspective from my first hand experience of seeing them both talk, my understanding of the neuroscience of trauma, and the sociology of how victims of rape are treated. I don’t think there was enough evidence to indict him, but there certainly was plenty to disqualify him from this job. And that’s what this OP was about also. Just because a crime cannot be proven doesn’t mean he belongs in a lifetime appointment. Last year they seated Gorsuch, who went to the same schools, and had a similar background, with no drama. They could have no doubt picked another candidate with similar qualifications but no baggage for this.
If retired Justice Stevens thought that Kavanaugh showed himself to be unfit, then why is it incredible to you that I might think the same thing for the same reasons as an old, White, Republican, man? Are going to mansplain to me my own thoughts and beliefs or are you going to allow what I’ve clearly laid out as my reasoning to stand on it’s own?