I'm thinking they're both lying, to a certain extent. I think the incident she described actually happened to her, but I don't think he did it. I think he lied to the committee when he said there was never an occasion when he hadn't remembered what he did when he was drinking, because, then, later, in his testimony, he said he had to consult with someone the next day, about what had happened the night before----and, amazingly, that slipped right past the entire committee.
I agree with those who said her memory was too poor----there were just too many holes in her story, IMO. Yeah, I know different people remember different things, in regard to a traumatic event; but, c'mon, she didn't remember how she got there, or how she got home? Also, not only did the people she said were there, not corroborate her story, they said they weren't there, AT ALL----and, her close, life-long friend said she had never even met Brett Kavanaugh. Now, had it been a party with, like, 50 people, I'm thinking it could've been possible not to have met an attendee; but, not a party with 5 or 6 (or whatever it was).
Bottom line, for ME: In NO WAY was her accusation, PROVEN----not even close----so, I don't think one can keep a candidate from a job, based on what was presented. That being said, I wish he wouldn't get appointed, because I don't like the kind of person he seems to be. Yeah, anyone, probably, would be angry about being publicly accused of something (especially, if they didn't do it)----and yeah, maybe most would not be able to not lash-out----but I think he went too far with his BLATANT disrespect of the Dems on the committee. To ME, he came-across as a BRAT, who felt he was ENTITLED to the appointment.
_________________
White female; age 59; diagnosed Aspie.
I use caps for emphasis----I'm NOT angry or shouting. I use caps like others use italics, underline, or bold.
"What we know is a drop; what we don't know, is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)