I think it's ridiculous of the "guilty until proven innocent" message that we have going in the most of this thread and the general lefty media. You can see it all over. Just take a stroll through the first 20 pages of this thread and you can create a laundry list of it.
And even on that note - putting everything on hold is absolutely ridiculous IMO. Put yourself in those shoes in a daily life scenario. You applied for and are the final candidate for a top notch job. But wait - someone from 30 years ago comes forward from the publicity and proclaims that you did something on the naughty list from 30 years ago. They want to hold off - don't worry - it's only your monetary income and time, no big deal right?
Kavanaugh is owed exactly nothing when it comes to this job so I don't really care about that. Also, any job with a sane HR department would absolutely hold off and think twice if a candidate was credibly accused of a sex crime. More likely than not they would simply reject the candidate outright. Companies don't want to deal with that kind of potential liability.
It's not about 'guilty until proven innocent' because the standard is much higher for this than any criminal proceeding. It's more like 'is there a reasonable possibility of guilt, if so, reject'. Kavanaugh has certainly set off red flags left and right, not just about these allegations but dishonesty about other aspects of his record. Frankly he should have been rejected on those alone and this is just the icing on the cake.
I understand this is a bit different though in that it's a lifetime appointment, but I would be in full favor of continuing with the appointment on condition of them being kicked off if something actually turns up (which it wont - see below).
Such a condition does not exist and could never be enforced so that's not a viable answer.
There literally is no credible evidence that anyone can provide. Zero. Look up the stats of how credible any eye-witness accounts are in criminal investigations... Human perceptions are HANDS DOWN the winner of the least credible evidence because it has been proven time and time again throughout history to be incorrect, false, misleading, bias - or simply mistaken. At this point, the only potential "evidence" that anyone can find is that - human interviews.
Considering basically no real investigation of these allegations has been done we don't know how credible they are. There's all sorts of things you can do to bolster their credibility - interview other people who were there under oath, determine the credibility of their recollections. See if other people had similar experiences, etc, etc. After all, there is another person (Mark Judge) who was in the room at the time of the alleged assault. Republicans could easily call him in to testify under oath or he could speak to the FBI, either one would place him at legal jeopardy for perjuring himself so you're likely to get some decent answers.
Doesn't it seem odd to not call in the only other person alleged to have witnessed the assault and get their testimony under oath? If Kavanaugh is totally innocent this seems like a logical and easy step to clear his name.