Since other people have already provided substantive responses concerning the suspect quality of the claims, and blatant political nature of their support, I'd just like to point out that when there is a wealth of evidence for a politicized crime that was definitely known to have taken place, the Left scoffs because that evidence doesn't meet some absurd or extreme standard. This woman is attempting to derail a national political process and lend her name to an attempt to undermine the established form of government by dirty tricks.

Here's the thing - until it can be proven that a crime was committed and that it was committed by Brett Kavanaugh, this has nothing to do with anything, because he is innocent. Not only is there no proof he is guilty there is no proof of a crime, beyond the testimony of a single woman, under highly suspect circumstances and who keeps placing conditions and moving the goalposts to prevent getting to the truth of matter. Likely because what is known of her account would not stand up to five seconds cross examination by a moderately competent attorney. She claims not remember in which year she was 15, for craps' sake! Her family and that of the person she is accusing have had dealings in the past that render her impartiality suspect, and she has a history of activism in opposition to the administration. She stands to gain by her accusation and especially by drawing it out and prolonging the process. All this adds up to something that almost certainly can't be proven and objectively cannot be believed or trusted.

When Clinton was accused, it was by people on his side who stupidly believed their own partisans would support a woman in their situation, and were immediate and pertinent and supported by a long history of similar accusations. There was DNA evidence and recordings of an adult, middle aged lawyer, who held a position of public trust, suborning perjury. This is a case of a partisan opponent of the accused, with no supporting history, no corroborating evidence, making an accusation that rests on the perceptions of a 15 year old (an age at which one is not generally considered competent to understand sexual consent), and a person of admittedly questionable mnemonic capacity. The payoff for the GOP would have been President Al Gore. In this case, the payoff for the Democrats is the derailment of a Supreme Court nominee and his replacement by a potentially better candidate.

Given their history, at this point, I would support an actual convicted rapist being appointed to the court, just to spite the Democrats. The Republicans never pull any of this crap. Clinton and Obama got Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor & Kagan through without any histrionics or blatant stalls on the part of their opposition, though you would not have known it when the GOP, holding a Senate majority for nearly six years, suggesting enough of a national mandate to oppose the then-current lame duck president, were considerate enough to give notice that they were NOT going to vote for Obama's hail mary nominee, so he might as well not waste his time. Then it was all sorts of hysterics, claiming that Obama's nominee "deserved to be heard" which he did not. They claimed that the Senate had an obligation to confirm the president's nominee, which they do not. They claimed that the GOP's position was unprecedented which it was not and that Presidents routinely appointed Supreme Court justices right before they left office, which they have not at any recent time.

The Democrats then shamelessly tried to claim the same grounds, that a President in the second year of his first term was exactly the same as a President in the final year of second term! Even if you want to call the refusal to confirm Garland a procedural trick, it was a fair one. At the time, Democrats pretending to offer sincere advice pointed out that Clinton could have been the one making the eventual appointment and as of election day, all the so-called experts assumed she would be. And Democratic ruthlessness and indifference to consequences or good governing practices is what brought us to this point in the first place. Having turned to judicial activism to get their way when they can't get the public or their answerable representatives to support their policies, they have transformed the Supreme Court into a critical law-making body and the nominating process into a bloody battlefield on which reputations are assassinated for political gains. The sickest part is that they keep doing all this to block men from the court whose positions would PREVENT it from being used as the same sort of weapon against them! Why don't we ever see Republican nominees go before a Republican majority Senate and talk about the exciting potential of the Court to remake the country and the Constitution? Are the Democrats even aware of this? Because in their eyes, judicial activism is anything that they don't like, settled law is anything they ever supported even if they passed or decided it last week and the only principle of precedent is that their precedents are to be respected, while those they dislike are outdated and hidebound. They haven't the slightest shame about using any power they get their hands on legitimately (Elections have consequences), nor are they the least bit embarrassed by legal tactics so appalling that their OWN SUPREME COURT JUSTICES protest by boycotting the President's State of the Union Address. They are so unashamed they nominate the offender's wife and "co-president" who is herself a lawyer and ought to have had some professional ethical concerns on the matter. It's only when they are not the ones in power that bipartisanship and consensus become valued things. That's also the point when obstructionist tactics and disloyal speech become principled opposition and speaking truth to power.