It's not about "whether [she] is to be believed". It's about whether he did it, and if he did, is that disqualifying for a Supreme Court justice?
At this point, based on what literally all of the witnesses except the accusers have said, the things they are describing were not done by Brett Kavanaugh and did not happen as described. Maybe something happened, and that's being generous... but it wasn't the nominee who did it. The accusers won't even testify under oath.
But even if it was. Awkward drunken fumbling from 35 years ago, as a minor, past the statute of limitations in any case, and then an absolutely spotless sterling record since? It's not disqualifying.
The Senate will be voting on whether Brett Kavanaugh is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, not whether they believe any particular witness.
Shame on you, Lisa Murkowski, for confusing the two.
This entry was published Wed Sep 26 07:25:54 CDT 2018 by TriggerFinger
and last updated 2018-09-25 14:12:36.0.