Here is an article titled "21 Reasons Not To Believe Christine Blasey Ford’s Claims About Justice Kavanaugh"
I've listed the 21 reasons. You can get specifics from the link:
1. There Is No Evidence that Ford and Kavanaugh Ever Methttps://thefederalist.com/2019/12/02/21 ... kavanaugh/
2. Leland Keyser Said She Did Not Have ‘Any Confidence’ in Her Friend’s Story
3. Friends Pressured Keyser to Change Her Story
4. All Alleged Witnesses Strongly Dispute the Claim
5. Ford’s Father Supported Kavanaugh’s Confirmation
6. Ford Doesn’t Know the Location
7. Ford Doesn’t Know How She Arrived
8. Ford Does Not Know How She Got Home
9. Ford Does Not Know the Date or Even What Time of Week
10. Ford Somehow Remembers She Had Only One Beer, But Not Other Details
11. Kavanaugh’s Contemporaneous Calendars Support His Claim
12. Ford Changed the Date of the Incident by Years from Her Initial Stories
13. Character Witnesses from the Time Support Kavanaugh
14. Ford’s First Mention of Kavanaugh’s Name is 2012, After He Became a National Figure
15. False Claims Were Made about Ford’s Inability to Fly
16. Ford Scrubbed Her Social Media
17. Ford Said She Wanted to Stay Confidential, But First Call Was to Washington Post
18. Ford’s Attorney Admitted a Motive of Desiring an Asterisk by Kavanaugh’s Name
19. Ford Has Benefited Politically, Financially, and Socially
20. Nothing in Kavanaugh’s Past Remotely Similar to the Claim for 37 Years
21. Memory Manipulation?
Ahh, the Federalist. Well, damn, how could I be so stupid?
Come on, T. You really think I haven't heard all those arguments before? There are surely lists of 21 reasons to believe Ford, too. This list was created by a partisan, for people looking for reasons to not believe her. In reading down the list, I have a counter/objection/explanation for pertty much all of them. We could go back and forth on each one of them. Ultimately, no one is going to change their mind at this point.
Having said that, I think it would have been wrong to keep him off of the S.C. for this incident -- there just wasn't enough evidence. It doesn't change what I think happened, though, that the truth was somewhere in between what the two of them remember/don't remember.
I will add that part of what makes me feel this way was that I witnessed a gang rape (it never actually got to the final act, but lots of groping, tearing of clothes, etc.) when I was about 14, by some older teenage guys with a teen girl. She was absolutely terrified and I have no doubt the incident scarred her for life, even though ultimately there wasn't any kind of sexual penetration. I also suspect that none of the guys involved even remember the incident. They were all half-drunk and probably figured that since there was no sex, it was no big deal. Justy guys having fun at a pig roast. If one of them were accused of this some 40 years later, they could probably plausibly deny it. I don't know if the girl knew any of them or not. I am sure that in her terror, some images and memory are vivid, while others are foggy. She probably had no interest or willingness to live through it all again, which would happen if she pressed charges, so she let it go. But, if one of them suddenly got nominated for the Supreme Court, she might very well have changed her mind. Maybe for revenge, maybe for fame, maybe to keep someone she viewed as a predator out of such an important position ... I dunno. But I could see it.