It's a real question.
I mean, if he did, or, alternatively, if he didn't, how can we be sure? After all this time, how can it be proven conclusively one way or the other?
Indeed, if we want to take things to their logical conclusion, how can ANYTHING be proven conclusively one way or the other?
Once upon a time, testimony from 'respected upstanding members of the community', professional people who could be trusted implicitly, could be relied upon to sort the truth from fiction. Professional people, that is, like policemen or, perhaps, judges.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
Then technology came along. To begin with, we had 'lie-detector tests'. But then, some people could beat the machines.
Then we had 'photographic evidence' to rely on, and gain convictions. But then it was realised that any person who could use a computer, could 'adapt' photographs fairly easily, and make them look like they were something or somebody they were not.
Next, we were able to relax and watch as video provided us with the 'proof' we needed - or did it? It turned out that video was just as easy to manipulate as photographs were.
So now we've come 'full circle', and we're back to using real people - ones who often can't remember certain aspects of a case, but are as sure as Hell, about others. These 'others' usually include the most crucial parts of a case:
"Yes, I don't recall if he was wearing a white shirt, a black shirt, an orange shirt, or a Batman costume, but what I do remember, is that he tried to rape me, and I have suffered trauma ever since."
It might well be asked, in such cases, whether or not the trauma 'suffered' might not have been attributable to something else that happened in the victim's life, - I mean, how could trauma, not diagnosed at the time, subsequently be diagnosed when it seems useful in the here-and-now, and attributed, in all seriousness, to an event 36 years ago? It might even be asked whether the person actually suffered any kind of trauma at all. Did anybody else notice trauma-like symptoms during the last three-and-a-half decades in the victim's behavior? And, if anybody says they did, should we believe them?
But, then again, we might have this:
"Well, yes, I was there, and so was she, and yes, I had my dick out in my hand, but I can't remember if she was screaming "STOP IT!" or "SCHLOP IT!", which, as every one of you senators will know, means 'slap it in my chops'. If only I could remember conclusively..."
And, before we start criticising Republicans for 'distorting the truth', remember Bill Clinton?
It seems rather too easy, these days, to suddenly 'remember' something from long ago in your past, something that you hadn't previously felt able to tell people about, but seem to have no trouble at all telling the whole world about now.
Oh, aside from a few crocodile tears, that is.
So, did Kavanaugh wiggle his cock in the face of Deborah Ramirez? Did he rape Christine Blasey Ford? Did he and his friends try to spike drinks at a party when he was 18 years old, as Julia Swetnick claims he did? We'll never know, for sure, because, despite all the available ways of 'proving' his guilt or innocence, none of them are reliable.