Sure, I think she actually believes it happened. I'm just going off observing her testimony.
That being said, I am not convinced it did, and find it largely irrelevant since it seems to me to be 99.9999999% impossible for her to prove her version of the events.
Oh, and even if he did act improper, I don't think it's important enough to deny BK the role.
So, in a nutshell, I don't think she's lying, I think based on pure speculation she's mistaken.
I think BK lies about stupid shit like the drinking, year book comments etc. I don't think those are accidental mistakes, I think they are lies.
I'm just using judgment, and my opinion isn't worth more than pretty much anyone else's here.
What I do find most improper in all this is a judge who is supposed to be the poster boy for impartiality, and have a blindfold while carrying the scales of justice, went into a partisan revenge rant. That is actually what the biggest question mark about his fit is in my mind and the biggest problem with him I personally would have.
Even if he was a functioning alcoholic (and I mean if, not claiming he is), is a better look to me than having a potential SCOTUS judge talking about conspiracy theories and revenge.