No, your words were
(bolding mine)
To which I responded that he did a heck of a lot more than just grabbing her and holding her down, pointing out that his sexual intentions were clear even if he wasn’t able to carry them out, and that Ford claimed that she thought he was trying to rape her.
Now the proper response would be to either apologize for using such neutral language to describe sexual assault, or to just slink off letting my correction stand without comment. But no, you decided to argue that actions described really might not have been sexual in nature, and then claim that unless I wanted Kavenough put in jail right now without trial I shouldn’t say that such behavior was disqualifying, and that I could only conclude that his various acts (repeated multiple times) indicated sexual intention if I were psychic. That is what got you invited here.
If you are willing to assert that if Ford was not lying about what happened to her then Kavenaugh did attempt to sexually assault her (or did actually sexually assault her I’m not sure about the legal definition of this), and that it wasn’t just an innocent joke or accident, then I will agree that he didn’t actually manage to complete the rape and that there is no point in prosecuting him on attempted rape charges at this late date, much less throwing him in prison without trial.
At that point we will be in agreement, and I will withdraw the pitting.