Cases like this are supposed to be settled in a proper court of law, not the "court" of public opinion. Before the 24/7 news "cycle", the media were not so insistent on trying these cases in the "court" of public opinion.
The "court" of public opinion is not a cousin, but a sibling, of lynch mob justice! That has a very poor track record at determining true outcomes, which is why we supposedly outlawed it (except that the media and our political figures have brought it back).
And don't kid yourself, an open Senate hearing is nothing but another “court” of public opinion.
The proper way of dealing with this would have been to do the police investigation, and present the results to a grand jury. If worthy of an indictment, then go to trial with it. If not, safely discard the issue.
Meanwhile, if the accused is a public figure being considered as a nominee for a judicial post, then (1) he is innocent until proven guilty, but (2) you don't want to have to unseat him for a conviction, afterwards, if he does go to trial. It is difficult to unseat judges, even with proven misbehavior.
What that really means is that you put the nomination on hold, until you find out from the real courts of law whether he really is innocent or guilty. I'm sorry, that is the wisest choice, and it is best for the good of the country. Simple common sense says so. Very inconvenient for party advantage, though.
We seem to have so very few who prioritize the good of the country above party (or personal) advantage anymore. My advice is vote only for those who would prioritize highest the public good, regardless of their party membership. All else pales in comparison.