I promised @ag_conservative that I would explain why I think an FBI investigation is a good idea that is our best chance of getting at the truth -- and therefore why I disagree with him. Here's a thread.
To narrow this a bit, I'm going to address this to those on the right who agree with @AG_Conservative that an investigation can't be helpful. This a fast-moving story and I don't claim to have special insights, but here's why, from my perspective, that seems wrong.
Yesterday two witnesses gave dramatically different testimony. There is a basis on which to find each witness credible. As Trump said, Dr. Ford was a "very credible witness" who gave "compelling" testimony. And J. Kavanaugh is one of our most distinguished and respected judges.
Beyond giving very different testimony about the alleged key events, they each testified about many many other facts surrounding the key events. Ford testified about who she told about the attack in the past, for example. Kav testified about his college behavior, yearbook, etc.
If you really want to know what happened, there is still a lot of work left to do. First, you would want to talk to other witnesses. Some would be witnesses at the alleged event, like Mark Judge, alleged to be a participant. He hasn't even been interviewed yet.
Second, you would want to talk to witnesses of the surrounding facts. Both Kav and Ford testified to a lot of surrounding facts that a known & specific group of people should know a lot about. They can be interviewed, too.
Third, the interviews could be real interviews, not the kind of theater that often happens with Senate testimony. A professional investigator doesn't have 5 minutes for Qs, or just read staff questions, or play to the base, or pull punches based on possible public reaction.
Fourth, you could could get documentation relating to the surrounding events, like the therapist's notes about Dr. Ford's recollections. It seems to me that these kind of steps wouldn't take long, and they have a plausible chance of shedding significant light on things.
I think @ag_conservative misses these points in his thread. He claims that an investigation was done, so there is no point in doing another one. But doing an investigation is like a studying for a final exam. Just because a student studied some, or claim he did, doesn't mean
that you can't learn more by studying a lot harder and in different ways. Based on my brief time on the Senate Judiciary Committee, at least, I don't see how the Senate is set up to do these kinds of investigations. But this is what the FBI does for a living.
Next, @ag_conservative claims that Mark Judge will obviously refuse to cooperate, so there is no good faith reason to even ask him to. But Mark Judge's lawyer said today that Judge will cooperate fully with the FBI. cnn.com/2018/09/28/pol… 
.@AG_conservative also argues that bad faith of the left counsels against this. But each side sees the other as acting in bad faith here. And even if they're right, the other side's bad faith doesn't relieve us of responsibility to act in good faith to find out what happened.
Of course, we can't be sure if the FBI's investigation will reveal significant evidence. Maybe it won't. But maybe it will. And given that it won't take long, it seems sensible to me that the FBI should try. That's how I see it, at least.
