I've had some productive private conversations re Kavanaugh w/ conservative friends over the last couple days. We don't agree about everything by any means, but at times of intense partisan division, it's valuable to try to figure out what others are thinking. Thoughts below...
First, there's a lot of anger at SJC Dems at how they played this timing-wise. We obviously don't know for sure how things got leaked, and Dr. Ford wasn't willing to come forward publicly until late. But I'm perfectly willing to believe committee Dems didn't act in good faith.
It's quite plausible to me that this was kept in reserve and was only leaked when it became clear that confirmation was going to happen otherwise. I don't know that that is true, but it's believable.
I also don't know, though, what to do about that. However we got here, here we are, and we have to figure out what to do next. Ultimately, what matters is (1) whether any of the allegations are true and (2) whether Judge Kavanaugh has told the truth. Everything else is noise.
There's also a lot of skepticism about the underlying allegations. Everyone is going to view things differently; for now I'll say that some allegations seem less plausible than others, but I don't think any of us can (yet) be confident about what did or didn't happen.
Folks on the other side stress the lack of specificity of Ford's allegations and the lack of corroboration by other potential witnesses. I share those concerns, but I also think it's important that there hasn't been a meaningful, thorough investigation yet.
And that seems really important right now. Whether Dems in the Senate acted in good faith or not isn't the important thing. The legitimacy of the Court is at stake, and we need to show the people that this has been taken seriously.
For this reason, it is IMO critical that the FBI do its thing and not be directed to act as a rubber stamp by the White House.
We don't know what the FBI will uncover. Given the amount of time that has elapsed, it seems most likely that a full investigation will be equivocal or not uncover anything useful. Fine; it's still worth doing, I think.
If the FBI doesn't come up w/ meaningful corroboration, there's a question of what happens next. I think conservatives expect Senate Dems to condemn any investigation that doesn't find something incriminating, no matter how thorough it actually is.
And that may be true. We should expect politicians to be partisan. And that criticism cuts both ways; we should also expect (most) Senate Rs to want to go forward with confirmation unless a true smoking gun emerges (which is in my view unlikely, given how much time has gone by).
If a real investigation doesn't meaningfully corroborate, I don't think allegations alone are necessarily enough to end nomination. There are reasons why it might be prudent to go w/ someone else, and we can debate the burden of proof; but some substantiation matters.
But this isn't just about the underlying allegations at this point; it's also about what happened at Thursday's hearing. I was extremely troubled by (1) the intense partisanship BK displayed and (2) what struck me as likely dishonesty and evasiveness.
Re the partisanship, BK supporters say his anger is understandable given that these allegations came so late and also given that (in their view) they are false.
I get that. That said, there are bigger interests at stake here, and I would want a nominee to be able to transcend their anger for the good of the country.
The Court's legitimacy is on the line, and if BK's testimony convinced half of America that he's an angry partisan, that's a big problem.
FWIW, as someone on the left, I had mixed feelings about BK joining the Court and moving the law to the right. And I thought he had been more involved in partisan politics—particularly the Starr investigation—than I think is ideal.
But I did like how he seemed to care how he was viewed on both sides, and I really respected things like his emphasis on law clerk hiring diversity. And some folks I really respect on the right speak incredibly highly of him as a principled jurist.
For that reason I found Thursday pretty shocking. I get the anger, but it still seemed really inappropriate, and like the kind of thing that for the good of the country he should have tried to hide.
Not just the opening statement, but the incredible disrespect he showed for Democratic senators questioning him. I get that he's mad, he doesn't like these folks. I get why. But still. I was genuinely shocked.
And I found quite plausible that he was actually hamming it up to rally the base and to keep Trump on his team. No way of knowing if that is true or not, but I thought it was really bad.
Then there's the question of his candor and honesty. A lot of folks object to what I've said about that. And they object to earlier press accounts of his supposed dishonesty about things like his role in the Pryor nomination.
I confess I haven't dug deep enough into the documents on those earlier claims to have a firm view, but some of the press coverage struck me as over the top and quite possibly unfair.
And some press coverage right now is overclaiming. This NYT story, for example, says that BK said he only drank 1-2 beers, but even in the quote they use he admits drinking to excess. 
Nonetheless, as regards the Thursday testimony, I found a number of specific claims BK made—especially when evaluated in their totality—very hard to credit as completely honest. His explanation of "Renate Alumnius," "boofing," and "Devil's Triangle" for example.
I also find it hard to believe that someone who drank as heavily as he seems to have wouldn't have at least minor memory lapses from drinking. He also mischaracterized what the supposed witnesses said. He was also really bobbed and weaved about "Ralph Club."
I don't know. There's no smoking gun. But there's a pattern of less than full candor here. And I don't think that is justified under these circumstances.
I also earlier was on record expressing skepticism about BK's blanket denials about knowledge of Judge Kozinski's behavior. I still find those implausible. But there is no smoking gun.
Folks object to my saying I think he lied. I recognize that saying that is a big deal; it may cost me some friends. But in the elite SCOTUS world I think the professional incentives all cut against saying controversial things, especially negative things about the Justices.
For that reason I feel a particular obligation to say what I actually think. For better or for worse.
Maybe I'm wrong; maybe I jumped to conclusions and spoke too soon. Most likely we'll never know for certain. I do think it matters, though. Even if lying is understandable, even if the process has been unfair, we expect a higher standard from potential SCOTUS justices.
For that reason, I would hope that an FBI investigation would also include some minimal inquiry into whether he told the truth about these smaller matters (as I believe that is probative of whether he told the truth about larger matters).
If there is a thorough investigation—which I agree should be conducted quickly—and no smoking guns are found, the question becomes what to do next.
There are arguments why they should just go with someone else who doesn't have this cloud (perhaps Barrett). Conservatives, though, point out that any other nominee will get attacked, too, and often on unfair grounds.
I think there's also a genuine concern about (1) rewarding what is perceived as bad faith tactics by Dems as well as (2) a view that withdrawing BK will essentially cause the allegations to be perceived as true, which would be unfair to him.
This is a genuinely hard question. I'm glad I'm not in charge of making these decisions.
It is clear to me, though, that just plowing forward without some effort to create the appearance that this was really taken seriously and thoroughly run to ground is a mistake.
The Court's legitimacy matters a lot. It should matter to Republicans, too; their conservative majority will be able to do more in a world where the country has faith in the institution.
One last point. I think we need to have empathy for the principals involved in this dispute while also recognizing that this is ultimately about more than just these people.
Re the empathy point. Whatever you think of Ford's allegations, it's hard for me to conclude that *she* doesn't believe what she's saying—I can't believe she would do this to her life if she didn't—and at the very least she is someone who has experienced trauma and suffering.
Re: BK, I think even those who are inclined to credit Dr. Ford should recognize the underlying uncertainty of the situation. I don't think anybody can have confidence approaching total certainty or reasonable doubt.
For that reason, people need to accept *some* possibility that BK is wrongly accused, and that he feels incredibly wronged. The likelihood of the different possibilities each person has to judge for themselves, but we should all (on both sides) accept the possibility of error.
This means, of course, that people inclined to believe BK, who think he's an honorable guy, etc. etc. have to accept that possibility too.
Ultimately, though, what is happening is about more than just these two people (and the other accusers). It's about the strength of our institutions. We need to figure out a way forward that doesn't damage those institutions any further.
I am not sure there is such a clear path forward. I think there are better and worse options. But we're now in a real bind, and it's not obvious there is a clear solution that won't end up making half the country angry and demoralized.
