Democrats would argue that other witnesses could provide context, verify or refute parts of the stories that either person tells. It was unfair to Kavanaugh, unfair to his accuser and unfair to Feinstein's colleagues - Democrats and Republicans alike - on the Senate Judiciary Committee. "Odds are it will be a circus".
Kavanaugh and his accuser, psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford, had been expected to testify Monday before Ford's attorney sent a letter on Tuesday night asking first for an FBI investigation. "I can't say everything's truthful", Feinstein said when asked about Ford.
Senator John Cornyn, a member of the Senate Republican leadership, appeared to cast doubt on Ford's allegations. That's particularly true given the stakes here. Republicans hope to have Kavanaugh confirmed by October 1, the start of the next Supreme Court term. It's a hugely influential role, and knowing the character of the people you are putting on the court is absolutely essential. "I think you look to judges to be the arbiters of right and wrong", he said. So I think it's relevant. "Is this really what America wants in its next Supreme Court Justice?" In a statement, Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said the FBI - which has added a letter from Christine Blasey Ford to Kavanaugh's already completed background report file - had already done all it was going to do, because "the allegation does not involve any potential federal crime". Dianne Feinstein, and anonymously tipped off the Post, back in July.
He accused Democrats of playing politics by not zeroing in on the accusation against the judge until days before the Senate Judiciary Committee was poised to vote on his nomination.
Democrats complain that Ms Ford was not consulted before the hearing was announced. Asked if that included sworn testimony at a public hearing before senators, Katz told CBS' "This Morning" program: "She's willing to do what she needs to do".
The Post reported that Ford is a registered Democrat who has made small contributions to political organizations. "I did not know if it was credible", she told reporters.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said on radio's "Hugh Hewitt Show" said that he'd not yet received confirmation from Ford that she would appear at the hearing, despite several attempts to reach her camp.
27 years after the Senate shamefully dragged Anita Hill through the mud in the Clarence Thomas hearings, America has a chance to do things better. Even this weekend she could have chosen to remain anonymous. Um, what? How someone processes an event as traumatic as what Ford alleges happened in high school is an incredibly complex emotional and intellectual process.
"In fact, I have no memory of this alleged incident". The political hazards for Republicans were made clear Monday when an off-script Sen.
She alleged Mr Kavanaugh was "stumbling drunk" at the time. The argument is that a Kavanaugh defeat would badly demoralize the Republican base in advance of the 2018 midterms - and that depression coupled with Democrats' huge enthusiasm to vote would flip control.
But to dismiss this all as a "he said, she said", also misses the point.
None of this makes the case clear-cut, and we may never get definitive answers as to whether Kavanaugh was at the party or whether Ford's allegation is true.
'How could we want to get the truth and not have Mr. Judge come to the hearing?'
Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, who is on the Judiciary Committee, said Republicans are "naturally" concerned about the optics of having only Republican men question Ford "because there's always a lot of prejudice in these matters".
The Journal editorial isn't totally wrong. "Is this a mistake, or is this something that he did that we would want him held to account for [and] rather than deny it, have him share how he has changed and or what he learned from that experience?"
Warren's willingness to co-opt others' misfortunes for her own benefit knows no limit.