Almost exactly the same as my thinking on the issue, but my basic take is: there should be a standard analogous to that used in criminal law but applied to the confirmation process as a whole, i.e. the presumption is not that Kavanaugh is innocent or guilty but that he is unfit for office, and the burden of proof is on him and the GOP to prove otherwise.

And within that framework, Ford’s allegations are just a piece of the puzzle, but the accusations as well as Kavanaugh’s unsatisfactory, apparently dishonest responses to them seem to me like enough to create enough “reasonable doubt” in and of themselves.

But then you tack on all that other shady stuff about his finances, conflicts-of-interest —and that’s before you even get to his record on the bench— put it all together and you have doubts that are beyond reasonable.

Finally, I just want to add that even the ones denying the allegations know in their hearts they are credible because why else would they all be defending them as if they were true? Why would there be so many “So what?” takes and “Doppleganger” theories if they didn’t need a back-up plan?