As Amy Goodman says, "This is complicated." Please bear with me on this, I've tried to write the following as straightforwardly as I can.
I keep thinking of two little words: "Manufacturing Consent".
Recently I learned that Facebook allowed the Weekly Standard to falsely label an important story as “fake news,” a story that could have and should have affected the Ford/Kavanaugh hearings dramatically. The key complaint raised by many who are highly sympathetic to Kavanaugh is that Ford offered no "hard" evidence to support her claims. They are upset that BK had his reputation publicly assassinated, his life will NEVER be the same, and there was no evidence per se that proves his guilt. I think I understand that perspective and the anger that it generates. Keep in mind that Republicans are using that anger to solicit donations and to generate turnout for the upcoming midterm elections.
I submit to you that “hard” evidence COULD have and SHOULD have been obtained if Mark Judge had been subpoenaed and required to testify at the hearing. Ford has testified that Judge was in the room when the alleged assault against her took place, so Judge has the potential to be an eye-witness and supply the desired “credible” evidence. Now I wonder, why on earth was Mark Judge not on the agenda at the Congressional hearing?
I also submit to you that I believe I already know the answer to my question: such an appearance would have been highly damaging to Kavanaugh.