All of these possible areas of inquiry — her female friend and family’s recollections, the probable locations for the party, the boy who connected her with her alleged attacker — were unmentioned by Senate Democrats as they went about praising Blasey and cross-examining Kavanaugh, and their possible relevance is mostly being dismissed by the liberal side as of a piece with Whelan’s reckless public speculations. Instead the only person that liberals insist absolutely needs to be questioned more rigorously is Mark Judge, the alleged other participant in the assault.

But if the liberal interest in Judge is too partial, it’s still entirely reasonable. The sworn statements from him and from the other boy named, P.J. Smyth, are obviously insufficient given the stakes here. They should be asked under oath if they knew Blasey, if they ever attended parties with her — a whole litany of obvious questions. And the fact that both of their names appeared on the calendar that Kavanaugh offered up in his defense, listed as attendees at precisely the kind of weeknight drinking party that he suggested was vanishingly rare, seems like another useful area of inquiry — one, again, that the cross-examiner (God bless her!) pursued a little before Senate Republicans decided that the time for grandstanding had arrived.

Oh, and another name on the list of that weeknight party’s attendees was “Squi,” which was apparently the nickname of the boy that Blasey was dating and who introduced her to Kavanaugh … thus linking the different areas of inquiry together, and giving another reason it would be extremely interesting to hear from him, the whole story’s missing link.