CNN asked several of its commentators for their reactions to the appearance of Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. Their replies were no great surprise with one exception. Their legal analyst, Paul Callan, went against the CNN liberal grain and came out firmly in favor of the Senate confirming Kavanaugh.

Callan made his case through a legal lens where facts, not political bananas, come first:

Many Americans will ultimately come away from Thursday's hearing feeling disgusted not over the character of Judge Brett Kavanaugh but that of those Democratic senators who attempted, on the weakest of evidence, to portray the judge as an attempted rapist. Their strongest documentary evidence appeared to be inscriptions about beer drinking in his high school yearbook. America's founding fathers wisely designated courts of law as the place where claims of criminal conduct such as sexual assault are resolved. They knew that such serious claims can only be thoroughly investigated and finally resolved by a judge or jury at a fair trial. Hundreds of years of experience has demonstrated that the truthfulness of witnesses can best be tested in the crucible of cross-examination. Christine Blasey Ford faced no such test before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. She made a very good initial impression but failed to fill in the troubling gaps in her story.