Former Sen. Barbara Mikulski, one of just two female senators in office at the time, who pushed for Ms. Hill to testify, had some advice for the committee.

“How you treat her with respect is to take it seriously. You also treat Judge Kavanaugh with respect,” Ms. Mikulski told me. “You do an investigation. And then you hold a hearing, not a trial.”

____________________

What both sides are saying

There’s a lot being written about how the Senate should handle the accusations against Mr. Kavanaugh. We read through it all to break down the arguments coming from the left and the right.

Liberals have almost universally called for a deeper investigation before the Senate votes to confirm. Here’s what they are saying:

• A Supreme Court position is too important to hurry.

“The urgency is to investigate, not to rush to confirm a lifetime appointment. Surely a few Republican senators retain enough sense of institutional responsibility to insist on that.” — Ruth Marcus, The Washington Post

• Kavanaugh’s honesty is on trial.

“Kavanaugh has denied that he did it … If Ford’s allegation is true, then Kavanaugh has lied to the public.” — Nathan J. Robinson, Current Affairs

Conservatives, meanwhile, are split. While some have echoed the same concerns as their liberal counterparts, many still believe an investigation is not warranted. Here’s what they are saying:

• The allegations are too old to be proven.

“There is no way to confirm her story after 35 years … This is simply too distant and uncorroborated a story to warrant a new hearing or to delay a vote.” — Wall Street Journal editorial board

• The way Democrats brought the case forward is suspect.

“If Kavanaugh’s confirmation is derailed, the precedent will be set. Whenever the stakes are high enough, the most sinister, underhanded forces of the left will manage to surface an unsubstantiated character-destroying allegation at the most opportune moment.” — Buck Sexton, The Hill

____________________

The mayor and his money

Our colleague Alexander Burns, a national political correspondent, sends us this dispatch about how one former (and perhaps future?) politician is trying to influence this year’s elections:

Michael R. Bloomberg’s plan to spend $80 million supporting Democratic congressional candidates has fueled one of the biggest guessing games in midterm politics: How’s he going to spend it? Where? For whom?

Mr. Bloomberg didn’t name all of his targets in an interview, but he offered some clues.

“We are looking for candidates, number one, that are good on the environment and guns in particular,” he told me. “And then candidates where we think that they have a chance, and candidates that we think aren’t guaranteed to win.”

The first three candidates Mr. Bloomberg is spending money for are illustrative. All three are Southern California Democrats: Harley Rouda and Katie Hill, both challenging Republican incumbents, and Mike Levin, seeking the open seat of a retiring Republican. All three are solidly left of center, courting suburban voters who tend to share Mr. Bloomberg’s views on guns and climate.