The Most Plausible Theory Has Surfaced About Professor Ford's "Assault"

This is a sordid business, but Ed Whelan provides a more compelling narrative than Professor Ford.

While I am still not convinced there was an assault on Professor Ford, an intriguing theory has come forward that embraces the idea she was assaulted and makes a far more plausible case than that Brett Kavanaugh did it.

I am not comfortable identifying the individual who may have been involved. One innocent man is having his reputation destroyed. I see no reason to drag in another.

Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center decided to put up a more compelling story that embraces Ford's theory of assault, while filling in the details she provided. And while I continue to find it unseemly to drag another innocent person into a fraudulent claim, the facts are very compelling that this is the location and things make more sense if you assume Ford was assaulted.

The facts, as Ed Whelan laid them out, are that Brett Kavanaugh did go to school with someone who has a striking resemblance. That person lived within walking distance of the club Ford claims she had been at. The home matches the limited description Ford provided. I suspect more information will roll out as well over the coming days.

I continue to believe Ford's accusation is not credible. If you find it credible, Whelan's evidence is compelling unless you're just trying to stop Kavanaugh for partisan or ideological reasons. You will also note the Democrats have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to debunk the look-alike theory over the past 48 hours largely because they know just how credible Ed Whelan's chain of tweets is.

This whole sordid mess is gross and had the Democrats handled this properly, we would not be at this point. The Senate should move on to confirm Kavanaugh now.

Comments
No. 1-12
AJ_Liberty
AJ_Liberty

There's been so much wrong with this process.....but the doppelganger theory does not seem particularly helpful...unless there is something beyond the circumstantial details that Whelan puts forth. Ford's accusation should stand or fall on the strength of the evidence that she is able to provide....and whether that evidence is at all verifiable. If there is no one that can confirm any details from her narrative and there are no other accusations that emerge, then due process makes it difficult to weigh the accusation against a career that has no other warning flags.

America 1
America 1

The comments on this post are disgusting. (Yea, that's you Kava and the other insane nutcases) If this is the new standard where any disgusting piece of crap like Christine Ford can just throw out uncorroborated, 36 year old accusations, which you can not even defend yourself against because this lying piece of crap refuses to even appear for questioning, then we are screwed. In the future, any left wing marxist piece of crap can just throw out any outrageous allegations without any evidence and ruin the life of even the most outstanding people who have led stellar lives for decades! After this is over, Kavanaugh should hire a lawyer and sue this lying bitch for defamation and take her to the cleaners!!!! And as for the Democrats who are orchestrating this whole fiasco, they are all lower forms of life then pond scum!!!

etbass
etbass

No one actually takes any of this seriously. The Democrats don't give one rip about whether Kavanaugh did this or didn't. Neither do the Republicans. It is 100% politics and how it can be used to gain a political advantage.

The evidence is right before our eyes. Most of the GOP would excuse anything Trump did. The ones who didn't, would excuse it if it were Mitt Romney (other than a tiny minority of less than 5%). The Democrats have proven that they will excuse anything. Bill Clinton did a lot more than Trump, Kav, etc., with credible allegations of rape. The Democrats didn't care about that and the GOP was lighting itself on fire.

We are a four legs good, two legs bad political system where the only thing that matters is what "team" someone is on. I just wish everyone would stop pretending that they care what actually happened. Only an insignificant percentage actually care.

I'll go first. I don't care. I do care about character. I wouldn't disqualify someone for this incident 35 years later, even if it was true. It doesn't make it right, but it isn't like there is a pattern of this behavior or this was something that he did as an adult. I would put the odds of it happening like she reported at 1%. Even then, I don't care.

There is a rational limit to the length of time that we should carry actions of minors forward into the present. This story, even her account of it, is a lot different than raping someone. Again, I am not excusing it, but knowing this would not prevent you as an employer from hiring an otherwise qualified person, with a 36 year record of nothing else remotely resembling this. As employers, we would dismiss this and move on. That is what the U.S. Senate should do.

I like Clay Travis' take on it. If you aren't aware, Travis is a sports show host with a penchant for having no filter and stirring up controversy. Politically, he is moderate with a libertarian streak, he isn't a Trump supporter or a Republican, but isn't far left either. There probably some language, so consider it NSFW (I edited the link because of the headline picture he uses is more sports illustrated swimsuit edition than Resurgent and Erick probably wouldn't want the picture here, and it popped up when I added the full link. Just add the usual to the front and it will work.)

outkickthecoverage.com/anonymous-mailbag-68/

BillRitter
BillRitter

If she is serious, then she should give a Statement to the police in MD. She could have a police officer take her statement, wherever she is and forward it to MD. They can then open an investigation based on her statement. It won't last long.

Kavanaugh is supposed to go first?! OK here is what his testimony would be: I didn't assault her, I was not at the unknown home, at the unknown time/date. Like her I don't know how she got there, nor how she got home.

So she testifies: I was assaulted and he did it at some unknown home, sometime in the summer (80+ day period). There were 2 witnesses.

Both of her named witnesses then testify as they have already stated. "Never happened".

3 say she is wrong. 1 She thinks she's right. No case.

Why won't she file charges, or testify under oath -- to avoid perjury or perpetrate a fraud on the court, and therefore go to jail. She had 36 years to do this as well as July thru today to do it. Even now she can do it, instead we get vague info thru political operatives and the NYT with a damming unsubstantiated accusation.

TeaParty2009
TeaParty2009

Who let the Progressive nuts in?