@WarChiefZeke: The problem isn't that Whelan looked up Ford's LinkedIn page. The problem is that he looked her up after news broke that a woman had privately contacted a politician claiming that Kavanaugh attacked her but before her name was publicly known. It's not possible to look up someone's LinkedIn page without knowing their name, which means Whelan knew this woman's name before anyone else did. How did he know?
The only way Whelan could have known is if someone had told him who he needed to research if he was going to help Kavanaugh get confirmed. So who told Whelan who this woman was, before her name became public? Who told him her identity when she was still anonymous?
I see three possibilities. First, Ford herself told Whelan. This makes no sense.
Second, Feinstein told Whelan. This makes no sense.
So who else would know the woman's identity just by hearing she accused Kavanaugh of attacking her?
Kavanaugh knew who she was. He then contacted Whelan, who looked her up. It's also possible the person who contacted Whelan was someone who knew Kavanaugh was guilty but wished to support him by reaching out to Whelan early.
The problem is that Kavanaugh, like Whelan, and like virtually everyone aside from Ford and Feinstein, would have had no idea the woman was Ford unless he remembered attacking her. If he hadn't, her name would never have come to mind. If he was innocent, he would have no idea who it could possibly be.
I would like to see this brought up during the hearing. I want to know if Kavanaugh or one of his friends contacted Whelan and told him Ford's identity early. I think Whelan should answer the same question: how did he find out this woman's name before everyone else?
A single LinkedIn visit would be innocuous in almost any other situation. But the specific timing of Whelan's looking up Ford makes no sense unless Kavanaugh remembered attacking her.
1. If Kavanaugh was innocent, neither he nor any of his supporters would have had any idea who this woman was until after her name became public.
2. If Kavanaugh and his supporters had no idea who this woman was, they could never have given the name to Whelan.
3. If Whelan didn't have the name, he wouldn't have been able to look her up.
4. Yet Whelan did look her up. Before her name became public.
5. Which means he did have her name. Before her name became public.
6. So somebody did send him the name. Before her name became public.
7. Somebody who instantly knew exactly who she was, based on a single point of information:
8. "A woman accused Kavanaugh of attacking her when she was 17."
"Hey Dave, some woman is accusing you of attacking her. We don't know her name yet, but--"
Latest on Ford is the ultimatum that Senate Republicans will vote Monday to push him through if she doesn't agree to testify.
What a horrible bunch of people.
If she does agree every Republican will attack her to defend filthy Kavanaugh so she'll be victimized again.
Last I heard she was talking about testifying next Wednesday or Thursday. Has something changed?
Yes they responded and said if she doesn't agree to their terms tonight they do the committee vote monday because their mind is already made up anyway.
The six siblings of Republican Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ 4) made a new television advertisement where they tell voters to vote for the Democrat that is running against their brother.
1. If Kavanaugh was innocent, neither he nor any of his supporters would have had any idea who this woman was until after her name became public.
2. If Kavanaugh and his supporters had no idea who this woman was, they could never have given the name to Whelan.
1. You're assuming there is no possibility of that information being leaked in the months that this information was known by the Democrats and strategies were being planned, an assumption that given the nature of leaks in the White House, I find untenable.
2. Correct, but you are assuming an explanation as to how this knowledge was obtained unreasonably and without evidence.
The six siblings of Republican Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ 4) made a new television advertisement where they tell voters to vote for the Democrat that is running against their brother.
Wow! Sorry, I actually find this kind of disturbing. A new low in politics. Let's now go seek out family members to stick a knife in the back of the person we're running against. If your dad doesn't agree with your politics lets get him to make a statement. Don't get along with your sister, lets get her to make an ad. Better not run for office unless your whole family is on board. Pathetic...
The six siblings of Republican Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ 4) made a new television advertisement where they tell voters to vote for the Democrat that is running against their brother.
Wow! Sorry, I actually find this kind of disturbing. A new low in politics. Let's now go seek out family members to stick a knife in the back of the person we're running against. If your dad doesn't agree with your politics lets get him to make a statement. Don't get along with your sister, lets get her to make an ad. Better not run for office unless your whole family is on board. Pathetic...
Yeah that might be the case of there was only one but there's six. With valid points.
And here's a 'whatabout'. What about how Trump rolled out Bill Clintons sexual harrasment accusers before his debate with Hillary for a photo op and staged press conference.
1. You're assuming there is no possibility of that information being leaked in the months that this information was known by the Democrats and strategies were being planned, an assumption that given the nature of leaks in the White House, I find untenable.
Good point. If this information was leaked, Whelan would be able to provide the source to disprove one fairly solid indication of Kavanaugh's guilt.
I'm not sure how likely a leak is, though. I don't really see how a disenchanted Democrat would see protecting Kavanaugh as a good thing--it's not like it's some conscientious Democrat was trying to expose wrongdoing by a Democratic official. It would be a Democratic official going out of their way to protect a Republican stranger... which makes little sense as a motive.
These are questions that could easily be answered at the confirmation hearings, and ideally by testimony from Whelan.
The six siblings of Republican Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ 4) made a new television advertisement where they tell voters to vote for the Democrat that is running against their brother.
Wow! Sorry, I actually find this kind of disturbing. A new low in politics. Let's now go seek out family members to stick a knife in the back of the person we're running against. If your dad doesn't agree with your politics lets get him to make a statement. Don't get along with your sister, lets get her to make an ad. Better not run for office unless your whole family is on board. Pathetic...
Yeah that might be the case of there was only one but there's six. With valid points.
And here's a 'whatabout'. What about how Trump rolled out Bill Clintons sexual harrasment accusers before his debate with Hillary for a photo op and staged press conference.
This commercial is not lower than that.
Yeah, Trump lowered the bar to 1 mm over Hades. That doesn't mean I have to bite my tongue when I see BS like this. I remember calling out Trump for his wall bullshit and race-baiting so I'm no groupie of his. I don't agree with my family's politics but I would never throw them under the bus like that. At most I just wouldn't endorse them. To me it speaks more of the siblings than it does of the congressman. Blood is blood.
Edit: and what is this crap about water resources in Arizona? What water resources? Last I knew they were sprinkling all their water on their fucking lawns so they could keep their hay-fever...
The six siblings of Republican Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ 4) made a new television advertisement where they tell voters to vote for the Democrat that is running against their brother.
Wow! Sorry, I actually find this kind of disturbing. A new low in politics. Let's now go seek out family members to stick a knife in the back of the person we're running against. If your dad doesn't agree with your politics lets get him to make a statement. Don't get along with your sister, lets get her to make an ad. Better not run for office unless your whole family is on board. Pathetic...
Yeah that might be the case of there was only one but there's six. With valid points.
And here's a 'whatabout'. What about how Trump rolled out Bill Clintons sexual harrasment accusers before his debate with Hillary for a photo op and staged press conference.
This commercial is not lower than that.
Clinton's accusers would have been fair game (though I will never understand why Hillary always seemed to suffer the most for what her husband did). I'm on record talking about this before, but there are 5 women in regards to Clinton that got the bulk of the media attention on the '90s. To break it down:
1.) Monica Lewinsky: Obviously, they had an affair in the White House, this is not disputed, nor does anyone claim it wasn't consensual.
2.) Gennifer Flowers: A woman who claimed her and Clinton had an affair before he was President. I have no reason to disbelieve her.
3.) Paula Jones: Accused Clinton of exposing himself to her. I also believe this probably happend.
Here is where it gets tricky:
4.) Katheen Willey: She claimed Clinton sexually assaulted her. The problem is Ken Starr's Independent Counsel found her so unreliable that they gave her immunity TWICE, once initially, and once to protect her from the false statements she made to the FBI.
5.) Juanita Broderick: This is THE main accusation, as she accused Clinton of rape. And I would be inclined to believe her. The problem is she didn't just deny it happened. She denied it under oath and in depositions. Twice.
Of course, Donald Trump trotting women out to throw at Bill Clinton is absurd, since he had over a dozen women accusing him of sexual assault when that debate took place.
It's kind of hard to imagine disagreeing with a family member so strongly that I'd appear in public to thwart their odds at election. Granted, my family is extremely close-knit and I don't have bad relationships with anyone in the family, so I have a bias there. Still, to be perfectly honest, there's no particular reason that you can't disagree with your own family, even publicly.
It's kind of hard to imagine disagreeing with a family member so strongly that I'd appear in public to thwart their odds at election. Granted, my family is extremely close-knit and I don't have bad relationships with anyone in the family, so I have a bias there. Still, to be perfectly honest, there's no particular reason that you can't disagree with your own family, even publicly.
I only posted my version of it because I thought it was a twist the likes of which I haven't seen at the end. The thing about those siblings is they seem to be a very varied bunch of people. A multitude of different careers, interests, maybe even political leanings. But they all think their brother is so unfit for office that they are willing to denounce him in a public television ad. Maybe it's a new low, or maybe their brother is exactly as bad as they are saying he is.
1. You're assuming there is no possibility of that information being leaked in the months that this information was known by the Democrats and strategies were being planned, an assumption that given the nature of leaks in the White House, I find untenable.
Good point. If this information was leaked, Whelan would be able to provide the source to disprove one fairly solid indication of Kavanaugh's guilt.
I'm not sure how likely a leak is, though. I don't really see how a disenchanted Democrat would see protecting Kavanaugh as a good thing--it's not like it's some conscientious Democrat was trying to expose wrongdoing by a Democratic official. It would be a Democratic official going out of their way to protect a Republican stranger... which makes little sense as a motive.
These are questions that could easily be answered at the confirmation hearings, and ideally by testimony from Whelan.
I could see the Democrats, or Republicans for that matter, sitting on critical info for occasions just like this. Kavanaugh was kinda small potatoes before this and not worth playing your ace in the hole. Being a poker player, and a chess player, I can totally see how you'd keep your boss 'Trump' card in your hand until you really need it. If Ford wasn't a Liberal I'd find it much less suspicious that she waited for this moment. I don't think she'd have needed much convincing to sit on this until a critical moment. If Kavanaugh never was nominated for SCOTUS, she wouldn't ever have to expose herself to this extreme scrutiny. It's really a win-win situation. If the nomination doesn't happen, no harm, no foul. If it does, it's an extremely powerful position with a lifetime term so worth the pain. Yes, I do believe that people devoted to politics can be that detached from personal emotion.
1. You're assuming there is no possibility of that information being leaked in the months that this information was known by the Democrats and strategies were being planned, an assumption that given the nature of leaks in the White House, I find untenable.
2. Correct, but you are assuming an explanation as to how this knowledge was obtained unreasonably and without evidence.
You're not wrong, but I think you're missing the bigger picture. You yourself have said there's likely to be almost no physical evidence. We know that only 3 people should have first hand information on the situation at hand (Ford, Judge, Kavanaugh).
Now we enter the phase of trying to determine what most likely happened. We historians do this ALL the time. We get as much primary source information as possible (Ford, Kavanaugh, Judge) - we weigh their biases as effectively as possible (It's in Kavanaugh and Judge's best interest ti deny. Ford doesnt really have a reason to destroy her own life here, so she gets a bit of credibility from that. Still - on its own, it's not enough).
We look for secondary sources next (Ford talks to her Therapist. She doesnt mention Kavanaugh by name, but now we have an idea that something like what she's reporting probably happened, since she wouldnt have had the political motivation to lie about it in 2012). We consider other bits of evidence (Kavanaugh reported used to binge drink a LOT with Judge, if I understand what I've read - Also, it seems suspicious that Grassley was able to produce 65 signatures of women defending the honor of Kavanaugh within 24 hours unless he had an idea there may be skeletons in Kavanaugh's closet). Now we're seeing that maybe Whalen knew his identity ahead of time, which would be consistent with either Kavanaugh recognizing the allegation and knowing her name, or Feinstein's team leaked it. I would point out here that Feinstein was willing to sit on the accuser's name and *not* reveal it even if it meant Kavanaugh got confirmed. It was Ford who put her own name forward.
Would this all be enough to secure a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law? Probably not. However, History (and the arena of politics) is not a court of law. We consider the likelihood by weighing evidence and try to come to our best and most reasonable answer. In this case, while there is no "smoking gun", like a picture or recording, there's enough secondary evidence that this allegation cannot be effectively ruled out... and perhaps even looks more likely the more evidence that emerges.
Personally - I dont want a judge sitting on the supreme court if there's a reasonable likelihood that he tried to rape a woman (let alone all the points @smeagolheart made earlier pertaining to perjury and the Trump White House classifying 100k pages of documents and refusing to him them over about Kavanaugh's time during the Bush Administration.
What I dont get is: Why bother with ALL THIS? Have Kavanaugh pull his name back. Get Amy Coney Barrett, and put her on the SC. Trump looks better politically. She probably never tried to rape anyone. She maybe hasnt perjured herself. Kavanaugh isnt some golden boy of Conservatism. You guys have a LOT of choices.
I disagree. You can love a member of your family while not agreeing with the things they do, or want to do or support. Likewise, you can love a member of your family without liking them, also.
I loved my cousin Robert. I don't like that he used cocaine or that using it led to his death before his pregnant wife could give birth to their child. He was also not much of a nice person, being a very arrogant guy who thought he could do no wrong. I mean, I'm sure his wife loved him and all, but I saw the side of him that wasn't "all that".
Likewise, I love my cousin Michael. I don't like that he's had three different children by three different mothers and doesn't support them (except for the last, the woman he *finally* married). But it took him 3+ years to do so. Neither did I send him a present on his wedding.
I can love them without supporting their choices, or even agreeing with those choices.
1. You're assuming there is no possibility of that information being leaked in the months that this information was known by the Democrats and strategies were being planned, an assumption that given the nature of leaks in the White House, I find untenable.
2. Correct, but you are assuming an explanation as to how this knowledge was obtained unreasonably and without evidence.
You're not wrong, but I think you're missing the bigger picture. You yourself have said there's likely to be almost no physical evidence. We know that only 3 people should have first hand information on the situation at hand (Ford, Judge, Kavanaugh).
Now we enter the phase of trying to determine what most likely happened. We historians do this ALL the time. We get as much primary source information as possible (Ford, Kavanaugh, Judge) - we weigh their biases as effectively as possible (It's in Kavanaugh and Judge's best interest ti deny. Ford doesnt really have a reason to destroy her own life here, so she gets a bit of credibility from that. Still - on its own, it's not enough).
We look for secondary sources next (Ford talks to her Therapist. She doesnt mention Kavanaugh by name, but now we have an idea that something like what she's reporting probably happened, since she wouldnt have had the political motivation to lie about it in 2012). We consider other bits of evidence (Kavanaugh reported used to binge drink a LOT with Judge, if I understand what I've read - Also, it seems suspicious that Grassley was able to produce 65 signatures of women defending the honor of Kavanaugh within 24 hours unless he had an idea there may be skeletons in Kavanaugh's closet). Now we're seeing that maybe Whalen knew his identity ahead of time, which would be consistent with either Kavanaugh recognizing the allegation and knowing her name, or Feinstein's team leaked it. I would point out here that Feinstein was willing to sit on the accuser's name and *not* reveal it even if it meant Kavanaugh got confirmed. It was Ford who put her own name forward.
Would this all be enough to secure a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law? Probably not. However, History (and the arena of politics) is not a court of law. We consider the likelihood by weighing evidence and try to come to our best and most reasonable answer. In this case, while there is no "smoking gun", like a picture or recording, there's enough secondary evidence that this allegation cannot be effectively ruled out... and perhaps even looks more likely the more evidence that emerges.
Personally - I dont want a judge sitting on the supreme court if there's a reasonable likelihood that he tried to rape a woman (let alone all the points @smeagolheart made earlier pertaining to perjury and the Trump White House classifying 100k pages of documents and refusing to him them over about Kavanaugh's time during the Bush Administration.
What I dont get is: Why bother with ALL THIS? Have Kavanaugh pull his name back. Get Amy Coney Barrett, and put her on the SC. Trump looks better politically. She probably never tried to rape anyone. She maybe hasnt perjured herself. Kavanaugh isnt some golden boy of Conservatism. You guys have a LOT of choices.
I disagree. You can love a member of your family while not agreeing with the things they do, or want to do or support. Likewise, you can love a member of your family without liking them, also.
I loved my cousin Robert. I don't like that he used cocaine or that using it led to his death before his pregnant wife could give birth to their child. He was also not much of a nice person, being a very arrogant guy who thought he could do no wrong. I mean, I'm sure his wife loved him and all, but I saw the side of him that wasn't "all that".
Likewise, I love my cousin Michael. I don't like that he's had three different children by three different mothers and doesn't support them (except for the last, the woman he *finally* married). But it took him 3+ years to do so. Neither did I send him a present on his wedding.
I can love them without supporting their choices, or even agreeing with those choices.
But would you star in an add that made them look like an asshole?
To be frank, last night I never thought this Whelan angle was going to be anything more than your typical AM talk-radio nonsense, except on Twitter. Then through the night it became clear that he isn't just some random conservative talking head, he is THE fixer in the Republican establishment for conservative judicial nominations. Then Orrin Hatch's Deputy Chief of Staff deleted a tweet telling everyone to watch for what Whelan would report. Then you go back and look at Hatch's statement itself where he suggests she is "confused" about who her attacker was. Then we get the information tonight that Whelan was digging for dirt before there should have been any dirt to dig.
They thought this plan was brilliant. They thought it was a slam-dunk and was going to work. There is at least circumstantial evidence that Senators, their staff, the White House and Kavanaugh himself were in on this plan. It blew up on Twitter last night because of how batshit insane the doppelganger theory was. But it's blowing up tonight in the actual news because they were too stupid to cover their tracks.
Again, I'm the one who brought it up last night, and even I assumed it was just some gonzo theory making the rounds on the fringes of the right-wing media. Except it's actually turned out to be central to the entire puzzle.
To be frank, last night I never thought this Whelan angle was going to be anything more than your typical AM talk-radio nonsense, except on Twitter. Then through the night it became clear that he isn't just some random conservative talking head, he is THE fixer in the Republican establishment for conservative judicial nominations. Then Orrin Hatch's Deputy Chief of Staff deleted a tweet telling everyone to watch for what Whelan would report. Then you go back and look at Hatch's statement itself where he suggests she is "confused" about who her attacker was. Then we get the information tonight that Whelan was digging for dirt before there should have been any dirt to dig.
They thought this plan was brilliant. They thought it was a slam-dunk and was going to work. There is at least circumstantial evidence that Senators, their staff, the White House and Kavanaugh himself were in on this plan. It blew up on Twitter last night because of how batshit insane the doppelganger theory was. But it's blowing up tonight in the actual news because they were too stupid to cover their tracks.
Iintelligence is probably their dump-stat, unlike Sarevok.
To be frank, last night I never thought this Whelan angle was going to be anything more than your typical AM talk-radio nonsense, except on Twitter. Then through the night it became clear that he isn't just some random conservative talking head, he is THE fixer in the Republican establishment for conservative judicial nominations. Then Orrin Hatch's Deputy Chief of Staff deleted a tweet telling everyone to watch for what Whelan would report. Then you go back and look at Hatch's statement itself where he suggests she is "confused" about who her attacker was. Then we get the information tonight that Whelan was digging for dirt before there should have been any dirt to dig.
They thought this plan was brilliant. They thought it was a slam-dunk and was going to work. There is at least circumstantial evidence that Senators, their staff, the White House and Kavanaugh himself were in on this plan. It blew up on Twitter last night because of how batshit insane the doppelganger theory was. But it's blowing up tonight in the actual news because they were too stupid to cover their tracks.
Iintelligence is probably their dump-stat, unlike Sarevok.
I disagree. You can love a member of your family while not agreeing with the things they do, or want to do or support. Likewise, you can love a member of your family without liking them, also.
I loved my cousin Robert. I don't like that he used cocaine or that using it led to his death before his pregnant wife could give birth to their child. He was also not much of a nice person, being a very arrogant guy who thought he could do no wrong. I mean, I'm sure his wife loved him and all, but I saw the side of him that wasn't "all that".
Likewise, I love my cousin Michael. I don't like that he's had three different children by three different mothers and doesn't support them (except for the last, the woman he *finally* married). But it took him 3+ years to do so. Neither did I send him a present on his wedding.
I can love them without supporting their choices, or even agreeing with those choices.
But would you star in an add that made them look like an asshole?
Possibly. THat would depend to what level of "asshole" they are. Would going into politics and having a position of any authority be potentially dangerous? Or if not dangerous, possible incompetence? I'm not super close with any of my living family, so maybe my perspective is a lot different.
I've never checked. I was going by his ToB stats. I don't have a save where I can ctrl 'Q' him...
18/18/17/14/12/13 for a total roll of 92. All in all, it could have been alot more unbalanced.
So he gained intelligence by dying? That somehow makes sense to me.
Edit: That gives me an idea. Maybe we should kill all of our politicians and have them resurrected by a faith-healer. If it works, more intelligent politicians. If it doesn't work, no loss really...
I disagree. You can love a member of your family while not agreeing with the things they do, or want to do or support. Likewise, you can love a member of your family without liking them, also.
I loved my cousin Robert. I don't like that he used cocaine or that using it led to his death before his pregnant wife could give birth to their child. He was also not much of a nice person, being a very arrogant guy who thought he could do no wrong. I mean, I'm sure his wife loved him and all, but I saw the side of him that wasn't "all that".
Likewise, I love my cousin Michael. I don't like that he's had three different children by three different mothers and doesn't support them (except for the last, the woman he *finally* married). But it took him 3+ years to do so. Neither did I send him a present on his wedding.
I can love them without supporting their choices, or even agreeing with those choices.
But would you star in an add that made them look like an asshole?
Yes. I'd also star in an ad about the dickishness of my dad's sister and her daughter, my cousin, who are absolute users. In fact, I'd actively offer to do so!!
I disagree. You can love a member of your family while not agreeing with the things they do, or want to do or support. Likewise, you can love a member of your family without liking them, also.
I loved my cousin Robert. I don't like that he used cocaine or that using it led to his death before his pregnant wife could give birth to their child. He was also not much of a nice person, being a very arrogant guy who thought he could do no wrong. I mean, I'm sure his wife loved him and all, but I saw the side of him that wasn't "all that".
Likewise, I love my cousin Michael. I don't like that he's had three different children by three different mothers and doesn't support them (except for the last, the woman he *finally* married). But it took him 3+ years to do so. Neither did I send him a present on his wedding.
I can love them without supporting their choices, or even agreeing with those choices.
But would you star in an add that made them look like an asshole?
Yes. I'd also star in an ad about the dickishness of my dad's sister and her daughter, my cousin, who are absolute users. In fact, I'd actively offer to do so!!
Ok, you've got me there. I do have a late Aunt that I would've come out against. Never my sister or parents though...
I've never checked. I was going by his ToB stats. I don't have a save where I can ctrl 'Q' him...
18/18/17/14/12/13 for a total roll of 92. All in all, it could have been alot more unbalanced.
So he gained intelligence by dying? That somehow makes sense to me.
Edit: That gives me an idea. Maybe we should kill all of our politicians and have them resurrected by a faith-healer. If it works, more intelligent politicians. If it doesn't work, no loss really...
I've never checked. I was going by his ToB stats. I don't have a save where I can ctrl 'Q' him...
18/18/17/14/12/13 for a total roll of 92. All in all, it could have been alot more unbalanced.
So he gained intelligence by dying? That somehow makes sense to me.
Edit: That gives me an idea. Maybe we should kill all of our politicians and have them resurrected by a faith-healer. If it works, more intelligent politicians. If it doesn't work, no loss really...
May take more than once for some politicians...
I wonder what Trump's constitution is? He might not survive enough resurrections for my idea to work...
I've never checked. I was going by his ToB stats. I don't have a save where I can ctrl 'Q' him...
18/18/17/14/12/13 for a total roll of 92. All in all, it could have been alot more unbalanced.
So he gained intelligence by dying? That somehow makes sense to me.
Edit: That gives me an idea. Maybe we should kill all of our politicians and have them resurrected by a faith-healer. If it works, more intelligent politicians. If it doesn't work, no loss really...
May take more than once for some politicians...
I wonder what Trump's constitution is? He might not survive enough resurrections for my idea to work...
Who is the most powerful Ogre in the series.....that is your answer.
Yeah, and with his age, he is definitely suffering age-related stat degeneration. But according to 2e, as you age, stats like strength, dex and con go down, while you gain int and wis. Obviously... not in all cases!
Again, like you said, if it doesn't work, no loss!
Comments
The only way Whelan could have known is if someone had told him who he needed to research if he was going to help Kavanaugh get confirmed. So who told Whelan who this woman was, before her name became public? Who told him her identity when she was still anonymous?
I see three possibilities. First, Ford herself told Whelan. This makes no sense.
Second, Feinstein told Whelan. This makes no sense.
So who else would know the woman's identity just by hearing she accused Kavanaugh of attacking her?
Kavanaugh knew who she was. He then contacted Whelan, who looked her up. It's also possible the person who contacted Whelan was someone who knew Kavanaugh was guilty but wished to support him by reaching out to Whelan early.
The problem is that Kavanaugh, like Whelan, and like virtually everyone aside from Ford and Feinstein, would have had no idea the woman was Ford unless he remembered attacking her. If he hadn't, her name would never have come to mind. If he was innocent, he would have no idea who it could possibly be.
I would like to see this brought up during the hearing. I want to know if Kavanaugh or one of his friends contacted Whelan and told him Ford's identity early. I think Whelan should answer the same question: how did he find out this woman's name before everyone else?
A single LinkedIn visit would be innocuous in almost any other situation. But the specific timing of Whelan's looking up Ford makes no sense unless Kavanaugh remembered attacking her.
1. If Kavanaugh was innocent, neither he nor any of his supporters would have had any idea who this woman was until after her name became public.
2. If Kavanaugh and his supporters had no idea who this woman was, they could never have given the name to Whelan.
3. If Whelan didn't have the name, he wouldn't have been able to look her up.
4. Yet Whelan did look her up. Before her name became public.
5. Which means he did have her name. Before her name became public.
6. So somebody did send him the name. Before her name became public.
7. Somebody who instantly knew exactly who she was, based on a single point of information:
8. "A woman accused Kavanaugh of attacking her when she was 17."
"Hey Dave, some woman is accusing you of attacking her. We don't know her name yet, but--"
"Oh, crap. Is it Jessica?"
The six siblings of Republican Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ 4) made a new television advertisement where they tell voters to vote for the Democrat that is running against their brother.
1. You're assuming there is no possibility of that information being leaked in the months that this information was known by the Democrats and strategies were being planned, an assumption that given the nature of leaks in the White House, I find untenable.
2. Correct, but you are assuming an explanation as to how this knowledge was obtained unreasonably and without evidence.
And here's a 'whatabout'. What about how Trump rolled out Bill Clintons sexual harrasment accusers before his debate with Hillary for a photo op and staged press conference.
This commercial is not lower than that.
I'm not sure how likely a leak is, though. I don't really see how a disenchanted Democrat would see protecting Kavanaugh as a good thing--it's not like it's some conscientious Democrat was trying to expose wrongdoing by a Democratic official. It would be a Democratic official going out of their way to protect a Republican stranger... which makes little sense as a motive.
These are questions that could easily be answered at the confirmation hearings, and ideally by testimony from Whelan.
Edit: and what is this crap about water resources in Arizona? What water resources? Last I knew they were sprinkling all their water on their fucking lawns so they could keep their hay-fever...
1.) Monica Lewinsky: Obviously, they had an affair in the White House, this is not disputed, nor does anyone claim it wasn't consensual.
2.) Gennifer Flowers: A woman who claimed her and Clinton had an affair before he was President. I have no reason to disbelieve her.
3.) Paula Jones: Accused Clinton of exposing himself to her. I also believe this probably happend.
Here is where it gets tricky:
4.) Katheen Willey: She claimed Clinton sexually assaulted her. The problem is Ken Starr's Independent Counsel found her so unreliable that they gave her immunity TWICE, once initially, and once to protect her from the false statements she made to the FBI.
5.) Juanita Broderick: This is THE main accusation, as she accused Clinton of rape. And I would be inclined to believe her. The problem is she didn't just deny it happened. She denied it under oath and in depositions. Twice.
Of course, Donald Trump trotting women out to throw at Bill Clinton is absurd, since he had over a dozen women accusing him of sexual assault when that debate took place.
I could see the Democrats, or Republicans for that matter, sitting on critical info for occasions just like this. Kavanaugh was kinda small potatoes before this and not worth playing your ace in the hole. Being a poker player, and a chess player, I can totally see how you'd keep your boss 'Trump' card in your hand until you really need it. If Ford wasn't a Liberal I'd find it much less suspicious that she waited for this moment. I don't think she'd have needed much convincing to sit on this until a critical moment. If Kavanaugh never was nominated for SCOTUS, she wouldn't ever have to expose herself to this extreme scrutiny. It's really a win-win situation. If the nomination doesn't happen, no harm, no foul. If it does, it's an extremely powerful position with a lifetime term so worth the pain. Yes, I do believe that people devoted to politics can be that detached from personal emotion.
You're not wrong, but I think you're missing the bigger picture. You yourself have said there's likely to be almost no physical evidence. We know that only 3 people should have first hand information on the situation at hand (Ford, Judge, Kavanaugh).
Now we enter the phase of trying to determine what most likely happened. We historians do this ALL the time. We get as much primary source information as possible (Ford, Kavanaugh, Judge) - we weigh their biases as effectively as possible (It's in Kavanaugh and Judge's best interest ti deny. Ford doesnt really have a reason to destroy her own life here, so she gets a bit of credibility from that. Still - on its own, it's not enough).
We look for secondary sources next (Ford talks to her Therapist. She doesnt mention Kavanaugh by name, but now we have an idea that something like what she's reporting probably happened, since she wouldnt have had the political motivation to lie about it in 2012). We consider other bits of evidence (Kavanaugh reported used to binge drink a LOT with Judge, if I understand what I've read - Also, it seems suspicious that Grassley was able to produce 65 signatures of women defending the honor of Kavanaugh within 24 hours unless he had an idea there may be skeletons in Kavanaugh's closet). Now we're seeing that maybe Whalen knew his identity ahead of time, which would be consistent with either Kavanaugh recognizing the allegation and knowing her name, or Feinstein's team leaked it. I would point out here that Feinstein was willing to sit on the accuser's name and *not* reveal it even if it meant Kavanaugh got confirmed. It was Ford who put her own name forward.
Would this all be enough to secure a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law? Probably not. However, History (and the arena of politics) is not a court of law. We consider the likelihood by weighing evidence and try to come to our best and most reasonable answer. In this case, while there is no "smoking gun", like a picture or recording, there's enough secondary evidence that this allegation cannot be effectively ruled out... and perhaps even looks more likely the more evidence that emerges.
Personally - I dont want a judge sitting on the supreme court if there's a reasonable likelihood that he tried to rape a woman (let alone all the points @smeagolheart made earlier pertaining to perjury and the Trump White House classifying 100k pages of documents and refusing to him them over about Kavanaugh's time during the Bush Administration.
What I dont get is: Why bother with ALL THIS? Have Kavanaugh pull his name back. Get Amy Coney Barrett, and put her on the SC. Trump looks better politically. She probably never tried to rape anyone. She maybe hasnt perjured herself. Kavanaugh isnt some golden boy of Conservatism. You guys have a LOT of choices.
I loved my cousin Robert. I don't like that he used cocaine or that using it led to his death before his pregnant wife could give birth to their child. He was also not much of a nice person, being a very arrogant guy who thought he could do no wrong. I mean, I'm sure his wife loved him and all, but I saw the side of him that wasn't "all that".
Likewise, I love my cousin Michael. I don't like that he's had three different children by three different mothers and doesn't support them (except for the last, the woman he *finally* married). But it took him 3+ years to do so. Neither did I send him a present on his wedding.
I can love them without supporting their choices, or even agreeing with those choices.
(Did I mention he's from Michigan?)
They thought this plan was brilliant. They thought it was a slam-dunk and was going to work. There is at least circumstantial evidence that Senators, their staff, the White House and Kavanaugh himself were in on this plan. It blew up on Twitter last night because of how batshit insane the doppelganger theory was. But it's blowing up tonight in the actual news because they were too stupid to cover their tracks.
Again, I'm the one who brought it up last night, and even I assumed it was just some gonzo theory making the rounds on the fringes of the right-wing media. Except it's actually turned out to be central to the entire puzzle.
Edit: That gives me an idea. Maybe we should kill all of our politicians and have them resurrected by a faith-healer. If it works, more intelligent politicians. If it doesn't work, no loss really...
Again, like you said, if it doesn't work, no loss!