I'm still reading up on this theory, but I can tell you that my DMs are blowing up on this question of whether Brett Kavanaugh actually may have sunk himself... with his own "alibi calendar." Here's The Washington Post on the subject:
2/ Here's what people are saying—and again, I think it bears thinking on, and I'd like to think about it more—how did Ed Whelan get Chris Garrett's name? How did he know (as he must have) that Ford "went out with" Garrett and therefore that he was a plausible patsy for Kavanaugh?
3/ But at the *same* time, Garrett was a *bad* patsy, because Ford *obviously* would know who he was and if he assaulted her. So why did Whelan—who many believe, with some reason, was working with the White House and Kavanaugh's team—choose *Garrett* as the guy to pin this on?
4/ The theory I see people coming to—*easily*—is Kavanaugh and his team *knew* July 1, 1982 was a likely date for the sexual assault, so they chose to cover their bases by pinning the assault on Garrett, who was with Kavanaugh and P.J. on the date Ford (seems to) say she was too.
5/ Why is July 1, 1982 a likely date? Because Dr. Ford said the assault came "6 to 8 weeks" before she saw Mark Judge at Safeway—and Judge was at Safeway for "2 or 3 weeks" in August 1982. So that would put the party around July 1, 1982. Kavanaugh's calendar encourages that view.
6/ And sorry, I need to *clarify* that Mark Judge—per Kavanaugh—was *also* with Kavanaugh and PJ on July 1, 1982. That Leland Kaiser wasn't also listed in Kavanaugh's calendar is no surprise, as this was a pre-party party—only the older kids were going to another party afterward.
7/ Its status as a pre-party party also readily explains Kaiser not remembering it. It was a brief gathering—not a party—at which nothing Kaiser would remember happened. Whereas Kavanaugh and Judge are both acting *extremely* evasive about some core facts surrounding that summer.
8/ This is why you need an FBI probe—because this calendar issue would be followed up on; Kavanaugh's claims about drinking/women would be checked against what many of his friends say; Mark Judge's refusal to do more than issue 6 sentences through a lawyer would be blown through.
9/ I was keyed to this by many folks—as well as the WP piece I linked to. All but one don't want to be credited, but I'll thank "BF" for having offered invaluable contributions. We can't resolve this on Twitter—but it must be added to the mountain of other evidence of dishonesty.
10/ On CNN, a friend of Ford's says that her—the friend's—understanding is Leland Kaiser would've placed Kavanaugh at that (likely 7/1/82) event had she not been facing such significant medical issues that she didn't want to and felt she couldn't let herself be embroiled in this.
11/ Some may find it improbable that Leland Kaiser could've helped but chose not to. Don't. Look at what's happening to Kavanaugh/Ford: if you're a not particularly political person facing significant medical issues, you might well decide you want nothing to do with any of this.
12/ From an investigator's standpoint, I'd say that a "theory of the case" is developing about when, where, and how this happened—and *also* about why each person present gave the statements they did (or failed to recall the event altogether). And I'd be considering credibility.
13/ Kavanaugh is known to have lied about his activities that summer; Judge—per his girlfriend—is a liar about his activities that summer also. There is no evidence that Dr. Ford has lied about, well, *anything*—or that she'd even have anything to gain by lying about that summer.
14/ I think an FBI investigator would say this party likely happened in the first week of July of 1982; included the people Dr. Ford cited; was unremarkable to all but three people; the two guilty parties lied repeatedly about their actions; and the alleged victim is credible.
15/ I think, too, that an FBI investigator would find the statements of Kavanaugh's friends about his conduct in high school and college credible—he was a fall-down drunk—and that he would find Deborah Ramirez's account credible, in consequence of that supporting fact and others.
16/ And I think that any lingering doubts an FBI investigator might have about Kavanaugh's version of events—i.e., any sense Kavanaugh might be telling the *truth*—would dissipate upon considering the lies he appeared to tell under oath before Congress in just the last few hours.
17/ And because this is how investigation works—there is, at times, a gut-instinct element—an investigator would judge *harshly* Kavanaugh's (and Judge's) unwillingness to have this be investigated and his belligerence before Congress (which is *not normal* in a probe like this).
18/ All that's only the tip of the iceberg because of course Dr. Ford's account *is* corroborated, as there was a *prior disclosure*—indeed *multiple* prior disclosures—well *before* Kavanaugh was nominated. That means there are *witnesses* who'll say Ford spoke of this long ago.
19/ I guess what I'm saying is, don't be fooled—most investigators would consider it *more likely than not* that Ford was assaulted by Kavanaugh, and "more likely than not" on a question of sexual assault is way way way way beyond the standard for elevating someone to the SCOTUS.
20/ I don't think this can be called a "he said/she said"—I think it's a more "typical" scenario of the two co-defendants (as it were) claiming innocence, several other parties not remembering the event, and a credible alleged victim who has corroborating evidence of her account.
21/ Moreover, this is a "typical" case—in my experience—because there are major holes in the codefendants' statements, additional investigation seems to uncover additional inculpatory evidence, the codefendants don't want more questioning or investigation, and much else besides.
22/ What's *extraordinary* is that there are other *contemporaneous* accusers; the defendant appears to have committed perjury multiple times; "law-and-order" figures on-scene are trying to *stop* a professional investigation; and the "defendant" is alleging a massive conspiracy.
23/ Here's some more evidence (on Kavanaugh's connection to the Columbia country club, which adds to his prior acknowledgment that he "may have met Ford," which itself is *consistent* with her claim that she and he had been at maybe ten common parties):
