Three other possibilities that could explain the high confidence of Kavanaugh insiders

Allahpundit wrote earlier today about speculation and rumors surrounding some comments made online by Ed Whelan, who covers the courts at NRO. Whelan was quoted today in Politico as having told three people his confidence that Kavanaugh will be proven to be innocent is “close to 100 percent.” But, so far, no one knows why he’s so confident. What information could he possibly be aware of that would undercut Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation so completely that Sen. Dianne Feinstein would feel obligated to apologize?

There are various theories about that and Allahpundit looked at a couple of those this morning and found them wanting. For instance, some have suggested this could be a case of mistaken identity, i.e. she thought Kavanaugh assaulted her but it was really someone else. Well, unless the person actually responsible is prepared to come forward that won’t work. All Ford would have to do is deny she was confused.

Let me say up front that I don’t have any inside information here. I’m not secretly leaking something given to me by someone else, I’m just speculating. What could be out there which would exonerate Kavanaugh so completely that DiFi would apologize? Here are three possibilities off the top of my head:

Hacked Emails

According to Ford’s own attorneys, in a letter they sent to Chairman Grassley, she has been forced to flee her home after being doxxed and having her email account hacked. “Her email has been hacked, and she has been impersonated online,” the letter stated. If true, that means someone gained access to Ford’s account, probably someone who opposes her allegation. That person could have read or copied messages she has sent to reporters, attorneys, etc. There could be some kind of smoking gun in those emails in which Ford undercuts her own position or makes some admission against interest.

Pros: Difficult or impossible to deny.

Cons: Difficult to verify the contents were real and not a fabrication by someone opposed to Ford. Also, this would be illegal behavior reminiscent of hacks of the DNC in 2016. This possibility might settle things in some sense but it would almost certainly stir up more outrage than it settled.

The Homeowner Comes Forward

We’ve heard from three other people who Blasey Ford claims were at the party. Kavanaugh denies being there. Both Mark Judge and “PJ” Smyth have said they don’t recall the party or seeing Kavanaugh behave this way. But none of the people who have spoken up have claimed this party was at their home. What if another witness comes forward to say, for instance, that he (or she) held the party in question on such and such a date and further knows that Kavanaugh wasn’t there or that someone else was rumored to have assaulted a girl (Ford) who was there that night. That wouldn’t be absolute proof but the only way Ford could argue the point would be to say the witness is talking about a different party. But that’s going to be hard for Ford to prove when she has already said she doesn’t know when or where the party happened. If someone else says ‘I do know because it was my house’ how can Ford prove that’s false?

Pros: Would undercut Ford’s central claim that Kavanaugh was at the party. Would emphasize the fact that Ford doesn’t recall the date, location, or time of the incident.

Cons: Would leave a lingering doubt that, maybe, there were two parties with similar stories.

A Photo from the Party

I attended (and held) a few parties in the 80s when I was about the same age as Ford and Kavanaugh were at the time of the alleged incident. This was long before the era of cell phones but even back then teens had access to cheap film cameras. I know they were used at teen parties because I still have photos from some of these parties showing me and all my friends goofing off and mugging for the camera. There are group photos showing everyone who was at the party (minus the person taking the picture). So what if someone turns up a picture or a roll of film that shows Ford was there but Kavanaugh wasn’t?

Pros: A picture really is worth 1,000 words and would give a clear sense of when and where this happened and what the scene was like.

Cons: Would be examined like the Zapruder film for evidence Kavanaugh is lurking out of frame.

Again, I’m just speculating, but I do think it’s possible that some information could prove, at least to most fair-minded people, that Kavanaugh is telling the truth, even if I’m not sure what it would be. Hopefully, we won’t have to speculate for much longer. Whatever Ed Whelan has, he should release it now.