One popular theory buzzing around on the Left late last week went something like this: Instead of helping to exonerate him, Brett Kavanaugh's calendars from the summer of 1982 might actually demonstrate his guilt. In question was a calendar entry from July 1st, a Thursday. Kavanaugh testified that the likeliest evenings on which drinking parties would have occurred that summer were weekend nights. He then proceeded to argue that he was either out of town, or otherwise occupied, for virtually all of his Friday and Saturdays that summer. But perhaps he deliberately focused everyone's attention on weekends for good reason, critics theorized, pointing to the last week night prior to that year's July 4th weekend. Could Kavanaugh have actually provided the world with documentation that he actually did attend very party he's repeatedly denied being at? Sen. Sheldon "Inspector Clouseau" Whitehouse decided it was a good idea to present this half-baked notion before the committee:
Whitehouse is a Rhode Island Democrat whose office received a separate and completely uncorroborated anti-Kavanaugh rape allegation that made its way into the press. The claim has since been recanted, with possible legal trouble ahead for the false accuser. At the beginning of this clip, Whitehouse asserts he doesn't believe Kavanaugh told the truth about inside jokes referenced in his high school yearbook (read this thread for a detailed response to various attempted 'fact checks,' including questions over whether Kavanaugh 'lied' about his drinking and other small matters), then launches into the 7/1/82 theory of the case. Is this a potential smoking gun? After all, some key names from Ford's account match up with the people Kavanaugh listed as in attendance at that particular gathering. John McCormack lets the facts dismantle this idea:
The house where this gathering took place (according to Kavanaugh’s calendar) does not appear to match the description offered by Ford in her recollection of events, and there are other reasons to be skeptical of the theory put forward by Senator Whitehouse and several left-leaning journalists. Ford recalled that the home where the alleged attack occurred was, according to the Washington Post, “not far from the country club” in Chevy Chase, Maryland, where she had likely spent the day swimming prior to the alleged attack. Tom Kane, one of the Kavanaugh friends who was listed in attendance, told CNN’s New Day on Friday that Tim Gaudette’s house was in Rockville, Maryland, 11 miles away from the country club. "I saw it published today that someone’s floating the notion that there was something on July 1 at Tim Gaudette’s house,” Kane told CNN. “Tim Gaudette lived in Rockville. It’s 11 miles away from Columbia Country Club. And it wasn’t a single-family home. It was a townhouse.”
Mr. Kane told the Weekly Standard that he has no recollection of Ford ever attending a party at this house, which does not in any way match her description of the home in which she was allegedly assaulted. Another piece that disproves this would-be puzzle is the list attendees recorded on the calendar, which (a) doesn't align with Ford's (inconsistent) memory of who was in attendance, and (b) includes someone she wouldn't have forgotten:
During Ford’s testimony Thursday, she explained that Garrett (whose nickname was “Squi” and who also is listed on Kavanaugh’s calendar as attending the July 1 party at Tim Gaudette’s townhouse) was the only social connection to Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge she can recall. Ford said during testimony that she had socialized with Garrett for “maybe a couple months” before the alleged party occurred and that Garrett was someone she “went out with for a few months.” She added: “After that we were distant friends and ran into each other periodically at Columbia Country Club, but I didn’t see him often.” If one of the people at the same small gathering was someone she “went out with for a few months,” wouldn’t there be a good chance she would recall his presence?
Yes, there certainly would be. And there's also this: "Kavanaugh testified that his calendar indicates that prior to the gathering at Tim Gaudette’s he had been doing a football workout, which was 'usually 6:00 to 8:00 or so, kind of—until near dark. And then it looks like we went over to Timmy’s.' We don’t know for sure if Kavanaugh worked out until 8:00 p.m. that evening, but if he did, that fact would be inconsistent with Ford’s description of an assailant who was 'extremely inebriated' from drinking beer by the time the alleged assault occurred “early in the evening” at a 'pre-gathering.'" Some people have posited that perhaps the alleged assault took place at a later party that night, but as McCormack notes, Ford testified that the fateful gathering she recalls was a 'pregame'-style event, not a later party, which would have taken place after her curfew.
In short, virtually none of the details match with Ford's description, meaning that we can conclude with relatively strong certainty that Ford was not assaulted at Timmy's party on July 1, 1982. Will Sen. Whitehouse, who saw fit to float this weak theory, stipulate as much, now that it's blown up? I'll leave you with my response to the Democrats' latest talking point (aside from predictably moving the goalposts on the FBI's limited inquiry into this, which I still believe is a good idea). It's really a neat trick to execute a hit job Kavanaugh via deeply unethical handling of an unsubstantiated allegation, lend credibility to a nutty gang rape theory by demanding that he withdraw his nomination on the eve of a high-stakes hearing, then cite his righteous, boiling anger at the aforementioned tactics as evidence that he's temperamentally unfit for the job:
1. Declare Kavanaugh unacceptable the moment he’s nominated.— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) September 30, 2018
2. Withhold bombshell, uncorroborated allegation until after hearings.
3. Suggest he’s a predator & liar for days.
4. Declare him temperamentally unfit when he furiously responds to previous two steps.