Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse referred Kavanaugh false accuser to reporter at same time notified FBI and Judiciary Committee

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse referred Kavanaugh false accuser to reporter at same time notified FBI and Judiciary Committee

“At the constituent’s request, I provided the constituent with the contact information of a reporter who might investigate the allegation.”

Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has been one of the most aggressive interrogators of Brett Kavanaugh.

That interrogation focused on Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook entries, earning Whitehouse national mockery over a fart joke entry.

Whitehouse also announced a theory about a July 1, 1982 party, based on Kavanaugh’s contemporaneous calendar, which has been soundly debunked.

John McCormack at The Weekly Standard explains:

The potential significance of this event is that it is the only party or gathering listed on Kavanaugh’s calendar at which both Mark Judge and P.J. Smyth were listed as present, and Judge and Smyth are two people alleged by Ford to have been in attendance at the gathering where she was allegedly assaulted.

But 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.”

The publicity has stoked interest in Whitehouse’s Republican challenger, Robert Flanders. (See my write up of the race here, RI Senate Race could be the big surprise of 2018). In an email, Flanders’ campaign manager Richard Kirby says donations and calls are flooding in from around the country:

The Campaign has seen a big increase in not only contributions at various levels from all over the country, but also a never ending parade of telephone calls and emails condemning Sheldon Whitehouse for his extreme partisanship. Not to mention his rude condescending manner to Judge Kavanaugh. Contributions have been coming in from places such as Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Nebraska even liberal California!

That national interest may be about to grow.

A Rhode Islander made an accusation that gained media attention alleging Kavanaugh participated in a sexual attack on a boat in Rhode Island. The accusation was made to Whitehouse’s office in the morning of September 24, 2018. The accusation quickly was in the media feeding the political frenzy.

The accuser, after the story became public and completely implausible, then recanted that night.

But how did the story get so quickly into the media? We may have the answer, and it points to Whitehouse.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has referred the matter to the Department of Justice and FBI for investigation and possible prosecution, because the accuser allegedly provided false information to the Committed during its investigation. (h/t Byron York Twitter)  The cover letter from Chuck Grassley and supporting materials are available at the Committee website.

In those materials was the letter Whitehouse sent to the Committee the same day the accuser contact Whithouse’s office. In that letter, Whitehouse states:

“This morning, a constituent contacted my office to report another allegation of sexual misconduct by Judge Brett Kavanaugh, nominee to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. At the constituent’s request, I provided the constituent with the contact information of a reporter who might investigate the allegation. I have also alerted the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”

I reached out to Whitehouse’s office for comment as to which reporter Whitehouse referred the accuser, but as of this writing have received no response.

We don’t know what the accuser did with that information, and whether Whitehouse’s referral was the spark that lit the media fuse that morning. Nonetheless, this raises serious questions as to the motivation of Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.

Why refer the accuser to a reporter unless Whitehouse wanted to feed the media firestorm against Kavanaugh? And why do that prior to notifying the FBI and Judiciary Committee, thereby potentially damaging their ability to investigate?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“Whitehouse”. Seriously?

Seems like Whitehouse should be investigated.

So glad to read that his Republican opponent is getting a wave of donations. I hope he beats Senator Fart.

At this point I’m willing to wrestle in the mud with the pigs and dredge up fifty year old sexual accusations against Democrats. And demonstrate similar disregard as to whether the accusations are true or not.

    You’ll get the same response we heard when Clinton was accused of rape, etc. The problem isn’t the Democrats making up dopey charges the problem is Republicans whimping out at every opportunity they get to stand up and fight

    snopercod in reply to Arminius. | September 30, 2018 at 6:37 am

    The scenario for dealing with corrupt Senators that John Ross described in Unintended Consequences” comes to mind.

I will be giving to Robert Flanders’ campaign next week, and will be encouraging other Californians to do so. If we in California can’t enjoy replacing a loathsome Democrat with a Republican, at least our Rhode Island friends can.

I “Boof” in his general direction

I will find a couple of pennies for all and any opponent of a Democtat. I’ d love to contribute to DiFi’s opponent but he’s worse than she is.

    Matt_SE in reply to MAB. | September 29, 2018 at 10:24 pm

    He will have zero seniority if elected, and won’t know the ropes. And at this point, can you really say Feinstein is better than anyone else?

      I ‘m not saying that at all. Fortunately i don’t live in California and my limited funds can be used better elsewhere.

      Ohio Historian in reply to Matt_SE. | October 2, 2018 at 9:15 am

      So you want to re-elect the devil you know instead of a potentially good person you don’t? You guys put the other dishonest one, Kamala Harris (as AG there is an investigation looming of her actions). So seniority be hanged; you put the trash in the Senate, it is time for you to haul it out.

    DiFi’s opponent should be the law: namely, AG sessions. But we know that scumbag is part of the coup.

    Trump MUST fire Sessions.

Were it not for slave money, would America ever have heard of the Whitehouse family?

Who knows if Sheldon has ever actually earned a dollar? Born to wealth, just like a Kennedy, his own existence traces back to a unique source of wealth… or so said Sheldon, in the earlier days of the internet.

It’s a wonderment that Patrick Kennedy did not displace ShellyBoy. Had “Patches” not so disgraced himself, and his father, DeadTed, Rode Island might well have been maligned by the most malicious of political “entitlement” The Kennedy Disgrace.

You have to wonder if ShellyBoy’s reference to a drunken loon trashing a boat and scaring the women off of it were just a matter of mistaken identity.

‘Questions about the Democrats’ motivation?’ Seriously??

As long as these allegations fail to surpass the seriousness of those levied against Bill Clinton they should be dismissed without comment

Just donated to Mr. Flanders, thanks for the link. I am donating to EVERY close Senate race this cycle and I encourage ALL of you to do the same! If we all make at least a small donation we can make a huge difference!

Why does the right allow the left to write the rules? They claim that disagreeing with them is either racist or sexist. You can’t win if you play by their post modernist rules.

Sessions must be laughing all the way to hell – which is where he belongs.

Are men allowed to say, “You go girl!”

If not, then I wish you the best of luck in your electoral endeavors.

I donated to his competitor’s campaign. Made me feel better!

    I apologize. I hit the down rating inadvertently and couldn’t take it back. I was just trying to reply to tell you I donated to Flanders.

    Yancey Ward in reply to franuche. | September 30, 2018 at 2:25 am

    Yes, Ms. Cleveland is on the same path I am today- that polygraph statement is extremely odd and hard to explain. Below is a comment I just left on Althouse’s blog about 30 minutes ago:

    One of the oddities of Ford’s story might be easily explained by the theory that the therapist’s notes were right all along, and Ford has not only been lying about it, but actively working around this inconvenient detail all along.

    The polygraph exam required Ford to write a statement, the veracity of which she was required to attest to during the exam. Now this was an exam she took on August 7th, if memory serves, a week after she had sent the letter to Eshoo and Feinstein naming Kavanaugh as her assailant, and in the “early 80s” (I will come back to this date description in a moment). However, in the hand written statement she was required to write for the polygraph exam, she does two very unusual things- (1) she doesn’t name Kavanaugh at all- it is a generic description of a potential sexual assault, and (2) she first wrote “early 80s”, then changed by crossing out the “early”, leaving the description of the time as simple “80s”.

    Why would she do these two seemingly inexplicable things in the polygraph statement- her story she is telling publicly is that it was Kavanaugh who attacked her, and it occurred in the “early 80s”. If she is telling the truth, then the statement for the polygraph should have had both Kavanaugh’s name and the unredacted “early 80s”, but she not only omits Kavanaugh’s name, but actively edits her own writing on the general date. At first, I couldn’t explain this, but then someone reminded me of the therapist’s notes and suddenly it is possible to make sense of this odd behavior. I have been working on the assumption that her entire story is a fabrication beginning to end, but if you give her the benefit of the doubt and accept the therapist’s notes as a true depiction of Ford’s assault, then you realize that she wrote the polygraph statement that way because it was the literal truth, but if she names Kavanaugh and keeps “early” next to 80s, then suddenly the statement isn’t the truth, but is, in fact, a lie, and she was afraid she would fail the exam if she had to attest to that.

    I defy you to come up with a better explanation for that polygraph statement- I can’t think of one. In my next comment, I will address the 1982 part.

    When Ford first wrote to Eshoo and Feinstein, she was generic with the date- early 80s, but later settled, by Thursday, with Summer of 1982, thereabouts. How did she settle on 1982? In her testimony, under cross from Mitchell, Ford highlights the encounter with Judge “6-8 weeks later” at Safeway where he allegedly couldn’t look at her. This all sound plausible, but Ford uses it to pin the year of the assault down to 1982 6-8 weeks before she saw Judge working at the Safeway- she makes a point of this in her answers to Mitchell. Someone quoted a part of Judge’s book where he describes working part of the Summer of 1982 (he points out it was the Summer before his senior year) to pay for football camp at a local supermarket. In other words, Ford could easily have constructed this story from Judge’s book.

    You might think this is nothing, but there is one other thing about Ford’s story that hasn’t made any sense with the date 1982. She testified that the first 4 years were the toughest- specifically, her college years. These parts of the story don’t cohere with an attack in 1982, but does cohere if it was an attack in 1984.

    In summary, if you give Ford credit for telling the truth about being attacked, and that the therapist accurately reported this story in 2012, a lot of the confusing issues from Ford’s testimony and her documentation suddenly makes a lot more sense, but then you realize she is likely a pathological liar and has deliberately libeled and slandered Kavanaugh. If I am right, Ford is a cunning liar.

    And this could also explain why she won’t detail how she got home, or how she got to the party at which she was attacked- the answer to both questions is that she drove to and from the party herself- she had a license by 1984.

    That inability to describe how she got to and from the party has bothered me all along, and it why I had assumed she was making up the entire story- she couldn’t claim somebody drove her home because that would be another witness she would have to either not remember, or name and run the risk of being denied by that person today, and it would be harder to explain that denial because it would probably be a more unique detail that the witness might be expected to remember 36 years later- note how she dismisses the statement by Keyser- that it wasn’t a memorable event from Keyser’s point of view. That arguement would be harder to invoke in the case of the person driving her home if that was the story she told, so she keeps it simpler and denies remembering how she got home.

      The conniving democrat lawyers are so sneaky.

      wrpeterson in reply to Yancey Ward. | September 30, 2018 at 6:00 am

      Please link to the Althouse post – thanks!

      Your explanation has great merit.

      That rings very true, Yancy.

      You said, “if you give Ford credit for telling the truth about being attacked, and that the therapist accurately reported this story in 2012, a lot …makes a lot more sense,”

      But, why can’t both of those things be true AND she is a pathological liar. They are not mutually exclusive.

      I read somewhere that she has very close connections to Peter Strozk and someone who works for Fusion GPS>

      You can see this plot getting hatched, knowing now as we do how incredibly clumsy and thin the Fusion smear tactics have been shown to be.

      I won’t go into all of the possibilities, but something along the lines of Romney puts forth Kavanaugh’s name and Fusion GPS gets the call to ready a smear. “They” (whoever they is) all know each other, and know Ford is a rabid activist who went to Kavanaugh’s school and might be a player in this game and even possibly know that she was once sexually assaulted. (A million possibilities how this concoction was made, just go with me..)

      “They” know that it is not Kavanaugh who assaulted her, so they send her to a therapist, conduct the lie detector test to carefully cover up that and use both of those things to structure the narrative before they execute the sequence and leak their story that they are now sticking to.

      I have also read a comment thread on another site that there IS an actual record for Ford’s sex assault filed in the 80’s and she either she named someone else or ??? …sorry can’t remember all details. But maybe it was a report that they knew could be kept under wraps (sealed b/c under 18 or a medical record) and so they they added the repressed memory bs to her therapist session in 2012.

        Yancey Ward in reply to elle. | October 1, 2018 at 1:28 am

        Elle, I have seen those same rumors (the GPS Fusion connection, and the police report), but I have seen nothing that constitutes evidence they are true, so I assume those are probably made up.

        Arminius in reply to elle. | October 1, 2018 at 8:36 pm

        I totally agree, elle. Her big lie has a couple of kernels of truth hidden in it. And her attorneys and her polygraph examiner are in on it.

        I’ve seen her examiner interviewed on TV. He strikes me as a real sleazeball. He said one thing and only one thing that I believed; that Ford and her attorney Lisa Banks went off alone to write the statement. Clearly her attorney coached Ford to eliminate any detail that she knew wasn’t true. And the sleaze administering the polygraph exam knew (in fact, no doubt was told by the attorneys cutting him a paycheck that day) not to ask for any specifics. They bent over backwards cooking up a polygraph the liar could pass.

        Another tell is that she kept retreating to her Safeway story. She knew that would check out because, as has been repeatedly pointed out, Judge wrote about in his book. It’s also irrelevant, and liars always seize on true but irrelevant details in attempt to cover up the fact they’re lying about relevant facts.

        Arminius in reply to elle. | October 1, 2018 at 9:00 pm

        If she did file a police report the FBI can subpoena it, no matter if it’s sealed or not. It’s sealed to keep it from the public eye, not to keep it away from law enforcement. OBTW, the FBI can also get their hands on her therapists notes. Patient privacy laws aren’t absolute. Sometimes law enforcement abuses its authority, like in New York (of course) to ride roughshod over gun owners. If a doctor once prescribed antidepressants to a patient and their state database shows he’s a gun owner, they’ll raid his house and seize his guns. But sometimes those records can be used to solve actual crimes.

        I think all the leftists in on this conspiracy to smear Kavanaugh are going to regret this, and that makes me smile.

        Hopefully the FBI’s polygraph unit weighs in on that farce of a polygraph her attorneys entered into the record as well.

This all is a demcocrat scheme/conspiracy. Throw them all in jail.

Mr hypocrite, Weldon Shithouse, is also a member of an exclusive, private, whites only beach club called Spouting Rock Beach Association or better known as Bailey’s Beach Club, in Newport, RI. When questioned about this a while back, his comment was that his family has belonged to the SRBA for generations and he doesn’t write the rules. A real standup type of guy that Shelly is.

Anyone remember his little snit when he wanted to charge anybody who disagreed with his idea of man made global warming with a RICO charge? So much for the US Constitution and the 1st amendment.

Shithouse is the perfect example of why we need term limits.

    G. de La Hoya in reply to RITaxpayer. | September 30, 2018 at 7:10 am

    Yet, Trump has the audacity to wield his influence to change the elitist status quo of a Florida country club. Will the real racist please stand up 😉

    Well, I’ve now gotten a lot more interested in that Rhode Island. I went and made another donation to Flanders.

Yancey – interesting analysis and good info.

I wonder if there might be a slightly simpler explaination for the edit of ‘early’. She realized removing Kavanaugh’s name alone would stand out like a sore thumb so another minor edit was done to make it look like she carefully considered the wording.

I’ve been thinking she is describing a real event for some time, and my only question is how actively she substituted Kavanaugh for her actual assailant. I found Ed Whelan’s report to be persuasive, and I recently read a transcript of the exchange between Mitchell and Ford regarding Garret. It’s interesting that Ford would not say his name in that exchange. That could indicate she really doesn’t remember him as her boyfriend, or that she doesn’t want to be reminded of him.

I have suspected that Ford has no date or place for the attack because she has no plausible instance of partying with Kavanaugh. She’s also consistently hidden the identity of the other boy at the party who apoears to me to be the host in that it’s his family’s home. Hiding the location also hides his identity.

My scenario goes something like this. July 1, 1982 – Ford’s at the Columbia County Club, and either walks to her new boyfriend’s (Garrett’s) house or calls him for a ride. Several kids are ‘pre-gaming’ for the larger party planned that night and noted on Kavanaugh’s calendar. He takes the opportunity to engage Ford in some foreplay upstairs. She might have started willingly but eventually reaches a point where she wants to stop. She’s upset, probably yelling, and he tries to cover her mouth to quiet her. The commotion draws another boy upstairs into the room, further upsetting Ford who feels trapped by the pair and races out of the room for the bathroom. She hides until the boys give up trying to calm her down. She heads out of the house and back to the country club, and calls her parents for a ride home.

    I see as a possibility something slightly different happening.

    Foreplay, second guy walks in, embarrassed and trying to joke it off the guy makes a glib remark like “can I join in”, she freaks and screams, first guy puts hand over mouth, second guy tries to apologise, she goes running out.

    Yancey Ward in reply to Christopher B. | September 30, 2018 at 11:44 am

    “She realized removing Kavanaugh’s name alone would stand out like a sore thumb so another minor edit was done to make it look like she carefully considered the wording.”

    Chris, I don’t think this makes any sense. Indeed, one of the things that drew my eye to the statement in the first place was that she made edits at all. If you are telling the truth, I find it hard to imagine you have to edit such a statement materially changing the meaning, unless you are trying match the statement to other versions. This showed to me an attempt at lying. That wasn’t the only part she crossed out, though- she crossed out “four people” and changed it to “four boys and a couple of girls”, and whether that meant herself as one of the people is unsure. If my theory (and it isn’t just my theory- see the link provided in the comment I replied to for Margot Cleveland’s analysis that tracks mine very well with the same argument), then both edits were designed to fit the therapist’s notes as closely as possible because those notes are the details as she told them truthfully in 2012.

    Yancey Ward in reply to Christopher B. | September 30, 2018 at 11:57 am

    Chris wrote:

    My scenario goes something like this. July 1, 1982 – Ford’s at the Columbia County Club, and either walks to her new boyfriend’s (Garrett’s) house

    Chris, I had also written a comment on Althouse talking about Garrett and Whalen the night before last. I had Byron York’s essay that talked about the part where Mitchell and Ford had talked about him, but never mentioned his name. I had missed that part of the cross on Thursday because I was doing too many things at once. Yes, it is very odd how Ford has gone to great lengths to not name Garrett explicitly- she avoided it during the hearing, and she deliberately omitted a description of her relationship with Garrett when she issued that statement denying Whalen’s hypothesis. What does this mean? I don’t know, but I don’t think the Democrats are going to get much mileage out of the the July 1st calendar entry because Ford has boxed herself in with the Judge/Safeway story- she said 6-8 weeks before she met Judge at the Safeway, but Judge only worked there, according to his book, to pay for football camp- at best, this puts the proposed party in June- who goes to football camp after the 1st week of August?

    Arminius in reply to Christopher B. | October 1, 2018 at 9:31 pm

    Kavanaugh’s name wasn’t the only thing she crossed out. She actually hadn’t even finished writing it when she crossed that out. Have you seen the statement she wrote for that junk polygraph? It’s a mess(I couldn’t zoom in close enough to make the twitter pic legible, but it’s possible to see that she crossed out close to a dozen things as she edited her own statement under advice of attorney).

    I think the simplest explanation is that she crossed those details out because it didn’t happen in the early ’80s and it wasn’t Kavanaugh. For the short term goal of writing a statement that was so bland and lacking in detail it could cover the entire decade if that’s what she needed to pass the polygraph. I find the theory that it happened in 1984, probably that summer after she graduated, eminently plausible. After all, if as she testified the “attack” messed her up for her first two years of college that would fit. Also, it appears that she screwed up and told the WaPo the truth; that it happened in the mid-80s. But that wouldn’t allow her to try to pin it on Kavanaugh as he graduated in ’83 and would have been finishing up his first year at Yale.

Bitterlyclinging | September 30, 2018 at 9:42 am

There’s still no hope for Rhode Island, despite the flurry of calls and donations.
The country, at this point, is irreconcilably divided and the only opinions that are going to be changed from hereon out are going to be changed at the point of a bayonet.