be “of enormous concern,” and the school promised a full investigation.48 One of Chua’s former students, the writer Abigail Shrier, asked, “What McCarthyist hell are we living [in]?”49 Chua called the story “outrageous and 100% false.”50 “Yale law professor denies reports she groomed Kavanaugh’s prospective clerks,” wrote NBC.51
As the media chased ephemera, the Judiciary Committee was slowly gathering testimony relating to Ford’s allegations. She had said that four persons were at the party with her. Kavanaugh had already categorically denied that he was there. Mark Judge had also submitted a statement to the committee saying he didn’t remember any such party and that Kavanaugh never behaved as described. On Wednesday a third person, Patrick “P.J.” Smyth, identified as having been at the party, submitted his own statement: “I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct [Ford] has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.” He added, “Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women.”52
Grassley was determined to keep things moving. He announced that Ford had until Friday morning to provide prepared testimony for Monday’s hearing.53
Late on Thursday, a prominent conservative judicial scholar posted a series of tweets that suggested a possible case of mistaken identity. Rumors had been circulating that Ed Whelan, the respected head of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) and a friend of Kavanaugh’s, had exonerating information. Curiosity was high. In the tweets, he noted that none of the persons identified as being at the party lived close to the Columbia Country Club, which Ford said the party was near. None of them had homes that matched the description she had provided to the Post. And it was unlikely, he suggested, that no one at the party lived in the house where the party took place. He then posted a photograph of one of Kavanaugh’s high school classmates and the floor plan of the boy’s house, which was compatible with Ford’s description of the house where the party was. That house was within walking distance of the Columbia Country Club. Finally, the boy bore a resemblance to Kavanaugh.
Even though Whelan had said he wasn’t accusing the other man, now a middle school teacher, of any wrongdoing, reporters and observers felt he had done just that. Supporters of Kavanaugh immediately distanced themselves from the tweets. The media pounced. Whelan offered his resignation from the EPPC, which was declined by the board of directors. He deleted the tweets within hours and apologized for “an appalling and inexcusable mistake of judgment in posting the tweet thread in a way that identified Kavanaugh’s Georgetown Prep classmate.”54 Reporters speculated that he had hatched the plan with Kavanaugh or the Federalist Society, but Whelan said he bore full responsibility.
The commotion over Whelan’s imprudent decision to publicize the name and face of another classmate prevented many people from considering the other arguments that he made in the series of tweets. In fact, none of the persons who allegedly attended the party lived near Columbia Country Club. Since they had a common friend who lived only a half-mile from the club, it is implausible that someone two miles away would have been considered “near” the club. And it is also logical to assume that a small house party would have taken place at the home of one of the attendees.
The theory—perhaps born of wishful thinking—that Ford could have confused Kavanaugh with this other young man was implausible, particularly since it turned out that Ford had dated the other boy at one point. But it was more reasonable to imagine that if Ford had been drinking heavily, as she was known for doing, her memory could have been clouded. And the one possibility the media refused to consider was plain: if Ford were fabricating a story, she could well have used details of locations she knew or parties she had attended. Whelan’s tweets were not the silver bullet they were advertised to be, but he did raise legitimate questions about Ford’s story, questions that were overlooked in the ensuing furor.
That same Thursday evening, Katz said that Ford might testify if certain conditions were met. She told the committee staff that Ford needed time to secure her family and travel to Washington. She ruled out a Monday hearing and began pushing for Thursday. She also stipulated the