These tweets caught my attention last night, as Whelan is prominent in conservative legal circles and might know of matters afoot behind the scenes that the rest of us plebes aren’t aware of yet. He seems very confident that the Ford matter is about to blow up in Democrats’ faces somehow.

By one week from today, I expect that Judge Kavanaugh will have been clearly vindicated on this matter. Specifically, I expect that compelling evidence will show his categorical denial to be truthful. There will be no cloud over him. — Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 18, 2018

Senator Feinstein will soon be apologizing to Judge Kavanaugh. https://t.co/FeeuDmQNz1 — Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 18, 2018

Funny how attorney didn't seek an investigation two months ago. A week from now, I doubt that any fairminded person will think that any further investigation is necessary–at least not concerning any alleged wrongdoing by Kavanaugh. https://t.co/fyEaMQ7sf8 — Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 19, 2018

The last tweet implies that there might indeed be criminal activity that needs probing here, but not activity engaged in by the nominee. Whelan also made a point of reminding his readers that lying under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee is a federal offense. Hmmm.

Maybe he knew that Patrick “PJ” Smyth, allegedly named by Ford as an attendee at the party, was about to come forward and say that he never saw misconduct by Kavanaugh. Whelan tweeted about the Smyth revelation this morning, though, noting that “much more” is still to come:

A horrific incident similar to the one the accuser alleges may well have occurred. But if so, she's got the wrong guy. Kavanaugh wasn't present, as this and much more will confirm.https://t.co/7Z4pwr7urR — Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 19, 2018

He doubled down on the “mistaken identity” claim in a separate tweet, highlighting Kathleen Parker’s column today wondering about that possibility. Kavanaugh himself reportedly raised the possibility of mistaken identity, which Whelan also noted. Double hmmm.

Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review and obviously also a guy who’s tapped in, chipped in with this:

Level of confidence of Kavanaugh supporters at the moment—VERY HIGH — Rich Lowry (@RichLowry) September 19, 2018

Something’s coming but I can’t imagine what it might be. What evidence could Kavanaugh produce to prove a negative, that he couldn’t possibly have been at a party with Ford circa 1982? Was there a Kavanaugh doppelganger moving in the same social circles at the time? Why would anyone believe it was the doppelganger who assaulted Ford, not Kavanaugh, when she says it was the judge?

Meanwhile, hints are emerging that the anti-Kavanaugh side might have something percolating too. “White House advisers are worried that more damaging information about Kavanaugh could come out,” Gabriel Sherman reported this morning. “Two sources told me the White House has heard rumors that Ford’s account will be verified by women who say she told it to them contemporaneously.” John Roberts of Fox News also noted on the air yesterday that new information might be forthcoming that would help fill in the gaps in Ford’s timeline, which likewise seemed to allude to some sort of contemporaneous corroboration of the incident.

In fact, a woman who says she was a year ahead of Ford in high school published a post on Facebook last night claiming that the incident with Kavanaugh was talked about at the time. If that’s true and can be substantiated with witness testimony, Kavanaugh’s finished. The woman ended up deleting her Facebook post and her related tweet about the allegation this morning — but then doubled down on them when conservatives challenged her:

Hi all, deleted this because it served its purpose and I am now dealing with a slew of requests for interviews from The Wash Post, CNN, CBS News. Organizing how I want to proceed. Was not ready for that, not sure I am interested in pursuing. Thanks for reading — Cristina King Miranda (@reinabori) September 19, 2018

So it looks like some sort of corroboration might indeed be offered against the nominee, assuming that the media can confirm that Miranda is who she claims to be. If she is, I don’t know that Kavanaugh can survive it. Granted, Ford herself told the Washington Post that she never spoke of Kavanaugh incident until 2012, in which case how could Miranda have known at the time? Maybe Ford forgot that she had mentioned it to a high-school friend, though? Or maybe there was a witness at the party who somehow got wind of what happened with Kavanaugh and Ford and spread the word, without Ford herself ever discussing it.

Or, of course, maybe this is all part of the big smear and Team Kavanaugh is preparing some revelation(s) that will destroy the allegations against him, as Whelan seems to imply:

To all media, I will not be doing anymore interviews. No more circus. To clarify my post: I do not have first hand knowledge of the incident that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford mentions, and I stand by my support for Christine. That's it. I don't have more to say on the subject. — Cristina King Miranda (@reinabori) September 19, 2018

High drama. Exit question: If Miranda is the only person who remembers the incident being talked about, is that itself enough to finish off Kavanaugh? Probably, I would think, although it’ll leave open the question of why no one else — including Ford — remembers it being the subject of chatter at the time.