The inevitable follow-up to last night’s news from the Judiciary Committee that they’d spoken to not just one but two people who claim they, not Brett Kavanaugh, were the ones responsible for the youthful attempted rape of Christine Blasey Ford. Lefties were speculating last night that the reason Kavanaugh was asked in his phone calls with Committee staffers about some outlandish claims, including ones originating on Twitter, was because Republicans hoped it might discredit more serious claims like Ford’s by association. I think including the detail about interviewing two possible “real attackers” is part of that strategy. Neither one has to be credible. The point is just to raise some doubt.

Bear in mind as you watch below that Graham has been Kavanaugh’s most stalwart defender in the Senate over the past 10 days. If there were any way to implicate someone else in the attack on Ford, he’d be all over it. For obvious reasons, though, we all understand that if Kavanaugh isn’t the one who traumatized Ford then the person who did will not be coming forward to take the rap. Not only would he incriminate himself (there’s no statute of limitations on attempted rape in Maryland, remember) and not only would he make himself a national hate object in doing so, but it’s hard to imagine any “innocent” explanation that might be reconciled with Ford’s account. “I was drunk, I tried to make out with her, Mark Judge was right there, she stopped me and left the room” — even if the “real attacker” had said that, there’d be problems. How does he know *that* incident is the one Ford is thinking of rather than something that really did happen between her and Kavanaugh? If he was drunk, how seriously should we take his claim that all he’s guilty of is a drunken come-on, not an attempted rape like Ford says?

Ford would respond to any “real attacker” by insisting that she’s not stupid, she remembers who it was that assaulted her. Which is exactly what she did at this morning’s hearing:

https://twitter.com/elainaplott/status/1045333909280624642

Could this be a case of mistaken identity?

"Absolutely not," says Ford.

— Jennifer Bendery (@jbendery) September 27, 2018

The only question going into this morning’s hearing was “Will Ford seem credible or not?” In the unlikely event that she wasn’t, there was a good chance that Kavanaugh’s nomination would be voted on in committee tomorrow. But by nearly all accounts on social media this morning (as I write this at 11:45), she was extremely credible. Kavanaugh will get his turn to speak soon but there’s near-zero chance after her testimony that Collins and the other undecideds won’t, at a minimum, demand that the FBI follow up or that a hearing with Mark Judge be held. The “real attacker” gambit was an … interesting ploy but it’s DOA. Kavanaugh’s nomination might be too. And if it isn’t, rest assured that there won’t be a vote in the next few days, as had been planned.

.@LindseyGrahamSC on the two men who have come forward claiming they may have been the man who assaulted Ford: “One’s crazy as a loon, I don’t believe the other one. I’m not going to play this game.” pic.twitter.com/zxxg5dbXP4

— Norah O'Donnell 🇺🇸 (@NorahODonnell) September 27, 2018