[ihasdofijqwer]

> This woman is also remarkably calm, well-spoken, knowledgeable, and articulate for someone testifying before the Senate for the very first time - all while being broadcast around the globe, live on television.

But what if the reason she is being heared is because she is remarkably calm, well-spoken, knowledgeable and articulate? Should that theory not be tested first accoring to Occams razor? [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

[BitwiseFool]

I did indeed include the possibility that she's just perfectly suited for this:

>"Perhaps she's simply a natural"

That is certainly within the realm of possibility. That being said, to me, it seems incredibly unlikely that someone in her situation would be so articulate, collected, and unflappable after being suddenly thrust onto the national stage in just a few short days. Even if she knew she was going to attract a ton of attention when she came forward, she just doesn't seem to be showing the kind of body language that reflects someone in her situation who doesn't know what is about to happen next.

Again, to me, the most simple explanation is that she was coached or prepared beforehand and knew what to expect. I wouldn't put it past some political operatives to slip her some questions from a few senators before the hearings began.

This next part is going to sound the most conspiratorial, so take it with a grain of salt. Despite all of what I wrote, she really could be the real deal and there was no conspiracy behind the scenes to make the perfect storm for Facebook. But to me, that begs the question of, "how lucky were we that such a person with impeccable credentials just so happened to be the perfect whistleblower to take down Facebook?"

[ceejayoz]

> Again, to me, the most simple explanation is that she was coached or prepared beforehand and knew what to expect. I wouldn't put it past some political operatives to slip her some questions from a few senators before the hearings began.

This is entirely standard practice in Congressional hearings.

Concrete example: the Kavanaugh hearings.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/kavanaugh-preps-se...

> According to Grassley spokesman George Hartmann, the committee has also reached out to Cristina Miranda who posted on Facebook that she had heard about the incident while in school with Ford, but has has since said she actually has no knowledge of the incident. Miranda declined to talk to the committee, according to the aide.

> The panel has also interacted with an attorney for an unnamed person that's included in Ford's original letter, but whose name was redacted, but the committee hasn't received a formal response yet.

> Kavanaugh, meanwhile, was back at the White House complex on Thursday, amid a week of visits that have included preparation for the possibility of additional Senate testimony, according to a person involved in the confirmation process.

> Separately, a Republican Senate aide who has been briefed on Kavanaugh’s preparations said the practice sessions “have been going well,” adding that he’s been spending his days as if a hearing will go forward on Monday.

> Mike Davis, chief counsel for nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee, drew scrutiny Wednesday for posting and then deleting tweets saying he had personally questioned Kavanaugh and referring derisively to Ford's legal team — and indicating that, despite his current role in the investigation, he backed the nominee's confirmation.

Some of them even have forms for whistleblowers to reach out.

https://crenshaw.house.gov/whistleblower

"Please describe your goals in working with Rep. Crenshaw (e.g. oversight, legislative action)?"

[ihasdofijqwer]

So my suggested points of investigation would be:

How many whilst blowers have tried to take down facebook?

How many of those have been articulate etc i.e. have the skills this woman has?

What are the examples of inarticulate, poorly spoken whilstblowers who have taken down organisations in the information age?

Not sure who the burden of proof is on here tbh. Proof takes work.

[BitwiseFool]

I've been trying to couch my comments around the fact that I am only talking about my gut-feelings. I don't have the means to deliver on the burden of proof because I completely lack the resources to investigate. Heck, even if my suspicions are actually correct, how in the world would I be able to uncover that? When something feels fishy, what else can you do?

I just have suspicions because everything just seems too perfect. I would expect a whistleblower to be some Average Joe/Jane, not some wunderkind with an amazing background and unflappable presentation. I would expect a lot more stuttering and sweating - Edward Snowden was jittery during his first several interviews and his body language just screamed uncertainty about the future.

But I digress. Just because something feels wrong doesn't mean it really is. Could just be a false-positive.

[etchalon]

There's no reason to believe a whistleblower would be an average Joe, let alone that even an average Joe would be an inarticulate mess.

And had she been, that'd just be used as proof she was a plant too, because "a professional wouldn't sound like that."