by James A. Bacon

An in-depth analysis of the Tumblr account where lieutenant-governor candidate John Reid allegedly posted explicit photos of nude male models shows that the account was dormant for several years before someone reactivated it and planted the incriminating photos. So concludes the author of an X account identifying himself as @VaChangeAgent.

“Bottom line,” writes VaChangeAgent: “there is far more evidence that John was targeted than there is of any wrongdoing by John himself. This was a calculated hit.”

The argument, based upon data generated by the Wayback Machine archives, is highly technical and requires a greater understanding of Internet mechanics than I possess, so I’m not in a position to evaluate it. The author does come across as knowledgeable. That may mean only that he knows more than I do, which is a low hurdle indeed. But, for what it’s worth, I find it credible.

Although the political furor over the alleged posting has died down and Reid is back on the campaign trail, it is worth knowing whether or not someone within the Virginia GOP ecosystem tried to sabotage him. If it can be demonstrated conclusively that someone did, in fact, resurrect the account and misrepresent the content, that person (or persons) should be outed and hounded out of the party.

As best as I can understand the analysis, here are the key points.

1. The trumblr blog jrdeux.tumblr.com was active between 2014 through at least 2017.
2. There is a documented multi-year gap between 2018 and April 2025 when the username was unused, abandoned or deactivated.
3. The account was reactivated in April 2025 using Tumblr’s new “path-based URL structure” — changing from jrdeux.tumblr.com to tumblr.com/jrdeux.

If we accept the proposition that someone reactivated the account in April 2025, there are only two logical possibilities: Either Reid reactivated his account or someone else reactivated it.

It is logically insane to think that Reid would have reactivated the account in the middle of his campaign for office for no apparent purpose. Therefore, one must accept the proposition that someone hijacked the account. If that is the case, we are led ineluctably to the conclusion that the person or persons involved were consciously and deliberately seeking to blow up Reid’s campaign.

The analysis does not address how someone could have taken over the content of the old account without knowing the username and password, or whether such knowledge was even required. If that question can be plausibly answered, I’ll have no remaining doubts that Reid was sabotaged.

What a world we live in. How can we be certain that online material hasn’t been digitally manipulated? How does anyone know what to believe? Bewildered by the blizzard of digital chaff, uncertain of what is real, do we just believe what we want to believe?

Clarification: The original version of this post did not make it clear that VaChangeAgent was quoting someone else’s analysis, the authorship of which remains anonymous.