Here’s the MeToo Standard of Justice
In the wake of Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation of a thirty-five-year-old moment of mistreatment at an underage drinking party — “wake” as in the allegation is dead, since there is not a shred of evidence, not a single supporting witness, and the claim sounds like the paranoid exaggeration of an addled adolescent anyway — the MeToo army has kicked into full gear. A new “accusation” has been floated against U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, this one even weirder than the first.
Ford’s accusation has allowed the Democrats to delay a Senate confirmation vote, and perhaps even sway public opinion against not only Kavanaugh but the Republican Party as a whole, in spite of being completely flimsy and unsupported. Apparently having verified their hope that in the current female Marxist (aka feminist) climate, no allegation of sexual misconduct is too ancient, uncorroborated, or far-fetched to warrant an official Day of Outrage against all non-Marxist men, progressives have spent the precious past several days of the Ford Stalling Tactic dredging up another allegation, this time from Kavanaugh’s college years.
A woman now claims that while at Yale, she got so drunk at a party that she barely knew where she was or who was there, and that while she was in that annihilated state — lying on the floor, in fact — um, something happened. She saw something nasty in the woodshed, as it were.
Thirty-some years later, having allegedly sobered up enough to form some sort of vague memory of having been tanked at a Yale party around the same time Brett Kavanaugh was studying there, she has miraculously remembered that the nasty thing she saw in the woodshed was…Brett Kavanaugh’s family jewels!
Well, to be clear, she really couldn’t remember this until she had discussed it for several days with her lawyer. Then, suddenly, in spite of a lack of any corroboration or witnesses to support her new remembrance, it all just came back to her: “I wasn’t thinking or speaking clearly, I don’t know how much I had had to drink — let’s face it, I didn’t know whether I was still alive at the time, and I can’t say with any certainty where I was at all — but there was a guy exposing himself to me, or maybe it was a rubber chicken, I don’t know…but anyway my lawyer informs me that I now suddenly feel quite certain it was Brett Kavanaugh.”
Okay, that was intended as a parody, but in fact it isn’t far enough away from the literal truth to work as a parody. Here is how The New York Times represents their fact-finding tour on this one, tucked into the latter half of an article that goes ahead and runs with the allegation anyway:
The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.
The Times couldn’t find any evidence or witnesses to bring any credibility to the story. And the accuser herself couldn’t find anyone to back her up, and even admitted to them herself that she really didn’t have any clear memory of who was involved in the alleged incident.
But then…but then! Have no fear, the MeToo movement is here, and this great movement’s unofficial motto is “Credibility? We don’t need no stinking credibility!”
Problem solved. Here is how The New Yorker (MeToo’s official propagandist of record) explains the work-around:
The New Yorker contacted Ramirez after learning of her possible involvement in an incident involving Kavanaugh. The allegation was conveyed to Democratic senators by a civil-rights lawyer. For Ramirez, the sudden attention has been unwelcome, and prompted difficult choices. She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” she said.
If the woman couldn’t say with certainty that the man involved was Kavanaugh until this week, how did a “civil rights lawyer” get wind of the non-allegation, so that he/she could convey it to Democratic senators?
The woman was “hesitant to speak publicly” — though apparently not hesitant to pass her story along to a progressive activist lawyer — because she really had no recollection or evidence that Kavanaugh was the student who supposedly did this to her.
But not to worry: “After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney” – Wow, and this is yet another story that no one will be allowed to question without being accused of excusing rape and hating women.
On her own account, then, she was so drunk at this gathering that she really can’t say for sure what (if anything) happened or who (if anyone) was involved. And having canvassed her old classmates, she can’t find a single one who remembers anything like the story she herself doesn’t quite remember. But after consulting with her attorney, who is apparently also a hidden-memory conjurer, she suddenly feels “confident enough of her recollections.”
How confident is “confident enough” to justify joining a lynch mob out to destroy a man’s life without a trial, based on decades-old “memories” from drunken party girls?
“I would think an FBI investigation would be warranted.” An FBI investigation of what? Her pickled memories? Her lawyer’s magic methods of turning details lost in a drunken haze for thirty years into crystal clear certainties three days ago?
“Yes, I remember the whole thing, Agent Smith. It looked exactly like this:
So are you going to arrest him?”
I once again conclude by noting that I am not one of those inclined to say “Boys will be boys,” or “Who hasn’t gotten drunk and done some stupid things with the opposite sex at a school party?” (Not a year goes by that I don’t thank my lucky stars just a little more that I was a nerdy loner in school and therefore never got invited to such events.) If he did either of the things alleged, then he was a big jerk in school — though sadly no bigger than a lot of other young (and not so young) jerks these days, male and female. But would these allegations, if true, and given the personal and societal context — yes, I know it’s politically incorrect to say so today, but context does matter — disqualify him from serving on the Supreme Court more than three decades later?
The Supreme Court is not sainthood; it’s a job within the judicial branch of a limited republic. Come to think of it, there are a few legitimate saints who did a lot worse than anything these women are alleging against Kavanaugh. And by the way, I seem to recall someone saying, “Let he who is without sin –” oh, what am I thinking? That’s from another universe. Go team!