The left has managed to keep Anita Hill’s trivial and uncorroborated allegations against Clarence Thomas alive and talked about for nearly 30 years. Thus, it’s not surprising that the left is still out to smear Brett Kavanaugh along similar lines. The focus now is on how Kavanaugh behaved, or is alleged to have behaved, towards women at parties during his freshman year at Yale 35 years (or so) ago.
Unless Kavanaugh raped someone at one of these parties, I don’t care how Kavanaugh behaved. There’s something seriously wrong with a society that would hold a public servant’s misbehavior as a college freshman against him decades later. Fortunately, I don’t think we’ve reached that point yet, but the left is doing all it can to push us there.
As for the specific Yale-related allegations against Kavanaugh, one of them concerns Deborah Ramirez. It was raised and “litigated” during Kavanaugh’s confirmation process. It didn’t stick because Ramirez’s memory was shaky and there were no eye-witnesses, only hearsay.
A new allegation involves another woman, as yet unnamed. It hasn’t been raised by the alleged victim. She has no recollection of it (a fact that the New York Times neglected to include in its report about the alleged incident). Given the nature of the allegation — that during a party, Kavanaugh exposed his penis and his friends pushed it into the alleged victim’s face — one would think the woman would remember the incident. That she doesn’t is good evidence that it never happened.
The allegation is raised by Max Stier, a liberal who, reportedly, was one of Bill Clinton’s defense lawyers. He claims he was present at the party.
My first question when I heard about this allegation today was: Why didn’t we hear about it when Kavanaugh’s nomination was being considered by the Senate. Surely, that was the time to raise it, not a year later, when Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court.
Based on reports, I gather that Stier did make his allegation last year, during the confirmation process. According to the New York Times, he notified both the FBI and some Senators. The FBI reportedly declined to investigate, and Stier declined to go public.
This account raises more questions than it answers. Why didn’t any Senator follow up on Stier’s report? Certainly, there were more than a few Senators who wanted to sink Kavanaugh’s nomination?
Why didn’t the FBI investigate? The anti-Kavanaugh mob would likely claim it was trying to protect Kavanaugh. Yet the Bureau investigated other allegations of misconduct against the nominee.
Finally, why didn’t Stier speak publicly or at least present his allegation to a leftist media outlet? Stier is a well-connected guy, and he can’t plausibly claim, as female victims (real and fake) often do that the event was too traumatic to revisit.
I don’t know the answers to any of these questions. However, I assume that at least some of the reluctance to push Stier’s allegation stems from the fact that the alleged victim had no recollection of the alleged event. Senate Dems, as a group, have little shame. But perhaps it’s not too much to hope that they were unwilling to peddle a story as thin as Stier’s.
The New York Times has no such scruples. So now that sensible people have moved on from a deep dive into Bret Kavanaugh’s freshman year (and earlier) party habits (circa 1983), it’s open season for the Times and other leftists to renew the smearing of the Justice.
I won’t be surprised if future left-liberal jurists and other such public figures get similar treatment somewhere not far down the road. However, there’s no consolation in this. Quite the contrary.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.