After embarrassing herself, a distinguished Supreme Court nominee and Senate Democrats with her despicable late-hit testimony impugning the character of now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Christine Blasey Ford was good enough to disappear for five years. Unfortunately, that time was apparently occupied with the process of cashing in. Her “memoir”—if collected dubious re-discovered memories can be fairly that, “One Way Back,” is out on Amazon and book stores.

Like Anita Hill before her,Ford was dredged up by unethical Democrats to try to derail the Supreme Court nomination of a conservative jurist by a Republican President by an accusation of sexual misconduct that was decades old and never reported at the time. Compared to Ford, however, Hill was the epitome of rectitude. Ford’s tale, conveniently “recovered” in therapy, was more than thirty years old and involved an alleged attack by Kavanaugh when he and she were both teenagers, at a party nobody could place in locale and time (besides the year, 1983). Not one witness claimed by Ford has confirmed her allegations. Kavanaugh denied them.

Mark Judge, Kavanaugh’s friend whom Ford claimed saw the attack, has repeatedly said it never happened. Ford’s friend Leland Keyser, whom she claimed was at the mysterious party, has said she has no “confidence in the story.” P.J. Smyth, a classmate of Kavanaugh’s whom Ford also said was at the infamous party, also denies it. Nobody has stated that Ford told them anything about the alleged attack after it occurred. Never mind: the Senate hearing was during the peak of #MeToo mania: Ford is a woman, so she had to be believed. Kavanaugh is a man, and worse, a conservative, a Republican, and nominated by that Satan in the White House, Donald Trump. Of course she was telling the truth. Of course he was an aspiring rapist. Of course an unconfirmed story about a teenager’s misconduct should be sufficient to ding a judge, husband, lawyer and father whose record as a professional and adult was beyond reproach.

As I related at the time, a woman in a legal ethics class I was teaching literally freaked out on me mid-seminar because something I said triggered an anti-Kavanaugh, anti-male, anti-Republican rant. She filed an official complaint against me for stating, correctly, that if a male client wanted a law firm to assign a male lawyer to his case, there was nothing unethical about the firm complying with his wishes, and that it would be unethical to force a female attorney on such a client in the interests of diversity, equity and inclusion. I was forced to drop that information out of my course.

And thanks Christine!

Bite me.

Nonetheless, the New York Times handed off reviewing duties for Christine Blasey Ford’s book to a synpathetic feminist writer who reports on the thing as if it is historical fact rather than uncorroborated, unreliable, politically-motivated hooey. (Note that the claims of women who have accused Bill Clinton and Joe Biden of rape were immediately discounted by the same publication despite having more markers of credibility.) Here are some samples from the rave review:

• “Her lucid memoir, ‘One Way Back,'”   Lucidity is irrelevant to reliability. “The Wizard of Oz” is lucid.
• “Kavanaugh, seeking confirmation to the Supreme Court, less poetically but “categorically and unequivocally” denied he had done any such thing, brandishing old calendars as an alibi.” Kavanaugh should not have had to deal with such an old, irrelevant, and unconfirmed accusation at all.
• “Blasey Ford’s new memoir, “One Way Back,” is an important entry into the public record — a lucid if belated retort to Senator Chuck Grassley’s 414-page, maddening memo on the investigation.” It’s not an important entry into the public record if it cannot be corroborated and is inherently unbelievable. Are uncorroborated claims that there was another shooter on “the grassy knoll”important entries in the public record, or just dust thrown in the eyes of those who view that record?
• “The assailant’s suffocating hand over her mouth, attempting to mute her screams, is one terrible detail that lingers; along with the bathing suit under her clothes that impeded their forcible removal.” But those “details” are as alleged and undemonstrated as the accusation against Kavanaugh.
• “Blasey Ford never wavers from her certainty that it was the young Kavanaugh looming over her in that room, but she doesn’t seem hellbent on bringing him down.” No, she just tried to derail his SCOTUS nomination and smear him on national TV, then wrote a book repeating the act.
  
• “As she mulled going public, “If he’d come to me, really leveled with me, and said, ‘I don’t remember this happening, but it might have, and I’m so sorry,’ it might have been a significant, therapeutic moment for survivors in general,” she writes. “I might have wobbled a bit. I might have thought, ‘You know, he was a jackass in high school, but now he’s not.’” What? Why would anyone say that to a person who appears after decade to accuse him of a high school incident in order to derail a career advancement? If I don’t remember doing something wrong, I’m not going to tell my accuser “I’m so sorry” or “I might have done it,” especially when I know a hostile media will spin that as a confession.
  
• “Blasey Ford suffered from her testimony…” Good. She should have suffered. It was an unethical and vicious act, with malign motives.

But to the New York Times, she’s heroic.