In the #MeToo era, we’ve seen powerful men crumble under the weight of their own sexual crimes. Some, like Harvey Weinstein, give no personal, public defense. They are subject to what their victims share with the media. Others, like singer R. Kelly, contend that they’re innocent in the most aggressive way possible.
During Kelly’s recent interview with Gayle King from CBS, the entertainer hurt his own already-flimsy cause by overreacting to questions in a very loud and physical way. If the man was trying to appear gracious and contrite in the face of multiple claims of criminal sexual abuse, he failed miserably.
An unfortunate and dangerous side effect of this #MeToo period is the tendency to combine all accused men together in a sort of “guilt by association” column. It almost feels like justice against the powerful and persuasive males who have actually stolen innocence and security from females. But connecting one accused individual with another simply because of a shared spotlight is not healthy. It certainly isn’t fair to those men who are not responsible for the crimes they’re accused of committing.
At the Atlantic, writer Spencer Kornhaber compared R. Kelly and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Both men were emotional in their defense against accusations of sexual crimes, so that must mean something, right?
Democrats and a left-leaning media complex are always thrilled to drag Kavanaugh’s name through the mud. It matters little that the man had a spotless record of interacting with women until September 2018 during an eleventh-hour attempt to disrupt his Supreme Court confirmation. It is of no consequence that an FBI investigation into Blasey Ford’s claims of sexual abuse revealed no proof. Kavanaugh has been cleared and serves on the highest court in the land. That reality alone is enough to spur on repeated attempts by the Left to smear him as nothing more than a privileged predator who got away.
On the other side is R. Kelly, a man whose past is filled with multiple claims of sexual misconduct of the worst variety. At present, he is facing 10 counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse, including victims who were underage at the time. There are investigations in both New York and Illinois. In January, a powerful, six-part documentary called “Surviving R. Kelly,” featuring seven accusers, aired. If all the claims are true, then R. Kelly isn’t just a drunk high school boy; he is a sexually deviant monster who should pay for the evil he has committed.
The only similarity between the two men and their stories is how passionate they were while in front of the camera. Yes, Kavanaugh mounted an emotional defense. In his interview, R. Kelly did the same. Somehow, the raw frustration and anger exhibited by both men (to wildly varying degrees) brands both with the same “guilty” mark. I certainly don’t fault anyone accused of sexual abuse for their intensity when responding to claims. In the end, the truth will matter far more than their emotion. I do, however, fault others for noticing this brand of passion and retroactively assigning blame to one and all who have exhibited their share of it.
There are still several chapters yet to be written in the sad and sordid R. Kelly saga. As regards Brett Kavanaugh, the accusations have been laid to rest by the evidence or lack thereof. Despite this truth, he is still being blamed for one thing: his temperament in the face of character assassination.
As tempting as it may be to suggest otherwise, emotional denials are proof of nothing. At times like these, facts are what set the record of guilt or innocence straight. It does not matter what the public desires; it only matters what is true.
Kimberly Ross (@SouthernKeeks) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog and a columnist at Arc Digital.
