National Review’s David French penned an article in which he calls on the New York Times op-ed author, Anonymous, to reveal himself and present evidence that the nation’s security is at stake, the president is unhinged, and the minions in his administration are concerned.  “[I]f you truly believe the president is unfit, basic patriotism demands nothing less” than Anonymous show the courage to come forward and present his case, under oath with evidence before the American people, who have a right to know. 

I used to admire David French -- ex-military, an accomplished attorney, a prolific contributor to National Review, a pundit extraordinaire.  But his article starts out with the admonition “For the good of the nation, you must identify yourself and back up your claims about the president with hard evidence.”  Throughout the article, French repeatedly demands that Anonymous present the evidence for his or her claims.  Evidence, evidence, evidence!  I couldn’t agree more.

For such a diehard #NeverTrumper as Mr. French, I cannot help but wonder if deep down he actually hopes Anonymous complies.  It certainly would vindicate the #NeverTrumpers and their compatriots on the left.  And, I say this, fully acknowledging that he does include in his article room for doubt, questioning whether there is “real fire behind all this smoke” and covering his behind with the acknowledgement that Anonymous’s claims just might not be truthful. 

But here is where David French contradicts himself and loses the reader as well as credibility as the brilliant legal mind he is supposed to be.

There is a lot of talk about the kind of behavior that’s “priced in” with Trump. Aside from the cultists, millions of voters cast their ballots knowing that he was a flawed man. They knew, and still know, that he’s cheated on his wife. They wished, and still wish, that he wouldn’t rage on Twitter, that he showed more self-discipline, and that he had more integrity. But they preferred him to Hillary Clinton, another corrupt candidate.  [Emphasis added.]

For someone repeatedly calling for the outing of those subverting the Trump Agenda as well as evidence of Trump’s insanity and the chaos in the White House -- all in the name of patriotism -- he puts in this gem that we all know Trump cheated on his wife. Curious. 

Maybe he believes if he says it enough, his readers will accept its veracity.  It’s a classic litigator’s technique -- you state things you intend to prove in a case as facts in your opening and closing statements, in your briefs to the court -- counsel will refer to his client as John, the kind-hearted family man who is devoted to his wife and attends church religiously, whereas opposing counsel will refer to him as the accused, a cold-blooded sociopath who murdered his family. Attorneys will consistently refer to the evidence they introduce as actual, indisputable facts that corroborate their version of the case, knowing that the evidence will, in the end, be judged by the triers-of-fact whether jury or judge. I cannot help but wonder if that’s what French is doing here.

Or… did I miss something in the news?  I know the left and other Trump haters are convinced of Trump’s infidelities based on accusations by the porn star and the playboy bunny (you see?  I intentionally did not humanize them with names).  His payoffs to them further corroborate in their minds, his guilt.  But like all the other male victims of #metoo who have been forced out of positions of power, have lost their livelihoods and reputations simply based on the unsubstantiated accusations of myriad women (who, by the way, do a disservice to women who have actually and provably been sexually harassed, recipients of unwanted sexual advancements, lewd behavior in the office, sexual assault or rape), where’s the evidence that Trump actually cheated on his wife? 

You know, David, all I have to do is place myself in a room with you at some time, engage you in conversation, maybe even have a drink with you outside of whatever event it is we attend together, maybe even cultivate a business friendship with you, and then hurl an accusation that you made advances on me or slept with me in my apartment, late one night without any more specificity, without any witnesses or cameras.  And then someone supposedly objective and legally consistent could pen an article about you and conclude -- in the absence of concrete evidence whether beyond all reasonable doubt in a criminal matter or by a preponderance of evidence in a civil matter -- that we all know you “cheated on your wife.”  If you are unpleasant enough in personality or disliked enough in your profession, it could make for an easy fall from grace, regardless of your guilt or innocence.  Thus, “you too” could lose your job, reputation, and maybe even your marriage if you have one. 

Right now, women hold incredible power without having to meet the legal standards for proof.  The He Said/She Said stalemate of yesterday, has become the She Said checkmate today.   The requirements for proof have to be applied consistently whether the accused is Charlie Rose, Leslie Moonves, Ryan Seacrest, or, I’m sorry to say, David, yes, Donald Trump, too. 

You ask Anonymous to “Name yourself.  Let America test your claims.”

Well, let us test your claims:  please enlighten us with the proof we all apparently have that President Trump cheated on his wife, because I, for one, am clueless.

If the proof is there, that will be priced in when he next runs for office -- by cultists and supporters alike.  Or, maybe they’ll be swayed by the lessons from the Clinton years that what a President does in the bedroom has no bearing on his performance in the Oval Office.  

Regardless, French should take a hard look in the mirror because, when it comes to evidentiary proof regarding President Trump’s behavior, he appears to have more in common with Anonymous than he might like to admit.