Let’s start off with the obvious: Attempted rape, no matter from how long ago, is immediately disqualifying behavior for any candidate for the highest court in the land. Even if presidents from both parties have failed to clear this extremely low bar, we should continue to demand moral decency from the literal arbiters of justice in society.

This is what Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s establishment superstar nominee to the Supreme Court, stands accused of in a secret letter sent to Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., and then forwarded to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

For at least two months, Feinstein kept the letter to herself. As she had multiple opportunities to question Kavanaugh under oath, both in public and private, she remained mum on the issue. One of the most senior female Democrats in Congress knew of a sexual assault allegation against Kavanaugh and did not consider the allegation serious enough to question him about while he was under oath. This alone calls the allegation’s intentions and credibility into question.

The contents of the letter, broken by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer of the New Yorker, allege that at a high school party in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh attempted to force himself on the letter writer, covering her mouth with his hand and turning up music to “conceal the sounds of her protests.” She claims to have freed herself shortly after.

Okay, seems straightforward enough. According to CNN , the woman sought medical treatment after the fact, so presumably there’s at least one witness, if not multiple, as well as medical records to corroborate that the woman said this happened at the time and not just before Kavanaugh was about to reach the highest court in the country. But the woman refuses to come forward.

The accuser refused to speak to the press, the Senate, and the FBI. Both Kavanaugh and his male colleague in the room with him at the time categorically denied the assault. So we have two straightforward denials and one anonymous accuser refusing to let anybody independently vet her claims, let alone explain them.

While many survivors of sexual assault wish to remain anonymous to the general public, if the woman accusing Kavanaugh believes his crimes so serious as to disqualify him from the Supreme Court, she must at least speak to the press and the Senate. Even Farrow and Meyer themselves published two damning allegations anonymously against (now) former Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, stipulating that they independently verified their allegations after the women agreed to be interviewed at length and offer corroborating evidence.

Between the evidence (nonexistent) and the timing, the letter screams partisan animus. At worst, the letter is a shameless smear against a man with an unimpeachable record, clearly timed as a Hail Mary attempt to keep a conservative stalwart from the Supreme Court. And with the woman unwilling to provide an iota of corroboration to her account, the worst-case scenario seems like the likeliest.

Kavanaugh has been in the public eye for the last quarter-century, beginning as a Federal Appellate Court clerk for the Third Circuit. He served as an associate counsel under Kenneth Starr in the most infamous sex/show trial of the century. (You mean to tell me that in the throngs of the Clinton wars, not every possible finger was pointed at lewd behavior by Clinton agents and adversaries alike?) Kavanaugh has passed six separate background checks. Even after obtaining the letter from Feinstein, the FBI has declined to investigate it further, an unlikely move if the letter contained credible allegations given the hotly political spotlight already cast on the FBI.

Furthermore, the Senate Judiciary Committee was able to produce scores of women who went to school with Kavanaugh to attest to his character, literally overnight . While character witnesses alone would not exonerate evidence or corroborate witness accounts, in the absence of any independent verification, they prove a powerful defense.

To reiterate, the question of the sexual assault allegations levied against Judge Brett Kavanaugh aren’t a matter of how bad they are, but if they ever happened at all. Those writing off the allegations because they would give a pass to an attempted rapist due to careless days of youth are as reprehensible as those praying for the allegations to be true for partisan reasons. The public is capable of employing a "trust but verify" standard to fairly evaluate sexual misconduct claims. No, men are not entitled to a criminal court standard in due process when the evidence and testimonies of women obviously corroborate the accounts of accusers, as was the case in the Roy Moore and Al Franken allegations. But especially when financial or political gain is at stake, we can’t just believe all women by automatic default.

The #MeToo movement has done wonders in galvanizing the public to take sexual offenses far more seriously than we ever have. The Faustian demises of monsters like Les Moonves and Harvey Weinstein demonstrate the power and potential of the movement’s future when it’s centered around justice, not partisanship. But a failure to believe Kavanaugh in the face of such paper-thin and politically timed allegations threatens to derail the movement onto a course of terrifying partisan vengeance. If issuing rape allegations against high-profile political adversaries, no one will lose more than good men and actual victims who deserve to be believed.

This is bigger than a conservative Supreme Court seat. The threat of smearing good men, Democrats and Republicans alike, should be enough to encourage everyone to denounce these cowardly allegations as they stand. So you should believe Brett Kavanaugh. Perhaps more evidence corroborating the letter will emerge later, and if that happens, I am more than willing to denounce Kavanaugh entirely. But as it stands, Kavanaugh deserves defense. The fate of fair politics and the future of survivors depends on it.

Tiana Lowe (@TianaTheFirst) is the co-host of The Political Pregame podcast and a contributor to Spectator USA. She previously founded the USC Economics Review and interned at National Review.