Lessons Of Innocence

Leave it to Senate Democrats to degrade the proceedings of the “World’s Greatest Deliberative Body” beyond their 1991 low-point discussing “pubic hair on a Coke can.” When the stakes are high, Democrats go low.
Advice and consent; if only the Founders could have known how their posterity would weaponize this simple check and balance on Executive power. Last week Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh accused senate Democrats of replacing “advice and consent” with “search and destroy.” That is exactly what they did.
When the Clarence Thomas tactic failed 27 years ago, the lesson Democrats learned was that next time their accusations needed to be more criminal and emotionally wrenching. The party of “bimbo eruptions” and the organized smearing of credible victims of sexual assault is now telling America we have to believe unverified and unverifiable accounts of teenage sexual activity from 35 years ago just because the accuser was a woman.
The focus of Democrats is never people; it’s always politics. Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Wiley, and Paula Jones had to be discredited in the 1990s because they threatened Bill Clinton, their champion on the issue of abortion. (Remember former Time and Newsweek reporter Nina Burleigh? That delicate flower of womanhood told the Washington Post in 1998, “I would be happy to give [Clinton] [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”)
I can’t imagine that’s the liberation Helen Reddy had in mind when she recorded “I Am Woman.”
The Left’s latest presumed threat to Roe v. Wade is Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Instead of kneepads they donned boxing gloves. As fighters they showed all the class of Mike Tyson, perfectly willing to bite off an ear if it would help them win.
The narrative Democrats have been trying to sell for weeks is that, in matters of sexual assault, all women must be believed. That’s quite a change from their position during the Clinton presidency, but let’s ignore the obvious inconsistency and examine their narrative away from the political realm. Let’s put it to the test in the real world.
The Innocence Project is on a mission to “free the staggering number of innocent people who remain incarcerated, and to bring reform to the system responsible for their unjust imprisonment.” It is not part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Its website provides case studies of people it has helped free from wrongful incarceration. People like William Barnhouse.
In 1992 Mr. Barnhouse was found guilty of sexual assault. His 22-year-old accuser, a woman who had been raped, provided the police with the description that led them to pick up Barnhouse. The victim identified him as her attacker at the scene and testified against him at trial. She was believable and believed. He was convicted and sentenced to 80 years in prison.
Based on DNA testing, Barnhouse was released from prison and charges were dropped in 2017. He had served 25 years for a crime he didn’t commit.
Angel Gonzalez served 20 years for sexual assault and kidnapping. The victim positively identified him even though his appearance differed from her original description. Having four alibi witnesses was not enough to keep this innocent man from prison. DNA testing in 2015 freed him, correcting a mistake made by a woman who was sure she was right.
Joseph Abbitt was wrongfully convicted of rape based largely on victim identification and testimony. Despite having a strong alibi from his employer, he was sentenced to two life terms, plus 110 years. He served 14 years before conclusive DNA testing freed him from the injustice of a victim’s error.
The women who ruined these men’s lives were clearly victims of sexual assault. Each one identified and testified against her alleged attacker in good faith. Their accounts were credible and put to the test in courts of law where the men were given the presumption of innocence. But the system failed these men.
While these accusers were wrong, they had no political motives. These women thought they were serving the cause of justice. Coming forward within hours of suffering horrific attacks and testifying in court took courage.
What we saw last week from Senate Democrats and a Democrat activist accuser (whose GoFundMe account is worth more than half-a-million dollars) was the opposite of courage. It was a staged political circus, an act designed to cloak a raw power grab as a women’s justice issue. If it doesn’t succeed this time, it might the next if believers in Constitutional government don’t expose and extinguish the perversions of the #MeToo movement.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh is no Bill Clinton. He’s no Harvey Weinstein. He’s an honorable man with an impeccable record. Senators: Advice. Consent. Let justice be done.

Ken Gorrell can be reached at kengorrell@gmail.com