The last time we checked in on WorldNetDaily columnist Patrice Lewis, she was viciously mocking the women who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misdeeds in his youth. This time around, she's trying to defend doing so:
Last week I wrote a scathing satirical column focusing on the collected accusations against Brett Kavanaugh. To say I got emails in response would be a huge understatement. Critics did everything from question my Christian beliefs to express hope our two daughters would be raped so I would feel more sympathy for sexual assault victims.
Here’s the thing: If Kavanaugh’s accusers did suffer sexual assault during their lives, I believe Kavanaugh wasn’t the perpetrator. I believe they’re accusing the wrong man … and they’re doing it on purpose.
Now we’re finding out all sorts of interesting things about Kavanaugh’s accusers. How Ford lied when she said she never coached anyone on how to take a polygraph test. How her “second front door” was installed for business, not trauma. How Swetnick confessed a predilection for group sex to one of her lovers.
Do these sound like honest and trustworthy women? Or do they sound like vindictive [w]itches out to “get” a decent, conservative man to further the feminist agenda? If this were a trial, the case would be thrown out of court in a heartbeat. But since was merely a hearing with no legal repercussion for the accusers, anything was fair game.
Needless to say, Lewis offers no proof that the women are lying about Kavanaugh "on purpose."
Then, in an attempt to justify "my hostility toward Kavanaugh's accusers," she recounted a case in which a relative was falsely accused of indecent exposure. She then ranted:
When I look at Kavanaugh, I see my cousin. I see a good man facing down unprovable allegations from decades before. I see berserk frothing-at-the-mouth feminists clawing him into the ground to fulfill their “women first” victimhood agenda, despite the lack of evidence of any wrongdoing. In the insane defense of women’s feelings, they’re spitting on the feelings of unjustly accused men and their families.
They’re also forgetting something else: The presumption of innocence, which is the bedrock of our legal system.
Critics are wrong when they accuse me of not being sympathetic to women who have been sexually assaulted. On the contrary, I have the deepest sympathy for women who are truly victims.
It’s for this reason I don’t want to see the claims of genuine victims diluted by the actions of contemptible women who accuse without evidence, and who happily ruin the lives of good men because they are bad women.
“Rape is a devastating crime,” wrote columnist Michelle Malkin. “So is lying about it.”
Victims tell how the raw emotions can still come flooding back, even decades later. They’re right. As I wrote this column and remembered what happened to my cousin, the raw choking hatred did indeed come flooding back, a bitter and vile loathing for the woman who accused an innocent man at random.
You can never forget an assault – and that includes a false one.
But in her previous "scathing satirical column," Lewis wrote: "Bill Clinton is a saint who would never mistreat a woman. Juanita Broaddrick was a liar. Oh wait, didn’t I just say women can’t lie? Um, forget I said that. We’ll just forget Broaddrick exists. Don’t believe her." She apparently believes Broaddrick, despite a similar lack of corroborating evidence. Why does she believe Broaddrick and not Christine Blasey Ford? Is it because of the political views of the accused?
And as we pointed out, Broaddrick is a liar -- she spent 20 years telling one story about Clinton's alleged rape of her, then spent the next 20 years telling a completely different story. Shouldn't Lewis be troubled by a story that changed so drastically as she is by Ford's lack of corroboration?
We look forward to her future column trying to explain away her apparent double standard.