Everyone is wrong about Roy Moore and Bill Clinton

So The Atlantic answered what many conservatives have said about Bill Clinton.  Mr. Clinton was accused of sexual assault, harassment and rape.  His accusers were attacked and destroyed by his defenders.  Now, many are asking where the accountability is in light of the Roy Moore accusations.

There is truth to that.  Consistency would be nice.  Nonetheless, it's not that we should now drag Bill Clinton's name through the broken glass.  It's about innocent until proven guilty.  The problem wasn't that Bill Clinton wasn't impeached because women accused him of sexual assault.  The problem was that they were destroyed for doing so.

The bigger problem was that they were destroyed by the same ones who, during the Anita Hill hearings, insisted you could never attack a woman who accused a man of sexual assault.  Back then, those who questioned the timing and the reason for her accusations were skinned by feminists, liberals and journalists for daring to suggest Ms. Hill had ulterior motives for accusing Clarence Thomas.

Within only a few years, those same feminists, liberals and journalists stood idly by while the women accusing Bill Clinton of worse than dirty jokes were skinned alive by his defenders.  Some joined in the fray.  The point was, even when it became clear that Clinton was guilty of seducing a young intern and then lying about it under oath, his defenders continued to attack and destroy any and all accusers, and anyone involved (see Ken Starr), while throwing the notion of values and standards for our leaders out the window.

Now we're back.  It started with the bus load of accusers of Bill Cosby.  It picked up steam with Donald Trump.  I suppose there are still women out there who are filing some form of lawsuit against Trump, since there were a slew of accusers a year ago saying Trump had assaulted them as well.

Then came Weinstein, and the floodgates opened.  Now, everyone is being accused up and down the line.  And suddenly, it seems an accusation is good enough.  We're going back to the Anita Hill days, where an accusation was said to be enough to derail a career or destroy a life.

Repeat after me:

"We do not destroy someone's life because they have been accused.  We investigate and examine the evidence in an official forum to determine guilt before we pronounce sentencing."

That is what keeps us from being a nation of witch hunts and kangaroo courts.  We can have our opinions all we want.  And if voters want to vote no, that's up to them.  Our opinions are a protected right just the same.

But we don't make official sentencing based on our opinions, since those opinions can often be tainted by a host of things, especially in the 'politics as jihad' age in which we live. We don't fire an employee because someone accused him.  We don't demand a person give up his or her career just because they have been accused by one person, or a hundred.

So again, for your sake and mine, and for our posterity, we don't destroy the lives of people because they were accused.  Whether Bill Clinton, Roy Moore, or Bill Cosby.  We follow the Cosby approach and go to court and determine guilt or not.  We get the evidence, we weigh the evidence, we present the evidence in some type of an official venue, then we follow through with whatever consequences are appropriate to the verdict.  Anything else, and welcome to Salem, 21st century style.