It used to be “believe all women” and their charges are serious; when a Democrat is caught the standards change.

It is with laughable moxie that Jane Mayer, she of The New Yorker, today is attempting to rewrite the history of Al Franken’s downfall. The former Minnesota Senator was chased out of his seat when charges of sexual harassment were delivered by actress Leanne Tweeden. She detailed lengthy occurrences when Franken would have approached her with inappropriate behavior when they were both conducting a USO Tour for the troops overseas.

There was even a widely circulated picture of Franken appearing to be in mid-grope of a sleeping Tweeden. Hers was an accusation with an amount of credibility so strong that numerous fellow Democrats lobbied for Franken to step away. Now Jane Mayer goes to work to forensically pick apart the Tweeden claims in The New Yorker, all because the disgraced politician is saying he regrets stepping down.

This is a staggering turnabout by Mayer for a number of reasons. The first being the obvious: What happened to the leftist mantra of believing all women? How is it possible the term “all” comes with a qualifier, though it seems that it is in fact the case when it comes to which party the accused represents.

Secondly, how is Al Franken today denying his responsibility in the matter? There is a lengthy testimonial from Tweeden that has not been questioned, until today. Then there is the photographic corroboration, a picture with the same players that follows the narrative. Now roll in the biggest detail needing to be overlooked: Franken admitted to the behavior when this broke out. Now, after saying he previously crossed a line with many women, he today is claiming his innocence.

“Tweeden may well have felt harassed, and even violated, by Franken, but he insisted to me that her version of events is “just not true.”

But the worst of it involves not the two parties, but Jane Mayer. Last October Mayer, along with one time respected journalist Ronan Farrow, released a lengthy article they worked together attempting to draw up a list of potential witnesses attesting to Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh being a serial lecher. The article came out as an eleventh-hour bid to derail the confirmation process. Her list of “witnesses” were little more than people who had heard things, and could not confirm solid evidence, let alone place Kavanaugh directly on the scene of any wrong-doing.

The primary witness Mayer offered up had to be qualified with the phrase “if true” regarding her claims. Those claims never did come to anything approaching verification, and the hit-job Jane Mayer attempted became blatantly revealed for what it was. She promoted a series of allegations that were not rooted in anything approaching verifiable testimony, yet sold that as a valid story that should have motivated a Senate investigation.

Today she is claiming to have done the extensive journalistic work, in a case that has been closed for some time and with details which have not been questioned. She does this in an attempt to rehabilitate a fallen Democrat Senator, one who already took responsibility. Clearly when you are a Democrat you are granted the benefit of the doubt, even well after an incident has been established. Conservatives, meanwhile, have to bear the guilt of any accuser, evidence and proof of wrongdoing not required.