In a story so absurd that it's almost only believable because we have photographic evidence, an insane (perhaps not that vast) right-wing conspiracy to fabricate rape allegations against special counsel Robert Mueller has been thoroughly obliterated.

The purveyors of the hoax, Jack Burkman and 20-year-old, sometime blogger and sometime fraudulent financier, Jacob Wohl, held a disastrous press conference trying to explain away the most obvious elements of the scheme to no avail. Thanks to simple reverse Google Image searching and an alibi effectively exonerating Mueller from the date and time the alleged rape occurred, the Mueller smear was doomed before anyone took it seriously. Most importantly, the alleged victim may not even promulgate the allegation herself.

All of this flagrant absurdity, of course, belies the true reason why the Mueller smear should have never been remotely believed: Even in the court of public opinion, presumption of innocence still matters and the burden of proof still doesn't rest on the accused.

With villains as hilariously inept and obviously partisan as Wohl and Burkman, it's easy to miss the perennial principles at hand, but they're an important reminder, especially in the wake of the Justice Brett Kavanaugh hearings. There are a few common, central lessons to be gleaned from both sets of allegations.

First, as a reminder what everyone misses when debating allegations against political figures, the overwhelming majority of sexual misconduct accusers have absolutely nothing to gain but justice and everything to lose in coming forward with the truth. That calculus may change when two things are at stake: money or influence. In both the cases of Kavanaugh and Mueller, political power was at stake. While Christine Blasey Ford may have been describing a truthful occurrence at some level, there's no question that her attorneys and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee milked her story expressly for political gain.

Second, people must at least be presumed innocent until evidence contradicts them. In cases of multiple accusers, the logical bar for evidentiary standards drops somewhat. But in the cases of Kavanaugh and Mueller, their accusers provided no evidence, except for that which was exculpatory. In Mueller's case, the LinkedIn profiles of the "intel agents" claiming to represent the scheme fell apart under the most cursory examination. In Kavanaugh's, every single person Ford claimed was at the party where she alleged the assault occurred said that they had no recollection of such a party ever happening.

People are quick enough to write off assault survivors as it is. Taking baseless smears seriously is one easy way to further undermine the credibility of real victims. Wohl and Burkman's clown show was thoroughly exposed for the farce that it is, and that's undeniably a positive thing for women of the future.