Gillibrand Named In Overturned Navy Seal Rape Case
Gillibrand Named In Overturned Navy Seal Rape Case
A United States Navy Seal, whose conviction for rape was overturned, was a victim of a politically charged witch hunt. Convening Authority, Rear Admiral Patrick Lorge, signed an affidavit admitting his misgivings about the case and the pressure he felt to sustain the conviction. Lorge named fear of pressure from then President Barack Obama and New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, now running for the Democrat Presidential Nomination, as adding to the political climate of the conviction. The rape conviction was overturned because of “unlawful command influence” or UCI.
The court-martial against Senior Chief Special Warfare Operator Keith E Barry has been overturned, but it is important to know how he got to this point. According to an article in World Magazine, Barry met a woman (called CW for civilian woman) and on their second date, they agreed to a non-committed, consensual sexual relationship. From the article:
On dates two through four, CW and Barry engaged in sex between 10 and 15 times. Explicit texting punctuated the intervals between dates, and it seemed to Barry that nothing sexual was off the table. In her texts with the Wifeys, CW began referring to Barry as “my Navy SEAL.” As the New Year rolled around, she told friends it was “love for me in 2013.”
After another week of sexual text banter, Barry’s accuser, CW, arrived in the island city on Friday, Jan. 11, to spend the weekend with Barry.
As they sat in a wine bar, CW smiled and asked Barry, “Where is this going?”
“Where is what going?” Barry said.
“It’s not going anywhere,” he said. It was the discussion they’d had before. Barry explained he wasn’t ready for a committed relationship.
Here, their stories diverge. According to Barry’s May 2013 statement to investigators, CW then asked him if he would be open to experimentation, along the lines of sexual activities described in Fifty Shades of Grey, the 2011 “bondage and discipline” novel that had suburban moms reading porn. Barry says he said yes. CW would later deny that such a conversation ever took place.
CW says that Barry was distant and insulted her. He says that he was, basically, ready to move on and that rather than insults, this was their usual sexual banter. And, then:
Then came two minutes that would alter the trajectory of Barry’s life. He performed on CW an act they’d never tried together. At the commencement of that act, both parties agree, CW said, “No, no, no, please go slow.” Both parties say Barry complied.
However, their interpretations of the entire episode were very different. Barry interpreted CW’s words, “please go slow,” as consent. CW later testified she uttered those words only because she knew Barry wouldn’t stop.
Afterward, CW showered. Then she tried to kiss him, but he had once again turned cool. Later that morning, CW asked Barry whether she would see him the following weekend. He said no, he had plans to go climbing with friends. Hurt, CW climbed into her car and drove home. On the way, she sent her cousin a chirpy text full of exclamation points about her most recent adventure in bed.
The next day, CW told her cousin the whole story. When the cousin learned CW had said to Barry, “No, no, no,” the cousin said, “So he raped you.” A week later, CW accused Barry of rape.
And, this is where Kirsten Gillibrand’s name comes up. Remember that this case began in 2013, before the #MeToo movement started. Again, from this article:
DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, Congress instituted a crackdown on sexual assault in the military. U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat now running for president, led the charge. In May 2013, at the exact moment Keith Barry was fighting accusations of rape, media outlets hyped a Pentagon report that showed an increase in service members reporting sexual abuse. That was a good thing. The military had new programs emphasizing victim support and discouraging reprisals against service members who reported sexual crimes.
The World Magazine article goes on to note that false allegations were “rising at an even faster pace than reports of rape and sexual assault overall.”
Chief Barry was convicted in this highly politically charged case and spent two and a half years in the Naval Consolidated Brig. He was busted to Seaman after nineteen years of service. Barry lost two appeals. Admiral Lorge, in reviewing the findings thought that the Chief was innocent. It was then that Lorge was approached by two “powerful Navy judge advocates (military lawyers), both admirals, told him that to do so would mean bad public relations for the Navy, and would also hurt Lorge’s career. Feeling he would have “a target on his back,” Lorge let the guilty verdict stand.”
After his release from the brig, Chief Barry was a registered sex offender and couldn’t get a job. He was also awaiting a Dishonorable Discharge. This is when a junior officer told Barry’s attorney about a conversation that he overheard. It was the conversation that Lorge mentioned above and constituted undue command influence or UCI. Lorge admitted everything and called out President Obama and Senator Gillibrand. From American Military News:
As I considered whether to disapprove the findings, I was also concerned about the impact to the Navy if I were to disapprove the findings. At the time, the political climate regarding sexual assault in the military was such that a decision to disapprove findings, regardless of merit, would bring hate and discontent on the Navy from the President, as well as senators including Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. I was also aware of cases from other services that became high profile and received extreme negative attention because the convening authorities upset guilty findings in sexual assault cases. … I perceived that if I were to disapprove the findings in the case, it would adversely affect the Navy. Everyone from the President down the chain and Congress would fail to look at its merits, and only view it through the prism of opinion. Even though I was convinced then, and am convinced now, that I should have disapproved the findings, my consideration of the Navy’s interest in avoiding the perception that military leaders were sweeping sexual assaults under the rug outweighed that conviction at the time.”
Senator Gillibrand seems to have a problem with allowing due process to work. Here she is on Sixty Minutes, in early 2018, discussing her friend, former Senator Al Franken:
Yes, Senator, what’s wrong with due process? What’s wrong with allowing an investigation to take place? I’ve got no love for Al Franken. He is an American citizen and is due due process. Where is your moral compass when you throw your friend under the bus for your own political gain?
Remember the “scathing” address that Senator Gillibrand gave on the Senate floor regarding the unproven allegations against now Justice Brett Kavanaugh? She said that allowing Brett Kavanaugh to become a Supreme Court Justice would tell women that they are worth less than a man’s promotion.
Several days before that she argued that Kavanaugh’s nomination should be withdrawn because Gillibrand believed, the totally disproven, allegations of Deborah Ramirez. From The Hill:
“Senate Republicans were trying to rush a vote while they knew Deborah Ramirez would come forward with her story,” Gillibrand wrote, referencing the New Yorker’s reporting that indicates GOP staffers knew about Ramirez’s accusation as they tried to push Kavanaugh’s confirmation process forward last week.
“They deny Dr. Ford an FBI investigation, won’t subpoena corroborating witnesses, and now, this,” Gillibrand wrote. “It’s an embarrassment. They have absolutely no interest in the truth.”
“Enough is enough,” she continued. “One credible sexual assault claim should have been too many to get a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court and make decisions that will affect millions of women’s lives for generations.”
Al Franken never got his due process. Brett Kavanaugh is a Justice of the Supreme Court with a tarnished reputation. Keith Barry is a Senior Chief in the Navy again, fighting for the back pay due to him. They all have one thing in common: Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. She has established a pattern and practice of disbelieving men and denying them due process.
Let us hope that her Presidential campaign doesn’t make it through the summer.