About Franken's accuser. And Bill Clinton's, for that matter. And any others.

[Stinky The Clown]

If you are going to accept at their word the accusers of Roy Moore, then you have no choice but to accept at their word the accuser of Al Franken, or Bill Clinton, or any others that come forward.

Right now, for purely political reasons, for anyone to question Moore's accusers makes one a defender of Moore. If you're going to accept their word at more or less face value, then you have to do the same to accusers of Democrats or risk being accused - quite possibly rightly - of being a "slut shamer" (for lack of a better term).

As a society, we NEED to go through this. There will be pain and there will be casualties. In the end, we will be better for it. WOMEN will be better for it.

Right now, there is little possibility of searching honestly and honorably for truth. Right now it is only possible to accept at face value such accusations.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

1. Thanks for saying this.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. The accusers (no matter whom they're accusing) should be given the benefit of the doubt

but only so far as their accusations *may* be valid. But the accused should be allowed equal opportunity to prove otherwise.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. In a fair world, yes. But right now? Very difficult.

[lame54]

6. that sounds much better

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

47. Just the opposite. The burden of proof is on the accusers.

The accused should have the benefit of the doubt.

Except when the press (and the internets) are involved.

[Irish_Dem]

3. The truth will set us free, but first it will hurt like hell. nt

[lame54]

5. NO...

Her claim is that he groped her in her sleep and has the photo to prove it

That photo shows that he is clearly - let me say this again - CLEARLY not touching her

That photo is not proof that he groped her

and if she was asleep she has no idea what happened outside of that photo

[dawg day]

14. .... "and if she was asleep she has no idea what happened outside of that photo"

Well, probably, there's several people leering and laughing, and at least one taking a photo, and her being asleep doesn't make that any less creepy-- in fact, it makes it more creepy.

[lame54]

16. it's definitely tasteless...

but not proof of groping

[Oneironaut]

39. What he did is still sexual harassment and awful.

[lame54]

42. I'm not excusing him...

But the reporting is false

The photo does not show him groping

He is not touching her

But it is being reported as proof that she groped her

I don't know yet if i believe her or not but

I know what i see in that photo

[VMA131Marine]

44. Does it make a difference that it was her camera and "pretending" to be asleep

according to others who were there. Apparently she showed this photo to Sean Hannity "years ago" (according to Hannity himself on his radio show today).

[msongs]

7. acknoweldge yes. accept, maybe. people are liars for many reasons nt

[Eko]

8. Nope.

We dont have to accept the face value of accusations, we have to respect them but not take them at their word.

[snowybirdie]

9. And

We need to know who were the predators in Congress that we paid $15million for. It was our tax money

[kcr]

10. Equating Franken with Moore is absurd.

No. You do not have to accept any half-baked claim with questionable motives of one just because you believe the multiple, credible claims against another. The logic does not follow in any way.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. How do YOU know the claim is half baked? Answer: YOU DO NOT

Neither do I.

Personally, I think she has an agenda.

BUT

Until that becomes undeniably proven, we have no choice but to accept it at her word.

[kcr]

26. What I DO KNOW is it ISN't THE SAME AS MOORE

Wait, what? You think she has an agenda? Well, aren't you something special. How come you're not a FLAMING DEM HYPOCRITE!!!!!1111

[Stinky The Clown]

46. That makes no sense, actually

[kcr]

58. That makes two of us. I have no idea what you're saying.

You're the one who said you actually thought she had an agenda. So, we're obligated to believe her because that's our duty as good Dems, but you're the special exception that gets to say she has an agenda because reasons? Not sure why you get the exception. That would be my point.

[smirkymonkey]

59. +1000

This is getting ridiculous.

One of these things is not like the other...

[Tommy_Carcetti]

11. Accusations are accusations, nothing more and nothing less.

They may be completely founded and true.

They may be completely unfounded and lies.

Once the accusation is made, it's our duty to both treat it with respect to find the truth, whether we like it or not.

But accepting accusations at their word because it's what you want to believe, or denying accusations at their word because it's what you want to believe, is inherently flawed and foolish.

Don't do it.

Don't assume allegations are true just because you want them to be true. Because then you set yourself up into an uncomfortable position that if you don't accept all accusations as true, you're a hypocrite.

That applies whether we are talking about Roy Moore or Al Franken, Bill Clinton or Donald Trump.

[Stinky The Clown]

48. That's the issue. You went accusation-find the truth-deal with the consequences

In today's climate, there is no "find the truth". There is only he said she said.

Which gets back to my point. IN TODAY'S highly charged climate, it is all we can do until things get litigated.

I dare say no one will be litigating the Franken charge any time soon. How would it happen? In the media? Should he hire a lawyer and put her under oath? Submit himself to a polygraph. Get people to testify (where? in the media, in the Senate, or in court? someplace else?) to his story or to refute hers?

Where do we go IN TODAY'S CLIMATE?

[gratuitous]

12. We can also use our judgment, and form an opinion on the totality of the known facts

In my judgment, there's a difference between a cascade of accusers coming forward to challenge a powerful man and one accuser. If there are multiple victims, what traits or circumstances (if any) do they have in common? There's a difference when the time frame is considered (i.d., did this happen in a specific time period, or is there evidence of a pattern over a number of years). What other features of a man's career tend to reinforce the accusations? Does he consistently show disdain or respect for women in different situations over the course of many years in public life? How does he react to the accusations? Are there contemporaneous witnesses or evidence (a victim's friends or relatives whom she told at the time, a journal or diary)? Are the man's colleagues and co-workers who know him best surprised by the allegations, or do they say, "Yeah, pretty much everyone knew you didn't want to be left alone with him"?

This is the system we have until we can fashion a legal framework to provide for due process. And yes, I apply a different standard to different men, especially when they have a long public history that may or may not tend to reinforce the allegations against them. But the victims deserve to be heard whenever they come forward, due process or not.

[DeminPennswoods]

28. Listening to Franken's USO co-host

in the car on satellite radio, I was struck by how she seemed barely affected by what happened to her. It was like her decision to speak out was so cooly calculated. When I listened to Moore's accusers for example, they were clearly still traumatized by what happened to them. You could hear it in their voices and read it in their accounts.

[pnwmom]

30. Yes, but your method requires actual thought. Too many don't seem capable of that. n/t

[smirkymonkey]

60. This, exactly!

Very well said.

[nini]

13. They should all be given the benefit of the doubt at first.

However anyone accused is entitled to the same. Kinda like going to court.

THAT being said... each situation needs to be evaluated on the accusation, history, etc.. and the facts revealed. Even in a he said/she said scenario the accuser must be heard.

I try not to jump to conclusions on either side at first. But I definitely believe accusations shouldn't be dismissed no matter who is being accused.

I'm sure we are going to be disappointed by more of folks on our side as we move on. If guilty, they deserve everything they have coming.

[Trumpocalypse]

15. While in principle that is true

However, there is something called reality. And the reality of the Franken accusation is that it is coming from one known right winger, who has appeared on Sean Hannity's show and works for a right wing company, who's account has been disputed by people present.

[NCTraveler]

17. I dont see how this holds up at all.

“About Franken's accuser. And Bill Clinton's, for that matter. And any others.

If you are going to accept at their word the accusers of Roy Moore, then you have no choice but to accept at their word the accuser of Al Franken, or Bill Clinton, or any others that come forward.”

Other than it being a straw man argument, you are telling us there can be no analysis of what’s put in front of us.

You are saying we must believe the same things when there is no possible way to even equate them.

[Pathwalker]

18. It's also either/or, bi-lateral thinking, known to be fallible, limiting.

Also, a favorite of Repukes. There are a lot of scolders (board nannies)here today, telling us what we MUST think, how we MUST react. Tiresome, at the very least.

[el_bryanto]

19. You are right i think

I hate the idea because my instinct is to believe in waiting until all the facts are in and judging based on that, and I tend to want to believe the best of people. Unfortunately the waters have been so muddied around this issue for generations I don't see that working in this case.

Bryant

[Stinky The Clown]

22. "Unfortunately the waters have been so muddied . . . . ."

". . . .. around this issue for generations I don't see that working in this case."

Like it or not, that is the truth.

[el_bryanto]

23. Well I don't like it. Do you like it? nt

[Stinky The Clown]

25. Not at all

But that's pretty much the way it is.

Some years ago, it was child molestation. Even kids figured out that a hated step parent could be "gotten at" by accusing them of molestation. My next door neighbor's son was caught up in that at his daycare. Turns out the accusations were true. But many were not.There was a near hysteria about it and innocent people got caught in it all. Some survived with reputations intact and some did not. That time has passed.

These days it is sexual assault in all its degrees (off color jokes to outright rape). We are, indeed, in a form of national hysteria right now.

In the end, the truth will out. But right now, IN MY VIEW, the safest course is to default to the side of the women.

[flamingdem]

21. Bullshit. What Franken did as a comic is not in the same category

as Pedo Moore.

We don't need to bend over for the far right and destroy a person who actually is ethical and a supporter of women's rights.

Enough BS

[dsc]

24. that is absurd

The accusers are different people with different levels of displayed honesty. In particular Broadwick lied under oath which is a big reason to doubt what she said. That said, clearly Franken's accuser told a mostly true if not completely true story from Franken's own statement. But the notion that we can't look at the honesty of accusers and make decisions based upon that is absurd.

[BannonsLiver]

27. Sorry, but this is just nonsense.

This was a hit job. That doesn't make Franken immune to criticism. Thinking people can process nuance.

BTW, you're advocating AGAINST due process with your last sentence, which is fucking nuts.

[pnwmom]

29. Clinton, Weinstein, Spacey, Cosby had MULTIPLE accusers, which increased

the credibility of the accusers. They were vouching for each other, in effect.

I don't think that every woman should be automatically believed over every man. Or every alleged victim or every alleged perp. For example, the lying accuser in the Duke lacrosse case. There were signs from the very beginning that she was lying -- e.g., the other dancer contradicted her -- but many here said we had to believe the woman no matter what.

I think we need to find out exactly what happened with Franken, and determine if this was a pattern of behavior, as it has been for other men.

Has any other woman made a similar accusation?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

32. Difference between Weinstein/Spacey/Cosby's accusers and Clintons:

None of them voluntarily appeared to talk about their accusations sitting next to a man who just days before had been the subject of a video release where he bragged about "grabbing (women) by the pussy."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/trump-holds-pre-debate-event-with-bill-clinton-accusers-w444071

"Actions speak louder than words," Broaddrick, who in 1999 came forward to claim Bill Clinton raped her in 1978, said on Sunday. "Mr. Trump may have said some bad words, but Bill Clinton raped me and Hillary Clinton threatened me, I don't think there is any comparison."


When Trump was asked about his 2005 comments – "When you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy" – and whether or not he still believed being a celebrity entitled him to touch women without their consent, Paula Jones jumped to Trump's defense.

"Why don't y'all go ask Bill Clinton that?" Jones says. "Why don't y'all go ask Bill Clinton that?"

[pnwmom]

33. None of them were likely bribed to do so. n/t

[Tommy_Carcetti]

34. Actually, they were.

By Roger Stone.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-paid-accusers-to-appear-before-debate-20161009-story.html

Earlier this year, Stone sought to raise money to pay off the mortgage of Kathleen Willey, who accused Bill Clinton of making unwanted sexual advances toward her during her time as a volunteer in his White House in the 1990s. Stone claimed in an online video interview that Trump had personally contributed to the fund.

Trump's campaign has not endorsed Stone's political action committee, and has sent the group a cease and desist letter. The campaign has denied that Trump gave money to Willey's mortgage fund.

Shelton wrote on Twitter that her trip to the debate in St. Louis was being paid for by a company called WeSearchr. That firm was co-founded by conservative media figure Charles C. Johnson, an outspoken Trump supporter. WeSearchr says it crowdfunds research about rumors it believes are not being covered by news outlets.

[pnwmom]

35. I meant none of the women OTHER than the Bill accusers. n/t

[Tommy_Carcetti]

36. Ah, okay.

Thanks for clarifying.

[pnwmom]

37. And thanks for the link about Stone.

I hadn't heard that story before.

[maryellen99]

38. And Juanita Broaddrick thinks all of trumps accusers are liars nt

[pnwmom]

31. Under your theory, the Duke students would be in prison now instead of Crystal Mangum,

their false accuser.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Mangum

Crystal Gail Mangum (born July 18, 1978)[1] is a woman from Durham, North Carolina, who is best known for making false allegations of rape against lacrosse players in the 2006 Duke lacrosse case. The fact that Mangum was a black woman working in the sex industry, while the accused were all white men, created extensive media interest and academic debate about race, class, gender and the politicization of the justice system.

In February 2010, she was arrested on charges of attempted murder of her live-in partner, Milton Walker.[2] She was eventually convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile, injury to personal property and resisting a public officer.[3]

In November 2013, she was found guilty of second-degree murder after she repeatedly stabbed boyfriend Reginald Daye, who died 10 days after she attacked him.[4] She was sentenced to 14 to 18 years in prison.

[Stinky The Clown]

49. How are the false accusations and the murder related other than the perp?

Could they not both have been true?

[pnwmom]

52. The false accusations were FALSE. So no, they couldn't have been true.

And in the case of Mangum it was clear almost from the beginning, because she was contradicting HERSELF.

Mangum is an example of why we shouldn't automatically believe every accuser and disbelieve every alleged perp.

Many people here automatically believed Mangum on the theory that she was a woman and women never lie about rape. In general, we should take any rape claim very seriously. But that doesn't mean we should automatically believe it before we have evidence. Some people are capable of lying about anything, including rape.

[Azathoth]

40. We're not just accepting "their word." We're also accepting the word of the dozens of corroborating

witnesses.

This is where the "Believe Women" thing goes off the rails. A woman isn't automatically entitled to be believed simply because she says something. She's entitled to be believed if her story is reasonably credible. If there are contemporary witnesses or accounts, evidence that the details of her story align with verifiable facts (e.g. evidence that both she and her alleged harasser were in the same place at the alleged time), etc. Absent any of that, it's word-against-word, unless multiple accusers come forward. Then it's law of averages.

Moore is different from Franken on both counts. There is overwhelming credibility to the stories (witnesses, contemporary accounts, getting banned from the mall, widespread knowledge in the community that he chased minors, etc.). And, there are multiple accusers, so it's not word-against-word.

There is a world of difference between a meticulously researched article from a major news organization, and a self-authored blog post.

[smirkymonkey]

61. +1000

There is a little too much black and white thinking here. People are not considering the character of the accuser, the accused and the history of both. The situations of Franken and Moore are in no way comparable and I am disgusted by the suggestion that they are. You would think people on a Democratic website could appreciate the vast difference between the two cases.

[Nevernose]

41. If we take her at her word

She engaged in a consensual kiss during a theatrical rehearsal. She didn’t like it because Franken apparently is a creepy kisser, and they never kissed again on stage or off, nor did he attempt to kiss her, bully her, demean her, or intimidate her.

There is a sophomoric joke photo of him pantomiming grabbing her breasts, covered in a flak jacket. He’s not actually touching them. It was clearly a dumb joke.

Saying these things is not slut shaming or victim blaming. Those are the facts as she stated them and as the photograph shows.

[LanternWaste]

43. Your position then is that regardless of circumstance, time, place, those involved, number, etc

Your position then is that regardless of circumstance, time, place, those involved, number, consistency, context, etc., all allegations must be given precisely same weight, no matter what?

Is that a correct summation?



If not, what then are the precise and relevant qualifiers which in fact, allow us variation?

[Stinky The Clown]

50. Nope

[blueinredohio]

45. I really don't have an opinion about the men, what I'm wondering why come forward

after all these years and I'm definitely not a republican

[Stinky The Clown]

51. On the face of what you just said, then, we should reject the Moore accusers?

[blueinredohio]

54. I didn't say I don't believe them just wondering why wait so long to say something

[XRubicon]

53. Yes believe her - but this is pretty weak shit compared to the others.

[delisen]

55. The accusation against Franken is different than Moore.

Politically Democrats need not have gotten so involved regarding Moore because Republicans were themselves opposing his bid for the Senate based upon his conduct.

Many Democratic politicians were relatively quiet and obeyed the political wisdom that when your opponents are beating each other up, stand aside and let them.

Democrats in terms of Franken only need to do the following.

1. Applaud Franken for apologizing and calling for a Senate ethics investigation on himself

3. Affirm appropriate, non-harassing behavior models and encourage ongoing discussion of same.

2. Move on to other business.

Congress unfortunately is probably still full of reps and senators who have engaged in harassing behavior in the past. Some behaviors are probably isolated instances, others may be part of a long pattern.

We need to not lump everything together and not engage in extended handwringing.

What we can do is set up expectations going forward.

[applegrove]

56. I don't see much denial of Franken's accuser. Clinton's accusers are suspect

Last edited Fri Nov 17, 2017, 03:28 AM - Edit history (1)

because the GOP did much of the digging and in some cases money changed hand in the end. I don't recall many people not believing Lewinsky because she was outed by Tripp, even before the blue dress was tested. It matters the context. That being said Clinton lied and Roy Moore is lying and it should be remembered that men are more often predators than women.

[LisaL]

57. By demanding we have to believe every allegation, the trap is set.

Because anybody can accuse anybody of anything. And apparently we just have to believe it all.

[smirkymonkey]

62. I know and this is bull, because if they think that the Democrats will automatically believe every

accusation of sexual harassment or assault against a Dem, then they will start using it against us to tear us apart. We need to fight back against these kinds of attacks until we have incontrovertible proof. If they think we will turn on our own that easily they will continue to use this tactic to divide us.

[LisaL]

63. I am troubled by the idea that we just have to believe all the allegations without any questions,

which is what seem to be demanded of us now.