HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I don't know why we could...

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 12:26 AM

 

I don't know why we couldn't wait until the ethics investigation played out with Franken

That's my main issue. I don't understand what the rush was to force him out. I had trouble believing his first accuser and still do. When more accusations came out I felt that the accusations needed to be taken seriously but I didn't think he should be resigning, at least not right away.

Isn't that what an investigation is for and didn't we have one on the immediate horizon for these accusations?

I understand why folks are upset. However, with regard to that, why is Gillibrand the only one who deserves to be the recipient of all of that fury. This article contains the full list of 32 Democratic Senators and those who caucus with Democrats who, in my opinion and I think the opinion of a lot of folks, jumped the gun here: http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/06/politics/al-franken-democratic-senators-resign/index.html

If Gillibrand deserves our scorn, they all do. That includes people like Sanders, Feinstein, Wyden and Warren.

Gillibrand made this statement according to that article:

"While Senator Franken is entitled to have the Ethics Committee conclude its review, I believe it would be better for our country if he sent a clear message that any kind of mistreatment of women in our society isn't acceptable by stepping aside to let someone else serve."


Why did she and these other folks think a rush to judgement was better here? I don't understand. There is no compelling reason I can think of to have done this.

81 replies, 4985 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 81 replies Author Time Post
Reply I don't know why we couldn't wait until the ethics investigation played out with Franken (Original post)
stevenleser Dec 2017 OP
brooklynite Dec 2017 #1
greeny2323 Dec 2017 #5
PatrickforO Dec 2017 #6
brooklynite Dec 2017 #9
uppityperson Dec 2017 #13
brooklynite Dec 2017 #15
uppityperson Dec 2017 #17
Demsrule86 Dec 2017 #66
PatrickforO Dec 2017 #18
pnwmom Dec 2017 #20
Ken Burch Dec 2017 #36
brooklynite Dec 2017 #38
Ken Burch Dec 2017 #64
Demsrule86 Dec 2017 #65
treestar Dec 2017 #80
stevenleser Dec 2017 #7
brooklynite Dec 2017 #16
pnwmom Dec 2017 #21
stevenleser Dec 2017 #22
NanceGreggs Dec 2017 #11
FarPoint Dec 2017 #26
R B Garr Dec 2017 #27
mountain grammy Dec 2017 #44
betsuni Dec 2017 #52
dsc Dec 2017 #40
mountain grammy Dec 2017 #41
RandomAccess Dec 2017 #61
USALiberal Dec 2017 #78
blue cat Dec 2017 #2
flamingdem Dec 2017 #12
cwydro Dec 2017 #25
JI7 Dec 2017 #3
leftstreet Dec 2017 #4
stevenleser Dec 2017 #8
InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2017 #14
Egnever Dec 2017 #31
Demsrule86 Dec 2017 #67
RandomAccess Dec 2017 #62
mythology Dec 2017 #10
stevenleser Dec 2017 #23
LisaL Dec 2017 #42
BlueWI Dec 2017 #77
BigmanPigman Dec 2017 #19
cwydro Dec 2017 #24
chillfactor Dec 2017 #28
Hekate Dec 2017 #29
PoliticAverse Dec 2017 #30
stevenleser Dec 2017 #60
dchill Dec 2017 #32
ucrdem Dec 2017 #33
SFnomad Dec 2017 #34
DemocratSinceBirth Dec 2017 #48
stevenleser Dec 2017 #59
Kirk Lover Dec 2017 #74
Duppers Dec 2017 #35
betsuni Dec 2017 #37
DemocratSinceBirth Dec 2017 #39
dsc Dec 2017 #49
DemocratSinceBirth Dec 2017 #55
dsc Dec 2017 #56
DemocratSinceBirth Dec 2017 #57
dsc Dec 2017 #69
DemocratSinceBirth Dec 2017 #70
dsc Dec 2017 #71
DemocratSinceBirth Dec 2017 #72
dsc Dec 2017 #73
DemocratSinceBirth Dec 2017 #75
Lee-Lee Dec 2017 #43
LisaL Dec 2017 #45
mountain grammy Dec 2017 #46
Vinca Dec 2017 #47
LisaL Dec 2017 #51
femmedem Dec 2017 #50
stonecutter357 Dec 2017 #53
ollie10 Dec 2017 #54
MariaCSR Dec 2017 #58
workinclasszero Dec 2017 #63
Egnever Dec 2017 #68
HopeAgain Dec 2017 #76
fescuerescue Dec 2017 #79
Proud Liberal Dem Dec 2017 #81

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 12:27 AM

1. What would the ethics investigation have changed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 12:32 AM

5. Well how the heck do you know what they would have found?

 

Even if one of the women turned out to be a Roger Stone trick, that would have been useful to know.

This won't be the last time charges are made against Democratic Congressman. And our behavior will only encourage fake accusations (of any type, not just sexual harassment) in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 12:36 AM

6. It would have changed the fact he didn't get due process.

Not only that, but it seems to me these accusations are somewhat spurious, not worthy of ejecting someone from the Senate.

You do this zero tolerance stuff, and you're going to end up getting rid of every man over 55 or 60, and you'll also lose the respect of independent voters, millennials and you'll split off half your electorate, which is male.

Plus, the zero tolerance thing does something far more insidious than merely splitting the party at a time when we most need unity. It makes every man over age 55 vulnerable to any mealy mouthed accusation from any right-wingnut, and BOOM, we have a knee-jerk reaction and force the man out.

Sorry, but I'm not EVER going to stand still for bullshit like that.

Bad politics, and throws common decency, common sense and due process out the window.

Zero tolerance is nothing but a kangaroo court.

Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 12:57 AM

9. So, it's not that he's innocent, it's that the accusations aren't serious enough?

You do this zero tolerance stuff, and you're going to end up getting rid of every man over 55 or 60, and you'll also lose the respect of independent voters, millennials and you'll split off half your electorate, which is male.


I don't know about you, but I'm 58 and I've never done anything that would be considered sexual assault or harassment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 01:05 AM

13. Spurious means fake/false, not "aren't serious enough". To address your last sentence, not that you

are aware of. Which is a problem. You've never hugged or touched someone without asking for permission first? You've never flirted? Those can be sexual harassment and if the person doesn't tell you, you may not know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 01:08 AM

15. "You've never hugged or touched someone without asking for permission first?"

No, I haven't if I didn't know them.

You've never flirted?


No, I haven't. I started a relationship with (and married) a friend from College, and never "presumed" my right to do anything with her.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 01:16 AM

17. All you have hugged or touched people you know without permission. Why

would you assume that it's ok to do that? Why assume that sexual harassment or assault is only between strangers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 04:20 PM

66. Well you are the exception.

I have kissed men without asking...and I saw Tweeden grabbing some guys butt on video...pretty sure she didn't ask. I am against all zero tolerance bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 01:18 AM

18. You're missing the point, I think.

I said 'spurious,' not 'not serious.' There's a difference. But let's think about that for a minute. Let's say you are in office, and your opponent decides to sling some mud at you. So, somebody crawls out of the woodwork, makes an 'allegation' and then...what?

Lynch mob?

Railroading?

Tar and feathering?

I'm 59. Doesn't matter. You gonna get rid of anyone that someone alleges did something before even investigating? And if you've ever flirted with someone or stolen a kiss or touched someone without their permission, maybe years ago at a Christmas party, and then she 'comes forward' with an allegation...you willing to 'be a good sport' and just fade into the woodwork, livelihood gone, position gone, good name besmirched? Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 01:37 AM

20. It would have given him the opportunity to answer accusations by REAL PEOPLE,

not people making anonymous claims.

No claim that a woman wasn't willing to testify about, or at least provide a signed deposition, should have been considered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 02:53 AM

36. Ok, then-"Brooklynite in '20!"

 

Now that we've got that sorted out...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 08:25 AM

38. I'm touched, but as a member of a hated minority, I can't run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #38)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 04:17 PM

64. For whatever it's worth, I sort of like you.

 

n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 04:19 PM

65. Even if every word is true...I don't think they are serious enough for a forced resignation, but I

don't think they are true...but either way...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 12, 2017, 09:00 AM

80. Are you sure?

Have you never put your arm around some woman's waist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 12:40 AM

7. As opposed to now? How many things do you want me to cite?

 

1. Witnesses questioned under oath. - It's one thing to make an accusation to someone in the media. It's quite another to be under oath and know you can be charged with serious crimes if it is determined you didn't tell the truth. Federal Perjury and Lying to congress are pretty bad things to have on your record and can land you in federal prison for up to 5 years. A long prison stay and forget getting a good job after that. Do any of the witnesses have a history or affiliation that pertains to the case. Have they ever been convicted of perjury before.

2. Examination of the facts. - An investigation would no doubt determine time, place, etc. Was Franken even in the place that it was alleged that these things happened in each case. Who else was around. When one of the accusers say that he cupped her buttocks, who was standing behind them who might have seen what transpired. Has any of these accusers posted things on Facebook or Twitter like "I want to get those !@#$ing Democrats no matter what" or "We need to protect Donald Trump and I am going to do that..."

3. Sunlight on all of the above. Get all of the accusers, witnesses, etc. on TV on the record and see what else pops up.

4. In Tweeden's case, I'd like her state of mind at the time all these alleged things happened explored. She felt the USO performances were times to grab the butts of various male performers and simulated sex with Robin Williams on stage was OK but a staged open mouthed kiss was too far? Explain that so that we all understand it including those who act and who kiss other people open mouthed all the time in scenes.

How is that for starters?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 01:14 AM

16. Do you honestly believe that the hearing would be this adversarial?

One or more accusers would say they felt harassed or groped. AL Franken would say he doesn't remember things that way. The result would that we were back to where things stood on Thursday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 01:39 AM

21. Several of the complaints would have been dismissed out of hand -- as they should have been

as long as they remained anonymous.

Then he could answer specific claims by whatever women chose to come forward. Such as Leeann Tweeden and Tina Dupuy. Under the bright light on investigation, I doubt that their claims would be judged to have substance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 01:49 AM

22. The senate ethics committee by law has an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, 3 each

 

One of the Democrats is Chris Coons who has his law degree from Yale and who I am guessing knows how to cross examine witnesses.

First lets see who shows up. If all of them refuse, we have our answer. If they do show up, lets see if they make the same accusations under oath and if they do, let's see if their stories hold up.

So a number of things could easily change the whole ballgame here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 01:02 AM

11. The recognition that an investigaion was warranted ...

... and pursued, as opposed to assuming it "wouldn't have changed anything", so let's not bother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 02:08 AM

26. At least that would be some form of due process.

Character assination is all Al Franken got...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 02:13 AM

27. One accuser was happy she was spared reliving the trauma of someone

noticing she had a fat roll. She quit smoking, you see, and she gained weight. Then she asked for a picture with Al, and he put his arm around her for the picture and touched her waist. That upset her because of her muffin top. But, if she hadn't gained weight, it might have been okay.

So an ethics investigation would have forced people to admit that their vanity issues about weight gain are not really sexual harassment.

That's what an ethics investigation could have changed.

Then Minnesota could still have the Senator they elected.

And we could still have a Senator who was going after the Republican traitors in the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 08:37 AM

44. Yes, exacty!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 08:55 AM

52. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 08:31 AM

40. MN voters had their election overturned

and as a NC I can sympathize with that. The GOP down here had repeatedly tried and in many cases succeeded in undoing elections the results of which they didn't like. I, for one, would have liked to have known if the anonymous accusers were who they were portrayed to me. I also would have liked to have know to what extent Stone was involved. Maybe after all was said and I done I would have agreed he had to go, but I think the people of MN, not Al Franken, were robbed of due process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 08:32 AM

41. We'll never know.. why don't you want an investigation?

Are you not the least bit concerned about the role of right wingers in this Franken smear? Not the least?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 12:54 PM

61. I think it would've changed a lot -- here's why

 

If you remember back to his original statement -- better yet, go read it -- he was very careful in what he said. He admitted only to that revolting photo and apologized profusely for it. He also was very supportive of his accusers, but did NOT "admit" to any of it, despite the conflation done by various pundits and others. In fact, he said -- choosing not to call his accusers liars -- that he "remembered it differently" than what they said. And the final accusation, you'll recall, he flatly denied.

What he also did in that first statement was IMMEDIATELY call for an Ethics Committee investigation on himself.

All of this told ME that he was NOT GUILTY of most if not all the stuff being said about him and would take the highroad, not fight with the accusers, but let Truth come out.

We now know that Roger Stone had a part to play in the Tweeden accusation. And some of the others are, IMO, more than a little slim.

So I firmly believe Franken counted on the Ethics Committee to clear him, but Senator GoodShoes Gillibrand had other ideas, claiming (wrongheadedly) that "what's the difference between groping and assault" (or whatever her version was) "is the wrong conversation to be having." NO, it's the RIGHT conversation to be having when you're busy ending people's careers and shooting ourselves in the foot.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 10:36 PM

78. Wow, why DOES ANY investigation happen then? You seriously do not get it! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 12:30 AM

2. You are right.

They all deserve our scorn. They're going to hear about it from me tomorrow. I'm mad as hell and very motivated to call them out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blue cat (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 01:03 AM

12. We need to keep calling, emailing, tweeting, facebooking

because I don't think they get how much we're in agreement, we minions of the Democratic party

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 02:03 AM

25. Damn right! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 12:30 AM

3. accusors didn't want an investigation . Gillibrand led it just like Bernie did with the medicare

thing which he had no actual bill on . that's why they get scorn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 12:31 AM

4. How could she be this tone deaf? Did someone set her up?

This is possibly one of the dumbest career-rattling political moves I've ever seen. That it comes from someone who seems intelligent just boggles the mind

Now I'm starting to wonder if someone encouraged her to do this AND is that same someone/s behind the major blowback she's getting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 12:45 AM

8. She is my senator, and I like how she has been doing, but I did not think her ready for the national

 

scene and running for President. I never saw indications that she was ready for something like that and this reinforces it.

This is a judgment issue, and a lot of these folks failed in my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 01:06 AM

14. No doubt... disappointing beyond belief!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 02:35 AM

31. This is a judgment issue... and they failed

 

Exactly!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egnever (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 04:22 PM

67. That is what I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 12:55 PM

62. My sentiments exactly

 

And a skewed and ugly sense of justice and due process -- esp. for someone who is a lawyer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 12:58 AM

10. Several reasons

 

One, it's clear there is a pattern. 8 different women have accused him. It's clear that this wasn't just a one time thing, it was going to keep dragging on.

Second, the general public doesn't particularly differentiate between how we and the Republicans have been dealing with sexual harassment and assault. Now there is a difference. Additionally it's hard to talk about sexual harassment and assault for people like Moore and Trump when the general public doesn't feel all that differently about Moore and Franken (regardless of whether they should or not, there isn't a huge difference between the number of people who think Moore should withdraw and Franken resign) and there isn't a lot of difference between the vast majority of the accusations against Trump and Franken.

Third, there is relatively little political cost. Dayton will appoint a Democrat and given that Franken's approval rating in Minnesota dropped from over 50% to mid 30s%, his winning reelection wasn't even remotely a sure thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 01:58 AM

23. The multiple accusations are a concern, but there were also troubling issues with the accusations

 

1. In the cases of Weinstein, Spacey, O'Reilly, Ailes, Lauer, etc., you have tons of folks all around them saying they knew they were creeps. You don't have that with Franken.

2. In the cases of Weinstein, Spacey, O'Reilly, Ailes, Lauer etc., you have the people stepping forward and giving their names, etc. The anonymous nature of many of the accusations against Franken are troubling.

3. The original accusation by Tweeden is not credible for several reasons.

4. There is nothing that this resignation gives us that we couldn't get from waiting until the ethics committee completes an investigation.

I stopped defending Franken after the accusations beyond Tweeden came out. I was concerned enough to take that step. But I had the expectation that a senate ethics investigation would play out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 08:34 AM

42. I don't believe four anonymous should even count.

If they weren't going to use their name, seems unlikely they would have wanted to testify under oath during Ethics Investigation.
I have no clue if these people are who they say they are, and why should such anonymous accusations be considered credible?
Of the named ones, last one claimed Franken groped her waist during photo.
If we count that as abuse, lots of people will be out of work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 10:23 PM

77. Completely disagree on the "relatively political cost"

1) If you liked Al Franken, voted for him, supported him, he has resigned under a cloud and no longer represents you. This can't be written off as a minor cost.

2) The election cycle has been moved up in Minnesota by 2 years. Now you have one more seat to defend in 2018 in a formerly blue state that is trending purple, and you may well have a candidate that doesn't have statewide name recognition. The drop in Franken's approval rating is not just a reflection of this issue, it's also a reflection of trends in Minnesota. There is no guarantee that this seat is going to stay blue; you took a guaranteed seat and put it into play

3) The political cost beyond Minnesota is obvious just from looking at this site. These are the voters you're counting on in 2018. Do you really think this is going to increase support, fundraising, enthusiasm, volunteerism within the party? The wind was at the Democrats back with the twin albatrosses of Roy Moore and Donald Trump, with an investigation of obstruction of justice and election interference that is having good results. So, you change the headlines, hand the right a victory over a prominent Trump opponent, and this isn't a political cost?

Not to mention that there's the risk of heightening cynicism among people who already support a change in workplace culture to oppose sexual harassment, but who also have concerns about character assassination if all allegations are treated as true. You are doing this yourself in this post. We all should be more careful in what we assume based on a media report and glib equivalences. This situation did nothing on that score.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 01:32 AM

19. It is complete BS!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 01:59 AM

24. Yes indeed. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 02:19 AM

28. I agree..

and I hope Franken doesn't resign. He is a true champion of the people and are greatest Democratic supperter. He is one of the hardest Senators that hit the recons on their despicable behavior and we would lose one of our greatest champions...which is why he was targeted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 02:19 AM

29. Steven, I don't understand either. It feels like mass madness, completely self-destructive...

...and I am just so pissed off at them all for not having each other's backs at least to the extent of insisting on following due process -- such as an Ethics Committee investigation. Gee, what's wrong with that? They find him culpable? They clear his name?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 02:29 AM

30. In the speech announcing he would be resigning, Franken specifically spoke to that issue...

He said:
But this decision is not about me. It's about the people of Minnesota. It has become clear that I can't both pursue the ethics committee process and at the same time remain an effective senator for them.

(From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/12/07/al-frankens-defiant-unapologetic-resignation-speech-annotated/ )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 10:57 AM

60. He can't speak to the issue I am discussing. It's why the pressure from other senators to resign. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 02:40 AM

32. " If Gillibrand deserves our scorn, they all do"

They all DO. Due process should not be optional. There is no alternate route, no detour. Al Franken has (had?) a Sterling reputation. He was genuinely sorry for Leean Fox Hannity Stone Trump Tweeden's variant memory of their acquaintance. He apologized for THAT. Nothing else.

The other "accusers" are spurious, too, to say the least. Scorn would be a minimal application for the 33 So-Called-Democratic moral judges, who rendered their verdicts before there could be a hearing. Let alone a trial. Shame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 02:41 AM

33. Frankly squeeze-gate seems like a pretext.

Somebody wanted to hustle Franken out of the Senate and it probably wasn't Gillibrand. But she willingly took credit for it and that's going to stick with her for a long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 02:48 AM

34. Did you ever think that maybe Franken knew that what has been uncovered

 

will be found out to be true enough? Or that there is at least one uncovered major skeleton in his closet that he doesn't want to go through dealing with? And that he resigned to take the focus off of himself and try to make something good of it?

What I can say is, Franken is no shrinking violet. And to watch him go from denials to saying he'll resign certainly raises questions ... and that big question is, why the sudden change? Because I can see Franken standing there in the Senate and stating that he's not guilty and that he looks forward to an ethics investigation to get it all out there and being a supporter of accused rights as well as victims rights. And he either switched to saying he'll resign because Democrats either used coercive tactics behind the scenes to get him to resign or there is more to Franken's behavior than we already know.

When Franken became a Senator, I saw it more as a "stick it to the Republicans" kind of event, especially after they drew out the inevitable court battle for his seat. But over the last few years, he has proven himself to be a solid Senator and for that I will be sad to see him go.

I have no idea what the real circumstances are ... just like every single person around here. I find it sad watching the victim shaming that's gone on, on this foru. It shows that when it comes to sexual harassment accusations, people are just as partisan about that here as they are about anything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SFnomad (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 08:44 AM

48. Your thoughtfully crafted post is full of truth and wisdom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SFnomad (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 10:56 AM

59. Yes I have. That is one possibility, but it doesnt explain the pressure from other senators.

 

Which is what this OP is about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SFnomad (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 09:42 PM

74. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 02:50 AM

35. That's essentially what I have written to them. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 03:35 AM

37. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 08:27 AM

39. Bob Packwood's investigation took three years and only concluded when...

Bob Packwood's investigation took three years and only concluded when Mitch McConnell prevailed upon him to resign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #39)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 08:45 AM

49. There is no earthly reason for that should take anything like that long

I would say two weeks at most.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 09:57 AM

55. There are nine witnesses and countless corroborative witnesses for the accusers.

Who knows how many witnesses Senator Franken would call ? Don't take my word for it. I'm just a random internet poster. Contact somebody who knows how long these inquiries take.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #55)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 10:17 AM

56. half hour per side, per witness

work 10 hours a day. This isn't the Lindberg kidnapping.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #56)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 10:36 AM

57. If you can cite an authoritative source that an inquiry of this size and magnitude

If you can cite an authoritative source that an inquiry of this size and magnitude cam be conducted in ten days I can be persuaded. Up to and until that point I will rely on history. The Packwood investigation took three years and wasn't concluded until Mitch McConnell prevailed upon him to resign.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #57)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 08:22 PM

69. three years is longer than the Menendez brothers and OJ

which are famous for being ludricriously long trials. I can't fathom that this relatively simple case would take anything like 3 years. Assuming cooperation from Franken and a reasonable limit on the time witnesses are interviewed this shouldn't take all that long. Due process matters and it didn't have to take all that long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #69)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 09:16 PM

70. O J was arrested on June 17, 1994. He was acquitted on all charges on October 3, 1995

That's fifteen months and that's after Simpson demanded a speedy trial because he was refused bail and languishing in jail.The Menendez brothers were arrested in 1990. Their trial began in 1993. That's three years.

Please feel free to fact check me.

Any way those are criminal trials and not congressional inquiries. The Packwood sexual harassment inquiry which is similar to the inquiry which would occur in the Franken situation took three years and wasn't resolved until Mitch McConnell intervened as I stated:


Nearly three years after the allegations first went public, the Senate Ethics Committee voted unanimously to expel Packwood from the Senate.


https://www.npr.org/2017/11/27/566096392/when-bob-packwood-was-nearly-expelled-from-the-senate-for-sexual-misconduct


If you can cite an authoritative source that a trial of this magnitude can be conducted in ten days please cite him or her.


Thank you in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #70)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 09:22 PM

71. the trial wasn't 3 years which is my point

10 days may be a bit aggressive of a timeline but three years is nothing short of insane. I have no idea why the Packwood case too so long but I do recall litigation over his diary, so that might be part of the reason. This isn't that complicated of a case. Even if each accuser took a full week to litigate their claim, which seems to be a quite excessive amount of time, that would be 8 weeks. So if we had started the day his resignation was announced (I think Thursday) the case would be over by Groundhog day. That doesn't see like all that long to give the million MN voters who voted for Franken before undoing their vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #71)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 09:36 PM

72. In other words you don't have an authoritative source.

You just have an opinion, not based on prior investigations but based on how long you think an inquiry should take.



Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

-John Adams


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #72)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 09:41 PM

73. From the myriad of trials our society has

Again, the two trials I cited are literally historically known for taking a huge amount of time. Yet combined the maybe just passed the 3 year mark. Trails don't routinely take months for cases where a man touches a woman's rear end or kisses her forcibly. This isn't investigating 9/11 or some complicated plot. Again, one week per person seem excessive to be honest. But lets spend one week per accuser that gets us to Groundhog day or if we start now about President's day. After that process I might even agree that he should go but I don't think because we don't want to spend the time investigating is a good enough reason to say f you to MN voters which is exactly what we are doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #73)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 09:44 PM

75. You keep repeating how long you think the inquiry should take which is your right.

You keep repeating how long you think the inquiry should take which is your right and I would defend to the death you're right to hold that opinion.


However the evidence suggests these inquiries take a long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 08:36 AM

43. The Senate Ethics Committee has never investigation that took place before a person was a Senator

 

Itís questionable at best if they have the authority to, and itís very likely that they wonít because none of the other members of the Senate want to set the precedent that their entire lives before they were elected are fair game for the ethics committee.

The folks talking about an investigation who are in the Senate know this and are just talking about an investigation to sound good. Only one of the allegations is said to have happened when he was a Senator so the rest would be not subject to an Ethics Committee investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #43)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 08:38 AM

45. Not all accusations were before Franken became senator.

The lady who claimed Franken put his hand on her butt during photo would be after Franken became senator.
So that one could have testified.
Also, heard some senators claim they will investigate Moore. Since all Moore's alleged offenses took place before he became senator (if he does) then presumably the Senate now is willing to investigate even before someone becomes senator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 08:38 AM

46. I've contacted every one of them

a couple, including my Senator Bennet, more than once..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 08:42 AM

47. The Democratic Party is now officially split because due process was ruled out.

It seems this is a political move intended to gain women voters. What happens if the next charge is against a female member of Congress? Do they get the boot or a hearing? There are plenty of reasons to question some of the Franken accusers, beginning with the first which seems to have been connected somehow to Roger Stone and Sean Hannity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #47)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 08:54 AM

51. What happens if its against a male?

By the standard they set, anybody accused, even anonymously, will have to resign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 08:52 AM

50. I'm calling Sen. Murphy today to complain and Senator Blumenthal to thank him.

Murphy called for him to resign and Blumenthal waited until after he resigned to make a statement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 09:13 AM

53. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 09:31 AM

54. They all are tainted

 

But gillibrand was the leader of the lynch mob

And sheis running for president.

The buck may not stop with her, but there is such a thing as responsibility

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 10:37 AM

58. Al Franken out. Roy Moore in. That's where we're headed.

 

I hope Dem senators think it was worth it when the ACA gets repealed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 01:00 PM

63. Total HS that democrats railroad a fellow senator right out of office without

 

one hearing or investigation!

Pure McCarthyism, lynch mob mentality.

It's downright shameful that this happened and Trump and his party approve 1,000,000,000 percent no doubt!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to workinclasszero (Reply #63)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 04:32 PM

68. Sadly they don't

 

And we have given them a way with this to point at us and ask if witch hunts is the direction America wants to go.

MN republican governor has an oped against it as do several conservative commentators.

It is a losing issue for us and I can't believe our leaders took us down that road.

A gross miscalculation at best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 09:57 PM

76. Mistaken belief they could side step

Republican whataboutism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 10:36 PM

79. I don't think that "we" had anything to do with it

This was something decided without our input.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Tue Dec 12, 2017, 10:53 AM

81. I'm dumbfounded as well

It seems like they panicked and then all leaped to push for his resignation either because they thought Franken was becoming a political liability for Doug Jones in the Alabama Senate race and/or the Democratic Party (even though what Franken and Moore are accused of are VASTLY different things) or they felt like they had to kick him to the curb to solidify our moral superiority over the Republicans. Either way, it was a bad move for all kinds of reasons, not the least of which that it establishes a precedent, at least for Democrats, that may make it impossible to continue serving in the Senate (or Congress) if enough accusations of impropriety - even if unproven- accumulate against a sitting member. Gillibrand and the others thought they might have thought that they were doing the right thing by embracing the #metoo movement but it may turn out that the cost they paid- pressuring Franken to hurry up and resign without an investigation- to show their solidarity with #metoo may be too high in the long term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread