General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The silence left by Franken leaving is deafening. [View all]DFW
(54,355 posts)Not a ONE of them producing anything credible except what the media was being fed. And, you will notice, not a peep from any of them since his resignation. Very unlikely, I think, if any of them had a complaint worthy of pursuing. Obviously one can't prove a negative, but the onus of proof is on the accuser, not the defendant. I don't care if Bannon had fifty more women "victims" waiting (and no one can prove he didn't) to tell how Al Franken had harassed them. If there were a whiff of truth to ANY of this, I'm sure Al would have announced his resignation long before he did. I go with his decades-long friend's account. Their wives are good friends, too, and wives have a sixth sense about whether or not their husbands are up to something wrong (at least all the ones I know, including my own). Al and Franni are very dedicated to each other, and there would have been rumbles if Al had been doing this habitually (and eight different women constitutes "habitually" to me).
As for those who "believed" he had to resign, I doubt that number, too. I got the distinct impression many of those who publicly "believed" he had to resign said so because they felt they needed to for PR purposes. Obviously I haven't polled the Democratic Senate caucus, but making a terse statement and then acting as if the whole thing had never happened doesn't ring true to me. Only Gillibrand is still huffing and puffing, which sounds to me like she had a point to prove and is finding herself more and more alone in needing to prove it (and still unable to). Washington being Washington, even if I could get some Democratic Senators to admit this privately, it would be strictly off the record, and I could never repeat it, so that point isn't even worth arguing.
Your last point is, I fear, the most valid. If he had chosen NOT to resign, the immense Republican media juggernaut would have been turned on him with full fury, if for nothing else, then for revenge for Moore's defeat. Would that have been worth the distraction? THAT is a good question. A lot of time and resources would have had to be diverted to fight off the "accusations," and accusations are always on page one of the newspaper, where retractions and exonerations are always in the back just before the used car ads. But in the interest of justice and making a stand against false Republican innuendo, I would have preferred to fight this one. The constitution specifically allows Americans to confront their accusers. Al Franken is an American, wanted to confront his accusers, and was not given the chance. A guilty man, no matter where he was from, would not have wanted to.
Again, I trust my source completely, and know how well he knows Al Franken, and because I can't reveal more than that, I was aware that I would have to put up with some skepticism. That will just have to remain that way. From what I could gather from my own sources that I believe to be unimpeachable, Al Franken is completely innocent of all charges and complaints brought against him in this brief smear campaign. If someone else finds them to be credible, especially if there is quality rather than quantity, then so be it. We all have our reasons for finding credibility in our points of view, and I respect that others might not (and for obvious reasons, cannot) share mine.