General Discussion

PatrickforO

(14,559 posts)

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

Mon Dec 11, 2017, 01:18 AM

Dec 2017

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?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

81 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I don't know why we couldn't wait until the ethics investigation played out with Franken [View all] stevenleser Dec 2017 OP

What would the ethics investigation have changed? brooklynite Dec 2017 #1

Well how the heck do you know what they would have found? greeny2323 Dec 2017 #5

It would have changed the fact he didn't get due process. PatrickforO Dec 2017 #6

So, it's not that he's innocent, it's that the accusations aren't serious enough? brooklynite Dec 2017 #9

Spurious means fake/false, not "aren't serious enough". To address your last sentence, not that you uppityperson Dec 2017 #13

"You've never hugged or touched someone without asking for permission first?" brooklynite Dec 2017 #15

All you have hugged or touched people you know without permission. Why uppityperson Dec 2017 #17

Well you are the exception. Demsrule86 Dec 2017 #66

You're missing the point, I think. PatrickforO Dec 2017 #18

It would have given him the opportunity to answer accusations by REAL PEOPLE, pnwmom Dec 2017 #20

Ok, then-"Brooklynite in '20!" Ken Burch Dec 2017 #36

I'm touched, but as a member of a hated minority, I can't run. brooklynite Dec 2017 #38

For whatever it's worth, I sort of like you. Ken Burch Dec 2017 #64

Even if every word is true...I don't think they are serious enough for a forced resignation, but I Demsrule86 Dec 2017 #65

Are you sure? treestar Dec 2017 #80

As opposed to now? How many things do you want me to cite? stevenleser Dec 2017 #7

Do you honestly believe that the hearing would be this adversarial? brooklynite Dec 2017 #16

Several of the complaints would have been dismissed out of hand -- as they should have been pnwmom Dec 2017 #21

The senate ethics committee by law has an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, 3 each stevenleser Dec 2017 #22

The recognition that an investigaion was warranted ... NanceGreggs Dec 2017 #11

At least that would be some form of due process. FarPoint Dec 2017 #26

One accuser was happy she was spared reliving the trauma of someone R B Garr Dec 2017 #27

Yes, exacty! mountain grammy Dec 2017 #44

+1 betsuni Dec 2017 #52

MN voters had their election overturned dsc Dec 2017 #40

We'll never know.. why don't you want an investigation? mountain grammy Dec 2017 #41

I think it would've changed a lot -- here's why RandomAccess Dec 2017 #61

Wow, why DOES ANY investigation happen then? You seriously do not get it! n/t USALiberal Dec 2017 #78

You are right. blue cat Dec 2017 #2

We need to keep calling, emailing, tweeting, facebooking flamingdem Dec 2017 #12

Damn right! nt cwydro Dec 2017 #25

accusors didn't want an investigation . Gillibrand led it just like Bernie did with the medicare JI7 Dec 2017 #3

How could she be this tone deaf? Did someone set her up? leftstreet Dec 2017 #4

She is my senator, and I like how she has been doing, but I did not think her ready for the national stevenleser Dec 2017 #8

No doubt... disappointing beyond belief! InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2017 #14

This is a judgment issue... and they failed Egnever Dec 2017 #31

That is what I think. Demsrule86 Dec 2017 #67

My sentiments exactly RandomAccess Dec 2017 #62

Several reasons mythology Dec 2017 #10

The multiple accusations are a concern, but there were also troubling issues with the accusations stevenleser Dec 2017 #23

I don't believe four anonymous should even count. LisaL Dec 2017 #42

Completely disagree on the "relatively political cost" BlueWI Dec 2017 #77

It is complete BS! BigmanPigman Dec 2017 #19

Yes indeed. nt cwydro Dec 2017 #24

I agree.. chillfactor Dec 2017 #28

Steven, I don't understand either. It feels like mass madness, completely self-destructive... Hekate Dec 2017 #29

In the speech announcing he would be resigning, Franken specifically spoke to that issue... PoliticAverse Dec 2017 #30

He can't speak to the issue I am discussing. It's why the pressure from other senators to resign. nt stevenleser Dec 2017 #60

" If Gillibrand deserves our scorn, they all do" dchill Dec 2017 #32

Frankly squeeze-gate seems like a pretext. ucrdem Dec 2017 #33

Did you ever think that maybe Franken knew that what has been uncovered SFnomad Dec 2017 #34

Your thoughtfully crafted post is full of truth and wisdom DemocratSinceBirth Dec 2017 #48

Yes I have. That is one possibility, but it doesnt explain the pressure from other senators. stevenleser Dec 2017 #59

+1 Kirk Lover Dec 2017 #74

That's essentially what I have written to them. nt Duppers Dec 2017 #35

K&R betsuni Dec 2017 #37

Bob Packwood's investigation took three years and only concluded when... DemocratSinceBirth Dec 2017 #39

There is no earthly reason for that should take anything like that long dsc Dec 2017 #49

There are nine witnesses and countless corroborative witnesses for the accusers. DemocratSinceBirth Dec 2017 #55

half hour per side, per witness dsc Dec 2017 #56

If you can cite an authoritative source that an inquiry of this size and magnitude DemocratSinceBirth Dec 2017 #57

three years is longer than the Menendez brothers and OJ dsc Dec 2017 #69

O J was arrested on June 17, 1994. He was acquitted on all charges on October 3, 1995 DemocratSinceBirth Dec 2017 #70

the trial wasn't 3 years which is my point dsc Dec 2017 #71

In other words you don't have an authoritative source. DemocratSinceBirth Dec 2017 #72

From the myriad of trials our society has dsc Dec 2017 #73

You keep repeating how long you think the inquiry should take which is your right. DemocratSinceBirth Dec 2017 #75

The Senate Ethics Committee has never investigation that took place before a person was a Senator Lee-Lee Dec 2017 #43

Not all accusations were before Franken became senator. LisaL Dec 2017 #45

I've contacted every one of them mountain grammy Dec 2017 #46

The Democratic Party is now officially split because due process was ruled out. Vinca Dec 2017 #47

What happens if its against a male? LisaL Dec 2017 #51

I'm calling Sen. Murphy today to complain and Senator Blumenthal to thank him. femmedem Dec 2017 #50

K&R stonecutter357 Dec 2017 #53

They all are tainted ollie10 Dec 2017 #54

Al Franken out. Roy Moore in. That's where we're headed. MariaCSR Dec 2017 #58

Total HS that democrats railroad a fellow senator right out of office without workinclasszero Dec 2017 #63

Sadly they don't Egnever Dec 2017 #68

Mistaken belief they could side step HopeAgain Dec 2017 #76

I don't think that "we" had anything to do with it fescuerescue Dec 2017 #79

I'm dumbfounded as well Proud Liberal Dem Dec 2017 #81