LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 127
0 members and 127 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 05:16 AM.
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 02-14-2019, 06:02 PM   #11
Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
Moderator
 
Oliver_Wendell_Ramone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Rose City 'til I Die
Posts: 3,309
Re: Northam, Warren, Fairfax...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall View Post
I don't think anything I've said indicates that I think she was being insincere. I think it is an important issue to her. But I also think that (i) she wanted to make this her thing and forcing Franken out was part of that and (ii) I don't think she was particularly thoughtful about Franken in particular.

If I ask whether or not Franken should be heard and investigated, and if the behavior warrants banishment (as compared to other types of harassment), and you respond, "I can't tell my son it's okay to touch someone here, but not here," you are giving me a bullshit answer. Period. I watched her do it. She wanted to own the issue, but she didn't want to deal with any nuance whatsoever. Maybe that's not particular to her; maybe that's just what politicians do. But refusing to engage in a thoughtful discussion about how we deal with different levels or types of harassment and leading the charge to oust someone no matter what, is not what I want in a politician.*

Yeah. It's incredibly difficult to remember circumstances surrounding completely anonymous accusations. To the extent they weren't I believe Franken was completely respectful of the accusers and did not simply dismiss them. I do think he wanted an opportunity to dig in to them a bit and address them. He was not given that opportunity.

Are you fucking kidding with this shit?

You say this like you're not just redrafting your entire argument. Franken clearly wanted an inquiry and a chance to address the allegations formally. Gillibrand (and others, but her, the most and loudest) didn't want to give him that opportunity. I think that's wrong. You don't. I honestly don't understand how anyone (especially on this board) can be advocating for punishing people without giving them some sort of opportunity to get to the bottom of the truth and an opportunity to defend themselves.

Notice I have yet to defend Franken. You keep saying I'm blaming Gillibrand. That's kinda true, I guess. But I'm blaming her for trying to sweep the guy out before an ethics inquiry was carried out. That's what she tried to do and what she helped achieve.

It is only clear that he was going down because Gillibrand and a chorus of others decided that was what was going to happen. If Gillibrand and Bernie and Harris had said, "These allegations are extremely concerning. Let's conduct a thorough investigation before rushing to declare our colleague persona non grata. Make no mistake, he will not receive special treatment as a Democrat, friend, or colleague. Etc., etc., etc." it would only be clear that he was going down based on the results of the inquiry.

TM

*That said, if she's the nominee, she'll get all of my support.
You know, people might take you more seriously if you noted that you are one of her constituents...
__________________
Drinking gin from a jam jar.
Oliver_Wendell_Ramone is offline  
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:54 PM.