Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Wasn't a senate committee about to censure Packwood? Or was that different because Senate interns were the victims?

even more apropos since it is the senate.

Here's the Senate Ethics Committee jurisdiction, which you'll see is quite broad:https://www.ethics.senate.gov/public...m/jurisdiction

Yes, if Franken had chosen to move forward he would have been judged by a committee controlled by the opposition.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

even more apropos since it is the senate.

Here's the Senate Ethics Committee jurisdiction, which you'll see is quite broad:https://www.ethics.senate.gov/public...m/jurisdiction

Yes, if Franken had chosen to move forward he would have been judged by a committee controlled by the opposition.

Exactly- he could have been "evaluated" by a R-ruled committee.

Senator Packwood was an ancient R from Oregon. He was accused of harassment I believe. But he decided to resign after the start of a senate "investigation"; because the D led senate released his diaries from decades earlier- when he was a younger Senator he had fucked interns, it was consensual (Hi Bill Clinton!) but he spoke about it in the diary in a manner that came off quite creepy given his ancient age. He resigned.

I do not see an R controlled committee doing much to get to understanding of the Franken photo?

For that matter neither do I. The D's wanted to run with the fact that millions of women had marched against Trump's election, and the pussy grabbing- now there was a picture of a Senator (maybe faking but so what?) tittie grabbing a sleeping women. The photo killed him- "get it, it's funny I'm fake grabbing her tits!"

And she could have blown the guitar player on that stage- that doesn't mean he gets to grab her while sleeping- does it?

I take T's point to be what should the standard be? Like I had posted at the time, the current system is stupid- same with the Cavanaugh "hearings." Ideally some objective, unbiased committee should be in place. Say like the state bar exam ethics side-

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Jesus man. This is the lawtalkers politics board, not the amateur-hour cyclocross board that flower thinks it is.

Really?

Oh.

Shoot.

So ... nobody wants to talk about Wout Van Aert's premature exit from the Tour? I mean, this guy has SERIOUS skillz, and he crashes out in an ITT?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Exactly- he could have been "evaluated" by a R-ruled committee.

Senator Packwood was an ancient R from Oregon. He was accused of harassment I believe. But he decided to resign after the start of a senate "investigation"; because the D led senate released his diaries from decades earlier- when he was a younger Senator he had fucked interns, it was consensual (Hi Bill Clinton!) but he spoke about it in the diary in a manner that came off quite creepy given his ancient age. He resigned.

I do not see an R controlled committee doing much to get to understanding of the Franken photo?

For that matter neither do I. The D's wanted to run with the fact that millions of women had marched against Trump's election, and the pussy grabbing- now there was a picture of a Senator (maybe faking but so what?) tittie grabbing a sleeping women. The photo killed him- "get it, it's funny I'm fake grabbing her tits!"

And she could have blown the guitar player on that stage- that doesn't mean he gets to grab her while sleeping- does it?

I take T's point to be what should the standard be? Like I had posted at the time, the current system is stupid- same with the Cavanaugh "hearings." Ideally some objective, unbiased committee should be in place. Say like the state bar exam ethics side-

Packwood did a lot worse than that. And he tried to cover it up, or destroyed evidence (maybe both). He faced a threat of possible criminal repercussions (bullshit, but scary enough).

Franken did not grab Tweeden while sleeping. He had someone take the infamous photo while she was sleeping.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Packwood did a lot worse than that. And he tried to cover it up, or destroyed evidence (maybe both). He faced a threat of possible criminal repercussions (bullshit, but scary enough).

Franken did not grab Tweeden while sleeping. He had someone take the infamous photo while she was sleeping.

did? or allegations? he was fucked on the diary he produced about things he did that no one objected to.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Wasn't a senate committee about to censure Packwood? Or was that different because Senate interns were the victims?

He was a closeted gay man propositioning people in airports at a time when that wasn't cool.

eta: Never mind, I am clearly confusing Packwood with someone else.

eata: Larry Craig. Carry on.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

did? or allegations? he was fucked on the diary he produced about things he did that no one objected to.

Didn't he refuse to produce certain entries in violation of some senate committee subpoena? (We could look this up, but it's a venture I don't think will provide much interesting shit for the effort.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

He was a closeted gay man propositioning people in airports at a time when that wasn't cool.

eta: Never mind, I am clearly confusing Packwood with someone else.

eata: Larry Craig. Carry on.

"Wide stance." Might go down as the most pathetic of political defenses.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Exactly- he could have been "evaluated" by a R-ruled committee.

Senator Packwood was an ancient R from Oregon. He was accused of harassment I believe. But he decided to resign after the start of a senate "investigation"; because the D led senate released his diaries from decades earlier- when he was a younger Senator he had fucked interns, it was consensual (Hi Bill Clinton!) but he spoke about it in the diary in a manner that came off quite creepy given his ancient age. He resigned.

I do not see an R controlled committee doing much to get to understanding of the Franken photo?

For that matter neither do I. The D's wanted to run with the fact that millions of women had marched against Trump's election, and the pussy grabbing- now there was a picture of a Senator (maybe faking but so what?) tittie grabbing a sleeping women. The photo killed him- "get it, it's funny I'm fake grabbing her tits!"

And she could have blown the guitar player on that stage- that doesn't mean he gets to grab her while sleeping- does it?

I take T's point to be what should the standard be? Like I had posted at the time, the current system is stupid- same with the Cavanaugh "hearings." Ideally some objective, unbiased committee should be in place. Say like the state bar exam ethics side-

Packwood was not involved in merely consensual behaviors. He was pressuring aides and subordinates for sex. Guy was not a hound, but a total scumbag.

Adder has it backwards, I think. The Ds weren't acting out of fear in throwing Franken under the bus. They viewed it opportunistically -- a chance to differentiate themselves from Rs who'd looked the other way at Trump's pussy grabbing. They played the "purity" card, engaging in exactly the sort of behavior Obama has warned them might cost them the election in 2020.

Tweeden's behavior on stage is relevant, by the way. And the length of time she waited is also relevant. This is not some aide being pressured for sex. This is a sophisticated entertainer with a clear bias dredging something from years prior to nail a Senator. She clearly acted in conjunction with R operatives and claimed to have been aggrieved by behavior she didn't seem to think was a huge deal at the time it occurred or in the decade that followed. There's also the axiom that "he who demands equity must act equitably." I don't know the circumstances of her ass grabbing on stage, but one who takes license to grab another's ass without permission - a battery - opens herself to significant scrutiny when she claims to have been injured or upset by a dumb photo in which Franken did not grab her. (I don't know why you keep saying he grabbed her.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Exactly- he could have been "evaluated" by a R-ruled committee.

Senator Packwood was an ancient R from Oregon. He was accused of harassment I believe. But he decided to resign after the start of a senate "investigation"; because the D led senate released his diaries from decades earlier- when he was a younger Senator he had fucked interns, it was consensual (Hi Bill Clinton!) but he spoke about it in the diary in a manner that came off quite creepy given his ancient age. He resigned.

I do not see an R controlled committee doing much to get to understanding of the Franken photo?

For that matter neither do I. The D's wanted to run with the fact that millions of women had marched against Trump's election, and the pussy grabbing- now there was a picture of a Senator (maybe faking but so what?) tittie grabbing a sleeping women. The photo killed him- "get it, it's funny I'm fake grabbing her tits!"

And she could have blown the guitar player on that stage- that doesn't mean he gets to grab her while sleeping- does it?

I take T's point to be what should the standard be? Like I had posted at the time, the current system is stupid- same with the Cavanaugh "hearings." Ideally some objective, unbiased committee should be in place. Say like the state bar exam ethics side-

I'm all in favor of an unbiased committee approach and think it would improve all kinds of political (and other) processes, including by making them less political. Now, by unbiased I don't mean "bipartisan", I mean truly unbiased.

Do you know where I can find an unbiased committee? Please let me know, really, and if possible, I'll take two.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I do not see an R controlled committee doing much to get to understanding of the Franken photo?

For that matter neither do I. The D's wanted to run with the fact that millions of women had marched against Trump's election, and the pussy grabbing- now there was a picture of a Senator (maybe faking but so what?) tittie grabbing a sleeping women. The photo killed him- "get it, it's funny I'm fake grabbing her tits!"

And she could have blown the guitar player on that stage- that doesn't mean he gets to grab her while sleeping- does it?

I take T's point to be what should the standard be? Like I had posted at the time, the current system is stupid- same with the Cavanaugh "hearings." Ideally some objective, unbiased committee should be in place. Say like the state bar exam ethics side-

No arguments with any of this. If the answer is that an ethics inquiry under a Republican-controlled committee wouldn't actually be due process, then Franken was sunk and couldn't even get what he wanted by staying and fighting. That makes sense.

But saying that anything that a sitting senator does is to be judged purely politically is ridiculous. And it's sad that the fucking Ethics Committee (under Republican leadership) could not perform its sworn duties ethically.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

He was a closeted gay man propositioning people in airports at a time when that wasn't cool.

eta: Never mind, I am clearly confusing Packwood with someone else.

eata: Larry Craig. Carry on.

I've a Moth story about how this changed my bathroom behavior in NYC once. I'd link but T already seems surly. Maybe I'll send it the FB?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I'm all in favor of an unbiased committee approach and think it would improve all kinds of political (and other) processes, including by making them less political. Now, by unbiased I don't mean "bipartisan", I mean truly unbiased.

Do you know where I can find an unbiased committee? Please let me know, really, and if possible, I'll take two.

My state just passed an anti-gerrymandering law where 4 D 4 R and 1 or 3 or some number of "uncommitted" peeps votes on districts- I wonder how we test "uncommitted" and who picks them, because there's the magic.

But my State Bar has the committee that looks at your ethics and standards or whatever it is, and I have never heard it used in any way unfairly. Who says the Senate Ethics committee has to be made up of senators?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

-(I don't know why you keep saying he grabbed her.)

Actually I said "maybe faking but so what?" It's the image- it's funny to grab a sleeping lady's tits!!!!

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I am not a Senate rules and procedure expert.

Nor am I. Heck, I don't know much of anything about them.

If you're telling me that it was impossible for Franken to be held accountable for his actions under Senate rules, I do not believe you.

I'm saying the senate ethics process does not address the political problem the party faced at the time.