Re: Franken Revisted
 

I find it amazing that after the detailed account of what actually took place when it comes to the main accusation, that you simply dismiss this article. It seems clear to me that this woman became a Republican operative, had a photo that she could use, figured out how to use it with the help of Conservative news dipshits, and did so.

As for all the other accusations, I thought they dug as far as they could possibly go given the nature of the claims (some even being anonymous). One woman said he held her around the waist while she had her arm around him for a photo--what the fuck?

The article was an attempt to fill in some of the blanks that the rush to judgment steamrolled over--to provide context that no one was trying to hear at the time. But whatever. It has become clear that your mind has been made up on this and that's that.

This is fucking bullshit. You were provided with the whole context of the performance, she lied about that context, and it seems very clear he never touched her when it came to that photo. You are ignoring the evidence because you want to be right about this.

That's because whether or not his successor is a good senator is not what this article is about in the slightest.

Jesus fucking Christ, man. Franken was denied due process and forced out of his seat as a Senator. I am all for taking these types of allegations seriously. There is no question about that. Franken was too. But denying someone due process and forcing them out is not taking the allegation seriously. It's pure political bullshit (which, based on what you've said about his replacement is apparently all that matters to you).

And as Gillibrand decided to use this to build her own brand, she helped kick him out the fucking door while she introduced his bill and took credit for it? That's some dirty shit.

TM

Re: Franken Revisted
 

Why? I don't know her, so I'll need more.

TM

Re: Franken Revisted
 

Let me stop you right there. Who declared one of the accusations "main?" Is it more important than the rest or is it just the one Al remembers and can put context around?

I guess it was first (to my recollection) and the most detailed, but they're all allegations misconduct that would have needed to be investigated, and dismissing one doesn't make the others go away.

Yes.

Yes, the politics is the only part that matters. Jesus, how is that even in dispute?

I do not care on whit about whether Al (or any them) gets to continue to be a Senator. I do not care about what is "fair" to Al or what additional process any particular person thinks is or should have been due. The politics of it meant that Al needed to go, his colleagues told him that and he made his decision. That's it.

That people defending Al continue to singled out just one of the women involved - which Al doesn't seem to do himself - is one of the strangest parts of the whole thing.

ETA: Or what Amanda Marcotte said: https://www.salon.com/2019/07/22/wha...ken-denialism/

Re: Franken Revisted
 

She's been one of the main people reporting #metoo stories.

Re: Franken Revisted
 

Ah. I see. This is going to be a stupid conversation. Okay.

The main one is the one with the photo. The main one is the one that kicked the whole thing off. The main one is the one which brought all the others out of the woodwork. If you're going to drag us into a world where we're having this conversation, then you need to show me all the evidence for all of the other allegations and then let's discuss those, by all means.

No fucking shit. Franken wanted them investigated. I wanted them investigated. Lots of people did and it would have been the right thing to do. You wanted him to step down based on the mere existence of the allegations.

Well, at least you're consistent.

So, in the Senate, members needn't be investigated for misconduct (for their own or others' protection). All that matters is whether the current political climate will allow them to stay or leave, no matter what they've done? How are you even practicing law? Do you work for Barr?

People aren't defending Franken, you numbskull. People are pissed off about the process in this case and how a rush to judgment played out. And they're focusing on the incident for which there is actual evidence. All other allegations have nothing to analyze other than the allegation because holding an investigation apparently had no political purpose.

You talking out of one side of your mouth about how everyone is only focused on one allegation while spitting bullshit out of the other about how there was no need to investigate any of the allegations is monumentally ridiculous.

TM

Re: Franken Revisted
 

Ah. Deep shame that I've mostly associated just Farrow with this phenomenon.

TM

Re: Franken Revisted
 

She has been at the forefront of the #metoo reporting, including the original Weinestein article.

Re: Franken Revisted
 

Can't we, as lawyers, use due process properly. Look, no constitutional violation of Franken's rights occurred. A lot of people in his party called for him to quit and he quit. You may want more process, he decided at the time he wasn't willing to fight for more process, and, frankly, it may well be he didn't want more digging.

Among past political wrongs to cry over, my list goes somewhat like this:

(1) The way Hillary Clinton was treated by the Press.
(2) The way Hillary Clinton was treated by the Bernie Bros.

.....

(100) The way Franken was treated.

.....

(1000) The way poor Bernie Sanders was treated

.....

(infinity) whatever the orange haired shitgibbon is complaining about



But, really, we don't need the whining. He made his choices.

Re: Franken Revisted
 

I disagree with this. The article makes it fairly clear that Schumer was ready to bury him by having the entire caucus call for his resignation. And given the fact that a number of senators have changed their mind about the pressure they exerted, I think it's unfair to say that he just decided not to continue. He was absolutely forced out. And the fact that he decided not to drag the entire party down with him over it doesn't change the fact that he was forced out.

If I came to your office and said when we last hung out, you were really handsy and your partners were like, "Let's not deal with this," and told you that they would issue a press release saying the partnership has no confidence in you even though you wanted the firm to investigate, would you stay and fight? Come on. The right people can tank someone such that they are effectively denied due process.

If the Democrats had said, "We're going to investigate this and if Franken deserves to be bounced at the end, rest assured we will unite to make that happen," that's one thing. But the article points how tenuous the first claim was and how ridiculous a few others were. And a lot of it had to do with one person wanting to own this issue and make a name for herself. I think that's awful.

Who gives a shit? There isn't limited capacity for this.

Ah, so he should step down and when asked about it, even though he feels like he was railroaded, he should decline to answer.

You guys are fucking nuts.

TM

Re: Franken Revisted
 

Why? Because you know she wouldn't just be an apologist?

Re: Franken Revisted
 

I agree he was forced out, but isn't that kind of how it's done in politics? It's a ruthless profession.

I'm with you that this is abhorrent. But again, this is how our political system works. One can only hope that disasters like Franken's resignation may start a conversation that creates enough disgust at the actions of Schumer and Gillibrand to prevent this sort of thing in the future. But I think the public has rightly concluded that wrong and awful behavior has been typical in our politics for so long that rooting it out is impossible. I suspect most people sympathize with Franken here, but figure, caveat emptor.

(That shrugging, by the way, underlies a lot of what's sinking this country. People don't care about civics because govt looks like such a half-corrupt/half-incompetent slop that they expect bad behavior and bad outcomes. And the people who long ago purchased our govt view this not as a bug, but as its greatest feature. And no -- I'm not talking about Russians. I'm talking about the corporate owners of this country going several decades back before the ascension of His Orangeness.)

I believe at the time, MeToo was a "moral panic." In that moment, due process was - literally - seen as an impediment to what I'd call "justice of feelings." Franken was felt to have been awful for that photo, so context was thrown out the window. It was felt that he should be sacrificed, and that his escape by nuanced defense would rob a righteous movement of the pound of flesh it deserved. Moral panics work in this regard. I'm not sure he could have survived if he fought. To win, he'd have to have created a Joseph Welch v. McCarthy moment. To do that, he'd need a number of women in power to say the call for his head w/o process was a step too far. In that political moment, he didn't have those allies. In the vacuum, Gillbrand was able to take him out.

A lot of people would say yes. Why? Because though they can never admit it, they believe destruction of people like Franken is a necessary cathartic act, and a frightening deterrent, for centuries of male subjugation of women.*

That can never be said aloud because it is offensive reasoning, perhaps somewhat medeival. But if you read closely, the absence of defense to your logical argument here - and that absence is total (Adder and GGG have carved around you rather than attacked your points) - leaves us with no other conclusion than they are okay with the awful treatment Franken received because, well, MeToo is the "good" side, and guys who do what he did should be made to fear for their lives.

GGG makes a good point, however, and one which I cannot dispute: Franken chose to quit rather than fight. He who goes to politics throws himself in with the worst of humanity. He can't claim he didn't assume the risk of being shivved. He can't claim he wasn't aware the job might involve him fighting for his political life. At least Franken gets a second act, and has a career (I suspect he'll emerge as a pundit). Many less fortunate entrants in the game of politics leave in prison jumpsuits on BS charges, or punctured by the likes of Ken Starr in political witch hunts.

You are using logic. This is about feelings -- retribution, deterrence, catharsis. And the political opportunism of a certain senator... whose presidential run is thankfully Fucking Dead.

_________
* ETA: Any after the fact assessment of the propriety of Franken's forced resignation, including his own, must be invalidated or ignored. Moral panics hold a very tenuous grip on power. To assess the mob justice inflicted on Franken applies scrutiny to the mob who sought to have him removed without process. It compels an investigation of the logic, or illogic (and perhaps blood lust) behind the movement. If that scrutiny is allowed, then removals such as Franken's may be seen as invalid and thus resisted in the future. The people invested in the moral panic and the political opportunists who capitalize on it can never allow this. (It's kind of like herd investing. Nobody wants to hear about irrational exuberance when the market's flying. If we allow that kind of talk, the market sinks.)

Re: Franken Revisted
 

I don't give a shit if he wants to whine, but fuck him, it doesn't impress me, and if what he'd like to do is find a way back in to politics, well, maybe there are better ways than whining. Frankly, he handled it fairly well and until it gets displaced by the whining, I'll remember him dealing with it with all the possible grace at the time. If Franken just wants to sell books, well, please, can he make them funny and move on from this, because I'm not buying if it's about this stuff.

Yes, there is limited capacity for this. Mine is done, really, got better things to focus on. What did you all think of the Cats trailer?

Re: Franken Revisted
 

I see a bit too much reliance on Tweeden's bias in the New Yorker article. But I see the same hackish behavior in this incredibly weak Salon article you've cited.

Take all of the allegations listed in the Salon article, in context of: (1) when they occurred; (2) how frequently they occurred; and, (3) their severity, and ask yourself: Are these worthy of forced resignation? Are these not of a nature and infrequency over an extended timeline that cries out for due process? Should Franken not be allowed to defend himself, even if his defense is, "I've made mistakes in the past, but I vow not to do so in the future?

Does it not strike you at all that there is significant evidence that crime and the punishment here are disproportionate?

The comparison to Biden seems apt to the extent that, had Franken's transgressions appeared today, where MeToo has matured from a moral panic/media fixation into a more circumspect societal phenomenon, he'd have been able to hold his seat.

But alas, Franken had the misfortune to be targeted by Tweeden, a right wing operative, at exactly the wrong moment, when MeToo was very much a cathartic and raw movement that didn't care much about facts. And Gillibrand was operating under the supreme delusion a stuffed suit like her could become a power player in the Senate, and perhaps even President.

(The New Yorker article delights me because it's the sort of story that reflects badly on Gillibrand and will keep repeating, with her every attempt to run for higher office [and she will]. She stuck the knife in herself when she stuck it in Al. And I suspect she knows it, and it pisses her off to no end, which is perfect karma.)

Re: Franken Revisted
 

Yes, he handled it well at the time and there was a way back if he wanted it, but this isn't it.

Re: Franken Revisted
 

Great. You're done. Doesn't seem that way since you keep jumping in, but whatever. An article that provides a clearer picture is of no use to you other than your focus on Franken's whining. If you're so done, stop posting.

Let me ask you this: What fact pattern would be necessary for you to want an inquiry to be held? If it were just this one woman and it was abundantly clear that she was making shit up? If there were two more women who came forward with stuff like, "He put his arm around my waist for a photo"? Does any of it actually matter or is it purely just a political question?

Given how Democrats operate and how Republicans operate, one would think that Democrats should be more circumspect when there is evidence that Republicans are weaponizing something like #Metoo.

I am as fervent a supporter of holding people to account as anyone. And I understand that, as we shift into a new way of applying that accountability that there may be some collateral damage (which, given how sexual assault has been treated in the past isn't a great tragedy). But we should want to focus on the right people and the right incidents. And if there's evidence that we aren't, that evidence should be considered, not ignored and dismissed.

The article was thoughtfully written and contained a lot of information we didn't have before. If you and Adder want to plug your ears while saying "lalalalala," go ahead (although it seems that you could that without posting about how much you want to actually do so). But your focus on Franken's whining and your unwillingness to discuss any of the substance of the article is just fucking weird.

TM