Re: Franken Revisted
 

You and Thurgreed keep thinking this is some sort of search for justice. It's not. He was caught being creepy at a time where that was hurting the party and would have kept hurting the party. He had to go.

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?

No one was charged with a crime or punished.

Re: Franken Revisted
 

Is he not allowed to reply to interview questions about it? He must go away and not speak of it? The guy cannot Monday morning quarterback himself?

He's not whining. That's a characterization you are using to avoid discussing substance. You're effectively branding him as shrill, or hysterical.

And the whole point of the piece is his not handling the situation well. Because he couldn't handle the situation at all. Franken was sacrificed by his party which was at the time in fear of a moral panic. He had almost no control and took the only course he thought he had open to him. Now, looking back, he thinks he could have responded differently and perhaps kept his seat. I think he's wrong. But either way, his interview on the subject is both enlightening as to what happened and insightful regarding a strange political moment, and the reprehensible acts of his fellow senators towards him. I'm glad I read it. I'm not so glad I read that tripe you offered from Salon.

Re: Franken Revisted
 

He was fed to the wolves. He deserved better. And I say that with appreciation for the unfairness of politics. I can swallow the caveat emptor response. But it doesn't go down very well in this instance.

ETA: It rings lazy and cynical. And given Gillibrand guided the knife into his back for her own gain - to ride an earnest movement for political points ("I get the MeToo vote now!") - it's really hard not to gag on that explanation. That's countenancing Trump politics. We can look at that sort of thing and say, "that's how the game is played." That's fine. But you seem to be defending what was done to Franken, and criticizing him for pointing out the shitty and sleazy politics, and cowardice, that forced his resignation. That's strange.

Re: Franken Revisted
 

I think this is the major disconnect. To you, the only question is a political one. On that front, you're probably right. At that moment, it seemed the best decision was for him to bounce. And he did, gracefully.

However, you keep dismissing the other part of this, which I find amazing. How do we handle these things going forward? What is the right approach? What are the proper penalties given the behavior? Do we dig deeper on the allegations or is it enough for multiple women to make an accusation? Do we only behave based on political expediency? Why do we even have an investigative mechanism if the only question worth answering is whether it's good or bad for the party?

Two posters each accused me of awful behavior on this board. One (who will remain nameless and who very few people who remain here actually met, but who has been gone from this board for probably 15 years) got completely shit-faced and kissed me and then told a bunch of people I kissed her and how offended she was. The other (patentpara--we all know this story) said I hit on her and made her feel uncomfortable. Both accounts were complete and total fucking bullshit. Luckily, both times others saw what happened. If it were up to you, their accounts would be enough for you to kick me out of here.

I don't add this example as some weird way of explaining why my personal experience makes me think Franken was treated unfairly. I add it because this stuff is hard. If the Democrats can't figure out how to handle the accusations fairly and thoughtfully in the fucking Senate, where exactly will it work?

They needn't have dragged it out. And if the evidence was such that Franken deserved to be kicked the fuck out, doing it after actually looking at the accusations and hearing from him, instead of fighting each other to get to the front of the line of the people who are trying to own #MeToo, would have set an example of how to deal with this shit as responsible adults.

TM

Re: Franken Revisted
 

Look, I read it, I considered it, it focused mostly on one of several instances, and was by a credible writer. but frankly other issues matter more to me. I also think we had a fair bit of that information (not all of it, but a fair bit) at the time. I've posted a couple times on it because people were discussing it, but, really, Al is a big boy and this is a side show.

But, I'll answer your questions - what would have changed things then? Franken made what was a gracious response but a response which was also cautious and very much a non-denial denial on much of this - at the end of the day, there a picture of him "misbehaving" with a passed out woman. The lack of a picture certainly would have helped me feel more strongly about letting some form of process play out. The presence of true denials rather than non-denial denials, so I felt like there was some good chance that we weren't going to have more of these coming out of the woodwork. Of course if it were a single woman with an obvious ax to grind it would have made a difference, but that wasn't the situation.

There's also a local case where I did argue, for about two to three weeks, that someone who had done great work in politics was "entitled" to a bit more deference and more time to have a process because of that work in the past. Someone who I was personally very close to was forced out of their position as Senate President in Massachusetts because of alleged misbehavior (including but not limited to attempts to get people to sleep with him for access) on the part of his spouse, and I am completely convinced that a true hearing process would have exonerated the Senate President of all wrongdoing himself and that he could have stuck it out, though divorcing his husband probably would have had to have been part of that. But his ability to be effective had been completely compromised, and his resigning ended up being the better option for issues he cared about, and after a few bad weeks he did the right thing and stepped down. Because he delayed it there was more fallout and, in retrospect, a faster, classier exit, like Franken's exit originally was, would have been better.

But second guessing these decisions or looking for someone else to blame them on doesn't and shouldn't work in politics. Better to own them and move on, which is what I originally thought Franken was doing.

By the way, folks are having a great time throwing shit at Gillibrand. She has done some great work, especially on rape in the military, and this wasn't some one-off opportunistic thing. Indeed, I suspect it's got a lot to do with why she isn't getting traction in the Presidential race, so it's been politically damaging in very important ways. I'm really finding the attacks on her from many people rather precious.

Now, hopefully that is a thorough answer. Sigh.

Re: Franken Revisted
 

Did you keep voting for Teddy up until the end?

Re: Franken Revisted
 

Yes.

Forgive me for adding more to an already overlong response, just thinking of past issues.

I was a fan of Barney Frank sticking it out when his shit hit the paper and am glad he did. I was not a fan of Studds sticking it out in the same period - his misbehavior involved pages, the evidence was quite clear, and he crossed a different line. Barney really never got a real hearing because there were many people who convicted him of being gay so hiring a prostitute he later married wasn't his greatest sin, so he just took it and stuck it out. Studds should have lost his seat.

So I think the "process" issue isn't cut or dried. Fuckin nuance.

Re: Franken Revisted
 

Wait, a position on the board is the equivalent of US Senate?

This seems to me a big disconnect. This issue arises in many contexts - an allegation against a student, an allegation against a priest, an allegation against a law partner, and allegation against an anonymous poster on a lawyer's bulletin board. There is a big differences between these settings. Frankly, if you were a priest with a position in a Catholic School, damn straight I would want you suspended (perhaps not fired), on any credible allegation that involved sexual misconduct toward children, and I'd have a low bar for credible. But, uh, we don't exactly have the same issues on the board here. Likewise, what happened to Al is different than anything that might happen to you or me or even Hank because none of us are US Senators.

Re: Franken Revisted
 

He's going to have a very hard time stepping back into politics by painting himself as the victim here. Maybe he doesn't want to get back into politics. He certainly doesn't need anything from it.

Pretty sure I never said he was whining, but you're missing the sexism involved labeling things shrill and hysterical. No, there is no inverse that applies to men.

Re: Franken Revisted
 

Yes, how naive of TM to think of justice at a time like this.

Maybe he is trying to clean up his reputation so that he can get a cabinet job in 2021.

Re: Franken Revisted
 

Ted Kennedy, shirtcocking: https://people.com/archive/cover-sto...-vol-35-no-15/

"Ted, she remembers, “was very drunk, and Patrick and I had a nice buzz on.” Left alone in the living room when Teddy, too, disappeared, Cassone heard talk and laughter in another part of the house but never saw anyone. It was only when Ted reappeared that Patrick’s visitor began to feel uncomfortable. As she and Patrick sat chatting, the Senator reportedly walked back into the living room without his trousers; as Cassone tells it, he seemed to be wearing only a long-tailed shirt. “I got totally weirded out,” says Cassone. Ted “didn’t say anything,” she says. “He just looked at Patrick. I said, ‘I’m out of here. I’m leaving.’ ”

Re: Franken Revisted
 

For whom? For an elected official? The answer will always be whatever the political environment requires. There will be an accusation and a response and the politics of the situation will determine what needs to happen.

Elsewhere? Well, companies and groups have policies and we have a legal system that's in place to work those things out.

The two things are only tangentially related. And the former will necessarily be less fair and thoughtful.

Re: Franken Revisted
 

Maybe he just wants to say what he never had a chance to say because Schumer and Gillibrand fucked him.

I'm not missing the sexism. I believe both men and women can be shrill, hysterical, and can whine. You assume sexism because you find sexism everywhere you can, for the slightest of reasons. Let me assure you, I have exactly as much respect for both sexes. Which is very little.

Re: Franken Revisted
 

Forget Franken for a minute. He's fine. He's rich and getting richer.

My larger point is that I understand that we were at the beginning of a movement to hold people accountable--the same ones who had used the system to game it since the dawn of time. Again, there may have been some unfairness as we moved to a new way of handling these allegations. And Democrats (as opposed to Republicans) actually care about hypocrisy. But this can't be how we operate. "What is best for the Party?" cannot be the only question. We actually have to deal with stuff and figure out a way to be fair to the accused and accuser.

People keep comparing this to Roy Moore, which is ridiculous. Moore wasn't deprived of anything. People were given information to use when voting. If he were in office, I would expect that an investigation be performed before removing him. And I think he's absolute trash.

So, does this photo of Tweeden squeezing someone's ass at a USO event give you some context of the atmosphere in which that photo of Franken not touching Tweeden was taken?

https://images.dailykos.com/images/4...peg?1511018370 Do the many accounts of the people who were there change the way you feel about that photo at all? Does the fact that she clearly lied about his intentions change anything? Maybe not. But I would rather know all of that stuff.

Come on. The other allegations were basically:

"I met him and he grabbed my butt."
"I met him and he grabbed my boob."
"He grabbed my waist during a photo."
"He wanted to kiss me but didn't."

I think all of those allegations should have been investigated. And I'm not trying to minimize any of them (especially not the first two, each of which, unfortunately, seem very plausible). But how does one deny accusations of this type if you don't remember them and don't sexually assault people? If someone accused me of grabbing their ass 20 years ago, how the fuck would I deny it? There is no way of flat-out denying it and I think Franken didn't want to show disrespect to any of his accusers (for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the atmosphere and thoughts of his own survival).

I don't think this is how it should work. Either you figure out what happened or you don't. Their good work, non-work, or crappy work shouldn't determine whether or not accusations should be looked into and punishment levied.

Again, I do not think this is a healthy way to operate, even in politics.

Sure she has. But some of her answers when it comes to this stuff have been woeful.

“We had eight credible allegations, and they had been corroborated, in real time, by the press corps.” She acknowledged that she hadn’t spoken to any accusers, to assess their credibility, but said, “I had been a leader in this space of sexual harassment and assault, and it was weighing on me.” Franken was “entitled to whichever process he wants,” she said. “But he wasn’t entitled to me carrying his water, and defending him with my silence.” She acknowledged that the accusations against Franken “were different” from the kind of rape or molestation charges made against many other #MeToo targets. “But the women who came forward felt it was sexual harassment,” she said. “So it was.”

And it doesn't cancel out her good work. But if she gets credit for that stuff, she can take the scrutiny when it comes to her rush on this.

I think that people who were upset with how she handled Franken won't support her. She made that political calculation. She's living with it.

I don't know what this snarky shit means.

TM

Re: Franken Revisted
 

Sexism, like racism, is actually everywhere.

Re: Franken Revisted
 

Put a pin in that. Because I'm almost done with White Fragility (which I've enjoyed quite a bit and found really well reasoned and well written, and enlightening and mind changing in some regards, btw), and I think she's highlighted some unique facets of racism that render your comment here a bit too blunt and general. (Racism is everywhere, but I'm not sure sexism is everywhere in the same unique way.)

But I haven't finished yet (reading four books at once right now), so I'll wait until I've completed to comment.

Re: Franken Revisted
 

Caveat emptor, Kirsten.

She made a choice, just as some here claim Franken made a choice. The only difference is hers was knowing, intentional, self-serving, and calculated. She chose to destroy a colleague for nothing more than her own advantage. Franken, OTOH, was cornered and made the only choice he thought he could.

Re: Franken Revisted
 

Yes, and I think she has a lot of credibility in this sphere.

Re: Franken Revisted
 

One thing I've avoided in my responses are absolutes, but you seem to be looking to read them in so you can beat up a strawman. Fairness is a great thing, but sometimes it gives way to safety. Safety is a great thing, but sometimes it gives way to fairness. Politics may or may not matter, and there is no one size fits all bit for process that is reasonable or fair or whatever other adjective you want. And you and I may balance all these things differently in any given case. Do realize ( and I think you do) that in all of this that one problem that needs to be factored in is the constant discounting of women's voices (I agree with RT on the authorship).

And, yes, Gillibrand paid a price, and I'm not asking you to feel sorry for you, but I am going to laugh at people who say she was being "opportunist". Sure, yeah, it's a great opportunity to get shat on by half your prior supporters. Complain all you want about her, but you do see that it's a bit precious to call her an opportunist, don't you?

TM, I responded to your questions because it's you. But if you want a fight, I'm sure Adder is about.

Re: Franken Revisted
 

Just stop it. Jesus fucking Christ. No one thinks this shit is the same. We're talking about a mindset. You know this, of course.

TM

Re: Franken Revisted
 

So the House and Senate Ethics Committees should be dissolved (or, better yet, flat-out ignored) because you think everything should be handled based on whatever the current political climate dictates.

There is something the fuck wrong with you.

TM

Re: Franken Revisted
 

What? Absolutes? Strawmen? Discounting of women's voices? What are you talking about?

I'm not beating up strawmen, jackass. I'm responding to the things you say. If you don't want to engage, just say so. Don't throw out a bunch of random shit and act like you're exasperated. Hell, I don't even know what your last sentence means. Whose voice is being discounted? The accuser? The author? The anonymous women? Gillibrand's? And discounted how? By asking for their voices to be heard in an investigation? If your point is that we get a kangaroo court like the one carried out by Republicans for Kavanaugh, I'll take that point. If you're saying the Senate Ethics Committee can't or won't hold a fair investigation, or even that that process would be just as superficial and political as the one Franken found himself subject to, I might buy it. But you didn't write any of that.

I think she made a hasty political calculation that did not work out the way she thought it would. And I think she did it at the expense of Franken when she didn't need to. I don't think any of the people she thought might support her would have refused to give her money based on her actual legislative record when it comes to supporting women. And if you equate "getting shat upon" with "won't support your drive to be president" you are down the rabbit hole, my friend.

I don't want a fight. I am legitimately surprised that there is nothing in that article that makes you want to even take a slightly closer look at how it went down. And frankly, as we watch the Republicans stomp all over the Constitution, laws, regulations, procedures, norms, and just plain decency, it surprises me that the only calculation when it comes to how you think we should proceed in the Senate is a cut-throat, purely politically expedient one.

TM

Re: Franken Revisted
 

No, the Ethics Committees are for investigating and handing out penalties for ethics violations, which are different from festering political scandals, which the ethics committees cannot possibly address.

Re: Franken Revisted
 

I think she actually has convictions about men groping women.

Re: Franken Revisted
 

Right. Impossible for the body that runs inquiries and investigations to do so in this case. Better to decide what to do based on whether or not a photo exists and if it has been splashed all over the news.

Now you're just being an obtuse ass.

TM

Re: Franken Revisted
 

Again, this was a political problem. That's not what the Ethics Committee (especially when it's controlled by the other party) is for.

It may have also been an ethics issue too, but they are separate issues. (Also, it would not shock me if there is no Senate ethics rule against being handsy)

Re: Franken Revisted
 

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

Re: Franken Revisted
 

I am not a Senate rules and procedure expert. 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. Is the Ethics Committee the right body? No clue. Is it the Office of Compliance? The Judiciary Committee? I don't know. But the fact that Franken asked for it to be addressed and the answer wasn't "There is no mechanism," instead of, "Why drag this out, you'll hurt the party?" tells me that they chose not to use whatever mechanism is in place.

TM

Re: Franken Revisted
 

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

Re: Franken Revisted
 

Oh, god, maybe I get to fight with you.

Of course the ethics committee could have dealt with this, they dealt with Barney Frank's stuff with Gobie and have dealt with other member scandals along the way involving all sorts of different issues.

Re: Franken Revisted
 

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.

Re: Franken Revisted
 

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-

Re: Franken Revisted
 

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?

Re: Franken Revisted
 

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.

Re: Franken Revisted
 

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

Re: Franken Revisted
 

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.

Re: Franken Revisted
 

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.)

Re: Franken Revisted
 

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

Re: Franken Revisted
 

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.)

Re: Franken Revisted
 

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.