Should Al Franken Resign?

[carpedm9587]

Oh, come, now... if you were accused of forcibly putting your tongue in somebody's mouth who had already been objecting to kissing, you don't think you'd remember it? And if you were falsely accused, you don't think you'd vigorously deny it?

I said I would answer any questions asked of me, so...

What I might or might not remember about my circumstances doesn't change the fact that we don't know what "I don't remember it that way" means, for the simple reason that we don't know what it is he DOES remember. And, as I did with my wife, if I were to be accused of something that doesn't match my memory of the exchange, I hope I would do what Franken did - and treat the other person respectfully and seek for a way to resolve the dispute.

But I commend you for not conflating the two incidents she is accusing him of. You comments have been specific to the kiss incident, which is what he said "I do not remember it that way" about and what I have said "let's not rush to judgment about," and not about the picture, which he has apologized for and which I have repeatedly accepted as inappropriate, condescending, and disrespectful. I do not need to withhold judgment about that, because he has acknowledged his actions and apologized. What remains there is for the two of them to sort it out, and for the political process to work it's way through, either dropping him or re-electing him.

But we know what she claims her memory of it was. And it was pretty vivid and accusatory. THAT is the standard he needs to either admit or deny. This "I don't remember it that way" is balderdash.

We know he was guilty of posing for that picture with that idiot expression on his face. It's certainly plausible that her accusations are true, given...

This exchange seems to be devolving, so I will withdraw. Last word to you.

[Cow Poke]

This exchange seems to be devolving, so I will withdraw. Last word to you.

Nope, you get last word.




DRAT!

[carpedm9587]

Nope, you get last word.

DRAT!

As you wish...

[Cow Poke]

As you wish...

[seer]

Woman says Franken inappropriately touched her in 2010

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/politi...010/index.html

[Mountain Man]

A photo proving that they met, three people who can corroborate they were aware of the incident immediately after it happened, and another non-denial from Franken, saying that he poses for thousands of photographs a year, and he's sorry that "Ms. Menz came away from our interaction feeling disrespected." Going to be hard to downplay this one. And it sounds to me like Franken doesn't have the clarity of conscience to be able to simply say, "I would never do anything like that."

[rogue06]

As I noted before, the picture is most definitely suspicious, but what makes it definitive for me is his apology for it. His statement about "remembering it differently" was about the other part of the accusation (the kiss). I understand his statement is not good enough for you. So far, I'm taking him at his word and waiting for the investigation.

Maybe I missed it, but have you been this gracious toward Moore? Taking him at his word and waiting for an investigation to determine the truth?

[rogue06]

Again - you are conflating two separate issues: the picture (for which he apologized) and the kiss (for which he says his memory differs). Without the apology, the picture is NOT irrefutable evidence. It could have been staged as a joke, and now she is trying for fame. It could have been photoshopped. It could have been done with her consent as a joke for a boyfriend, or a shocker for <insert family relationship here>. The bottom line is, the photo is disrespectful, condescending, in poor taste, but it is not "irrefutable evidence" until we know intent. What makes it clear that it was inappropriate is Franken acknowledgement that it was and his apology. I'm assuming he would not apologize for something that was mutual.

You're making a LOT of assumptions...

Obviously if Franken had tried any of the explanations that you're offering it would mean he would be risking being contradicted by the photographer or anyone else there. Actually, I am surprised that the MSM hasn't hunted down any of those people and asked them for their recollections. It is almost as if they would rather drop the whole thing or are afraid what they might uncover.

[rogue06]

A photo proving that they met, three people who can corroborate they were aware of the incident immediately after it happened, and another non-denial from Franken, saying that he poses for thousands of photographs a year, and he's sorry that "Ms. Menz came away from our interaction feeling disrespected." Going to be hard to downplay this one. And it sounds to me like Franken doesn't have the clarity of conscience to be able to simply say, "I would never do anything like that."

The typical political non-apology -- I'm sorry that's how you feel. It puts the blame squarely on the person you did something to.

[rogue06]

In order to defend Franken it appears that MSNBC has turned to blaming the victim.

First folks like correspondent Kasie Hunt and NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent and host of a show on MSNBC Andrea Mitchell have in effect called Tweeden's trustworthiness into question by repeatedly declaring that she was never groped by Franken. That it was "mock groping." The implication here is that if she can't get that right then what else has she got wrong.

This morning, on my drive back from work there was a news story that mentioned someone on one of their shows saying that she isn't credible because she once posed for Playboy and appears to like shooting guns.

Here is a Tweet from a self described feminist author Vivian Copeland using this sort of tactic

00000000000000ars2.jpg

She has also attacked her for wearing glasses during interviews.

Another defense heard on several shows is that he was a comedian and not a Senator so it doesn't count. But so is Louis C.K. and a number of those from Hollyweird who have been accused and that hasn't been a defense for any of them.

[Mountain Man]

So "mock groping" is OK? Nevermind that the photo shows Franken's hands clearly making contact with Tweeden.

And so what if she posed for Playboy? Is she suggesting that Tweeden was asking for it? When has that ever been an excuse for sexual assault?

[carpedm9587]

Maybe I missed it, but have you been this gracious toward Moore? Taking him at his word and waiting for an investigation to determine the truth?

A fair question. My position on Moore is mixed. As to the accusations themselves, I still cannot claim to know what happened, so I am leery about passing judgment on his actions. The sheer number of people stepping forward, coupled with the comments of others who knew him from that period and acknowledge his tendency to date teenagers, coupled with his very poor performance on Hannity raise serious questions for me, but I still cannot claim to know. I wasn't there, and we have another he/she said situation. For the accusations, I have to suspend judgment until an investigation is had.

But his attack of the women accusing him I find unacceptable. I also find his position on religion and politics, in defiance of Article VI of the constitution, unacceptable in a politician, especially one with a legal background. For those reasons, I do not think Moore should be running for, or elected to, office. For the record, I felt the same way about both Trump and Clinton when they used the same strategy of publicly attacking their accusers.

[carpedm9587]

So "mock groping" is OK? Nevermind that the photo shows Franken's hands clearly making contact with Tweeden.

Not sure if this is addressed to me - but I said I would respond to questions, so in the event it is: no - I have said several times that the photo (and what it depicts) is inappropriate, condescending, and disrespectful. As for what the photo shows, we'll have to agree to disagree. I see a man with hands extended to "mock" grope - but the hands are clearly at a different focus depth than the (apparently) sleeping woman. You apparently see it differently.

And so what if she posed for Playboy? Is she suggesting that Tweeden was asking for it? When has that ever been an excuse for sexual assault?

Whether or not she posed for Playboy is irrelevant to the discussion and is not an excuse for sexual assault. We simply don't know (yet) if sexual assault actually occurred - just as we don't know if Moore is guilty of sexual assault, or Trump, or Clinton for that matter.

[rogue06]

A fair question. My position on Moore is mixed. As to the accusations themselves, I still cannot claim to know what happened, so I am leery about passing judgment on his actions. The sheer number of people stepping forward, coupled with the comments of others who knew him from that period and acknowledge his tendency to date teenagers, coupled with his very poor performance on Hannity raise serious questions for me, but I still cannot claim to know. I wasn't there, and we have another he/she said situation. For the accusations, I have to suspend judgment until an investigation is had.

But his attack of the women accusing him I find unacceptable. I also find his position on religion and politics, in defiance of Article VI of the constitution, unacceptable in a politician, especially one with a legal background. For those reasons, I do not think Moore should be running for, or elected to, office. For the record, I felt the same way about both Trump and Clinton when they used the same strategy of publicly attacking their accusers.

Fair enough. But it seems in your second paragraph that you are indicating that your views toward him could well be influenced by politics.

[carpedm9587]

Fair enough. But it seems in your second paragraph that you are indicating that your views toward him could well be influenced by politics.

Absolutely. He's a politician - why wouldn't my view of him be influenced by politics? Moore was a judge who defied two superior court orders, and continues to insist that an Islamic representative should not be seated on the basis of his religion, despite Article VI of the Constitution. IMO, he does not respect "rule of law" and has no place as a "law maker."

But that view is separate from the sexual allegations. On those I have to withhold judgment as to their veracity, but I object to his treatment of his accusers.

If not for his position on "rule of law," and his treatment of those women, I would take the position "I would not vote for him because he does not support policies I advocate and he resists policies I support," but I would not take the position "he is unfit for office."

(just realized you didn't ask a question - and I answered anyway. So much for "I will withdraw." - but your statement was a good one, and opened new territory in the discussion, so I plead guilty to succumbing to temptation... )