Should Al Franken Resign?

[carpedm9587]

Franken apologized for that part - and since he didn't say anything negative about Tweeden, Carp is okay with forgiving him on this one.

Beats me as to what he expects if the accusation is actually false.

I appreciate the support - but I'm not sure I'm "forgiving" anyone. I was not the one wronged. For the picture, I accept that the two seem to agree on "what happened" so I accept it as "likely what happened." If I were in Minnesota, I would be asking myself, "is there signs of growth here - or is he unchanged. If it seems the latter, I wouldn't vote for him again. I AM concerned about the example the picture sets for young people, and I would hope that he clearly and forcefully acknowledges the error. That won't make it go away - but it is what I would expect anyone who behaves poorly to do.

For the kiss - that matter is on hold for now because I cannot come to a conclusion on the basis of what is known. I am mostly looking to see how he treats this woman, and how open he is to the investigation. If he shows one OUNCE of disparagement to this woman, I would withdraw my vote (if I were in Minnesota) and call for his resignation or expulsion (wherever I am!)

BTW - long time no see - Teallaura. I hope you've been well!

[Cow Poke]

Umm.. I didn't accuse anyone of doing so. I was explaining why I think as I do about Franken. And no - it's not. My wife and I often have disagreements about what was said by whom in a previous discussion. When I say to her, "I don't remember it that way," I am acknowledging that our memories are different. I am remember it one way, and she is remembering it another. I am not accusing her of lying, and I have no reason to think Franken is doing that either. Indeed - you can't know that either.

The key part of the "memory" was him sticking his tongue down in her mouth. If he didn't do it, he could outright say so. If I was accused of doing that to a woman, and knew I was innocent, I wouldn't just pass with a "I don't remember it that way".

[Teallaura]

I appreciate the support - but I'm not sure I'm "forgiving" anyone. I was not the one wronged. For the picture, I accept that the two seem to agree on "what happened" so I accept it as "likely what happened." If I were in Minnesota, I would be asking myself, "is there signs of growth here - or is he unchanged. If it seems the latter, I wouldn't vote for him again. I AM concerned about the example the picture sets for young people, and I would hope that he clearly and forcefully acknowledges the error. That won't make it go away - but it is what I would expect anyone who behaves poorly to do.

For the kiss - that matter is on hold for now because I cannot come to a conclusion on the basis of what is known. I am mostly looking to see how he treats this woman, and how open he is to the investigation. If he shows one OUNCE of disparagement to this woman, I would withdraw my vote (if I were in Minnesota) and call for his resignation or expulsion (wherever I am!)

BTW - long time no see - Teallaura. I hope you've been well!

Honestly, I couldn't come up with a better word - everything I came up with was too strong or too idiotic.

So that IS you, Carpe! Welcome back!

[JonathanL]

It was a question, Chrawnus - not an accusation.

I'm just dumbfounded about how it's possible to read my post in such a way that that question even pops into mind.

And if he's not - then he has done what he ought...correct? He has apologized for his behavior, has not ridiculed anyone, acknowledges he remembers the other encounter differently, and called for their to be a formal investigation of himself.



Unless Franken's memory is of a playful, jovial encounter while they were horsing around in the context of a skit, with no ill will expressed at the time, and her memory is of feeling "violated." Once, when my wife and I were dating, we had a discussion about being sexually active before marriage. For her it was a big issue. For me it was not. As I have probably shown here, I enjoy a good debate/discussion, so for me we were debating/discussing the appropriateness of premarital sex. It was years later that I learned she experienced that entire discussion as "pressure to have sex." I intended nothing of the kind. I was expressing why I felt it was not a big issue, and was ready and willing to accept her limitations. So I walked away believing we had had a spirited discussion, and she walked away feeling violated.

People do not always walkaway from the same encounter with the same impression.

Tweeden asserts that Franken "aggressively stuck his tongue in [her] mouth". That's not just miles away from the kind of situation you described with your wife, it's in a completely different galaxy. The statement "I remember it differently" in that scenario means something completely different than "I didn't walk away with the same impression".

The photo by itself say nothing to me. There are many circumstances in which it could have been taken, many of which would be no problem for me. The primary issue is consent, and the photo does not tell me about consent. It's suspicious, but not definitive. What makes the photo definitive for me is his acknowledgement of its inappropriateness and his apology for it. With that I am confident saying he acted inappropriately.

To me his apology simply reads as someone caught with his pants down.

[Teallaura]

Except an apology doesn't magically make this all go away. That would be a terrible precedent to establish, if perpetrators of sexual assault could get off Scot-free simply by "apologizing", especially from someone who hypocritically promotes himself as a champion of women's rights.

I was just explaining the position. I actually fall more in the middle - this depends heavily on the case in my mind.

If any allegation of sexual misconduct should result in immediate resignation then they all should. My problem is I don't think allegations should result in punishment. Convictions, yes; allegations, no.

[Mountain Man]

Franken apologized for that part - and since he didn't say anything negative about Tweeden, Carp is okay with forgiving him on this one.

Beats me as to what he expects if the accusation is actually false.

Except an apology doesn't magically make this all go away. That would be a terrible precedent to establish, if perpetrators of sexual assault could get off Scot-free simply by "apologizing", especially from someone who hypocritically promotes himself as a champion of women's rights.

Frankly, I'm dumbfounded that anybody could look at that picture of Franken literally groping a sleeping woman and even attempt to excuse his actions, or say we should wait for more evidence. Like what? Another picture?

[Mountain Man]

I was just explaining the position. I actually fall more in the middle - this depends heavily on the case in my mind.

If any allegation of sexual misconduct should result in immediate resignation then they all should. My problem is I don't think allegations should result in punishment. Convictions, yes; allegations, no.

Irrefutable photographic evidence moves this way beyond a mere allegations.

[Teallaura]

Irrefutable photographic evidence moves this way beyond a mere allegations.

No, it's not. It's evidence, yes, but the accusations are still allegations, not convictions.

It's also not 'irrefutable' - although at present, there is no refutation. If that picture was all she had, he'd be smarter to fight it.

I think he'd lose but I also think he's not fighting because he knows there's a possibility of corroboration.

[carpedm9587]

The key part of the "memory" was him sticking his tongue down in her mouth. If he didn't do it, he could outright say so. If I was accused of doing that to a woman, and knew I was innocent, I wouldn't just pass with a "I don't remember it that way".

All he said is, "I don't remember it that way." That doesn't necessarily mean, "I don't remember putting my tongue down your throat." It could mean, "I remember we were horsing around and it seemed mutual." Or "I remember the kissing, but I don't remember there being any tongue action." Or it could mean, "I remember you initiating it." Those are three that quickly came t mind, and it could mean any number of other things. All we KNOW is he indicated his memory of the event did not match her memory of it, and encouraged an investigation. That investigation will either substantiate what he remembers and clear his name, substantiate what she remembers and he will have another apology to make and his political career is probably over (at the very least), or it will be inconclusive and we will never know.

So many seem ready to pounce and declare guilt. I'd rather wait until we have the information, or simply say, "I don't know."

[carpedm9587]

I'm just dumbfounded about how it's possible to read my post in such a way that that question even pops into mind.

You're right. My response did not match your comment. My apologies. The original statement you made was:

That's just ridiculous. Either he did the things he's accused of, or he didn't, and if he really is guilty of the things he's accused of and feels remorse over them he should just come clean and admit them, without the theatrics of an investigation.

I find that you created a false dichotomy here (limiting the situation to "he did it or not", and dismissed the investigation as theatrics. You omitted the issue of memory. What I see is a man who clearly does not believe he did what he is accused of (i.e., "my memory of it is different than yours" is a statement of disagreement). But rather than simply say, "you're wrong, I didn't do that," he more graciously says, "I have a different memory of that - so let's get an impartial investigation to look into it to see if we can determine which of us is correct." Now compare that to the way Moore, Clinton, and Trump handled exactly the same situation - but with MULTIPLE accusers. Personally, I prefer Franken's approach.

Tweeden asserts that Franken "aggressively stuck his tongue in [her] mouth". That's not just miles away from the kind of situation you described with your wife, it's in a completely different galaxy. The statement "I remember it differently" in that scenario means something completely different than "I didn't walk away with the same impression".

Again, you are making assumptions, specifically that his "I don't remember it that way" means "I don't remember doing that." That is one possibility. It could also mean (as I noted in another post), "I remember you initiating it," or "I remember you being receptive," or "I remember the kiss, but not the tongue," or "I remember it happening with a completely different person," or....and the list goes on and on and on. And the two situations (this one and my wife and I) are not so different. If they were horsing around and he thought all was still in a spirit of fun, but she was aghast and said nothing, they could have walked away with completely different perspectives on the event - just as my wife and I did. And I specifically choose a sexual issue and a pre-marriage issue, so I'm not sure how you get that they are so incredibly far apart. Galaxy? Really?

The bottom line is - we don't know anything - so rushing to judgment is, to me, not warranted. If you feel otherwise, then judge away. I was merely responding to the question asked.

To me his apology simply reads as someone caught with his pants down.

That much is clear. But I do not know what is in another man's heart, so I reserve judgment. And I seem to remember something about motes and planks...? Isn't it a bit odd that the person NOT rushing to judgment is the atheist in the room?

[carpedm9587]

Irrefutable photographic evidence moves this way beyond a mere allegations.

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...

[Cow Poke]

All he said is, "I don't remember it that way." That doesn't necessarily mean, "I don't remember putting my tongue down your throat." It could mean, "I remember we were horsing around and it seemed mutual."

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?

Or "I remember the kissing, but I don't remember there being any tongue action." Or it could mean, "I remember you initiating it." Those are three that quickly came t mind, and it could mean any number of other things. All we KNOW is he indicated his memory of the event did not match her memory of it, and encouraged an investigation. That investigation will either substantiate what he remembers and clear his name, substantiate what she remembers and he will have another apology to make and his political career is probably over (at the very least), or it will be inconclusive and we will never know.

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.

So many seem ready to pounce and declare guilt. I'd rather wait until we have the information, or simply say, "I don't know."

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...

[carpedm9587]

I am finding myself repeating myself, which suggests I've contributed about as much to this discussion as I have to contribute. I will read responses, and answer any direct questions asked of me. Other than that, I'll leave the last word to others.

Be well...

[Mountain Man]

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...

I guess liberals really can get away with anything, even when they're literally caught in the act.

[Mountain Man]

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...

It's mind-boggling that anybody could look at that picture and excuse it by saying, "Now, now, let's not rush to judgment."