Should Al Franken Resign?

[Mountain Man]

He allegedly signed it Roy Moore, DA. Moore was the DDA at the time. And few people sign with their credentials when signing for a friend.

Thing is, he didn't even sign official documents with the designation. The "D.A." that appeared on certain filings indicated the initials of his assistant. This makes the yearbook signature even more suspect.

[One Bad Pig]

Yeah, you need to turn in your atheist card - you gots no sreet cred!

[Cow Poke]

t

[Mountain Man]

A writer from the Huffington Post defends Al Franken by claiming that Leeann Tweedan isn't a "real victim" because she was asking for it:

Source: Medium.com

https://medium.com/@SIIPCampaigns/a-...n-ea994c5bbc9a

© Copyright Original Source

These people are sick.

[rogue06]

A writer from the Huffington Post defends Al Franken by claiming that Leeann Tweedan isn't a "real victim" because she was asking for it:

Source: Medium.com

https://medium.com/@SIIPCampaigns/a-...n-ea994c5bbc9a

© Copyright Original Source

These people are sick.

Blaming Tweeden has been going on for awhile

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

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24987[/ATTACH]

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.

[carpedm9587]

Overall - I have to say I find this whole state of affairs rather sad. I'm watching many on the left race to condemn the women making accusations, and defend their candidate of choice. And I'm watching many on the right doing exactly the same thing. From where I sit, I don't see a lot of difference in the way anyone is parsing evidence: if it exonerates their chosen candidate or the candidate from "their team," it's "probably true," and there is a long list of reasons why. If it raises doubts about their chosen candidate or the candidate from "their team," it is "probably false" and there is a long list of reasons why. Each side sees itself as "in the right" and the other side is "pathetic."

Look at the stats about Moore - overwhelmingly Republicans think he's getting a raw deal - and Democrats think he's dirty. Look at the stats about Franken - overwhelmingly the Republicans think he's dirty - and the Democrats think he's getting a raw deal. Does anyone REALLY think that either of those stats reflect what has TRULY happened in either case? Does no one else see that sexual harrassment has become the next stage on which partisan politics plays out...?

Of course not. Because, of course, you're right about your candidate/team, and their wrong about theirs.

Makes me want to retire early and start that extended trip abroad I've been dreaming of...

[Mountain Man]

From where I sit, I don't see a lot of difference in the way anyone is parsing evidence...

It seems to me that you try really, really hard to find moral equivalence where none exists.

On the one hand, we have photographs, specific accusations that can be pinpointed to the exact day, time, and place, people who were told about the incident almost immediately after it happened, and a wishy-washy apology from someone caught red-handed who is very careful to never actually deny the accusations but to say that he's sorry he made women feel like they had been violated.

On the other hand, we have zero hard evidence, vague accusations with no verifiable details, supposed victims who kept quiet about it for decades, stories that fall apart under scrutiny, and consistent and firm denials of wrongdoing from the accused.

I find it baffling that you can look at these two scenarios and say, "Eh, they're basically the same,"

[carpedm9587]

It seems to me that you try really, really hard to find moral equivalence where none exists.

On the one hand, we have photographs, specific accusations that can be pinpointed to the exact day, time, and place, people who were told about the incident almost immediately after it happened, and a wishy-washy apology from someone caught red-handed who is very careful to never actually deny the accusations but to say that he's sorry he made women feel like they had been violated.

On the other hand, we have zero hard evidence, vague accusations with no verifiable details, supposed victims who kept quiet about it for decades, stories that fall apart under scrutiny, and consistent and firm denials of wrongdoing from the accused.

I find it baffling that you can look at these two scenarios and say, "Eh, they're basically the same,"

I'm sure you do, MM - just as my liberal friends wonder how I can look at the situation and say "they're basically the same."

In both cases we have a slew of he-said, she-said evidence, wild speculation about handwriting (when I'm reasonably sure no one speaking is a handwriting expert), assertions of disengenuous apologies/denials, depending on specifically who you're talking about, and the list of assumptions goes on and on. We have photographic evidence, for which Franken has repeatedly apologized - but of course that's just a "cover your butt" apology. But when Trump apologizes for visual evidence of impropriety, it's "the lord teaches us to forgive those who regret their transgressions." It's just bloody amazing to me.

And it's not just about Moore and Franken, the pattern repeats each time someone on the right or left is accused. Trump is innocent screams the right. Trump is guilt screams the left. Clinton is innocent screams the left (or it doesn't matter). Clinton is guilty screams the right. Thomas is guilty screams the left. Thomas is innocent scream the right. Each side playing Monday morning quarterback with little or no adequate evidence. Yes, there are some on each side that call for resignation of their own and/or distance themselves. I'm not sure just how much of that is simple political posturing. If someone on the right apologizes, many on the left accuse them of covering their butt (see - I was good that time ), and many on the right accept their apology. If someone on the left apologizes, many on the right accuse them of covering their butt, and many on the right accept their apology.

So far, the only one I have seen who I think has approached the whole thing reasonably well is Conyers, who has denied the truth of the allegations, stepped aside from his post so as not to be a distraction, and called for an investigation to clear his name. He did all of that without attacking anyone. I have no idea if he is guilty of what he is accused. I sincerely hope not, given his extensive legacy. But time will tell.

BTW - "moral equivalence" is when someone equates two things morally. I have called into question the partisan way each side is interpreting evidence, and refusing to see the partisan nature of the interpretation. That's not moral equivalance. It's pointing out implicit bias.

[Mountain Man]

I'm sure you do, MM - just as my liberal friends wonder how I can look at the situation and say "they're basically the same."

In both cases we have a slew of he-said, she-said evidence, wild speculation about handwriting (when I'm reasonably sure no one speaking is a handwriting expert), assertions of disengenuous apologies/denials, depending on specifically who you're talking about, and the list of assumptions goes on and on. We have photographic evidence, for which Franken has repeatedly apologized - but of course that's just a "cover your butt" apology. But when Trump apologizes for visual evidence of impropriety, it's "the lord teaches us to forgive those who regret their transgressions." It's just bloody amazing to me.

And it's not just about Moore and Franken, the pattern repeats each time someone on the right or left is accused. Trump is innocent screams the right. Trump is guilt screams the left. Clinton is innocent screams the left (or it doesn't matter). Clinton is guilty screams the right. Thomas is guilty screams the left. Thomas is innocent scream the right. Each side playing Monday morning quarterback with little or no adequate evidence. Yes, there are some on each side that call for resignation of their own and/or distance themselves. I'm not sure just how much of that is simple political posturing. If someone on the right apologizes, many on the left accuse them of covering their butt (see - I was good that time ), and many on the right accept their apology. If someone on the left apologizes, many on the right accuse them of covering their butt, and many on the right accept their apology.

So far, the only one I have seen who I think has approached the whole thing reasonably well is Conyers, who has denied the truth of the allegations, stepped aside from his post so as not to be a distraction, and called for an investigation to clear his name. He did all of that without attacking anyone. I have no idea if he is guilty of what he is accused. I sincerely hope not, given his extensive legacy. But time will tell.

BTW - "moral equivalence" is when someone equates two things morally. I have called into question the partisan way each side is interpreting evidence, and refusing to see the partisan nature of the interpretation. That's not moral equivalance. It's pointing out implicit bias.

Bob Villa's home improvement tips: "Be sure to use a broad brush when you want to cover a lot of surface area!"

[Teallaura]

Overall - I have to say I find this whole state of affairs rather sad. I'm watching many on the left race to condemn the women making accusations, and defend their candidate of choice. And I'm watching many on the right doing exactly the same thing. From where I sit, I don't see a lot of difference in the way anyone is parsing evidence: if it exonerates their chosen candidate or the candidate from "their team," it's "probably true," and there is a long list of reasons why. If it raises doubts about their chosen candidate or the candidate from "their team," it is "probably false" and there is a long list of reasons why. Each side sees itself as "in the right" and the other side is "pathetic."

Look at the stats about Moore - overwhelmingly Republicans think he's getting a raw deal - and Democrats think he's dirty. Look at the stats about Franken - overwhelmingly the Republicans think he's dirty - and the Democrats think he's getting a raw deal. Does anyone REALLY think that either of those stats reflect what has TRULY happened in either case? Does no one else see that sexual harrassment has become the next stage on which partisan politics plays out...?

Of course not. Because, of course, you're right about your candidate/team, and their wrong about theirs.

Makes me want to retire early and start that extended trip abroad I've been dreaming of...

I'd rather look at the facts than the stats.

The case against Moore is poor at best - and he hasn't admitted to any form of wrongdoing. Important because of the upcoming Senate race.
The case against Franken is fair - and he has admitted to one form of wrongdoing. Important because he's a sitting Senator.
Clinton? Why bother? Old news and he's not in office.
Trump? Haven't examined it - since the media has been irrational since his election, it hasn't interested me. Let me know when there's a case for actual abuse, wrongdoing or criminal action. I will grant that examination is warranted - he is in office - but so far it's sounded like his usual bombastic nonsense and the media's usual hysteria.

So, two of the cases are lots less than impressive - and I'm inclined to believe the allegations regarding Franken based on the evidence but I would not vote for a criminal conviction on the little we have.

Are they all the same? Of course not. Should they be treated all the same. No. Should the standards of evidence be the same - you bet. Should penalty precede conviction - NO.

[carpedm9587]

I'd rather look at the facts than the stats.

The case against Moore is poor at best - and he hasn't admitted to any form of wrongdoing. Important because of the upcoming Senate race.
The case against Franken is fair - and he has admitted to one form of wrongdoing. Important because he's a sitting Senator.
Clinton? Why bother? Old news and he's not in office.
Trump? Haven't examined it - since the media has been irrational since his election, it hasn't interested me. Let me know when there's a case for actual abuse, wrongdoing or criminal action. I will grant that examination is warranted - he is in office - but so far it's sounded like his usual bombastic nonsense and the media's usual hysteria.

So, two of the cases are lots less than impressive - and I'm inclined to believe the allegations regarding Franken based on the evidence but I would not vote for a criminal conviction on the little we have.

The stats, Teal, were not an attempt to prove or disprove anyone's guilt or innocence. They were to point out the ridiculousness of the approach being taken. You have multiple accusations of wrong doing, and the stats tell us that Republican overwelmingly defend Republicans and condemn Democrats, and Democrats overwhelmingly defend Democrats and condemn Republicans.

The stats tell us that implicit bias is at work. It does not prove that any particular individual is operating out of implict bias, but it strongly suggests that each of us should be looking VERY carefully at our positions to see if that is what we are doing. If your knee-jerk reaction is to defend one party and condemn the other - you're not REALLY looking at evidence, you're just applying partisan polirtics to the issue, which is sad.

Are they all the same? Of course not. Should they be treated all the same. No. Should the standards of evidence be the same - you bet. Should penalty precede conviction - NO.

On this we agree completely.

[Mountain Man]

So far, the only one I have seen who I think has approached the whole thing reasonably well is Conyers, who has denied the truth of the allegations, stepped aside from his post so as not to be a distraction, and called for an investigation to clear his name. He did all of that without attacking anyone. I have no idea if he is guilty of what he is accused. I sincerely hope not, given his extensive legacy. But time will tell.

I would be more impressed if it didn't seem like the ethics committee was little more than a back-slapping good ol' boys club. When was the last time they actually took serious action against a politician? It's more like when a company performs a private internal investigation and then publicly proclaims, "Don't worry, folks, we just investigated ourselves, and it's just as we suspected: we're squeaky clean! "

[Mountain Man]

When I think of a Congressional ethics committee investigation, I think of a Saturday Night Live skit from years ago that lampooned the Clarence Thomas hearings. The skit had a Ted Kennedy character who kept asking questions like:

"Tell me, Mr. Thomas, did you ever call your hot secretary into your office and then step out of your private bathroom wearing nothing but a towel and pretend like you didn't know she was there?"
"No, sir, I never did."
"Oh, well, that's a pretty good one. I've done it a few times myself."

and

"Did you ever dive head first into a pool and 'accidentally' lose your swimming trunks in front of your female office staff?"
"No, sir."
"That's another one of my favorites."

[Teallaura]

The stats, Teal, were not an attempt to prove or disprove anyone's guilt or innocence. They were to point out the ridiculousness of the approach being taken. You have multiple accusations of wrong doing, and the stats tell us that Republican overwelmingly defend Republicans and condemn Democrats, and Democrats overwhelmingly defend Democrats and condemn Republicans.

The stats tell us that implicit bias is at work. It does not prove that any particular individual is operating out of implict bias, but it strongly suggests that each of us should be looking VERY carefully at our positions to see if that is what we are doing. If your knee-jerk reaction is to defend one party and condemn the other - you're not REALLY looking at evidence, you're just applying partisan polirtics to the issue, which is sad.


...

While I agree stats can indicate a bias this is not the set of cases to prove it. The cases with Moore and Franken are substantively different. Clinton and Trump come with so much baggage that I doubt you can get good stats - they're likely skewed to heck and back.

I have no conceptual difficulty with the idea that both sides are biased - but I don't think this is a means to prove anything.

[carpedm9587]

While I agree stats can indicate a bias this is not the set of cases to prove it. The cases with Moore and Franken are substantively different. Clinton and Trump come with so much baggage that I doubt you can get good stats - they're likely skewed to heck and back.

I have no conceptual difficulty with the idea that both sides are biased - but I don't think this is a means to prove anything.

I had nothing to prove other than observing that each side is racing to the defense of "their team" and racing to denigrate the other - with a call to perhaps looking at just how much each of us is operating out of our own little bubble - myself included. Indeed - that is one of the reasons I chose to come back to TWeb.