Should Al Franken Resign?

[rogue06]

A Republican Congressman from Arizona, Trent Franks, has resigned because he learned an ethics committee investigation was underway. According to him, he did basically nothing wrong and just chatted to two of his female staffers about issues around surrogacy.

Naturally that is why he feels he has to resign before the ethics investigation starts asking questions or anything becomes public, because his conscience is so clear and he's so innocent.

Political insiders are predicting around 30 resignations and announced retirements from Congress over the next year due to past sexual harassment.

[rogue06]

Does anyone REALLY find these "what might have happened" observations at all useful? The left makes them to favor the left - the right (like this one) makes them to favor the right - and nobody knows what actually WOULD have happened. So it just strikes me as so much "rah, rah, team" and "tear down the other guy" politics.

As a nation - is there ANY posibility we can rise above these petty politics and actually see the other side as "the loyal opposition" instead of "the enemy?" We live in one country - under one Constitution - and I know of few people on either side that don't love it and want to see it succeed. We think differently about how things should unfold, and that is as it should be. But we do not NEED to blindly tear down one another in this way, IMO.

I've found that as a general rule the left tends to get all worked up over things they are afraid the right will do whereas for the most part the right gets upset over things that the left has done.

[Roy]

A credible witness is evidence, you dingus.

I have no response. I just can't think of a reply worthy of the above.

[Mountain Man]

I have no response. I just can't think of a reply worthy of the above.

Having the humility to admit you're wrong would be a good place to start.

[Mountain Man]

FYI:

Source: Ohio State Bar Association

Evidence, including the testimony of witnesses, may be "admitted" in court and considered by the judge or jury in deciding a case only if it is presented according to the rules of evidence.

https://www.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Re...CanUse-90.aspx

© Copyright Original Source

Emphasis mine.

The Federal Rules of Evidence, which most states use as a guideline for their own rules, lay out clear criteria for evaluating the testimony of witnesses. Furthermore, there are dozens of articles on the internet that describe and discuss the merits of testimonial evidence, for example:

http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigat...-evidence.html
http://www.rileyjacksonlaw.com/Pages...nial-Evidence/
https://evidence.uslegal.com/testimony/
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/ev...#_Toc373857090
http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/...rect-evidence/

Clearly the law considers a credible witness to be evidence.

[carpedm9587]

I've found that as a general rule the left tends to get all worked up over things they are afraid the right will do whereas for the most part the right gets upset over things that the left has done.

Are you serious? I have found essentially NO such difference. The right gets worked up over "might have" as easily as "has done," and the left does essentially the same. The list for both types on both sides would be long indeed.

[Teallaura]

Yeah, that's too hot!

No, it isn't.

[Teallaura]

Er, yes, absolutely. Do you think I'm arguing that Moore was banned? I'm not.

Okay, you lost me. You just shot down the entire case against Moore - I thought you were arguing that he was (probably) guilty?

[Teallaura]

It is most definitely a case of "he said; she said". Specifically, it's "Roy Moore and the mall manager said; mall employees said". That one set of witnesses may have greater credibility doesn't magically cause it not to be one person's word against another.

Um, not exactly. The persons are NOT in equal positions of access to the information in question. The mall manager would have greater knowledge of and access to mall policy than an individual store employee. It's not he said/she said - it's he has cause to know and she does not. BOTH accounts can be true - but only his would matter.

[Teallaura]

Exactly. Until someone comes up with a copy of a letter/document/memo that says "Roy Moore was banned" what we have is he said/she said, with no way of knowing the core motivations of the players, and the underlying truth of the situation. I do not know if the accusers are telling the truth because they were harmed, or lying because they hate Moore. I don't know if the former manager, at 88, is telling the truth, is remembering the truth accurately, or is lying through his teeth because he loves Moore and is a Republican. Heck, I don't even know if he IS a Republican. No one here knows more than what he said and what she(s) said.

This whole discussion is about putting on the team jersey and assuming the other team is bad/evil, IMO. We've had enough of that in this country. It's time we applied a little critical thinking and separate facts from opinion a little more clearly.

No, no, NO. If you don't have means to impeach either, you assume both are recounting truthfully - and since she did NOT have the access to mall policy that a mall manager would have had, his account is the one that matters. She could have been lied to by a guard wanting a date, she could be remembering wrong or she could simply have been told wrong - it doesn't MATTER. She was a store employee - he was a mall employee. Which one has better access to actual mall policy? The manager.

[carpedm9587]

No, no, NO. If you don't have means to impeach either, you assume both are recounting truthfully - and since she did NOT have the access to mall policy that a mall manager would have had, his account is the one that matters. She could have been lied to by a guard wanting a date, she could be remembering wrong or she could simply have been told wrong - it doesn't MATTER. She was a store employee - he was a mall employee. Which one has better access to actual mall policy? The manager.

We cannot assume both are speaking truthfully if they are telling opposing stories. We also cannot assume they are lying. We just know at least one of them is wrong.

And just as we do not know the motivations/memories of the accusers, we likewise do not know what the manager's memory is like, his motivations, or his accuracy. There is no written policy or documentation that I have seen. What we have is a he-said/she-said situation without supporting evidence beyond the words of the witnesses. We have multiple people remembering he was banned, and one manager not remembering any ban. His statement is literally, "to my knowledge, he was not banned from the mall." Not exactly a definitive, IMO.

I stand by my previous post - there is not enough here for anyone to draw conclusions - on either side. What I see is a lot of "team jerseys."

As I've said before, it really doesn't make a lot of difference. Moore will be elected on Tuesday. It probably won't even be a narrow margin. Things that used to bring down politicians simply don't anymore. As long as they are flying the colors of the party in the majority, they pretty much get elected.

[Teallaura]

Political insiders are predicting around 30 resignations and announced retirements from Congress over the next year due to past sexual harassment.

Scary and sad.

[Teallaura]

We cannot assume both are speaking truthfully if they are telling opposing stories. We also cannot assume they are lying. We just know at least one of them is wrong.

And just as we do not know the motivations/memories of the accusers, we likewise do not know what the manager's memory is like, his motivations, or his accuracy. There is no written policy or documentation that I have seen. What we have is a he-said/she-said situation without supporting evidence beyond the words of the witnesses. We have multiple people remembering he was banned, and one manager not remembering any ban. His statement is literally, "to my knowledge, he was not banned from the mall." Not exactly a definitive, IMO.

I stand by my previous post - there is not enough here for anyone to draw conclusions - on either side. What I see is a lot of "team jerseys."

As I've said before, it really doesn't make a lot of difference. Moore will be elected on Tuesday. It probably won't even be a narrow margin. Things that used to bring down politicians simply don't anymore. As long as they are flying the colors of the party in the majority, they pretty much get elected.

Both can be speaking truthfully - they just can't both be correct. She can be telling the truth - and so can he. The problem is that what they believe to be true is conflicting - but there he has greater access to the actual information.

If the mall manager, who had access to mall policy, states there was no such ban to his knowledge, then the chances that she has actual information that he doesn't are at issue - and that is mere hearsay on her part. It adds up to a failure on the possible collaboration.

And we are back with two very old accusations - and that's all. It's not a case that can be made even in civil court. My conclusion is that if there is no case, there should be no penalty.

If you want to pretend that I'm rallying for a team I'm not technically even on, fine - but I find that position not only tenuous but bordering now on irrationality.

[carpedm9587]

Both can be speaking truthfully - they just can't both be correct. She can be telling the truth - and so can he. The problem is that what they believe to be true is conflicting - but there he has greater access to the actual information.

I agree about speaking truthfully - your correction is duly noted. But he hasn't presented "actual information", Teal. He has presented the same evidence she has - his memory. And if memory serves, the "ban" was not just attested to by one person - it was several people who recalled it.

If the mall manager, who had access to mall policy, states there was no such ban to his knowledge, then the chances that she has actual information that he doesn't are at issue - and that is mere hearsay on her part. It adds up to a failure on the possible collaboration.

And we are back with two very old accusations - and that's all. It's not a case that can be made even in civil court. My conclusion is that if there is no case, there should be no penalty.

No legal penalty, I agree.

If you want to pretend that I'm rallying for a team I'm not technically even on, fine - but I find that position not only tenuous but bordering now on irrationality.

I wasn't accusing YOU of rallying to team colors, Teal. I was making a general statement about wht is going on in Alabama and around the country. I cannot see into the heart of any one individual person - but I CAN see a pattern in the electorate.

[carpedm9587]

Scary and sad.

Yes - but also encouraging. Perhaps we are now going to see a cultural change around this issue - at long last.