Should Al Franken Resign?

[Teallaura]

OK - I'm tracking the pretty solid stream of MSM this and MSM that in this thread. What are you folks looking at? Far left sites (e.g., Huffington Post, Mother Jones) are still on it, mostly anti-Moore. Far right sites (e.g., Fox, Brietbart) are pounding on Franken (and how bad the MSM is). CNN has one article about Moore's wife. Other than that, a news search reveals no articles on either man since 11/21 - three days ago, and most are simply reporting who said what to whom, and who made what announcement.

So what are you all looking at? Can I get a few links?

I'd also like to know what evidence has surfaced that Moore is innocent. I have not seen anything other than his denial.

There are numerous links in the other thread - including this one.

[Mountain Man]

I'd also like to know what evidence has surfaced that Moore is innocent.

Eh... you got that backwards. You should be asking what evidence has surfaced that Moore is guilty, and the answer so far is nothing that has withstood scrutiny.

[Cow Poke]

I'd also like to know what evidence has surfaced that Moore is innocent. I have not seen anything other than his denial.

Our country still (so far) operates on the presumption of innocence, so the evidence that is required is not exculpatory, but accusatory. Allegations are there, evidence is lacking.

[Cow Poke]

Our country still (so far) operates on the presumption of innocence, so the evidence that is required is not exculpatory, but accusatory. Allegations are there, evidence is lacking.

For example, "the Year Book" was offered as accusatory evidence, but on a "you have to trust me that it is what I say it is" basis. That raises more questions than it answers.

[carpedm9587]

Eh... you got that backwards. You should be asking what evidence has surfaced that Moore is guilty, and the answer so far is nothing that has withstood scrutiny.

My response was to the claim in another post that there was evidence pointing to (or proving?) his innocence - hence the question. I have seen the accusations and wanted to see the "other side." There was no presumption of guilt or innocence on my part.

[carpedm9587]

Our country still (so far) operates on the presumption of innocence, so the evidence that is required is not exculpatory, but accusatory. Allegations are there, evidence is lacking.

So isn't the assumption that Franken's apology was a • Edited by a Moderator • apology a "presumption of guilt?" Are we being consistent...?

[carpedm9587]

For example, "the Year Book" was offered as accusatory evidence, but on a "you have to trust me that it is what I say it is" basis. That raises more questions than it answers.

Personally, I have never understood how the signed yearbook showed anything except he knew her at the time. I have signed teen yearbooks - and I can assure you I do not abuse teenage girls. So I have never given the yearbook much more than a passing thought.

[Cow Poke]

So isn't the assumption that Franken's apology was a "cover your [butt]" apology a "presumption of guilt?" Are we being consistent...?

First of all, you used a bad word and are probably going to get dinged for that. I begged mercy on your behalf the last time.

Second, Roy Moore is being accused, and it's not clear that the accusations are substantiated - therefore, the presumption of innocence.

Franken's case is different because, having stupidly posed for the 'groping the sleeping woman' photo, he had no choice but to confess to THAT part. The presumption of innocence was forfeited by Franken because he realized the evidence was overwhelming for that part.

[Cow Poke]

Personally, I have never understood how the signed yearbook showed anything except he knew her at the time.

Agreed. Unless there was more to the signature than just his name.

I have signed teen yearbooks - and I can assure you I do not abuse teenage girls. So I have never given the yearbook much more than a passing thought.

It does more to demonstrate the weakness of their case than it does to add anything to the credibility of the witness. It's kinda like "ok, we got nothing, but we're going to offer this Year Book as evidence that ... um.... well, we don't know what it will prove, and no, you can't actually examine it for yourself".

Yeah, it's so dumb it makes their case look incredibly weak.

[Tassman]

Personally, I have never understood how the signed yearbook showed anything except he knew her at the time. I have signed teen yearbooks - and I can assure you I do not abuse teenage girls. So I have never given the yearbook much more than a passing thought.

That's the point. He was claiming that he didn't know her and had never met her. The signed yearbook refutes that claim.

[Mountain Man]

That's the point. He was claiming that he didn't know her and had never met her. The signed yearbook refutes that claim.

Except the yearbook appears to be at least partially forged, and it incorrectly refers to Moore as "D.A." when he was a D.D.A. at the time. Furthermore, other people who worked at the restaurant at the time say they have no memory of Moore ever visiting suggesting that he was not a regular as Nelson claimed. There are other inconsistencies in Nelson's statement, such as the closing time of the restaurant (it closed at least an hour later than what she claimed), the position of the dumpsters (she claims they were around back when they were on the side), and the location of the restaurant (Nelson portrayed it as remote, isolated, and dark when, in fact, residential yards butted up against the property, and it had a brightly lit wrap around porch). Finally, she claims that she was hired to work there when she was 15, but the restaurant never hired anyone younger than 16.

http://pustakaforex.com/roy-moore-re...and-customers/

So basically, she told one lie after another in her statement, but we're just supposed to take her at her word when she claims Moore assaulted her? I don't think so.

[rogue06]

Except the yearbook appears to be at least partially forged, and it incorrectly refers to Moore as "D.A." when he was a D.D.A. at the time. Furthermore, other people who worked at the restaurant at the time say they have no memory of Moore ever visiting suggesting that he was not a regular as Nelson claimed. There are other inconsistencies in Nelson's statement, such as the closing time of the restaurant (it closed at least an hour later than what she claimed), the position of the dumpsters (she claims they were around back when they were on the side), and the location of the restaurant (Nelson portrayed it as remote, isolated, and dark when, in fact, residential yards butted up against the property, and it had a brightly lit wrap around porch). Finally, she claims that she was hired to work there when she was 15, but the restaurant never hired anyone younger than 16.

http://pustakaforex.com/roy-moore-re...and-customers/

So basically, she told one lie after another in her statement, but we're just supposed to take her at her word when she claims Moore assaulted her? I don't think so.

IIRC she also claimed that she couldn't open the car door from the inside because Moore locked it -- a child protection feature that was not available at the time she says the assault took place.

And the fact that she or her infamous ambulance chaser won't allow the handwriting to be examined by an independent third party expert sends up a pretty large red flag.

[rogue06]

Latest from WaPo

Source: Al Franken still hasn�t denied grabbing women

If you're confused by what he's trying to say here, you're not the only one. Franken's attempt at clarifying what happened only raises more questions, the central ones being: Did he grab these women's buttocks or not? If he did, how, exactly, was it unintentional? Were the women mistaken?

Here's more of Franken's muddy attempt at a denial-apology, which he provided to the Pioneer Press and other local media outlets Thursday:

By contrast, his accusers left no nuance about what happened: Franken's hand clearly grabbed their buttocks, they say, when they were expecting a professional photo with a politician.





Source

© Copyright Original Source

Story continues at link above.

[Cow Poke]

IIRC she also claimed that she couldn't open the car door from the inside because Moore locked it -- a child protection feature that was not available at the time she says the assault took place.

Not only that, but the "child locks", when they were subsequently introduced, were not for the front seat passengers, as young children are not to be riding "up front" anyway. (Or did this allegedly happen in the back seat of the vehicle?")

And the fact that she or her infamous ambulance chaser won't allow the handwriting to be examined by an independent third party expert sends up a pretty large red flag.

But, truth be damned, Rogue, it's the SERIOUSNESS of the charge that matters!

[carpedm9587]

So isn't the assumption that Franken's apology was a • Edited by a Moderator • apology a "presumption of guilt?" Are we being consistent...?

My apologies, folks, I used the more colloquial form of "cover your butt" out of habit and am rightly chastised. I'll be more careful.