Wolfgang622 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:

Bucky wrote:what is humorous about that article

Well, for one thing, it goes on and on and on about how Tweeden’s memory is faulty and how after all she participated in bawdy sketches, the implication of which seems to be, “so it’s perfectly understandable that Franken would pretend to grab her boobs while she is asleep.” This is deeply ironic considering much of the point of #MeToo is to combat exactly those sorts of retrograde notions, that somehow if a woman, for example, consents to participate in an off-color sketch then of course she consents to be part of an off-color photograph while she sleeps. Or maybe, if we don’t want to go as far as that, that the former should somehow mitigate how we approach the latter. Kind of like a much less consequential version of the idea that some people have that a prostitute can’t be raped, or that her rape shouldn’t “count” in the same way.

It also significantly downplays what #MeToo broad to the forefront recently, the notion of “rape culture.” Frankly, the sketches that are supposed to exonerate Franken are really themselves Exhibit A of what is meant by “rape culture.” The idea that an entire sketch can be made about a man consistently making unwanted sexual advances toward a woman, and it is presented not as problematic behavior but instead something to be laughed at and about - particularly when said sketch is performed in what amounts to a professional setting (USO Shows are not unlike the equivalent of hiring a comedian to do a corporate convention) - is “rape culture” in a nut shell. The man isn’t punished or shunned for his behavior, the incident is presented as trivial and worthy of mocking laughter, all of which degrades women who experience this very unfunny behavior in real life. Presenting this type of behavior for laughs also gives license to men who know about such behavior and are in a position to do something to stop it to instead try to convince the person to whom the behavior is directed that it’s no big deal, that they should just deal with it, etc.

The photograph was in poor taste and a Franken is where he belongs: out of work as a Senator.

It's not often we disagree, but I disagree. Someone can exercise poor judgment in a comedic setting, where they are employed as a comic, and still be employable in the future. People can do far worse (commit crimes beyond making someone feel uncomfortable), serve time, and deserve a chance for future employment. People change. To this day, I still remember 2 specific instances of off-color jokes I made 20 years ago that I regret. Those jokes are not an indictment of my current character, and I learned from them.

Forcing Franken to resign enabled Democrats to maintain the moral high ground. Let's see how good that makes you/them feel when Trump fucking Trump is reelected to the office of President and shits all over everything for another 4 years.

Well, if you read my other posts on this subject, which I assume by now you have done or are doing, unless you are like tl;dr which is fair, it should be clear that I don’t really mean he should never work again, far from it. He can go back to be a comedian or find any other gainful employment. I absolutely believe that people deserve second chances and all of that.

But being a Senator is a different beast. You need to be a cut above for that, and again, he resigned, he wasn’t fired.

Maybe he should run for president. Or run for Senate as a republican. Those are still open to him, too.

JFLNYC wrote:

Augustus wrote:I'm all for due process for people accused of crimes. I'm for it for workplace accusations.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I'm comforted by the knowledge that you're "all for due process" in certain situations.

Augustus wrote:However, Franken was a US Senator. Not everyone gets to be a Senator, and that's okay!

Senators are not required to check their rights at the door upon election.

Augustus wrote:No one forced him to resign!

As Calvin points out: "He was definitely "forced" to resign imo. A large number of his colleagues were putting a great amount of pressure on him to do so." I'll go further: He was railroaded.

Augustus wrote:I'm just confused about what "due process" looks like in this case.

Let me help you. Go back and review the Nuremberg Trials where the Allies set up an entire system to give the Nazi leaders at least some semblance of due process. Why did they do so? It was important to show the world that after years of fighting and millions killed the Democracies weren't going to lower themselves to the Nazi level of mob justice; that there was a better way for which we all fought and millions died. They could have just gathered up the Görings and Himmlers and executed them, as Stalin wanted to do. But the Allies had the wisdom and vision to see that condemning people without some form of due process is not only wrong, but degrades all of humanity.

Augustus wrote:I assume he's fairly comfortable financially.

Wealthy people deserve justice, too.

Augustus wrote:His continued presence in the Senate would have been a political liability for the Democrats, anyway. Trump would be tweeting about this weekly at minimum.

Sorry, but political convenience is not a good excuse to condemn someone.

Augustus wrote:I don't have a great deal of empathy for the guy.

Again, it's not about empathy for the accused, even if he's the devil incarnate. It's about constructing and adhering to a set of laws and values for our own sakes. In fact, the whole point is to try, to the extent possible, to remove the emotional from the equation.

Augustus wrote:For those who would say we are living in an era of weaponized sexual misconduct allegations, why is it that only certain people are being accused? Why Kavanaugh and not Gorsuch? Why Trump and Clinton and not Obama and Dubya?

This is a very odd question. Certainly you don't mean to imply that all who are accused are guilty and all who remain not accused are innocent.

Look, I've preached enough about this for now, so I'll stop. It just blows my mind that I feel the need to defend due process in a forum of what I consider to be made up of fairly enlightened and progressive individuals.

I'll close by reiterating one last point I made earlier: The application of laws and due process is not meant to degrade victims nor does it in any way mean we don't believe in victims. Instead it's an attempt to elevate society by doing our level best to make sure that justice is done.

I apologize for being so dense, but which right of Franken's was abrogated? His voluntary resignation precluded any due process to which he was entitled. You argument seems to presuppose that Franken had some kind of right to remain in the Senate.

Franken was accused by numerous people of misconduct. Some people said he should resign. Others said he should stay. He resigned. As noted by others in this thread, other politicians, including Democratic politicians, have weathered worse and still hold office.

I appreciate the wonderful history lesson about Nuremberg. Unfortunately, it does not answer my question. Let me be more specific: What does due process look like in the case of a US Senator, accused of misconduct, who chooses to resign rather than undergo any investigation or mount any defense? What should the Senate have done in this case?

You say that political convenience is no good reason to condemn someone. First of all, I don't quite see how he was condemned? What was he condemned to? He's not in prison. I made the point about his finances because he is not being denied the ability earn a living or to feed himself. Some people said "We don't think you should be a senator anymore." Apparently he agreed with them! Second of all, politics is about how society distributes power and resources. One of the goals of left wing politics (and I presume that Franken views himself as on the left) is to enact social and economic reforms to advance and protect the most vulnerable. If he becomes an obstacle to doing so, what is the point of him continuing to be a senator? Political expediency is a very good reason for someone else to hold the seat.

Again, you mention injustice-what justice was denied to Franken? He was neither accused of nor prosecuted for any crimes. He wasn't brought before some star chamber or thrown into a gulag. He could have gone before an ethics committee, but elected not to. I suppose we see the circumstances of his resignation differently, but I don't recognize it as injustice.

I made the point about certain people being accused (and others not) not to declare them 100% guilty, but moreso to respond to the poor, unfortunate person in this thread who claimed that all of the women accusing Franken were making it up.

Werthless wrote:

ashton wrote:

Werthless wrote:Forcing Franken to resign enabled Democrats to maintain the moral high ground. Let's see how good that makes you/them feel when Trump fucking Trump is reelected to the office of President and shits all over everything for another 4 years.

Did forcing Franken to resign help Trump's chances of getting reelected? Please explain.

No.

Democrats sometimes care more about purity, the moral high ground, etc than winning elections. Franken's forced/pressured resignation is an example of piling on to remain pure on women's issues. I'm sure we will see examples of this principle in the coming year that will actually affect Trump's chances for the better.

So do Republicans. The beauty of having ideologues in one's caucus who care about things. Or being seen as caring about things.

I don't think this applies here, at all. At best (edit: or worst) Franken's resignation was a neutral event for national Democratic chances. If he hadn't resigned he'd be up for re-election next year in one of the 10 states that matters for the presidential election, probably facing a primary challenge. Also if he had stayed, he would have been on the committee trying to question Kavanaugh, which would have optics the DSCC et al. would be anxious to avoid.

I don't think they lose anything by having Tina Smith as the junior Senator from Minnesota instead of Al Franken. And probably avoided quite a few negative news cycles and have a better chance of keeping the seat in 2020.

pacino wrote:New Hampshire state rep says owning slaves had nothing to do with racism

This is why no one believes the media. If Trump is the most racist President in American history, what does that say about all of the other Presidents who owned slaves?” Hynes posted.

Three-term State Rep. Werner Horn, R-Franklin quickly responded, “Wait, owning slaves doesn’t make you racist.”

Hynes followed up with, “I guess not. Which is surprising since everything else makes someone a racist. I have been called a racist plenty of times by Democrats.”

Horn concluded, “It shouldn’t be surprising since owning slaves wasn’t a decision predicated on race but on economics. It’s a business decision.”

During a telephone interview Wednesday, the three-term Rep. Horn said people have been enslaved by others since the beginning of time.

“Slavery later on in the American South was not about the color of the skin of the slaves but their value as workers on the plantations,” Horn said.

“The U.S. had abolitionists since the start, people who felt slavery wasn’t moral but they weren’t enslaving black people because they were black. They were bringing in these folks because they were available.”

“What they were looking at was whether they were fit enough to do the demanding work that needed to be done. It was an economic reality.”

The saddest part of that is not that they said it, its that they believe it.

traderdave wrote:

pacino wrote:New Hampshire state rep says owning slaves had nothing to do with racism

This is why no one believes the media. If Trump is the most racist President in American history, what does that say about all of the other Presidents who owned slaves?” Hynes posted.

Three-term State Rep. Werner Horn, R-Franklin quickly responded, “Wait, owning slaves doesn’t make you racist.”

Hynes followed up with, “I guess not. Which is surprising since everything else makes someone a racist. I have been called a racist plenty of times by Democrats.”

Horn concluded, “It shouldn’t be surprising since owning slaves wasn’t a decision predicated on race but on economics. It’s a business decision.”

During a telephone interview Wednesday, the three-term Rep. Horn said people have been enslaved by others since the beginning of time.

“Slavery later on in the American South was not about the color of the skin of the slaves but their value as workers on the plantations,” Horn said.

“The U.S. had abolitionists since the start, people who felt slavery wasn’t moral but they weren’t enslaving black people because they were black. They were bringing in these folks because they were available.”

“What they were looking at was whether they were fit enough to do the demanding work that needed to be done. It was an economic reality.”

The saddest part of that is not that they said it, its that they believe it.

What a shocker that Horn is German-born. His grandpappy was likely a goose-stepping Nazi.

I think what Mueller just said is that he isn't saying anything today that we don't already know.

traderdave wrote:I think what Mueller just said is that he isn't saying anything today that we don't already know.

Most people haven't read the report so I don't think most people know much

already though he has said things in direct opposition to trump/barr narrative.

did you fully exonerate him? no.

that was in the report but hopefully a video clip of that means more.

the republicans are funny.

the one just now called the democrats on the other side "socialists" and did not actually ask a question or allow mueller to respond.

I caught a moment when someone basically asked no question but said that Mueller wrote an illegal report with volume 2 and that he did not adhere to the DOJ standards.

thephan wrote:I caught a moment when someone basically asked no question but said that Mueller wrote an illegal report with volume 2 and that he did not adhere to the DOJ standards.

yeah that was the guy who called all the dems in the room socialists!

Yeah, John Ratcliffe from TX. Found this bit regarding Ratcliffe's diatribe:

@neal_katyal
Ratcliffe dead wrong about the Special Counsel regs. I drafted them in 1999. They absolutely don't forbid the Mueller Report. And they recognize the need for a Report " both for historical purposes and to enhance accountability."
9:16 AM · Jul 24, 2019 · Twitter Web Client

Rep. Doug Collins: "At any time during the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?"

Mueller: "No"

Steve Chabot deft slips in there the canard that the Steele Dossier was "the start of all of this".

Brantt wrote:Rep. Doug Collins: "At any time during the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?"

Mueller: "No"

you don't have to effectively finish the obstruction to be charged with obstruction. you only have to endeavor to 'influence, obstruct, or impede'

Louis Goehmert lives on another planet.

why is the little gnome so angry

JUburton wrote:

Brantt wrote:Rep. Doug Collins: "At any time during the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?"

Mueller: "No"

you don't have to effectively finish the obstruction to be charged with obstruction. you only have to endeavor to 'influence, obstruct, or impede'

brantt: i didnt ACTUALLY murder the guy i only tried to!!

Poor Gym.

I wish I could hear what Jordan is saying. I saw him on a TV with the sound down talking with his hands rather animatedly. Muller seems to be unimpressed and agitated about whatever is going down.