And exposing their lies.

That could have been part of the reason for his downfall by his fellow Democrats.

The GOP could not stand Franken. I believe it was their coordinated plot to bring him down.

MSNBC reported the both sides paid accusers to come out with their accusation, particularly, in the case against Franken by Tweeden/ Roger Stone.

But I do know that Charles C Johnson, an alt-right figure most known for being that ginger git who met with Assange in London, WAS caught offering to pay people to publicly accuse Franken of being a predator. He did this after Tweeden, but before the second accuser Menz came forward.

(Charles C. Johnson was also involved in that recent Schumer smear Fake Sexual Harassment complaint.)

ETA: Here's the first screencap of it I could find, there's more out there, though:[link:|]

ETA#2: Okay, can't get the link to work for some reason, but if you do a google image search for "Charles C Johnson Franken pay" or go to Charles C Johnson's facebook page and look at posts on November 20th, you can find it.

Charles C Johnson is an internet troll. Anything he posts is troll bait.

I said I wasn't speaking for his specific statement that MSNBC is reporting it. I was just saying that part of his statement about what they claimed MSNBC was just reporting (that BOTH SIDES paid Franken accusers to come forwards) has already been partially reported before. That alt-right figures (Cernovich and Johnson) HAD offered money to people to come forward about harassment from Congressional members, including a specific one for Franken.

Charles C. Johnson is more than just an internet troll. He was behind the false allegations against Menendez and Schumer. He brokered a meeting between Assange and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher in London. He seems to be a backchannel from Assange to Don Jr./Trump admin.

MSNBC was not reporting on this.

And a PUBLIC facebook post from an obvious troll is proof of nothing.

their assertion that MSNBC reported it, so I don't know WHY you keep explaining that to me.

I was TRYING to provide you with related information about their post, that there HAVE been alt-righters who have offered to pay people willing to accuse Congressmen of sexual harassment. Whether or not they ended up DOING that is unknown. However some of those same people that offered to pay accusers have ALSO been involved in false claims against other Democratic Senators (that is not up for debate, it's already been proven that Johnson was involved in some capacity with the false claims against Menendez and Schumer), so you know...it's not like it's beyond their ken.

[And you would think that Johnson wouldn't be so STUPID as to offer to pay Franken accusers in public, and then go on to do it privately, but....all these people are so stupid, this is Stupid Watergate. "That's too stupid to have happened" is no longer something anyone can say.]

I never claimed these interesting little nuggets of information PROVED what the OP said, or even proved what they (falsely) claimed MSNBC reported.

and you pile on with unrelated bullshit...

Great logic, pal.

over me simply providing background information. Clarification.

Not sure why you're saying they're unrelated, when my reply was in response to the claim that MSNBC reported XY, and while I acknowledge that that didn't happen, what has happened is there has been some reporting that X is true, there is some indication of X being true.

It is, at worst, redundant. Which is not the same as unrelated.

An unverified screen cap of an internet troll is not proof that Democrats paid accusers money to come out.

It's not even fucking close.

Fantastic Democrat. Doing Wellstone proud.

Guess who only voted with Trump 9% of the time?

"The next time someone else is accused of something, and Democrats say “let the process play out”—because maybe that next someone will be from a state with a Republican and not a Democratic governor—how convincing will that sound?"

As Tomasky says in his conclusion, "this was reactive, expedient, and wrong."

All you have to do is accuse, and you can get rid of a Democrat. This is the worst possible precedent for democracy. Totally overrules the will of the electorate.

"“I know there are no magic words that I can say to regain your trust,” Mr. Franken, a Minnesota Democrat, said during a brief and contrite news conference outside his Senate office. “I know that it’s going to take time.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/us/politics/al-franken-sexual-harassment.html

where Dems won't make too many waves, won't protest anything too much for fear of being ratfucked themselves.

After all, they've set the precedent that any accusation means leaving.

….a terrible precedent for Dems.

“The only groups that want Franken to go are Republicans and Trump voters.” Interesting when you think how many here wanted him out. Things that make you go hmmm.

This does not help the Democratic party at all. Like Al, I'll forgive and move on, but will never forget. This has shaken my faith in my party more than anything they've done in my lifetime as a Democrat.

franken single handedly had sessions on the ropes and he had the gall to demand the votes be counted in his first election

2 things repubs and pretend dems would hate

Just stupid.

The Me Too movement is a movement and it is great, but in this country when someone gets accused of something, their accuser needs to step forward and prove their case. It is called 'due process,' and is one of the cornerstones of our...well, we really don't have a democracy any more.

But I'll tell you what we will have!

Kangaroo courts and guillotines.

I cringe. This is the type of mindset that precedes a witch-hunt. I have never been so disappointed in Democrats as I have been with the whole Al Franken debacle. I'm still waiting for much needed apologies.

said since before Franken even resigned that the Dems were setting a very dangerous precedent. Precedents are very difficult to undo. What happens the next time the right wing wants to take out a progressive champion! It was so easy.

He did have a chance to defend himself and he did not maintain publicly that he didn't do most of the things he's been accused of. In fact, he did the exact opposite. He said himself that he "crossed a line" and did not publicly challenge the majority of the accusations.

He was railroaded by Gillibrand and her lynch mob.

He had willingly agreed to go to the Ethics Committee.

Two groups wanted him out....Republicans and Trumpers......add a third group: democrats strong on political ambition and weak on courage

Or do you think he should have more forcefully defended himself?

I just think by essentially not disputing the majority of the claims against him, he put the Democrats in Congress in a difficult position.

He felt massively pressured to resign instead, which he did. Franken is a good person, who was treated very badly.

I am sincerely asking you this question. My husband said maybe we should let the voters in the accused' states to decide, if Congress can't. Do you think this is a viable alternative?

I think Gillibrand and others had the right to say that under the circumstances that it would be best for Franken to resign.

I also think Franken could have said that he was not going to resign in spite of the various calls for him to do so.

All around, I think this could have been handled better by everyone involved - though I recognize the difficult position that all parties concerned were placed in.

the vast majority of us feel the injustice of this.

Here is an excerpt of his statement from that article:

to satisfy her political ambitions.

I wish she had the courage to let the ethics committee do its job and investigate.

It is all about ambition and politics.

She furthered the goals of the Republican hate machine, sad to say.

Stone said jump....she asked how high?

I posted this article from Think Progress upthread:

That option was also available to him.

In your view, if he had not resigned, you would have been throwing a fit.

Right?

Here is her actual statement:

Why don't you just own up to it. You liked it that Franken was railroaded by Gillibrand?

I think she was put in a difficult situation, and I thought she handled it in a reasonable manner.

There was nothing about any of what happened with respect to Franken that I liked.

Gillibrand does continue to be a Democrat whom I admire - and I do feel that her perspective deserves some consideration.

.....The Republicans looked at Franken, saw he was doing his job too well for their comfort, and besides he had a chance to run for president.....so Stone and Co decided to pull some strings and get rid of him.

He must have been elated just how easy it was to destroy Franken's career! So many weak-kneed Democrats! And then there was Gillibrand who gladly did Stone's bidding because she no doubt thought this would be a feather in her cap in running for President.

It is so short sighted on her part.

It was so easy to destroy a Democrat....that there is no doubt at all that the Rs will try this trick again in the future? Who will be the next victim now that it has been shown to the whole world how easy it is to destroy a Democrat?

I am sick and tired of Democrats being so short sighted that they get themselves (and our Party) suckered by the Rs.

I would vote for her in the general election (not expecting that she has a chance to beat Trump, but in desperation)....but the Franken fiasco has totally soured me on Gillibrand's judgement. We need someone who can beat Trump and she is not among those who can.

For any reason. She is a complete hypocrite.

Sucked up to the Clintons when she needed them. Said Clinton should have resigned when she went after Franken without considering the innocent until proven guilty that is the law of our land.

Who needs friends like her?

doggedly castigating Franken for not standing down, and no doubt enlisting the other numerous Democratic senators who jumped on the bandwagon to support your stance.

Do you think for a minute we haven't been reading your posts over the last month or so?

But that does not mean that the option wasn't available to him.

Two other things that come to mind are Acorn and Shirley Sherrod.

They weren't accuses of sexual harrasment. They were however victims of knee jerk reaction to Republican ratfucking.

Who's next?

I would respectfully point out that the calls for resignation did not come after the Tweeden accusation - but rather after the Tina Dupuy accusation and accompanying article in The Atlantic - a Democrat writing for a liberal media outlet.

The one who accused him of grabbing her waist.

I get it that she doesn't want to be touched. Some people don't and that is her right. But we've gone off the when that now qualifies as sexual harassment.

I was just pointing out that this wasn't only generated via RW media outlets and figures like what happened with ACORN and Shirley Sherrod.

the facts aren't shushed out.

I'm 30 years as a sex harassment attorney, and this is BS. Any lawyer who supported this is a trash lawyer.

It started as a RW stunt, and the Dems took the baton and drove it home.

That some people are huggers, and some aren't. That some people kiss friends and acquaintances hello, and others don't. That some people are physically friendly in a non-sexual way, and others aren't. And that can put people in uncomfortable situations. Like a culture clash.

But it isn't sexual assault, sexual harassment, or sexual misconduct.

Franken is admitting to being a 'hugger', not grabbing ass or trying to force a kiss because it's his right as an entertainer. He's admitting to maybe making people who aren't huggers uncomfortable with his hugs and tactile nature. That's showing self-awareness and empathy, not guilt.

There are groups in America that hug and kiss everybody, there are groups that severely restrict the physical contact between non-relations. There are people who are tactile, and people who hate casual physical contact. Eventually these people are going to come to loggerheads.

The rules of social conduct aren't universal. Take for example, "politeness". What one culture considers polite, another does not. Americans have this habit of 'polite smiling' (especially for retail/food service workers, who are supposed to have a default smile on) that can weird out cultures where this isn't a thing, where smiling for no discernible reason can be read as rude or mocking or creepy(this is true in many Scandinavian countries, some other European countries). And sometimes when Americans go to their countries, they can come away with the impression that the people are rude and dower, because nobody is smiling.

Welcome to DU!

However, I do think it is still an open question as to whether or not he grabbed anyone inappropriately as was claimed.

whether or not he grabbed anyone inappropriately is still an open question (which is bad for Franken AND his accusers AND the voters of Minnesota). With so little investigation, how could it be anything but 'uncertain'?

I just don't think his statement was admitting to grabbing ass.

Franken was obviously in the wrong. If he’a this great fighter everyone claimed he is, he would be fighting this tooth and nail (I know I would be).

I guarantee that all the Democratic WOMEN in the Senate know more about these details than we do.

she's sexually harassing me?

Am I sexually harassing my cat when I hug her?

sexual harassment. Hugs are a form of affection. Not everyone wants your affection. To make light of it is assholish at best.

The fact that parents hug their kids, siblings hug, friends hug, people hug their pets, pretty much proves that hugging is not automatically sexual. Unless you think all those people want to bone, or are getting sexual gratification from the hugs.

Are you saying my mum hugs me because she wants to have sex with me?

Not every unwanted physical contact is a crime. Not every affectionate gesture is sexual.

And I am not making light of people trying to push their affection onto others. I'm at worst making light of the notion that a hug is always sexual, that it's a sexual gesture, and sexual harassment if it's unwelcome. That's just not true. A hug CAN be sexual, but it is not sexual by default. A hug may be a gesture of affection, but affection does not mean sexual.

Unwanted hugs in the workplace could possibly be considered sexual harassment, if it is pervasive and unwelcome. But that's has little to do with the Franken accusations, most of which describe a 'groping' of the butt or breast, or unwanted kisses.

There are things that can, under certain circumstances, be considered sexual harassment. But are not, by default, sexual harassment.

You are ignoring the nuance with your strawman argument about your mom.

Not surprising...

You're accusing me of ignoring nuance, but YOU'RE the one whose conflating affectionate with sexual, calling hugs sexual, and plainly stated "If you hug someone against their will [without their consent], it is indeed sexual harassment".

You are ignoring the nuance of the hug, which is not, by default, sexual. As proven by the fact that parents hug their children, people hug their pets, etc etc.

Yet a kiss can be sexual harrassment.

Nuance.

around shoulders or waist when posing for photos.

You can't get any more ridiculous than claiming waist hugging is sexual assault.

Stop with the nonsense.

Come on. It must be a scary world for those whom context doesn't exist. A sexual assaulter can make anything an attack with context. That doesn't then make everything innocent sexual contact. An unwanted hug that was given innocently is an annoyance, not a sexual attack, and the hug giver shouldn't be persecuted as a sexual aggressor. This isn't hard, and anyone making it so has a nasty agenda.

Hugging strangers is generally a no-no.

How about all the women who worked with him over the years on his staff who went on record saying no such things occured with them?

He asked for an investigation, and a group decided to be the judge, jury, and executioners, refused to afford him that opportunity

I would point out that no group decided to be judge, jury, and executioner. Franken had every right to say that he was not resigning in spite of the various Democrats who called upon him to do so.

and call for Franken to step down, what do you think that is? That amounts to them not affording Franken the right to the investigation, because there was no way that Franken was going to go against the party leadership with the 2018 election just around the corner. He has more integrity than they will ever have.

These Democrats demonstrated a complete lack of political courage, the same as those who voted for the Patriot Act and the IWR resolution. The motives were the same. It was all about political appearance, NOT WHAT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO

The very fact that a good number of Democrats are still upset about it, only puts emphasis that the Senate leadership grossly miscalculated the political advantage they would obtain from it.

They all just expressed their view that it would be better for him to resign - and Franken apparently agreed with that since that is what he did. You are attacking numerous Senate Democrats for "a complete lack of political courage" yet Franken making the decision to resign is something you are characterizing as him having more integrity than the Democratic leadership. I do not think those are entirely fair characterizations.

simple.

He announced his plan to resign after prominent Democrats refused to let him defend himself, through
an ethics investigation, rather then let those Democrats look like the fools they were for jumping the gun

It is also somewhat curious that no other allegations of improper touching have come out against Al Franken since his resignation.

The NY Times, and with other news outlets are now reporting that Lisa Bloom was paid by "Clinton supporters" 700K to help Trump accusers.

Trump, the republicans, and some outlets have been trying to paint the picture that Mueller's integrity have been compromised because there are allegedly people in the FBI who have been accused of having bias against trump because of his firing of Comey, and they were involved in Mueller's investigation

I guess the only solution, based on the Al Franken example would be for Mueller to end the investigation of trump, since obviously he can't be fair, based on these accusers that Mueller has conflict of interest.

I am attacking a bunch of Senate Democrats for lack of political courage? Yes I am

It was the same political calculations that those Democrats who voted for the IWR and the Patriot ACT did. They determined that it would be politically harmful if they didn't for those resolutions.

Let me phrase it this way. If someone is part of a privileged CLUB, and the leadership, along with a significant number of other members ask someone to step down, they are NOT giving that person a choice, I don't care what wordsmithing they use, they made it VERY PUBLIC to the press to force him out

While there is no doubt that the folks here will vote for Democrats when it comes down to election time over republicans, a lot of Democrats are very unhappy with the way they FORCED Franken out.

Kamala Harris called on Franken to resign, as did Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, and Bernie Sanders.

Not to mention Sherrod Brown, Dianne Feinstein, Chris Murphy and many others.

These are the best of the best in terms of Democrats who have fought for us in the Senate.

I think it is reasonable to say that Al Franken would have been among this group if it was a different senator facing similar accusations.

Senators were wrong voting for the Patriot Act and the IWR resolution

The argument you are using is that because they are the best representatives of the Democratic party, whatever they do, must be right, which implies we have to follow it without question. That is what republicans do, not Democrats

I am saying that since we respect them, we ought to give them some consideration at least. You must admit that it is unusual, to say the least, for Kamala Harris, Chris Murphy, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, and the other 20something Democratic Senators to be on one side of something and for folks on DU to be on the other.

My company has several zero tolerance rules. If a competitor wanted to make trouble for my company, the accusation of the breaking of one of those rules with the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence could be enough to have me removed from the worksite permanently, even if I were later found innocent.
Likewise, if I raise questions about the legitimacy of something my customer is doing, even if we work out that "it's okay" and a risk to continue doing business with them is accepted, I'm not welcomed back at the worksite - I'm sent to another job and someone more amenable to the customer takes my place.
All it takes is the appearance of wrongdoing or "not playing along", and my ability to work with others in my field is seriously hampered.

Franken's reputation and ability to work with other Democrats on his committees was shot as soon as some of his fellow Democrats started setting up "no tolerance" boundaries, and he ended up on the wrong side because of his past activities before he became a politician.
He couldn't continue and be effective. His past will get in the way of anything he tries to do. His Democratic replacement should be able to be more effective than he will ever be after this - if she doesn't lose the seat to a Republican when it comes time to be elected.

Because that's the way it works in coalitions and collaborative worksites where personalities, ethical trust, and the ability to get along are just as important as one's talents and skills. Since the hypocritical GOP doesn't even try to pretend they're anything but an "ends justify the means" corporate money-making monolith where they would gladly support a Mob fixer so long as s/he can hide the bodies and unwaveringly supports the party machine, their media outlets will gloss it over - IOKIYAR - but any political issue for a Democrat becomes a moral failing that will take down the country and send us all over an ethical abyss...

It's not fair, but that's what zero-tolerance engenders in a competitive system. Since the GOP doesn't compete against each other, we Democrats will tend to eat our own over past mistakes and mis-cues over appearances of wrongdoing.

Haele

Especially in light of the fact that at least one senator (Pay Leahy) changed his mind. Others could've followed - especially if Franken had provided more information to bolster his side of the story.

Nice to a self destructive fault, sadly not enough moxy to fight back (probably crushed by the attacks from so called friends and colleagues)... Sigh ☹

They shivved him.

and he realizes that not everyone is as comfortable with physical contact and he regrets not thinking of that possibility. I'm also a toucher, I tend to put my hand on someone's arm when I talk to them, I hug when I see a friend or sometimes even an acquaintance if they seem upset. It's my natural reaction to hug. I guess I also need to be more mindful of my reactions.

the "crossed a line" was about putting himself in the accuser's place, validating her as a person, and treating the accusation with seriousness. It was "I crossed your line" and assuming that Tweeden actually had a line and cared to speak up about it. A textbook example of a great apology, which validates the injured party's point of view and takes them seriously as a person.

Apologies are often necessary even when the offender doesn't think they've done something wrong, and that is how to do it.

In the statement, he does not dispute the accusations related to inappropriate touching - in fact, he seems to be acknowledging that he might have done so. He certainly doesn't make a definitive statement to the effect that he didn't.

The reason for such a statement, as you say, could be related to validating the injured party. However, it also presents a situation where the accusations remain essentially not disputed and puts Congressional Democrats in a difficult situation, especially as several other similar incidents get reported.

If you wouldn't remember the encounters even if the women gave their names, because you were taking one-time photos with hundreds of people at the time, how could you possibly dispute what they said? Without it seeming like the age-old automatic repudiation of women who make sexual harassment claims?
Al Franken was honest & decent enough to not do that.

For example: "I have never forcibly kissed any woman against their will" or "I have never deliberately placed my hand on anyone's breasts or buttocks during a photo op" - those sorts of statements could have cleared up any ambiguity on those particular claims.

Where he did deliberately put his hands all over her—that was the joke of the photos, as Arianna confirmed. So he'd have to add another qualifier to your "definitive" statement for it to be true.

The Leeann Tweeden "forcible kiss" was not written into the sketch just so he could kiss her. It was an element of a USO bit that had been performed before. It was not real life. It too was done for comedy. Since she was the single accuser against him at that point, and since other parts of her story were falling apart, he felt he could turn it aside with a gracious "I remember it differently" rather than a blunt "She's wrong."

He DID deny the (supposed, attempted) forcible kiss of the Democratic aide, saying “This allegation is categorically not true and the idea that I would claim this as my right as an entertainer is preposterous.”


But Gellibrand et al had already decided his fate, so his fierce denial fell on deaf ears. Including, apparently, your own.

The Gillibrand rule is as follows:

Anyone who is accused of any sort of unwanted touching or harassment must vehemently deny that anything of the sort occurred. They must call the accuser a liar, or unhinged, or a GOP tool. The accuser must not be shown any respect, nor can there be any acknowledgement that the accuser has any valid claim to their own perception.

Anyone who does not do this will be removed with no due process under the New Democratic zero tolerance policy. That is what Senator Gillibrand has accomplished.

And your posts on Franken’s apology prove it.

And I don't think there is any reason not to have said something like:

"I did not forcibly kiss any women against their will or touched anyone's breasts or buttocks deliberately during a photo opp"

while still acknowledging the validity (if there was any) of the claims against him.

Gillibrand found herself in a position, as someone who prides herself on fighting against sexual harassment, having to take some kind of stand with respect to these accusations that were essentially not disputed.

is an acceptance that their point of view is true for them and treats them with respect as people and does not dismiss the possibility that their memory of what happened may differ substantially from his.

For my part, I want Franken to fight like hell for his spot - when you are fighting Nazis, you can't stop because of reasons like this - however important they are in other contexts.

However, there aren't two points of view with respect to facts. Either you grabbed a person's rear end or you didn't.

so what we are left with are two different people and their respective memories.

"Truth" is very much a subjective function, especially when it comes to interactions between two people. there is an objective reality out there somewhere, but humans process it through many layers of filters, emotions, and faulty sense organs.

Franken is respecting the other person's truth. What is true for them - their memories, their feelings, their filters - may or may not correspond to physical facts. Franken is demonstrating how to apologize to someone whether you agree with their point of view or not. It's a way of respecting their personhood and not calling them a liar, and dealing with their hurt feelings (because the feelings may be real, whether the memory is accurate or not), without calling someone a liar. For the sake of an apology, it doesn't matter what actually happened. If someone you care about tells you you've hurt them, you accept that their feelings are real and deal with those feelings, not necessarily the facts on the ground.

It was a beautiful example of how to heal a relationship, regardless of what the accused actually did, or what they meant to do - but the subtlety of it is lost on just about everybody, it seems.

And, I think in this case which is clearly just Republican ratfuckery, Franken should not have been subtle.

I think we agree that Franken should not have been subtle with respect to his response to these allegations (assuming they were, indeed, not true).

What would have happened if he told the 30 Dems -- I hear ya, but lets wait till all the facts come out.

It seems he gave in unusually quickly?

Of course, it's infuriating we have a so called president who's been caught as a sexual predator (with his own words) plus 16 women who have accused him and the GOP celebrates it!

is that there was something really awful, beyond these vapor-thin accusations, that Franken knew would come out it push came to shove.

So, that he is being blackmailed into quitting is the only thing I can think of. Why else wouldn't he fight for himself and his constituents?

I hope Al can find a way to remain a strong advocate. I will really miss him!

He is not a career polititian.

He doesn't need the job and sees no point in it in the face of opposition from his own party.

Maybe it made no sense to him to put his family through the freak show of the Senate ethics committee that would be chaired by Republicans when his own party told him they would not have his back.

Why would he stay?

The public overwhelmingly supports him. He can do whatever he wants. What would motivate him to stay in the face of what he was facing after his own party turned on him.