# Now, Al Franken **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 16, 2017, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770 "2017-11-16T15:42:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 46
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/901 "2017-11-22T14:23:07Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Tweeden is neither a lawyer nor an expert in this area. Of course. But it’s not like Media Matters is a font of unbiased legal analysis either. I didn’t want to get into analysis of that issue, so I just noted in passing that I was going to assume for that purpose that Media Matters was correct. > [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Just because someone who grabs women by the pussy says they, “let him do it,” doesn’t necessarily mean that they actually let him do it, ya know? Especially when the claim comes from someone who lies three times before he opens his eyes every morning. The claim wasn’t that he did it without consent. The claim was that he was on tape “bragging about fingering women without their consent”. But that wasn’t what he was bragging about. The fact that you don’t believe that they really let him do it doesn’t change what his braggadocio was about. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/902 "2017-11-22T15:11:46Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > She said: > That’s the part I’m wondering about. She’s imputing a motive to him, and I’m wondering whether it’s an incorrect imputation. Tweeden clearly views the “grope picture” as the culmination of a campaign of harassment that began with the kiss, included the drawing devil horns, and ended with a physical assault. In that context, the photograph serves little purpose unless it is eventually shown to her to remind her of how vulnerable she is and so she would rationally look at the photo and assume it was taken in order to humiliate her. On the one hand, if she really shoved Franken away and told him that the kiss was unwelcome and she actively avoided him thereafter (and he knew it) then she seems like a really poor choice of prop for a sexual assault joke and her imputation of that motive starts to sound plausible to me. On the other hand, if you take the photo independent of the kissing episode, then it looks like juvenile humor. I’m not sure how one determines which is most likely. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/903 "2017-11-22T16:49:28Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Of course. But it’s not like Media Matters is a font of unbiased legal analysis either. I didn’t want to get into analysis of that issue, so I just noted in passing that I was going to assume for that purpose that Media Matters was correct.The claim wasn’t that he did it without consent. The claim was that he was on tape “bragging about fingering women without their consent”. But that wasn’t what he was bragging about. The fact that you don’t believe that they really let him do it doesn’t change what his braggadocio was about. Really? We’re going to quibble over the difference between, “grab them by the pussy,” and “fingered a vagina?” Ok. Have fun dying on that hill. ---
**Author:** ![aurora\_maire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aurora_maire/32/328_2.png) [@aurora\_maire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aurora_maire)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/904 "2017-11-22T16:53:08Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > I’m guessing that the news about Conyers means that Franken is in _greater_, not less, danger of being deep-sixed by his fellow Democrats. Conyers may be considered untouchable by Democrats. So someone else will have to go to prove Democratic adherence to stated ideals. And at the moment, that looks like Franken. > > Franken will be the sacrificial offering to expiate the guilt of all those who gave Bill Clinton a pass, back in the 1990s. > Yes, it absolutely is a trap (and you identified it very nicely). Democrats will be obsessed with purity, **while Republicans will go on exploiting and abusing women with complete impunity.** > > If Franken is booted without an investigation, it will be a clear signal to the GOP that they can remove Democrats from Congress at will. ‘No investigation’ means that any accusation, _ **no matter how unsupported by evidence** _, will mean another Democrat removed. > > For every member of Congress, there will be hundreds if not thousands of cases in which proof exists that some particular woman (or teen or even child of any gender) was present in the same room at the same time as the member of Congress. (Via photos or videos or conference registrations, etc.) Out of all those cases, only one need be found who will be willing to allege misconduct. > > Which is not to say that all accusations will be false; some may well be true, and would hold up to investigation. In those cases, the Democrat _should_ be removed. > > But the new age that’s dawning if Franken is pushed out _before_ an investigation, is one in which evidence doesn’t matter. Truth doesn’t matter. All that matters is the accusation. Gerrymandering, voter suppression and the weaponization of accusations is just the evil trifecta Republicans need to permanently take over the country. Democrats need to be very careful here or the GOP _will_ exploit this to their advantage. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/905 "2017-11-22T16:54:42Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Really? We’re going to quibble over the difference between, “grab them by the pussy,” and “fingered a vagina?” Ok. Have fun dying on that hill. I’m not going to quibble about that “difference”, and am also not going to waste time trying to figure out what thought process might have led you to think that’s “the difference” at hand. It sounds like you’ve lost track of this discussion somehow, so I’m just going to let my point stand. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/906 "2017-11-22T17:04:01Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > If Franken is booted without an investigation, it will be a clear signal to the GOP that they can remove Democrats from Congress at will. ‘No investigation’ means that any accusation, _ **no matter how unsupported by evidence** _, will mean another Democrat removed. > > For every member of Congress, there will be hundreds if not thousands of cases in which proof exists that some particular woman (or teen or even child of any gender) was present in the same room at the same time as the member of Congress. (Via photos or videos or conference registrations, etc.) Out of all those cases, only one need be found who will be willing to allege misconduct. > > Which is not to say that all accusations will be false; some may well be true, and would hold up to investigation. In those cases, the Democrat _should_ be removed. > > But the new age that’s dawning if Franken is pushed out _before_ an investigation, is one in which evidence doesn’t matter. Truth doesn’t matter. All that matters is the accusation. I’m not in favor of Franken being “booted”, but this is not a case that is “unsupported by evidence”. There is a picture and he did admit to at least part of the accusation. So, this idea that Franken leaving will open the door for people being kicked out due to unsupported accusations does not follow. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/907 "2017-11-22T17:18:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yes, that’s an excellent analysis, especially since I responded with the totally serious: “You know who else was right?” [This is a test. Am I agreeing with you or laughing at your analysis? Think about it, but not too much. When I argue here I’m not trying to convince others. That would be great more important thing for me is that my ideas hold water. I value dissent because it allows me to test my beliefs. Sometimes I’m proven wrong and have to change my mind. Maybe I’m an odd duck because I get the feeling most argue either for others or to maintain their preconceived ideas. That’s how I feel about “joking” pseudo-responses. They don’t move the discussion forward and instead seem designed to appear as if a response has been offered despite the fact that someone has run out of real arguments. > [@](#): > > Anyway, I don’t see any value in continuing this discussion, so you are free to keep at it, but don’t expect any further responses from me. You aren’t providing much value for me either at this point but please reconsider if you feel you have a good point to make or if I’ve said something stupid (which I am prone to do). Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/908 "2017-11-22T17:30:25Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > Tweeden clearly views the “grope picture” as the culmination of a campaign of harassment that began with the kiss, included the drawing devil horns, and ended with a physical assault. In that context, the photograph serves little purpose unless it is eventually shown to her to remind her of how vulnerable she is and so she would rationally look at the photo and assume it was taken in order to humiliate her. > > On the one hand, if she really shoved Franken away and told him that the kiss was unwelcome and she actively avoided him thereafter (and he knew it) then she seems like a really poor choice of prop for a sexual assault joke and her imputation of that motive starts to sound plausible to me. On the other hand, if you take the photo independent of the kissing episode, then it looks like juvenile humor. I’m not sure how one determines which is most likely. This is by far the best summary of the issue I’ve read. Thank you! Though it does bring up something I’d missed. It doesn’t much matter who took the photograph or if it was on a disc of memories handed out to everyone. Since it depends on the context it could be a “dog-whistle” humiliation for Ms Tweeden and just more sophomoric humor to everyone else. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/909 "2017-11-22T17:52:47Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m not in favor of Franken being “booted”, but this is not a case that is “unsupported by evidence”. There is a picture and he did admit to at least part of the accusation. So, this idea that Franken leaving will open the door for people being kicked out due to unsupported accusations does not follow. Remember, she agreed to the kiss (by her own admission) and Franken said he remembers how the kiss played out differently. The photo is also being taken as evidence of an assault but it has yet to be proven he actually assaulted (groped) her rather than pose for a tasteless, juvenile picture but did not actually touch her. If this were in court do you think he’d be found guilty of sexual assault with the facts as given? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/910 "2017-11-22T17:52:53Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > Tweeden clearly views the “grope picture” as the culmination of a campaign of harassment that began with the kiss, included the drawing devil horns, and ended with a physical assault. In that context, the photograph serves little purpose unless it is eventually shown to her to remind her of how vulnerable she is and so she would rationally look at the photo and assume it was taken in order to humiliate her. > > On the one hand, if she really shoved Franken away and told him that the kiss was unwelcome and she actively avoided him thereafter (and he knew it) then she seems like a really poor choice of prop for a sexual assault joke and her imputation of that motive starts to sound plausible to me. On the other hand, if you take the photo independent of the kissing episode, then it looks like juvenile humor. I’m not sure how one determines which is most likely. I just don’t get this kind of dichotomy seeking. Do you think that “juvenile” humor is not something that can humiliate someone? In my experience , that is usually one of the things that “juvenile humor” is supposed to do. And this is not humor done by an actual juvenile. Franken was about 56 when the USO incident occurred. At what point do men no longer get to play the “juvenile humor” card? At what point do we say: “Bullshit; a man your age should know better”. And then we have Frankne’s own words that he understands why she would feel “violated”. Are we now going to launch into a discussion about the difference between being violated and being humiliated? I just don’t get it. And, btw, while this happened before he was a Senator, it was Christmas 2006, and he announced his intention to run for the Senate in Feb of 2007. We’re not talking about something he did in High School. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/911 "2017-11-22T18:22:25Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I just don’t get this kind of dichotomy seeking. Do you think that “juvenile” humor is not something that can humiliate someone? In my experience , that is usually one of the things that “juvenile humor” is supposed to do. And this is not humor done by an actual juvenile. Franken was about 56 when the USO incident occurred. At what point do men no longer get to play the “juvenile humor” card? At what point do we say: “Bullshit; a man your age should know better”. And in your view what should be the penalty for such a mistake? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/912 "2017-11-22T18:23:38Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > And then we have Frankne’s own words that he understands why she would feel “violated”. Are we now going to launch into a discussion about the difference between being violated and being humiliated? That’s not what’s important. He can understand why she would feel violated without ever having intended to violate or humiliate her. His statement does not act as evidence that she correctly understood his motive. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/913 "2017-11-22T18:37:41Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I just don’t get this kind of dichotomy seeking. Do you think that “juvenile” humor is not something that can humiliate someone? In my experience , that is usually one of the things that “juvenile humor” is supposed to do. And this is not humor done by an actual juvenile. Franken was about 56 when the USO incident occurred. At what point do men no longer get to play the “juvenile humor” card? At what point do we say: “Bullshit; a man your age should know better”. > > And then we have Frankne’s own words that he understands why she would feel “violated”. Are we now going to launch into a discussion about the difference between being violated and being humiliated? > > I just don’t get it. And, btw, while this happened before he was a Senator, it was Christmas 2006, and he announced his intention to run for the Senate in Feb of 2007. We’re not talking about something he did in High School. I think that you are over-reading my comment. I was addressing the notion of Franken’s intent, that is that Tweeden asserts that Franken took the picture _in order to_ shame or humiliate her when she saw it later. Juvenile humor is obviously able to humiliate someone. And Franken is right (now) when he says that it is obvious that Tweeden could feel violated seeing the picture. And I have no problem saying that he should have known better and that this sort of humor is inappropriate. (And I don’t think there’s a relevant distinction here between violated and humiliated). I’m just acknowledging that there is a difference between intentionally humiliating someone and doing it unintentionally (even if you should have known better). I have, in my life, carelessly said things that have hurt people. I have also said things intending to hurt people. Both are wrong. The second is more wrong, in my opinion (although, for obvious reasons, I tend to feel worse about the former). But I don’t think that opinion in any way suggests that the careless injury doesn’t (or shouldn’t) hurt. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/914 "2017-11-22T18:38:24Z")
**John** , you are weaponizing “juvenile”. It is an indication of taste, the lack thereof. Here in Baja Canada, for instance, there is a popular custom of the Ole and Lena jokes. They are almost invariably tasteless and juvenile, told by Scandinavians to other Scandinavians. Are they “humiliating” each other? (Swedes tell Norwegian jokes, which usually center around Norwegians being uptight and rigid. They don’t tell them to Norwegians, as Norwegians have no detectable sense of humor. This is what I gather, I’m not from around here…) He was 56? So what? People of mature years making tasteless and juvenile jokes? Well, they better not try it around _here_, get shut down toot damn sweet, fer sure! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/915 "2017-11-22T18:42:48Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > That’s not what’s important. He can understand why she would feel violated without ever having intended to violate or humiliate her. His statement does not act as evidence that she correctly understood his motive. It was meant to be illustrative of the, IMO, needless looking for some alternate explanation. I would contend, _as I did in the part of my my post you left out_, that a 56-year-old man (with Franken’s education, btw: BA, Harvard) should know that such an act would be humiliating and/or would result in a woman feeling violated. She was asleep for Og’s sake. How about we reserve the juvenile excuse that he didn’t mean to humiliate her for actual juveniles? ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/916 "2017-11-22T18:48:26Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m not in favor of Franken being “booted”, but this is not a case that is “unsupported by evidence”. There is a picture and he did admit to at least part of the accusation. So, this idea that Franken leaving will open the door for people being kicked out due to unsupported accusations does not follow. There is such a thing as differences of degree. I’m still waiting to see if there are more accusations forthcoming against Franken, but it seems like part of what he’s guilty of may be closer to poor judgment and making bad assumptions about somewhat’s receptiveness to sexual innuendo and aggression. Or it might not be that at all. I guess I don’t yet know. That’s entirely different than waiting in an airport bathroom stall and tapping your feet to get some bathroom sex from strangers, or molesting boys on a wrestling team, or lurking in mall parking lots waiting for underage girls, or having graphic online chats with teenagers. I’ve read a lot of commentary about how the liberals can ‘get it right’ and not make the same mistakes as they did with Bill Clinton. I don’t think progressives made mistakes in defending a relatively popular president and trying to discredit a years-long investigation that went from one unfounded allegation to another. The very people who were trying to impeach Clinton themselves had engaged in sexual misconduct. That experience made it clear to me then, just as it is now, that the Republicans will use sexual virtue against Democrats because they know that progressives actually do care about moral turpitude and conservatives can somehow compartmentalize it from their desire to make liberals cry. This is NOT an opportunity for Democrats to show that they care more about moral conduct – we do but that’s not going to win elections. Democrats need to condemn the behavior absolutely, but they’d better start working on selling an economic and political agenda that a appeals to a broad cross-section of voters. Or they’ll lose again. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/917 "2017-11-22T18:51:59Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > And in your view what should be the penalty for such a mistake? This is a long thread, and I think I covered this already but here’s another shot. 1. Firstly, I don’t think he should be “booted out of the Senate”. 2. He should apologize. Sincerely. And I’ve said I think he’s done that. And the woman in question accepted his apology. So he can check that one off the list as far as I’m concerned. 3. He should volunteer to do some sort of outreach or community service, maybe holding a few sessions at some local High Schools about bullying and sexual harassment. I don’t know how many this needs to be, but it should be more than one, even if it needn’t be a hundred. 4. Censure by the Senate? I’ll wait for the investigation to be concluded. My own sense is that he should resign, given that we have another complaint against him, but I’m seeing that not so much as “punishment”, but that he’s not going to be able to be effective, and it’s the honorable thing to do. I won’t think he’s a terrible person if he doesn’t resign. And I would not hold it against him if he waited for the investigation to be complete before deciding about that. And, just to be clear, I think this is a whole different ball of wax as compared to what Roy Moore is accused of. It’s not even close. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/918 "2017-11-22T19:02:26Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > I think that you are over-reading my comment. I was addressing the notion of Franken’s intent, that is that Tweeden asserts that Franken took the picture _in order to_ shame or humiliate her when she saw it later. > > Juvenile humor is obviously able to humiliate someone. And Franken is right (now) when he says that it is obvious that Tweeden could feel violated seeing the picture. And I have no problem saying that he should have known better and that this sort of humor is inappropriate. (And I don’t think there’s a relevant distinction here between violated and humiliated). I’m just acknowledging that there is a difference between intentionally humiliating someone and doing it unintentionally (even if you should have known better). > > I have, in my life, carelessly said things that have hurt people. I have also said things intending to hurt people. Both are wrong. The second is more wrong, in my opinion (although, for obvious reasons, I tend to feel worse about the former). But I don’t think that opinion in any way suggests that the careless injury doesn’t (or shouldn’t) hurt. OK, I appreciate the clarification, but let me address the part I underlined. Sometimes there is a difference and sometimes there isn’t. If I’m at a party, and I whisper to you “this shindig sucks” thinking I am talking only to you, and the host accidentally hears me, then yeah. I’m stupid for not being more careful, but I didn’t mean for the host to hear me. In the case in question, the fact that you should know what you’re doing is a violation and will humiliate the person makes a difference not worth quibbling about. He had the damn act photographed, so it becomes a part of the permeant record, for all to see. “Gee, I didn’t mean to humiliate her” rings hollow to me. YMMV. That’s the mindset that has to change if we are going to address this whole issue of sexual harassment. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/919 "2017-11-22T19:08:24Z")
And let me add that Franken, _to his credit_, is not trying to draw that distinction. I’m not seeing why we should, either. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/920 "2017-11-22T20:40:17Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > And let me add that Franken, _to his credit_, is not trying to draw that distinction. I’m not seeing why we should, either. Franken started to try when the first thing he said was he did not remember the kiss the same way. No one was interested in his side of the story as evidenced many times in this thread alone. So he he made a smart political move. Consider it the political equivalent of a plea bargain. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770.md?page=45) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770.md?page=47)