“Like”
“Like”
I think it’s pretty obvious, even from the article, but he already disliked her at that time. He was drawing devil’s horns on her photos and such. It seems pretty clear that he felt she was a stupid right wing bitch. Not without some justification, but that tends to undermine your rationalization for his actions.
“Like”
ETA:
The post refers to “largely discredited accusations by Tweeden”. I’m not talking about those. Just the photo.
Sure. My more cynical theory is some how the rumors of Franken’s roaming hands reached Tweeden and she agreed to chum the waters since she had this pic. But for those reading along, I wouldn’t call that a frameup. Nobody tricked him into taking that photo. The other accusers don’t seem like Republican stooges.
And on the other hand, given how different their politics are and Franken’s comedy style, I could see him being a bit of a dick to her during the trip. So her being so right wing in a way makes her story kind of believable to me.
Sherrerd, I see you are still claiming that the Franken case is fundamentally about uncorroborated accusations. It’s like you can’t even see that photo or something. And although I feel I’m being repetitive, I think maybe I need to emphasize again that I don’t mean the photo corroborates accusations. I mean it’s really bad all by itself, even if she posted the photo without comment and without claiming anything else, and even if no other women came forward. That photo is resignation-worthy all by itself, given that it was the year before he ran for Senate and on a military plane.
Oh, okay. I haven’t read my old posts in this thread, but I suspect that my position hasn’t changed: the photo was intended as a joke, and the joke was on Franken himself, not on Tweeden. As mentioned a few dozen posts back, Franken was known for making ‘look at me being an asshole’-style jokes.
It wasn’t a good joke. Using a sleeping person as a prop was a major error in judgment, and I think Franken has said as much. It wasn’t funny.
But it also wasn’t evidence that Franken is a woman-groper. If it had been a photo catching him in the act of groping, he wouldn’t have been looking at the camera. It’s amazing how many discussions of that photo miss that simple but crucial fact.
In sum: taking the photo was a terrible error. Is it properly a career-ending error? In my opinion, no. Someone in one of the articles I read recently suggested that instead of resigning, Franken should have taken a three-month leave of absence. He should have announced that he would be educating himself about sensitivity and boundaries and respect for women----all the issues that his accusers had brought up. And then he could have made public apologies that would actually have shed light instead of heat on all these matters.
But that’s not the way it went down.
ETA: you changed your post somewhat while I was writing. My view is still that the photo alone isn’t damning. It’s an error in judgment, without a doubt. But given all the circumstances—the fact that the USO show was quite smutty and filled with sex references, for example—I don’t think it, on its own, merited resignation.
Wait, what? 
I live in Minnesota and follow the news closely, and I have never heard of anyone interpreting the photo as a candid shot catching him in the act. Do you have a cite for that or is that just your impression? If the latter, I think it’s a mistaken one.
Okay. Broad agreement that what Franken did was not “okay”.
And I think broad agreement that it wasn’t assault or anywhere near close. It was some unwanted social kissing level, a poor taste unfunny joke, and possibly a hand a few times landing where it should not have landed. Behaviors that should not occur but way short of the masturbating in front of people, walking in naked, and grabber-in-Chief behaviors. Or close to some of the crude what if he had done THIS that some posters make up here.
And broad agreement that he lost his career as a result of that with some with high profiles immediately calling for his resignation on nothing more than the first picture at first sight. That his punishment was in fact much worse than that meted out to some who are guilty of more severe offenses.
The majority of Americans feel women have real reasons for concern about sexual harassment and that it needs to be addressed in a very serious manner. Pretty sure everyone posting here agrees.
The majority of Americans (MC data already linked) are* also* uncomfortable with punishment without due process, with careers being destroyed on the basis of accusations, and with less severe offenses being punished as severely as, if not worse than, horrific ones.
Are the vast majority of Americans, including most younger voters and most Democrats, wrong to have that discomfort, to have those concerns? I don’t think so.
(Voters of course could use whatever they want to vote someone out, including not liking the jokes someone has told in the past. His departure was not being voted out. It was colleagues who thought it better politically, for the party or for their own interests, for him to go, that led to his ouster.)
I think Franken will eventually run again and that voters in his state will vote him back in. Up to them. Please though Al just lay low for now!
Franken supporters have to
I’m not sure what you mean and if the following misrepresents you, my apologies because I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but let me just pose this question:
Stephanie Kemplin says Franken groped her breast while the two “took a photo”, yet in the photo, you can clearly see that Franken is not groping her breast. Since no other physical evidence has come to light to support her claim (that I am aware of or could find), am I twisting myself into a pretzel if I suggest she isn’t necessarily telling the truth and said claim should not be taken at face value? I do want to add that while I have by no means done an exhaustive investigation of her story, I am aware that her sister has said that Kemplin told her of the incident back then.
And certainly, others weigh in, if in fact this is not what madmonk was getting at.
If this is how people defend you, it’s not a good look.
or
Surprise. Sometimes when people are acting like they’re behaving in bad taste or using people as props, people might mistake them for behaving in bad taste or using them as props.
Also, this is how some women feel when they’re sexually harassed or assaulted and can’t tell anyone for fear of reprisal.
Nice that he can empathize. Sad that he thinks he’s special or unique about it.
I agree that Franken should be given due process. He could call for an ethics investigation. His resigning doesn’t preclude that, does it? Instead of a one-sided magazine article, both sides could give their side of the story in an open ethics investigation. Then others could come forward if they choose as well. For the people who want due process, I don’t see people demanding this. That’s what makes me wonder if those people are seeking justice for both sides.
This sounds like a bit of a break from reality. The time for due process is long past. Calling for an open ethics investigation now, as a private citizen, would shift him into the “crazy” column in everybody’s mind.
Wanted to add: this column probably signals he will try a come back at some point but whatever contrition he shows will be narrowly scripted. My WAG.
Here’s the problem: I agree with everything you said.
But the issue is that sexual assault allegations are almost always “he said, she said.” Typically and historically, we dismiss those allegations unless one party has documentary proof because we don’t value the word of one good citizen versus the other. This type of action in the wake of #metoo has changed the calculus. But why should it have?
I recognize the historical inequities of this issue, but the new model allows people without proof to destroy the lives of someone without evidence. That may suck for someone who really was abused earlier, but do we still want to have due process? If we do, we must have more than “she was there and he was there, so he’s guilty” type of shit.
Franken has not had his life destroyed. Even if he feels that way. He’s a wealthy man in America with, presumably, a family who loves him. Most Americans would love to be in such a situation.
Further, he still has a chance to actually get on the right side with some humility and contrition. But he can’t stop blaming others for the consequences of his own actions.
Franken can go hang himself in his fucking closet, for all I care. You didn’t address, though, whether or not we really want due process. That is a much more interesting question than whether or not Franken has had his life ruined.
For criminal action? Absolutely. For political action? I don’t know what that would even mean. From a purely political perspective, having Franken stay in the Senate was hurting the Democratic party.
What other member of the Democratic caucus can still be found in the Senate cloakroom despite having done something more egregious than that photo?
I agree with all of that. My best friend in college had his life ruined by a false accusation of rape (and I know it was false because she claimed he raped her on Saturday night, but I was with him the entire weekend 200 miles away).
But what does this have to do with Franken? The prank photo on a US military plane (at the expense of someone he quite obviously disliked) is the offense. He does not claim it is fake, and in fact says it is the thing he truly feels ashamed of, as he should. It also shows incredibly poor political judgment from someone mulling a run for Senate. We cannot have someone with that baggage in the Senate Democratic caucus.
I would very very very shocked if there were not quite a few. But if so or not it has nothing at all to do with what I questions I asked, which are of a much broader nature than Democratic Senators.
I get the argument that politically some highly positioned Democrats wanted to be able to take a pure zero tolerance black and white absolutist position, so Franken had to go, in order to undercut the potential of any accusation of whataboutism and partisan hypocrisy.
But can we at least start with the understanding that most of the American public finds it possible to understand both the seriousness of the issue of sexual assault and harassment in the workplace AND to have concerns over career execution for all offenses of all severities upon accusation? And this is an American public that usually does very poorly with nuance and greyness.
In terms of addressing the seriousness of sexual assault and harassment that women face and will face, that my now 18 year old daughter will likely have to face, that women of less privileged socioeconomic positions are facing serious examples of with great frequency every day without any recourse … celebrity zero tolerance examples being made is not a serious approach at a solution.
UltraVires is correct to some degree: we cannot just replace one unjust and unfair approach with another. Having a process in which judgement is slowed down but actually investigated, and in which punishments are graded to severity of offense and not so much a Procrustean bed … but more so with emphasis on prevention in the future with education and awareness along with system improvements, like any good Quality Improvement program … that is something that would have the support of the majority of Americans
iiandyiiii, at the time it seemed reasonable to think so, that it was the politically expedient thing to do for the sake of the party. (And his life wasn’t destroyed, just his political life publicly executed.) But it backfired. Overplaying a purity hand, giving an example in which large numbers of voters began to see the career ending based on accusations without any process or consideration of how severe the offense(s) were, made more more skeptical and more sympathetic to the accuseds. Americans still dislike being in the grey and pushed off from complete agreement on one side they can overshoot to the other pretty easily.
Seriously dude. That is always a decision to be made by the voters. You want only people with no baggage, nothing that could be construed as baggage, who have made no mistakes, had no episodes of poor judgement, then vote for one of those people, assuming you can find them. IF he ever runs again (again, please not now) then it will be up to the voters in MN to decide if they think his baggage is disqualifying or not. Not you, not me, not even other Senators.
The first defintion I see online for due process is “fair treatment under the law.” Given that Franken wasn’t on trial, clearly he simply meant he deserved to be treated fairly and given a chance to defend himself through an ethics investigation. Do you think he deserved that?
NPR Fresh Air interview with Jane Mayer from July 25, 2019:
Fresh Air: Jane Mayer On The Case Of Al Franken
I listened to part of this interview driving home last night, and just read the New Yorker article. My take is that Franken got a raw deal.
One thing that stuck with me from the interview is that Mayer made that point that what Franken is accused of is in a completely different category from the behavior of people like Harvey Weinstein.
For one thing, back in 2007 Franken was counseled by an aide that his overly friendly physical interactions with people might be misinterpreted, and after that point, he changed his behavior. Your typical harasser/assaulter like Weinstein doesn’t change their behavior when called on it or when it is brought to their attention.
It’s my understanding that most of the accusations against Franken date from before 2007 – and the two alleged incidents that date from after Franken entered the Senate (in 2009 and 2010) are photo-op allegations that are, “even if true, are of a different magnitude than the kind of grotesque misconduct that has often been exposed in the #MeToo era.”
As the article concludes:
I don’t think it backfired – I think it directly contributed to both the victory of Doug Jones, and the increased scrutiny of Kavanaugh. But there’s no way to know for certain.
He was treated fairly, IMO. Being asked to resign after such circumstances is entirely “fair”, IMO. Even if he only did what he said he did, and what he had a photo taken of, that’s enough to resign, IMO. We can find senators who have not pretended to grope a sleeping woman on camera.
The most severe sanctions would be criminal prosecution.
So much of this is coming from the entitlement of the wealthy and successful. No one is entitled to a senate seat. No one is entitled to public adoration. Franken screwed up, and he’s not a senator any more, and he’s not as popular as he used to be. Living the life of a wealthy man with a loving family is nothing close to “severe sanctions”.
You’re playing word games. He didn’t commit a crime, so the most severe sanctions is not criminal prosecution. The most severe sanction was expulsion from the Senate and that’s what happened even if it was technically voluntary.