Trump, the Clintons, and sexual harrasment

[HurricaneDitka]

An ethics inquiry IS a slap on the wrist. A real consequence would be resignation. Here, RTFirefly said it better than me:

@RTFirefly

This is the conundrum, isn’t it?

I agree that proportionality is important, and that we ought to sanction people in a way that’s not out of proportion to their offense.

The problem is, AFAICT it’s really all or nothing. The Senate could censure Franken, but that doesn’t really mean anything. They could strip Franken of his committee assignments, but that is a punishment to the people of Minnesota that Franken represents, in addition to punishing Franken.

I just don’t see a meaningful condition to “he stays in the Senate, on the condition that…”

If someone can come up with one that makes sense, I’d like to hear it. But if the choices are “Franken resigns” or “Franken stays but sanctioned in a meaningless way” I’m still on the “resign” side.

(BTW, Spice Weasel, I’m quoting your comment not so much because I disagree with you (even though I reach a different conclusion) but because I think you’ve nailed the dilemma. There needs to be accountability, and there needs to be proportionality. But is there a way of having both? And which do we choose if we can only have one?)

Senate Dems are on the “Franken stays but sanctioned in a meaningless way” side.

ETA: scratch that, they’re actually on the ‘let’s investigate a bit first and decide whether we should sanction him in a meaningless way or not’ side.