I'll say the same thing I said in the last thread -- I think both the process and outcome are reasonable as long as we recognize that it was a bit messy because we, collectively, don't have much practice with this situation (and we certainly don't have much practice handling it _well_ ).
That is to say that I hope that any sense of precedent is provisional and evolving.
I don't even think it was particularly messy. Franken was accused of misconduct, and decided that from his knowledge of the facts, he couldn't defend his actual behavior. So he resigned. Where's the mess?
The mess goes like this (and I don't even know if I want to wade into this can of worms): there are contexts which are sufficiently physically playful where grab-ass is not assault. It sounds like the very first accuser, Tweeden, often is in that kind of situation.
It does not sound like any other women were in that kind of context, and therefore I find Franken's behavior gross and problematic, and I'm glad he resigned.
I am not sure I'd want him to resign if his seat weren't safe. I am very wary of creating a situation like "Only Martha Stewart Goes to Jail." I do not want only little fish in the world of sexual assault to be paying the price, and then for us to wipe our hands on our pants (who knows what's on them) and decide as a society that we dealt with sexual assault.
Some Franken apologists seem to have a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of politics. If some other creep turns up and the democrats want to keep him around, the damage would be much greater if you also had Franken bringing you down. Politcs isn't a court hearing or a high school debate class.
And I think a lot of people underestimate how much a liability Franken, and Conyers etc, would be to the democrats if they were still around
I think we're extremely lucky Franken sucked the oxygen out of the coverage of Conyers and that he went quickly.
That is, we would have been luckier if Franken hadn't been a groper, but given that he was, it's better politically that he got the coverage more than Conyers.
I'm just extremely vary of non-democratic removal of politicians. As much as possible, the rule should be "let the voters decide." So the reason for Franken resigning should be "Minnesotans want him gone" and not "he groped people." Which I think is true in this case. And not true in Moore's case, so he should get to serve his term, when the hateful knuckledraggers of Alabama elect him to it.
4: The thing about 'sometimes grab-ass isn't assault' is that under normal circumstances, if the grab-ass is really mutually friendly playfulness, no one's complaining about it -- you need actual dishonesty from the accuser to retroactively turn an interaction that was appropriate in context into harassment, or a really weird misunderstanding. Sexualized horsing around is something that decent people are careful about not inflicting in the unconsenting, so someone who's making that kind of mistakes repeatedly is careless enough to be culpable.
If the only story that had broken was the first one, I would tentatively buy a defense that Tweeden was dishonestly recasting mutual playfulness as assault as not totally implausible: the context made mutual playfulness plausible, and her political affiliation gives a motivation for dishonesty. But that's a ridiculous defense in the context of all the allegations.
9: Franken wasn't removed from office, he resigned. I wouldn't have called for his involuntary expulsion from the Senate, but I don't think it's antidemocratic for other politicians to say that they think he's too discredited to effectively serve.
Moore? At least one of the allegations against him is attempted forcible rape of an underage girl, right? (Actually, I can't remember, maybe the waitress he bruised up was teenage but past the age of consent.) I think that gets to the point where involuntary expulsion is appropriate -- the voters of Alabama can get him replaced by a Senator of the party they voted for, but attempted rape is a bridge too far.
Of the uncomfortable thoughts I'm confronting, one prominent one is that I cynically don't expect the metoo moment to have any lasting effect whatsoever. I don't think this is a sea change. So I think the most important thing is to our as many serial rapists and big time abusers as possible.
Franken should resign, and he's gross, but opportunistic grab-ass is just not in the category of assault that affects the victim's life and/or career, and I do not want the (temporary? Short-lived?) movement obsessed with bullshit like this.
More of 11: I guess I could see a principled position that nothing gets you involuntarily removed from elected office, up to and including murder. You're in jail, you might have trouble showing up to vote, but if you don't want to resign, the voters elected you.
But I think that's compatible with calling for ethics investigations, censure by the relevant ethics committees, and pressure to resign from your political allies.
For no reason at all, I am sure, one is reminded of Michael Walzer's treatment of the doctrine of reprisal. I'm sure he wouldn't want one to have taken from that chapter a lesson along the lines of "Don't give the Nazis anything for free," but it is there, in some lights.
In related news, that Ce/rno/vi/tch guy is patently deranged and a menace. I cannot be the only person to perceive that.
9: I'm just extremely vary of non-democratic removal of politicians.
Ogged, it sounds here as though by "non-democratic" you mean non-electoral. ? Or are you referring just to whatever public opinion polls may out in Minnesota regarding Franken's disposition?*
If what's meant is non-electoral removal, well: Can politicians be impeached, as it were, by their constituents, by, say, special election? Such things are possible at the state level (Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin faced a recall election) -- but is that possible for federal level politicians?
If not, the only electoral remedy available to constituents is to wait. Wait until the next scheduled election. Which is not necessarily ideal. Congressional Ethics Committee investigations are surely appropriate, though they can take years, which is in turn not ideal.
* If you mean public opinion polls in the state in question, those are not democratic. They're polls.
It's important to remember that keeping a politician in office doesn't just mean they continue to exercise their explicit legislative or judicial powers, but also means they continue to be in a position of power and authority over staffers, supplicants, etc.
5 gets it right, not sure I would go as far as 6 but it's mostly right. I don't understand for a second what people have a hard time with. He was a liability in this moment, there's a Democratic governor, it's a net positive to see him gone so goodbye. If there was a Republican governor of course he shouldn't have left. Other cases will he decided according to their situation; politics isn't law or debate class and "precedents" are mostly bullshit, but if you can capture the morality vote at the right time and make the Republicans look like the only we tolerate child molestors and gropers party you should. In this case Franken was obviously right to leave.
I wrote an epically long post on facebook calling out all the people basically defending Franken out of some sort of political expediency. I have seen people who have resorted to spinning conspiracy theories, slut-shaming Tweeden for taking racy photos, basically saying she can't be believed because she's a republican, etc.
All things we (rightly) call out as complete bullshit when the republicans do it to the women accusing them.
There are now EIGHT women. it's not just about Tweeden. I was a fan of Franken, and I'd be thrilled if someone actually had proof that people were lying. But proof of being a republican is not de facto proof she is lying.
And I agree that his mealy mouthed "I remember things differently" non-apology-apology is pretty much what sealed it for me.
As I said in several places, I'm sure Harvey Weinstein *thought* he was a great romantic.
What would be truly dangerous is if non-credible accusations led to resignations for some people, but not for other. There doesn't seem to be much doubt about Franken (or Moore).
I agree with 5 and 20.
I don't even think it was particularly messy.
By messy I just mean that it's really obviously been people figuring out what to do as they go along, and that there isn't a clear process. It's very clearly politics, and that's appropriate.
Judge Alex Kozinski, now. According to the WaPo, he showed female clerks porn on his computer, and asked them if it turned them on. He looked at one of them salaciously.
He said, "I don't remember ever showing pornographic material to my clerks" and, "If this is all they are able to dredge up after 35 years, I am not too worried."
30: I think Harvey Weinstein probably knew he wasn't. Substitute Charlie Rose for Weinstein, and I'd agree.
LB: thank you for this analysis. It bothered me the way "due process" was tossed-around, to impeach a "process" that had nothing to do with any judicial proceeding, no involuntary loss of *anything*, etc, etc, etc. I mean, he effin' *resigned*.
And yeah, as you wrote, "I remember things differently" is pretty weak tea. I think Trevor Noah (Seth Myers?) said something similar, along the lines of "yeah, he did it" (after quoting that line).
Again: thank you for this analysis.
The NYT editorialized that yeah, he had to go ("What Congress Can Learn..."--and got pushback like I've never seen in comments. It seemed like pure generational venting to me: Boomers having their say about how kids / Democrats today are naive about sex, about politics, about power. ( I agree with those here who say the "keep him to avoid ratfuck precedent-setting" argument is in fact politically unrealistic in the extreme...)
If Franken would have said "I choose now to live as a gay man," at least people would remember that he's a great comedian.
I have a principled opinion that politicians shouldn't resign for things they did before they were elected unless its in the interest of their constituents. Which they will inevitably read as the interest of their party. But Franken has been accused of groping people while running for the senate, and of groping his own constituents at political functions as a sitting senator so he needs to be turfed out. That's just letting an active sex criminal hang around, and that's unacceptable for a party to do.
Regarding Moore, because only the stupidest most inflammatory things happen these days, my prediction is he wins by a narrow margin in the face of egregious obvious disenfranchisement that clearly changed the winner- like several majority black precincts are entirely shut down, maybe because some Klansmen set them on fire. McConnel gives his turtle shrug about the election not being ideal but you have to respect the outcome and seats Moore over the objection of all 48 Democrats, Flake, and some mealy-mouthed excuses from Collins and McCain.
Autocorrect tried to make "winner" into "sinner", clearly the AI revolution has arrived.
Everything in 29 seems sound to me.
I had a Democratic brunch (Pamela's where they played "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow") so I'm more confident until the potatoes wear off.
30 except Flake flakes and only offers mealy-mouthed objections.
|| What's interesting about this is how the Beltway press -- and I think Ricks still counts as such, no matter who is paying his salary these days -- got played by a guy who then couldn't live up to his hype. |>
"Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow"
Glad to hear the Clintons still control the party, even at the local level.
33: It is interesting, but based on your link, and Ricks' account, it doesn't seem he was played. It isn't clear he even communicated with Flynn before he was at DIA. Assuming the paper Flynn took credit for was actually good (I've no idea, but it seems plausible) Ricks was publishing something worthwhile, and the fault lies with all the people who appointed Flynn to DIA despite having the opportunity to inspect him up close.
33
fyi, the writer of the linked piece is a fucking (natsec) moron and has behaved in questionable ways with women.
36 Yes, his credibility is at Louise Mensch levels.
I don't know who either of those people are, so I think that means I'm winning.
Nobody looked closer, because all the right people thought this guy knew what he was talking about, and they liked him saying that the war was failing because the people waging it didn't know what they were doing, rather than the obvious truth that it was utterly hopeless.
36 - Thanks for noting the author. He's a fucking lunatic: http://blackbag.gawker.com/the-crazy-emails-that-took-down-nsa-spook-john-schindle-1610203101
Circling back again. This whole thing where women reporters on NPR raise concerns about the lack of due process in Franken's being pushed out annoys me so much. This isn't a civil service job; a Senator is a political office. Political appointees get fired all the time. Franken, however, wasn't fired or removed. He was encouraged to resign for political reasons. That is, given the allegations against him, it would be hard for him to represent his constituents and the rest of the Party would have to distance itself from him. Viscerally annoying because stupid. Bah.
Circling back again. This whole thing where women reporters on NPR raise concerns about the lack of due process in Franken's being pushed out annoys me so much. This isn't a civil service job; a Senator is a political office. Political appointees get fired all the time. Franken, however, wasn't fired or removed. He was encouraged to resign for political reasons. That is, given the allegations against him, it would be hard for him to represent his constituents and the rest of the Party would have to distance itself from him. Viscerally annoying because stupid. Bah.
If he's still hanging around stinking the place up, it's much harder for the Ds to go after the next, inevitable pile of Moore-sized R offenders.
Wait, you guys! You're discussing finegrained details when there is a blatant, horrible picture of Franken miming groping the breasts of a sleeping soldier with a shiteating grin on his face. It is the most self-explanatory picture in the world. There is nothing to "recollect" about that picture. It is all right there! It is the central campaign poster for Franken's next opponent.
I really liked him as a senator, and wish he hadn't done the low-level groping. But in the small chance that we have a functioning democracy in a year, we will be awfully glad for his resignation. Sadly, Democrats care about consistency and feel dissonance about hypocrisy, so we've got to accommodate that.
(And now, off to a work meeting.)
there is a blatant, horrible picture of Franken miming groping the breasts of a sleeping soldier with a shiteating grin on his face. It is the most self-explanatory picture in the world.
Well, it obviously isn't, because she isn't a soldier...
Actually, I grew increasingly pissed at Franken as time went on that he himself did not initiate the resignation sooner. (I am assuming that Franken was well aware that he had pushed/crossed the line on a number of occasions independent of his view of the veracity of any individual accusation.)
Stepping back from Franken, I am curious (and very apprehensive) as to how this thing is going to progress through Congress over the coming days and weeks. Looks like the Alcee Hastings settlement was broken by Roll Call who referenced "documents they had received" but unlike Buzzfeed with Conyers they did not identify their source (such as if it was a ratfucker like Cernovich who sent Buzzfeed Conyer's stuff)*. No idea how the Franks and Farenthold things came out. It's not always the other "side" either, sometimes just preparing for bigger battles by throwing liabilities on your side under the bus. (Repubs were quick to act on several when they had their sights on Bill Clinton... and ended up with Hastert as Spaeker).
I await the purported WaPo CNN "double figures" expose.
*I will say that if I were a conscience-less Republican ratfucker I would be tempted to selectively dribble out Congressional Black Caucus names if I had them to increase internal stress on the Dem side.
Speaking of the broader political moment, I did watch a bit of Megyn Kelly this morning with 3 of Trump's accusers on. I literally have no idea how that one plays out. I suspect it will stay pretty much in the background due to seeming "partisan" nature of it. I am unclear on how Dem pols should handle it. It's reason 37 out of 419 that rump should resign ...
Maybe continue to advocate for hearings on the Hill. (Won't happen of course.)
OP: any precedent there is will be weaponized by Republicans and will work in their favor, but that's because they're shameless liars with the media on their side -- it doesn't matter what the specific precedent is.
Reflecting on this--the Fundamental Theorem of Late 20th/early 21st Century American Politics--led me to trying to estimate how many "Whitewaters" Trump has in his background. Hundreds I assume, and most where he was clearly the central bad actor (like Jim McDougal in Whitewater) rather than in a more passive role.
The magnitude of asymmetrical weaponization is truly staggering and I think broadly underappreciated. But you guys all knew that. I'm puttering here.
Putter away. Things become normalized when we stop commenting on them.
Maybe continue to advocate for hearings on the Hill.
Hasn't she suffered enough?
Latest story -- depressing since I've liked his writing, and the story is breaking in a potentially exhausting he said/she said way.
The New Yorker magazine ... severed ties with its leading Washington reporter, Ryan Lizza, on Monday after what the magazine called "improper sexual conduct."
But Lizza vigorously denied the allegation, saying in a statement that the decision to terminate him was "a terrible mistake."
...
In a statement issued Monday afternoon, a New Yorker spokeswoman said: "The New Yorker recently learned that Ryan Lizza engaged in what we believe was improper sexual conduct. We have reviewed the matter and, as a result, have severed ties with Lizza. Due to a request for privacy, we are not commenting further."
The privacy request referred to Lizza's accuser, not to Lizza himself.
Lizza disputed the magazine's determination, saying in a statement, "I am dismayed that the New Yorker has decided to characterize a respectful relationship with a woman I dated as somehow inappropriate. ...
Lizza was apparently the subject of a single complaint about nonconsensual behavior, though the behavior in question hasn't been disclosed.
Douglas Wigdor, a veteran New York litigator who said he is representing the woman who accused Lizza, denied the journalist's characterization. "In no way did Mr. Lizza's misconduct constitute a 'respectful relationship' as he has now tried to characterize it," Wigdor said in an emailed statement. "Our client reported Mr. Lizza's actions to ensure that he would be held accountable and in the hope that by coming forward she would help other potential victims."
Yes, of all the ones that have come out this was the closest to a real surprise to me. (Maybe the nature of some of the Franken complaints as well, but not that he had crossed lines.)
Here's a contender for least surprising.
Moore campaign closes convincingly:
1) Passed on the opportunity to have sex with underage girls at a brothel in Vietnam.
2) One of our lawyers is a Jew.
I'm sure there's a very proud shtetl somewhere.