> like Franken or not, if you
> believe in due process for you,
> you should believe in it for all.

Can't imagine why. Will you next argue that 'believing in' United States citizenship for myself compels me to "believe in it for all"?

Because that's how a lot of people dew thar thinkin' nowadays… In simplistic terms, where everything is for everyone and burger-flippers deserve careers @ 95K/annum plus bennies, a company car and a parking space near the door. For life. More if the salt has extra seasoning. All things are for all people and the entirity of human creation is just a smelly colloid paste in a squeeze tube which we can wipe on every forehead, and then someone else has to pay for it.

Paraphrasing my own brilliant sef writing here [July 23, 2019 1:53 AM] and elsewhere:

You, and certainly I, don't owe Al Franken a God Damn thing. You don't owe anything to Dianne Feinstein, or Los Angeles Mayor Sam Yorty (of your childhood) or Detroit Mayor Roman Gribbs (also of your childhood) or Michigan Governor John J. Bagley (1873–1877 ) or any school board member ever, or ANY of those people, anywhere… Back through the dawn of time. You owe them nothing, do you hear me?

(When you get back to Honest Abe, we'll all convene for drinks and talk about it for awhile.)

They wield their powers and conduct our transations, in the best possible but terribly infrequent circumstances, through the sole and entirely contingent charter of our approval.

(And of course, every emmeffing dime they spend is our money.)

That charter is revocable at any time, with essentially no notice. This afternoon we can whisically decide we want to do something, or hire someone, who wouldn't have even come to mind before lunch. And when we do, your authoritative contribution to the commonweal as a public servant is, and deserves to be, *instantly* concluded, and without resource.

The last, last thing anyone owes you in ANY political context is a career. Or a reputation. Or the goodwill of your fellows. There are many last things, because this list is heavy at the bottom and silent at the top, because we don't owe politicians anything. Politics is expediency, always. Tastes or perceptions change? You're done… Next! And No Tears. I'd be surprised if most people in this forum don't remember George McGovern affirming, in delightfully clear terms, that he was "1000 percent behind Tom Eagleton, and I have no intention of dropping him from the ticket." I copied that from the Wikipedia page. Also, 'Hi there, Mr. Shriver!'

It's amazing how many American voters don't get this. It was made clear into me in grade school through documents and lessons I don't even recall. American government is a challenge to us all, and not a sinecure for anyone. To be surprised by this is like being unaware that a quick glass of whiskey might change the mood a little. After seventh grade, I mean.

And no, I *don't* like Al Franken, but "justice" is simply not a consideration.

I presume you all took a few minutes this (Wednesday) morning to read the Boris Johnson story.

We owe them—

Nothing nothing nothing nothing
nothing nothing nothing nothing
nothing nothing nothing nothing
nothing nothing nothing nothing
nothing nothing nothing nothing
nothing nothing nothing nothing....

Shoulda been "we can whimsically decide we want to do something which —or hire someone who— wouldn't have even come to mind…" etc.

Also, "without reCourse."

When internet people are wrong, I get in a hurry sometimes.

Also, thanks again to Six for the GoodTwitter browser extension.

Not gonna mourn Al Franken. Am ticked that Garrison Keillor was sacked for one complaint about an inappropriate touch on the complainant's back. Am mad that it's only time to sack a guy like Harvey after he has given you the career of your dreams. Likewise that photo evidence documenting the delight of his company with Hillary, Oprah, Jennifer Lawrence, etc. brings hypocrisy to the footlights.

I am delighted to note that the pound sign, "#", has been co-opted as the hashtag whenever I see "#metoo".

Say it with me - "pound me too!"

Not gonna mourn Al Franken. Am ticked that Garrison Keillor was sacked for one complaint about an inappropriate touch on the complainant's back. Am mad that it's only time to sack a guy like Harvey after he has given you the career of your dreams. Likewise that photo evidence documenting the delight of his company with Hillary, Oprah, Jennifer Lawrence, etc. brings hypocrisy to the footlights.

I am delighted to note that the pound sign, "#", has been co-opted as the hashtag whenever I see "#metoo".

Say it with me - "pound me too!"

Al Franken is being rehabilitated for further use by the apparatchiks of the Democratic Party. He is being brought back out of the wilderness. Next year he'll be on the reviewing stand for the annual military parade. Not next to The Boss, but about two seats back. The Ministry of Truth is working diligently on his resurrection. No, Al Franken isn't done yet. Somewhere in Hell Richard Nixon is smiling.

But I'm not a bit cynical.

Al Franken is being rehabilitated for further use by the apparatchiks of the Democratic Party. He is being brought back out of the wilderness. Next year he'll be on the reviewing stand for the annual military parade. Not next to The Boss, but about two seats back. The Ministry of Truth is working diligently on his resurrection. No, Al Franken isn't done yet. Somewhere in Hell Richard Nixon is smiling.

But I'm not a bit cynical.

Al Franken is being rehabilitated for further use by the apparatchiks of the Democratic Party. He is being brought back out of the wilderness. Next year he'll be on the reviewing stand for the annual military parade. Not next to The Boss, but about two seats back. The Ministry of Truth is working diligently on his resurrection. No, Al Franken isn't done yet. Somewhere in Hell Richard Nixon is smiling.

But I'm not a bit cynical.

Al Franken is being rehabilitated for further use by the apparatchiks of the Democratic Party. He is being brought back out of the wilderness. Next year he'll be on the reviewing stand for the annual military parade. Not next to The Boss, but about two seats back. The Ministry of Truth is working diligently on his resurrection. No, Al Franken isn't done yet. Somewhere in Hell Richard Nixon is smiling.

But I'm not a bit cynical.

Al Franken is being rehabilitated for further use by the apparatchiks of the Democratic Party. He is being brought back out of the wilderness. Next year he'll be on the reviewing stand for the annual military parade. Not next to The Boss, but about two seats back. The Ministry of Truth is working diligently on his resurrection. No, Al Franken isn't done yet. Somewhere in Hell Richard Nixon is smiling.

But I'm not a bit cynical.

Nope. Employers, including us voters, have the right to hire and fire at will, to find the best representatives of our brand/values. We owe him nothing. He, however, owes us a great deal.

Yes I personally strongly believe in applying even-handed principles. I have a principle that people should not have their lives destroyed over minor infractions, let alone made-up infractions. I believe in redemption and forgiveness. I'm not sure that Franken's resignation violates these principles though. He was forcibly kissing women even after he was well into middle age and can't claim youthful exuberance; after complaints from these women he definitely knew better but kept doing it. If there was a lack of due process, it's also a matter of his being hoisted on his own petard and I can't imagine how we fight back to a place of fairness when one side refuses to let go of their extremism. THEY have created the vicious standard and applied it with vigor; it has to be applied to their side too for basic fairness. Just awful all around.

Yes I personally strongly believe in applying even-handed principles. I have a principle that people should not have their lives destroyed over minor infractions, let alone made-up infractions. I believe in redemption and forgiveness. I'm not sure that Franken's resignation violates these principles though. He was forcibly kissing women even after he was well into middle age and can't claim youthful exuberance; after complaints from these women he definitely knew better but kept doing it. If there was a lack of due process, it's also a matter of his being hoisted on his own petard and I can't imagine how we fight back to a place of fairness when one side refuses to let go of their extremism. THEY have created the vicious standard and applied it with vigor; it has to be applied to their side too for basic fairness. Just awful all around.

Like several earlier commenters, I'm not gonna mourn Al Franken; nor will I join the pity party and feel sorry for him.

He chose to resign in the face of allegations of misconduct. None of his colleagues "forced" him out; to resign was his choice, to not support him was theirs.

Let's not forget that he helped to create the atmosphere of intolerance in the face of accusations that ultimately led to his resignation. Franken, clad in the armor of self-righteousness, wielded morality as a weapon - and was slain with his own sword.

Franken was always a wishy-washy personality who depended upon the crowd for validation - Stuart Smalley writ large. That he no longer has that validation and is isolated and spiraling into depression seems consistent with that.

Franken was an undistinguished political hack of a senator who was easily replaced without a hiccup. The dog barked and the Senate caravan moved on.

His "bestselling" writing career consisted of pointing fingers and casting aspersions. Kinda hard to write another book accusing someone of being immoral when you resigned in disgrace for alleged sexual misconduct.

Nixon at least had some political bona fides and some insights on the world at large to put into his post-disgrace writing career, leveraging a still-sharp mind and keen political instincts to turn himself into an elder statesman.

Franken's questioning of Gorsuch revealed a mediocre mind and an inflated ego. His criticism in the "Frozen Trucker Case" was based on emotion, not law. Gorsuch's dissent in that case was based on the law as written, yet Franken questioned Gorsuch's "judgement."

Franken's "I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve been here for eight years and I pay attention" does not make his legal reasoning superior to that of a judge who clerked for a Supreme Court justice and who had already spent more than eight years on the federal bench.

It was a habit of his to publicly question the "judgement" of those who disagreed with him politically. He told Amy Coney Barrett, "I question your judgment! ...the root word of judgment is judge." I think she already knew that Al, having clerked for a Supreme Court justice and having been a law professor for over a decade before being lectured by Franken.

Al was never the intellectual he imagined himself to be, cum laude degree in political science from Harvard notwithstanding.

The attempt to rehabilitate Franken from the outside will be limited in its success; hindered by Franken's own limitations - intellectual and emotional. Franken's own narcissism may just get in his way, again.

“Again, like Franken or not, if you believe in due process for you, you should believe in it for all.”

Oh, I do. I really do. But due process has nothing to do with politicians resigning because their reputation has been destroyed. It is strictly a legal process before you deprive someone of their livelihood or their freedom through either an administrative action or a court of law.

Maybe Franken should have rode out the bad press, but considering that he got his senate seat through fraud and ballot box shenanigans, there is a certain poetic justice to the whole thing.

This reads like the Left has suddenly had an attack of the ethics. Nope:

* Does anyone really believe that the Left is concerned about justice?

* Does anyone really believe that the Left is concerned about due process?

* Does anyone really believe that the Left is concerned about smearing the reputations of innocent men?

None of the above. This is the Left saying, "Yes, we're establishing a double standard, and it's in your face and there's not a damn thing you can do about it". From now on, #MeToo and #BelieveAllWoman applies only to the Right.

Nah, I'll pass on the whole "due process" for Franken, at least in regard to an article by Ms. Mayer. Emphasis mine.

Once then-Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault, the media rushed to uncover more accusations against him. One of the most irresponsible examples of journalism – not just relating to this episode, but in recent history – came from Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer at The New Yorker.

The pair chronicled the claims of Deborah Ramirez, who attended Yale University at the same time Kavanaugh did. Ramirez claimed that during a party one night, Kavanaugh exposed himself to her and placed his penis near her face. The New Yorker published the article despite its significant flaws, such as the fact that the only corroborating witness said he heard the story from someone who had been there, but that person said they didn’t remember such an incident. The story was published despite the fact that Ramirez herself was not sure whether the man-in-question was Kavanaugh, but only decided that it was him after consulting with a Democrat attorney and “six days of carefully assessing her memories.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/49738/jane-mayer-who-smeared-brett-kavanaugh-ashe-schow

They made these new "no due process" rules. I'm just playing by them. Besides, it was Franken who resigned of his own volition. Unless you're claiming he was under duress? other than the political pressure the shitstorm he found himself in caused?

I have 100 quatloos that says that if it where Franken (R), this article is never researched or written.

These are the rules Franken chose. He should be forced to live by them. Especially since these rules aren't going away.

Unless Franken was criminally charged, "due process" does not apply. He was not forced to resign; he could have apologized for his actions (or sued his accusers for slander if the accusations were false) and let the voters decide what to do when he came up for re-election.

As for the regrets expressed by Leahy, Duckworth, King et al, forgive me for doubting that they'd be harboring such sentiments if Franken was a Republican.

Rex is right. I'm a big defender of due process, and for that reason I'm wary of stretching its application to situations involving social censure. Because it's more likely that would result in weakening due process principles than improving the fairness of social opprobrium.

Franken resigned to avoid further damage to his reputation. There's also a good chance that he was extorted with threats of additional revelations. He has a documented history of assaults and temper tantrums. I'm betting there are plenty of skeletons he's hiding.

But if you're asking whether Franken, or any of the other people caught up in the #MeToo hysteria, deserved more even handed treatment - yes, of course. Just don't confuse that with Due Process.

I'm a big defender of due process, and for that reason I'm wary of stretching its application to situations involving social censure. ... But if you're asking whether Franken, or any of the other people caught up in the #MeToo hysteria, deserved more even handed treatment - yes, of course. Just don't confuse that with Due Process. ~ melmo at July 25, 2019 8:35 AM

✔︎

Eh.

Whatever.

“But if you're asking whether Franken, or any of the other people caught up in the #MeToo hysteria, deserved more even handed treatment - yes, of course”

Even handed treatment? By whom?
The Press? Hahahahaha........

> Even handed treatment?
> By whom?

Exactly. Name names. Who precisely is supposed to be reconsidering their position on this baboon and his simian conduct with such intimate tenderness?

Again, we all adore Amy, but there was something largely authoritarian about her insinuation that we're all required by some unwritten contract to judge all people by the same criteria in all circumstances, or that there's someone empowered to insist that we do so.

No. I don't care because I'm not *supposed* to care.

As Hitchens wants to put it so gayly, "I won't be spoken to in that tone of voice."

...As Hitchens ONCE PUT IT...

... because cell phone transcription.

Shoulda struck the "so" as well.

The photo that had a lot to do with Franken getting sacked was where he pretended to fondle a sleeping reporter. He didn't touch her. Note that pretending to do something is not a crime--merely juvenile. Apparently even thinking about grabbing boobs is now a firing offense. Good luck to all us mere mortals.

Of course forcibly kissing a bunch of women is a whole different thing, but did he really? We have seen recently case after case of made up charges. If Kavenaugh can be accused of gang rape with a straight face, it makes it hard to "believe all women".

Again, like Franken or not, if you believe in due process for you, you should believe in it for all.

Franken was not brought down by a denial of due process. He was brought down by social opprobrium and his own self-pity. He chose to resign.

Whatever due process is called for in a situation like this, Franken got. He asked for and was granted an Ethics Committee investigation, but resigned before it began.

With unproven and unprovable allegations - not to mention several of the accusations coming from before his time in the Senate - Franken probably only faced censure, not ouster.

The only thing denied to Al Franken was the benefit of the doubt. And that's earned; it's not an entitlement.

Refresh my memory - Did Franken lie and say he was innocent, or did he falsely accept responsibility for something he didn't do?

I can recommend a book:

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, by Al Franken.

> merely juvenile.

Perhaps voters don't want Senators who are juvenile.

Would that surprise you? Would you think it's not the voter's choice to make?

> Apparently even thinking about grabbing
> boobs is now a firing offense.

Go ahead… Think about anything you want. When you manifest your desires with [A.] a simulated grab [B.] for a friend with a camera [C.] on an unwitting subject of your list [D.] who is in fact asleep, you're projecting your juvenility farther than most will tolerate.

And again, feller, nobody was fired.

Look, someone as eager as you are to belittle the circumstances ("even thinking") is not making an argument that anyone needs to hear.

Y'know, different Americans have different attitudes about sex, and titties, and even about sleeping. If you think your own tastes are some kind of perfect baseline, we might expect you to pull stunts like that in the pews with the ladies at your church.

But you don't, because you fucking well know better. And if you don't know better, your error will be corrected in due course, and probably soon.

> Good luck to all us
> mere mortals.

Bitter sarcasm in such circumstances is not likely to get you laid.

Also, "gaily."

Never trust spellcheck.

Franken should have toughed it out. No one forced him to resign (cf. Ralph Northam).

And I don't care what the Democrats say about anything involving harassment after what they did to Brett Kavanaugh. (I strongly recommend "Justice on Trial," by Molly Hemingway and Carrie Severino. Finished it yesterday and am angry all over again about the slanderous debacle last fall.)

Amy, I'm sure no one would mind if you removed the duplicate posts... the night of the 24th, the website was even offline according to my browsers...
Delete this too. Cheers!

> I'm sure no one would
> mind if

I don't think she curates anymore. Not the comments, anyway... The days of letting her organize all your book-worthy thoughts for no money are over.

At this point, we're only here for the tail.

American society has gotten so finger pointy and insane I don't even know what can be done.

As others have pointed out, this isn't a due process issue as he wasn't charged with a crime. But as Amy notes, the way society is going, with accusations and anyone not toeing the Woko Haram party line being forced out of jobs, with Doxxing, and shaming and "holding people accountable", it feels pretty unbearable to me. Yes, Al Franken has been a part of that.

It also bugs me that every new President has to go on trial for something. What a waste of time and resources.

American society has gotten so finger pointy and insane I don't even know what can be done.

As others have pointed out, this isn't a due process issue as he wasn't charged with a crime. But as Amy notes, the way society is going, with accusations and anyone not toeing the Woko Haram party line being forced out of jobs, with Doxxing, and shaming and "holding people accountable", it feels pretty unbearable to me. Yes, Al Franken has been a part of that.

It also bugs me that every new President has to go on trial for something. What a waste of time and resources.

"Franken should have toughed it out. "

Yeah, that was a tactical error on his part. If he had simply DARVO'ed, the media would eventually have given him a hall pass.

Slate had an opinion piece on Mayer's story today, essentially saying that Franken is trying to play us:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/07/al-franken-profile-jane-mayer-bumbler.html
(Obviously, Slate isn't going to point out Mayer's hypocrisy in her reporting on Franken vs. Kavenaugh, but whatever...)

It is always amazing to me what a difference a year can make when folks on this blog take diametrically opposed stances.

Conan the Grammarian at September 28, 2018 2:00 PM:
"The benefit of the doubt falling on the accused (the presumption of innocence) stands in job interviews, court trials, newspaper stories, etc."

and now...

Conan the Grammarian at July 25, 2019 1:19 PM:
"The only thing denied to Al Franken was the benefit of the doubt. And that's earned; it's not an entitlement."

Isn't it amazing that the benefit of the doubt is something everyone is entitled to when the target is a conservative... but when the target is a progressive the benefit of the doubt is something you need to earn.

Philosophical consistency at its best.

Context, Artie, context. But, then you've never been overly concerned with details like context when you can cherry-pick a quote out of context and smear someone with it.

Franken was not denied due process. That's the bottom line for this discussion. He chose to resign before the investigation.

Now, if you want to go back and find some more quotes by me on this subject, you can find the ones where I said Franken should not be forced out on unsubstantiated charges and that the decision on him being a US Senator from Minnesota should be left up to the voters of Minnesota.

Or, you can find the one where I said the charges against him, while seemingly backed up by the actions of the accusers at the time, were not proven and probably could not be proven and someone should not be punished on unproven accusations.

Or you can find the one where I said the Tweeden picture was not the conduct of a US Senator; that it was from Franken's days as a comedian, where tasteless was his stock-in-trade, and that it should not be used to judge his conduct as a senator.

I was not impressed with Franken, either as a comedian or a senator, but I was not one of the people advocating for his removal. Nonetheless, I don't buy into this little pity party being thrown for him. He made his choice to resign.

Conan,

There is no context missing here.

You were quite insistent a year ago that everyone was entitled to the benefit of the doubt when it comes to these matters.

In fact, I was the one arguing that due process didn't come into it since it wasn't a criminal proceeding (incidentally I see many of those arguments here in this thread). I stand by my position and remain completely consistent.

You on the other hand have done a complete 180, which is really quite amusing.

Conan,

Just for the record here is your entire post:

"And you're mostly wrong, Artie. The benefit of the doubt falling on the accused (the presumption of innocence) stands in job interviews, court trials, newspaper stories, etc. Our slander/libel laws require you to back up an accusation; that some believe your accusation doesn't matter without some sort of proof or demonstrably legitimate reason for making it.
While the evidentiary standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" may not apply here, some sort of evidence is still required before we condemn someone to ignominy. At least it should be."

I was the one arguing that the standards outside of a criminal proceeding are very different.

You insisted that everyone was still entitled to the benefit of the doubt and told me I was wrong.

I guess all it took was 1 year for you to forget and the discussion to be about a progressive for you to completely change your opinion on the matter.

At least it seems we agree... until a conservative ends up on the wrong end and I am sure you will once again completely reverse your position.

I don't know what inconsistency you think you've found, Artie, but my position on Franken has been consistent with my earlier positions. And it has nothing to do with liberal vs. conservative. I held the same position with Al Franken that I held with Bret Kavanaugh, Bill Clinton, Clarence Thomas, the Duke lacrosse team, etc.

Yes, I detested Franken as a senator, but that did not change my position on the validity of unsubstantiated allegations from so long ago that validating them now is nigh impossible.

Oh, and Artie, "providing context" does not mean simply providing a little more of the original quote. You're still cherry-picking. Like the Omar quote about fearing white men, using a quote without context does not provide a window into what the person was arguing.

That you had a year-old quote from me handy is kinda creepy. You stalking me? Valid question since you'd already stalked Crid to an F1 site, crowing like you'd caught him in something when you cited it. News flash Artie, we all knew Crid was a fan of F1; he mentions it regularly. He also likes guitars and the musical stylings of Frank Zappa. And Twitter.

You need to get out among people more. You really do give off an institutional shut-in vibe.

Good night Artie.

Conan,

Come on... this is pretty glaringly obvious.

You spent an entire thread expounding upon the idea that everyone deserved the benefit of the doubt in these situations lest they be unfairly condemned to ignominy.

Now in this thread your position about the benefit of the doubt is as follows:

"The only thing denied to Al Franken was the benefit of the doubt. And that's earned; it's not an entitlement."

I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings to discover that your opinions are so mutable depending upon who we are talking about... but this is an opportunity for you to actually choose once and for all what you believe and then stand by it.

Wishy washy principles that vary with who we are talking about just undercuts anything you have to say on any subject.

Oh, and Conie… just claiming that "context" resolves the inconsistency without actually showing where I was missing context is a useless excuse.

I've done the work of providing the evidence.

You are free to show how you were somehow taken out of context... but the reality is you weren't.

You did a complete 180 and the only difference is who we are talking about.

You spent an entire thread.... ~ Artemis at July 27, 2019 9:22 AM

You are free to show how you were somehow taken out of context... but the reality is you weren't. ~ Artemis at July 27, 2019 9:24 AM

I'm not free to do anything of the sort, since I don't know where you got the comment. What was being argued? What was the topic? Context, Artie, context.

You gave no link to the thread with the original comment; nor any indication of the topic being debated - which is likely to be very different form the topic being debated and the context here.

That way you could use your cherry-picked portion to indict me without providing any proof. You do that a lot. Like so many others on this blog, I'm done with you, Artie.

Conan,

I gave you the time stamp of your comment... go look it up. This isn't that complicated.

Or you can just do a google search of the quoted material.

If you don't know how to do that I can teach you, but that would require you admitting ignorance of something.

Conan Says:

"nor any indication of the topic being debated - which is likely to be very different form the topic being debated and the context here."

The topic was Kavanaugh... and despite your insistence that you treated these two people the same:

"I held the same position with Al Franken that I held with Bret Kavanaugh"

The reality is you didn't.

Just for fun here is some more material from that previous conversation:

"People are not entitled to promotions as a matter of civil rights. ~ Artemis at September 28, 2018 7:44 PM"

and your response:

"But they are entitled to a presumption of innocence - as a matter of civil rights."

You were staunchly advocating that when folks are accused of things they are entitled to being given the benefit of the doubt in all civil encounters... including job related items and promotional opportunities.

Yet now with Franken your attitude is as follows:

"I'm not gonna mourn Al Franken; nor will I join the pity party and feel sorry for him."

And

"The only thing denied to Al Franken was the benefit of the doubt. And that's earned; it's not an entitlement."

You can cry context all you like... but context won't save you here.

The topic was Kavanaugh ~ Artemis at July 27, 2019 11:28 AM

Finally, some context.

The reality is you didn't. ~ Artemis at July 27, 2019 11:28 AM

Where didn't I? Hmmm? This is one, and only one, thread. And it's only tangentially on the topic. There were many others directly on the topic. You've conveniently ignored those.

Yet now with Franken your attitude is as follows: ~ Artemis at July 27, 2019 11:37 AM

Read those other threads, dumbass! - the ones where we debated Franken's fate while the situation was unfolding.

In those threads, I held that Franken should not be forced to resign on unproven allegations - this, despite my deep dislike of him as a senator and a human being.

In those threads, I also held that it was up to the voters of Minnesota to decide if they wanted him to be their senator even after the revelations came to light.

The debate on this particular thread is not about whether he should have been forced to resign, but about the pity party being thrown for him by the very same people who insisted he resign; the ones who now spread the calumny that he was denied due process.

My argument here, on this thread, is that he was not denied due process, except by his own actions in that he chose to resign before the investigation that he requested had even begun. As such, I'm not gonna join the pity party.

Due process is a legal term and, since Franken's fate was never subjected to a legal proceeding, due process did not apply. However, had the Senate gone into a formal process to determine his fate, it should have. It didn't because, and I can't emphasize this enough, he chose to resign before the formal process began.

Franken helped create the intolerant atmosphere that denied him the benefit of the doubt and cost him his Senate seat. And, when hoist by his own petard, he departed the Senate in a torrent of whiny self-pity. So, no, I don't feel sorry for him. Had he stood and fought, I might have.

And, Artie, I'm not the one who denied him the benefit of the doubt. That would be his fellow Democrats in the Senate, some of whom are running for president now.

You really are obtuse, Artie.

Conan,

I don't see why this is so difficult for you to follow.

When discussing Kavanaugh your position was that *EVERYONE* is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when dealing with accusations of sexual misconduct even outside of the criminal justice system.

Now, when discussing Franken, your stance is that no one is entitled to the benefit of the doubt... that is something that needs to be earned.

The complete 180 is you went from believing we are entitled to something to saying we aren't.

Incidentally that was my position from a year ago that you vehemently disagreed with.

Look, that is fine... it just took you a year to come around and see the error of your ways.

Obtuse.

Projection Conan.

These two quotes are polar opposites:

"The benefit of the doubt falling on the accused (the presumption of innocence) stands in job interviews, court trials, newspaper stories, etc."

and

"The only thing denied to Al Franken was the benefit of the doubt. And that's earned; it's not an entitlement."

You said both of those things... the first when referring to Kavanaugh and the second when referring to Franken.

Look, I get it... telling bald faced lies in spite of documented evidence is all the rage these days, but the only one you are deluding is yourself.

So very obtuse.

“The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”

So very very obtuse.

Conan,

You seem extremely confused.

Your argument on the previous thread is that the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt outside of criminal due process proceedings.

Your argument here is that the accused is *not* entitled to the benefit of the doubt outside of criminal due process proceedings.

Those are opposite positions.

Has your brained turned to ooze or something?... this is really easy stuff to comprehend.

So damned obtuse.

Okay, buttercup, you like quotes from previous threads, here's one:

Al Franken is a bully and a sanctimonious prick, but even he should not be forced out on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations. His conduct in other matters should be re-examined in light of the number of accusations and his usefulness as a senator re-evaluated. But his future as a senator from Minnesota is for the voters of Minnesota to decide, as I said before. ~ Conan the Grammarian at December 7, 2017 3:49 PM

Here's another:

In reality, although I believed his accusers, I defended Franken, saying he should not be forced to resign nor have his career and life ruined based on unsubstantiated charges. As for the photograph of him mock-grabbing Tweeden’s breasts, tasteless as it was, I held that it was not an actual sexual assault and he was a comedian at the time — tasteless was his stock-in-trade.

In discussing Franken, I maintained it was up to the voters of Minnesota to accept or reject him; to judge his personal immaturity against his effectiveness as a senator. If it's accepted that the people of Massachusetts have the right to re-elect a womanizing drunkard who actually killed someone, Ted Kennedy, surely the people of Minnesota deserve similar consideration.

~ Conan the Grammarian at March 14, 2019 5:17 AM

How about this one:

The reality is Franken probably broke no actual rules of the Senate. Unlike Packwood, it is not Franken's staff coming forward with complaints, but his constituents. And there is a remedy for mistreatment of constituents. They'll get a chance to implement that remedy in 2020, if they so desire. ~ Conan the Grammarian at November 23, 2017 4:57 AM

Or this one:

On a personal note: as much as I dislike Franken, his bullying, and his politics, I agree that 4 credible accusations of serial groping do not put him in the same category as an accused rapist and predator like Weinstein. The forced kiss, if proven, might move him to a new and sleazier category, but Weinsteinian he is not. If he should lose his office, that is up to the people of Minnesota to decide. ~ Conan the Grammarian at November 23, 2017 5:45 AM

And yet another one:

Does Franken deserve to be lumped in with Harvey Weinstein et al? No. Not at all. His antics were mostly childish and immature. Should he be removed from the Senate? Nah. The Senate has enabled far too many sex offenders to get self-righteous about it now. Minnesotans can decide in 2020 if they want Franken to continue representing them. ~ Conan the Grammarian at November 21, 2017 2:35 PM

Conan,

The relevant thread is from 2018... you are quoting from 2017.

I am not sure what you are demonstrating here other than apparently your position flip flops on a yearly basis depending upon the specifics of the argument you want to make.

Just now in this very thread you argued that Franken was not entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

That isn't me being obtuse.

If you want to correct the record then simply say that you regret making your current argument and don't feel it accurately represents your true position.

See how easy that would be?

Yes, Artie, obtuse.

Conan,

Let's make this very simple shall we?

Right now, at this very moment, do you believe people are entitled to the benefit of the doubt outside of criminal court proceedings?

This is a very simply yes or no question... my prediction is that you won't actually provide an answer as it would lock you into a concrete position, which is something you don't seem to like doing.

The obtuse is strong with this one.

For someone so obtuse it seems like I predict your behavior with remarkable accuracy.

The problem isn't that I am obtuse, it is that you have no overarching principles you are willing to commit to long term.

You keep tellin’ yourself that, Artie, you obtuse bastard.

Conan,

You seem quite hostile and defensive regarding what should be a very simply question to answer.

Right now, at this very moment, do you believe people are entitled to the benefit of the doubt outside of criminal court proceedings?

There is nothing obtuse about asking a simple question like this... there is however something evasive and weasley about refusing to provide a clear and unambiguous answer.

There is nothing obtuse.... ~ Artemis at July 30, 2019 8:34 PM

There is everything obtuse about your "simple" question Artie. You haven't done the reading. And until you do the reading, and actually comprehend it, it is impossible to have an adult conversation with you.

You're constantly missing the forest for the trees.

One of Franken's many problems was that it wasn't just a single uncorroborated allegation, or even more than one such, against an otherwise spotless record. It was allegations of impropriety against a man known to be a vile pig with other examples of degrading behavior out there.

Such as: the photo of him pretending to fondle the breasts of a sleeping colleague. That wasn't criminal, to be sure (no physical contact) but it was vulgar and probably very humiliating to the subject of the photo. We might forgive a half-grown teenager for this but Franken was certainly old enough to know better.

In other words, Franken has a record of behaving in a way that decent folks don't behave. So when the allegations came around, who's going to be there to stand up for him?

As for due process -- yes, he is absolutely entitled to it no matter how gross a person he is. If we start taking shortcuts with obviously detestable people, we will be more likely to make mistakes in punishing the innocent while real perpetrators go free.

But, as has already been stated repeatedly in this thread, Franken was getting due process. The Senate didn't move to summarily expel him, they were going to investigate him. HE DECIDED to cut that process off on his own by resigning.

Bottom line: Franken is an unsavory person whose past poor behavior caught up with him. As a charter member of the leftist-outrage industrial complex, he was hoist by his own petard.

Sympathy? Ah, no. At least no sympathy beyond that due any human being by virtue of their being human, alone. But that degree of sympathy (empathy?) hardly requires us to allow his discreditable behavior to go without comment or consequence.

Conan,

Just because you repeat the word "obtuse" over and over and over ad nauseam doesn't change the facts or reality of what you have stated.

The very simple fact is that you have stated two diametrically opposed positions with regard to two different people and you adamantly refuse to clarify your current position.

Only an obnoxious dishonest weasel wouldn't answer the following simple question:

Right now, at this very moment, do you believe people are entitled to the benefit of the doubt outside of criminal court proceedings?

Your whole song and dance about "doing the reading" is immaterial, evasive, and quite frankly stupid.

If I were to ask you what favor of ice cream you like best it would be similarly moronic for you to insist that I interview all of the ice cream manufactures to ascertain your purchasing habits and tabulate a statistical analysis of what you enjoy... just answer the question and stop being an idiot.

Only an obnoxious dishonest weasel wouldn't answer the following simple question:

Artie, I won't answer your question because an obnoxious dishonest (and intentionally obtuse) weasel asked it.

Good night Artie.

Conan,

And what was the reason you refused to make a concrete prediction regarding the 2020 election?

Or the reason you refuse to ever make a very simple declaration of your position on any topic?

There was/is nothing obnoxious about asking you to take a definitive and documented stand on a subject.

There is something evasive and weasley about refusing to provide a clear and unambiguous answer though.

Needless to say I already know what your answer really is... "it depends on who we are talking about"... which is why you don't want to go on the record either way.

I already know what your answer really is... "it depends on who we are talking about"... ~ Artemis at July 31, 2019 6:58 PM

No, Artie, that's a lie you made up to bolster your own ego and confirm your prejudices. I've already demonstrated that it's not true, but you're too willfully obtuse to see the truth when it doesn't conform to your narrow worldview.

Conan,

You are welcome to tell me what your answer is any time you like and I will take you at your word:

Right now, at this very moment, do you believe people are entitled to the benefit of the doubt outside of criminal court proceedings?