Gillibrand is so full of it.

[BlueStater]

“There was 34 other senators that called on him to resign,” she told reporters after an event in Manhattan held by the Bustle Digital Group. “You wouldn’t know that today, given I seem to stand alone. But I could not stay silent. I could not defend his actions. And to somehow blame me for a man’s action and a man’s decision, it’s pretty absurd.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/durbin-regrets-calling-on-franken-to-resign-amid-sexual-misconduct-allegations/2019/07/23/7591e190-ad6b-11e9-bc5c-e73b603e7f38_story.html

What an utterly bullshit framing of why people are angry with her. That's not what you're being blamed for, you liar. Also, they're his *alleged* actions. Kind of an important word you're leaving off in the pile of bovine manure that is this statement, but I guess including it wouldn't make you look good at all.

Ugh.

[George II]

1. She makes me weary. I'm hoping that after next week's debate she faces reality and drops out.

[lark]

286. Oh God yes.

She lead the lynch party, was disrespectful and stabbed the Clintons in the back and was a huge NRA supporter. She is last on the list, but still on the list of who I'd vote for if they make the general. Hell, I'd vote for my 4 year old crazy sweet Australian Shepherd over him.

[SouthernProgressive]

2. I think she gets too much heat...

And others don’t get enough.

Please don’t get me wrong, I understand why she won’t be able to shake this one and she probably shouldn’t be able to.

[BlueStater]

5. It doesn't help that she tried to make money off of it for her campaign.

The others did not do that.

[lame54]

35. She bragged about it

[MurrayDelph]

56. She's STILL bragging about it

At last most of the others have the sense to be ashamed

[bitterross]

93. She has yet to have had enough.

Gillibrand led the charge. Claims to have no regrets. I'd respect a person a lot more if they could look back upon their past behavior and say "Gee, maybe I should have taken a more even look at things."

[Trumpocalypse]

111. There is no evidence

that Gillibrand "led the charge". All we know for sure was that she was the first to call for Franken's resignation and that was only by a few minutes.

[Baltimike]

126. For those of us who lived in the three weeks of ROGER STONE'S sucker bet

she was the one rallying the call...and I know for a fact I won't be gaslighted on the matter.
She was the first to officially call for his resignation by a few minutes AFTER she rallied the bandwagon. That took time. It took about three weeks. In those three weeks, SHE was leading the charge.

She is trying to have it both ways now. Pity.

[Trumpocalypse]

127. OK If you know it for a fact

Please show the evidence that supports it. And remember to provide links to credible sources.

And regarding Roger Stone, is there any evidence that he was connected to the other 7 women who accused Franken? Again, please provide links to credible sources.

[Baltimike]

138. Yep. Right here for starters

But I want to be clear: the murmurings were coming from places like HERE and 'kos and the others LONG before the conservative press caught up or official announcements were made: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/07/kirsten-gillibrand-profile-feature-sexual-assault-2017-216053

Here is DU talking about her in an appreciation thread in early 2018 (note the references to the "stunt" as ROGER STONE'S SUCKER BET happened in late 2017) :https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029955662

You can just search DU back then. There are more examples.

[Baltimike]

140. more...DUers calling her office AS ROGER STONE'S SUCKER BET went down:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029964329

On a bit of background: in mid 2017, she wasn't gaining momentum from the traction she had made by voting against almost all of MF45's Cabinet. "Failure to launch" https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287136336

So a few months later, she led the charge. Please don't try to gaslight me on this. I know what I lived through.

[Trumpocalypse]

146. The article doesn't prove your allegations

that Gillibrand "rallied the bandwagon" against Franken at all. And DU threads are not credible sources.

[Baltimike]

149. it absolutely does. Nice try. No dice.

it shows common folk acknowledging SHE led the charge

[Trumpocalypse]

155. No it doesn't

Saying up is down doesn't make it so. That articles says nothing about Franken.

[Baltimike]

161. Yes it does

It shows...my post provided TWO links...and they show her flying her colors.

Saying she didn't lead the charge about Franken over and over again doesn't make it so. The post shows that real regular folk witnessed her leading the charge, and refuse to be gaslighted, no matter how badly people want to gloss over the facts.

[Trumpocalypse]

165. The Politico article never mentions Franken.

The other link was to DU posts with people expressing their opinion, that is not fact.

[Baltimike]

171. it mentions her signature issue to be sxual harrassment

and THAT those DU posts were expressing their opinion shows the FACT that she was leading the charge. Notice how no one steps in to correct them until AFTER she announces her run.

You're welcome. Please don't try to gaslight me. I lived through this.

[Trumpocalypse]

172. Opinions are not fact

At one time it was most people's opinion that the world was flat. That didn't make it a fact. So DU threads that express opinions are not facts.

And the since the Politico article never mentions Franken, that is not credible evidence of your allegation.

So either post evidence from credible sources citing facts, not opinions, that support your allegation and admit that you can't.

[Baltimike]

175. Opinions are indeed VOTES though. YOU are the one insisting the goal post

involve the conservative press. She led the charge...we lived through it...and the FACT is that lots of people were saying it at the time. This isn't *new*...and all of those folks were NOT being "corrected" by saying it was the others.

Please stop trying to gaslight me. I lived through this. Lots of others did too. Nothing will convince you of the FACT that people have been saying this since *jump* and she herself says she doesn't regret it, and EVEN TRIED TO FUND RAISE OFF OF IT. But I guess *that* did 't happen since I didn't attend the fundraiser.

[Trumpocalypse]

179. Again please post facts

that support your allegation that she led the the charge. What people may say is not a fact. FAUX News plays the 'some people say' game in order to mislead people. We shouldn't. We should respect verifiable facts from credible sources. So please post some with links.

[Baltimike]

183. again please practice what you preach...the FACT is that

m,any people WITNESSED her leading the charge, and aren't willing to be gaslighted on the matter.

Please stop trying to gaslight me

[Trumpocalypse]

187. No I'm asking you to

post facts that support your allegations. If so many people witnessed it, there would be credible sources to support your allegations, not just some people's opinions.

[Baltimike]

195. I posted facts. You don't like them.

But I do *enjoy* that each time you try and be the arbiter of facts, you kick up a thread calling her full of it.

I even posted a link to the phone calls that were flooding her office at the time. Contemporaneous notes are even admissible in court...there are LOTS of accounts here.

Please stop trying to gaslight me. I know what I lived through

[Trumpocalypse]

197. No you didn't

You posted DU thread that were people's opinions not facts. Say that they are facts over and over will not make it so.

Post facts from credible sources with links.

And you keep claiming that you lived through it. Were you there on Capitol Hill? Were you in all the meetings? Did you listen in on every phone call and read every email? Because if didn't, you lived through nothing.

[Baltimike]

232. It shows the FACT that people witnessed her leading the charge...you just don't like that FACT

and NOTHING will assuage that delusion.

Then you keep up with the gaslighting. I *lived* through it. Where do you get to ask if I attended all of the meetings? Oh THAT'S right....*YOU* set that goal post and pretend I have to meet it. *NOPE*

FACT: Kirsten Gilibrand LED THE CHARGE against Al Franken, and even tried to raise money on it.

You just don't LIKE those facts, so you move the goal post. I won't be gaslighted. Neither will the tens of thousands of people who lived through this too, WITNESSED IT and then have to deal with someone GASLIGHTING them and saying what happened didn't.

NOPE

[Trumpocalypse]

240. No the fact is

Gillibrand was first of over 35 other Senators and only by a few minutes. That is the only verifiable fact we know

It is not gaslighting to ask you prove your accusations. The biased opinions of people who weren’t there either do not prove your accusations.

Please either post real evidence that proves your accusations or admit you can’t.

[Baltimike]

250. No, the FACT is that she lead the charge. Lots of calling her office(s)

and contemporaneous accounts show it....but the gaslighting started when their accusations didn't pass the basic smell test.

[Trumpocalypse]

259. No it is not

Biased opinion posts prove nothing.

[Baltimike]

267. Yes it is

You will move every goal post because you don't like the facts. And if a DU link is not a good enough link....why are you even posting at all? (rhetorical....promise) Please stop gaslighting.

[Trumpocalypse]

273. Nope

And I’ve always asked for the same thing, links to credible and verifiable sources that prove your accusations. A DU thread with biased opinions is not a credible source.

[Baltimike]

279. Yep.

You have always done the same thing...gaslighting. I'm having none of it though.

[AncientGeezer]

291. Source ONE quote in the Politico article..that suggests she..

..led the charge against Sen. Frankin......I read every word of it.

[Baltimike]

150. Here is one in her defense

why does she need defending? Oh yeah...because she LED THE CHARGE: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210945150

[Trumpocalypse]

153. No

She was defended because people were already unfairly demonizing her.

[Baltimike]

176. That's your *opinion*...that is not a fact. nt

[Trumpocalypse]

180. So now you want facts?

Maybe you should read the links to old DU threads you posted earlier.

[Baltimike]

182. Nope. I want you to practice what you preach and stop trying to have it both ways

I was just being tidy with brevity.

FACT: I lived through Kirsten Gillibrand leading the charge against Al Franken...the largess of the population witnessed it too...and that is why she will NEVER get my primary vote.

FACT: NOTHING will convince you she did.

[Trumpocalypse]

186. So you are stating the fact that

you're opinion supersedes real facts?

[Baltimike]

233. No. You are gaslighting. I won't have any of it

FACT

[Trumpocalypse]

241. It is not gaslighting

To ask you to prove your accusations with facts.

[Baltimike]

247. It is

because I did. And so have others on this thread. NOTHING will convince you. And still I refuse to be gaslighted

[Trumpocalypse]

257. No you didn't

You never posted anything from a credible source to prove your accusations.

[Baltimike]

264. Yes, I did

you just don't like the FACT that she lead the charge, and LOTS of people will not be voting for her in the primary as a result.

But you do you

[Trumpocalypse]

270. No you didn't

DU threads are not credible sources.

[Baltimike]

280. Yep...I did

who says they're not credible? You? Then why are you posting here at all?

[mtnsnake]

262. You are right, Baltimike, and it's not just gaslighting, but it's spinning like a top

You could say the sun rises in the east and sets in the west and you'll probably be contradicted with a bucket full of spin and unrelated nonsense. Some people are just out to pull your chain and waste your precious time.

[Baltimike]

263. thank you...nt

[Baltimike]

144. I self deleted because I posted the wrong link, here's more:

DU DURING THE TIME....you know just LIVING THROUGH IT...on how Kirsten Gillibrand was getting ready to have a bad day: https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210256586. The Newsweek story here was since retracted, but even members here knew who was leading the charge

[riverwalker]

277. Yes, the Lindsey Menz claim

The one who claimed “five years ago my husband took a photo at the fair, and Franken touched my butt”. She shopped her story on twitter, and only one journalist “broke” it, MJ Lee of CNN. After the story broke, I found hundreds of foreign bot accounts from Ukraine and Europe generating automated identical tweets pushing the story hard. Classic Stone/Parscale bot Army. Lo and behold, who should be selected Roger Stones Best Dressed 2018 in his “Stone on Style” lavishing his admiration? MJ Lee of CNN.

[Butterflylady]

129. And Roger Stone was a prodigy

Of Lee Atwater. If anyone doesn't know who he is look up Michael Dukakis's presidential campaign and Lee Atwater. Atwater trained them well.

[Trumpocalypse]

157. And is there any evidence

that Stone was connected to the other 7 women?

[Baltimike]

234. Why does he have to be connected to the others?

Oh *I*& know....if he's NOT, *THAT* means Franken is guilty until proven innocent.

*NOPE*. This was ROGER STONE'S SUCKER BET and Kirsten Gilibrand nailed her colors to it.

No amount of wiggling changes that. No amount of "....b..b..bbbut..but.but OTHER Senators called for his resignation the same day she did" undoes her LEADING the charge against him, because that was after THREE SOLID WEEKSA of HER...Kirsten Gilibrand driving that bandwagon.

No dice, and it ain't even a nice try.

[Trumpocalypse]

243. Because if he wasn't

Then only Tweeden can be legitimately called Roger Stone’s sucker bet and the other 7 accusers need to be taken seriously.

[Baltimike]

249. or they're Republicans too and wanted to further their cause

and EVERY accusation deserved an investigation...too bad KIRSTEN GILIBRAND didn't think so, and drove the bandwagon against a proper investigation. At least we agree on that.

[Trumpocalypse]

258. Actually some were

Democrats such as Tina Dupuy. Maybe you should learn the facts about what happened.

[Baltimike]

266. maybe that would've come out in a investigation that KIRSTEN GILIBRAND

lead the charge from not happening.

[Trumpocalypse]

272. It had already come out

Look it up.

And BTW, an ethics committee investigation does not determine guilt or innocence. It is a closed door review that only determines if Congressional ethics rules were violated.

[Baltimike]

282. More gaslighting.

Me and all those tens of thousands of people did not conspire for Kirsten to do what she did...Nevertheless...she did it.

You *keep* trying to gaslight. It won't work.

[brush]

102. IMO she's starting to remind me of the crack about Guiliani. "A noun, a verb and 9/11.

With her it's Franken, a verb and I'd do it again."

Can't wait for her to suspend her campaign.

[delisen]

105. Singling out Gillibrand, ignoring everyone else is unjust

to me.

While I was opposed to Franken not having due process I find the casting of blame only upon Gillibrnd to be absurd.

Gillibrand has been a strong voice against abuse of women in military and more than other senators has been a fighter on this issue so singling her out and letting all others off the hook is troubling

[kcr]

108. I agree the others don't get enough

But I think that's at least in part because she wants it to be her thing. So, the others take advantage of that and lay low.

[Butterflylady]

131. Wow

I guezz then I'm a cultist. Proud to wear that title.

[Trumpocalypse]

133. So you admit

that you don't know or care about the facts?

[Baltimike]

235. No...we refuse to let you gaslight us. nt

[Trumpocalypse]

244. Again it is not gaslighting

to ask anyone to prove their accusations with credible, verifiable facts.

[Baltimike]

245. Yes it is...because no FACT will convince you...you just keep gaslighting. nt

[Trumpocalypse]

256. You are projecting

[Baltimike]

292. you are gaslighting

[Baltimike]

145. Oberliner breaks it down right here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210945150

[kcr]

151. Oberliner...

[Baltimike]

152. lol...the links in the post. I didn't want to take credit for someone els'e work. nt

[kcr]

154. Oh, of course

Even banned trolls deserve credit.

[Baltimike]

236. wow...does the substance of the post subside

because that poster is banned? I didn't know this was a banned person when I posted it, but the FACTS in the post still remain...facts.

[Trumpocalypse]

164. And as was state in that post

I think people have this misunderstanding of Gillibrand leading some kind of charge against Franken when the reality is that she was thrust into a situation where she had to take a position and respond to questions because she had just prior to this story breaking been out front promoting legislation addressing sexual harassment in Congress.

[Baltimike]

237. LOL

read the last phrase of the last sentence.

[Trumpocalypse]

246. I did

And it doesn’t support any of your accusations.

[Baltimike]

251. the gasliughting continues

[Trumpocalypse]

260. Again not gaslighting

to ask you to prove your accusations.

[Baltimike]

265. Again...gaslighting. Nothing will suffice for you, so you keep gaslighting. nt

[Trumpocalypse]

271. No I keep asking for evidence

from credible sources that prove your accusations.

[Baltimike]

281. No you keep gaslighting

There is no source that would satisfy you.

[marble falls]

275. Oberliner .... really?

[Baltimike]

283. see post #152. nt

[marble falls]

285. So we both would never ever want to take credit for an Oberliner post. But for different reasons ...

I bet.

[Baltimike]

287. I don't want to take credit for ANYONE else's post...ever

and don't know oberliner enough to say anything one way or another. I was searching DU for what people were saying AT THE TIME THIS WAS HAPPENING. That thread came up and I posted it.

I don't know him/her from Adam, but....WOW what a cruel thing to say to me. Really.

Again, I don't want to take credit for ANYONE ELSE'S post, and I would hope you wouldn't either, and for the exact *same* reason. Hopefully.

[marble falls]

288. I stand by my comment. I'd never take credit for anything he had to say for any reason.

[Baltimike]

290. as I stand by mine. wow. nt

[Horizens]

3. Couldn't/Wouldn't

Re: " I could not defend his actions."

And she wouldn't allow him the opportunity to defend himself.

[OhZone]

6. that

[suegeo]

205. KG could've talked to the accusers, to assess credibility

But she didn't. Did anybody, in power, on the Democratic side? I'm betting not.

Tweeden carefully crafted her falsehoods with a seig heil radio station and its wingnut management. Her story was, of course, not fact checked.

We are under attack by a hostile foreign power and that power's GOPee allies. Did any of the women get paid off for telling their stories? Getting them to tell those stories under oath would have been helpful.

Franken did not misbehave. It was a setup, a trap set by GOPee operatives, with perhaps an assist from Russians. We (people who aren't fascists) cannot afford to be that gullible. Alas, too late.

Roger Stone is a shitead. So is Hannity, tweeden's bff.

[Marthe48]

4. Many reasons she is not my favorite

I think the Al Franken incident is top of the list.

[beachbum bob]

7. Gillibrand led the charge against Franken, she owns it and still doesn't

care she was wrong. No leadership qualities in her at all.

[Blue_true]

45. And others feel over themselves to match her call.

What does that make them?

She is right, she is being singled out like no one else called for Franken to resign.

[trueblue2007]

92. Gillibrand led the charge against Franken, she owns it and still doesn't TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT IT !!!

i can't EVER trust her.

[Trumpocalypse]

114. No the truth is

that there is no evidence that Gillibrand 'led the charge'. All that we know for sure is that she was the first was quickly followed by over 30 other Senators on the same day, some within minutes, to call on Franken to resign.

[djg21]

184. Conjecture?

You have no evidence. Just an opinion based on what? Conjecture. How ironic.

You have your opinion; I have mine. We can agree to disagree, and Gillibrand still will not be President unless she manages over the upcoming years to somehow rehabilitate herself.

[Trumpocalypse]

188. No those are the facts

The evidence is the timeline of events that day:
https://qz.com/1148972/al-franken-all-of-the-senators-calling-for-his-resignation/

I'm just stating the facts of what happened that day. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of facts. So either post evidence that support your allegations or admit that you can't.

[wellst0nev0ter]

207. Lol, your own link says she's the first

to call on Franken to step down.

Give it up.

[Trumpocalypse]

231. No argument that she was first

By a few minutes and that is the only only anyone can state. There is no evidence that she was the ringleader or did it for a nefarious motive as has been alleged by Franken cultists. Maybe without any facts to support their accusations maybe they should give it up.

[wellst0nev0ter]

242. Oh, so you were just playing semantics games

Good luck with that, slappy.

[Trumpocalypse]

252. No I leave that to you

Never disputed she was first. But I’ve never seen any evidence that she was some sort of ringleader and the other 35 Senators were just blind followers or that she had the evil motives that Franken cultists have alleged.

[Baltimike]

255. more gaslighting...because...WOW

what about the three weeks before her actual call for his resignation? What was she doing then?

[Trumpocalypse]

261. I have no idea

Do you?

[Baltimike]

268. on this, we agree...you certainly have no idea

I do.

[Trumpocalypse]

274. Great

Then post a link that shows that you do.

[Baltimike]

278. I already did...you keep gaslighting anyway. nt

[Baltimike]

238. There's PLENTY of evidence...you just refuse to see it

and won't give it up.

You call us cultists for not acquiescing to your gaslighting.

[Trumpocalypse]

248. Great if there is so much evidence

Post a link to the evidence from credible sources.

[Baltimike]

253. define a credible source. to you. and then stop gaslighting

because even that is moving the goal past.

[Trumpocalypse]

254. An unbiased news site

with real people who actually witnessed the real events going on record.

[OhZone]

8. I don't like groping and all that - but -

it was very obvious that it was all part of comedy thing.

[Skittles]

11. bottom line is, Al Franken is not a pervert

this was all bullshit

[LakeArenal]

9. Jay zus woman... Give it up. Geez

[Bengus81]

10. Pffftttt....reminds me of those Dems who voted for Bush's BS War.......

Coming out and seeing the light a year or so later when everyone else (marching by the MILLIONS) around the World knew months before Bush decided to BOMB innocent people it was all bullshit LIES.

[mr_lebowski]

103. Except, in actuality, no Dems voted for Bush's war ... nor did any Repubs ...

Because there was never any such vote.

[silentEcho]

12. Franken needed handlers to discuss and direct his behavior with others. But it is everyone else's

fault. I like Franken. He should not have just walked out but have the courage to stand up and address the issue. He took the easy way out. On his behavior. That his handlers already knew he had a problem with. So, let him learn, like we hope Biden learns. And move on. But quit blaming everyone else for a man's behavior.

[tonedevil]

14. Handlers? /nt

[silentEcho]

16. Yes.

[tonedevil]

20. If you say so. /nt

[silentEcho]

21. The article that started this conversation says so.

[Duppers]

47. Quote that part please. I cannot find it.

[silentEcho]

54. Physically obtuse, being told to be aware of behavior.

There was a related issue, however, where the staff had intervened: Franken could be physically obtuse. Staffers had told him not to swing his arms so much when he walked, and to close his mouth when he chewed. Petersen told me that he had “monster hands” and sometimes clapped her on the back so hard that it knocked the wind out of her. When he ate, spittle often flew across the table. “He’s sort of clumsy,” Gabrielle Zuckerman, who worked with him at Air America, the progressive talk-radio network, told me, recalling that a heavy backpack once caused him to fall off a chair, pinning him on his back like a turtle. He left the house with his shirt half tucked, and failed to pick up wet towels when staying with friends. He tended to hug many people, and kiss some, even on the mouth. “It was the New York hello-goodbye kiss,” a longtime adviser told me. The talk-show host Randi Rhodes and the comedian Sarah Silverman have described Franken as a social—not a sexual—“lip-kisser.” Silverman told GQ, “He has no sexuality.” (Afterward, Franken sent her a facetious note saying, “Thanks a lot.”) Nevertheless, after Franken kissed a female acquaintance on the mouth in 2007, during his first campaign, an aide from South Dakota, David Benson, took him aside and said, “Don’t do that.” “Really?” Franken said. Benson warned him that people might misinterpret it.

Franken told me that he became more careful after that. “I’m a very physical person,” he said. “I guess maybe sometimes I’m oblivious.” He added, “I’ve been a hugger all my life. When I take pictures, I bring people in close.” He recalled that he often turned people toward the light for a better angle, reminding me, “I used to be in show business.” When posing with kids, he jokingly put them in a headlock. “The family would often laugh about it,” Franken said. But once, when he did this in the Capitol, another senator, Chris Murphy, warned him, “That looks like something that will bring joy and happiness to a thousand families—until it ends your career.”

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/29/the-case-of-al-franken

Where have we heard that before. Then, it is women's fault.

[pangaia]

66. Contrary to your intention in offering this tidbit, it actually SUPPORTS AL!

[silentEcho]

69. The whole article supports Franken. Yes. It does. And it still tells us that Franken

had handlers that recognized he had issues with physically being around others. They were addressing it. It was known. These women and girls spoke out and tried as hard as they could to firmly state, it was not rape. It was not assault. But, Franken was inappropriate and needed to learn not to be. Just like his handlers were trying to teach him.

While supporting Franken.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

15. His staff did tell him to cut back on some behaviors. But he didn't.

[silentEcho]

17. Right.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

19. Apologies -- I read your post wrong.

[BlueStater]

23. You're doing the same thing Gillibrand is doing.

You're creating a strawman argument about her critics.

NO ONE is blaming anyone else for whatever Franken did or didn't do. What Gillibrand is attacked over is that she demanded he step down before there was any sort of investigation into the allegations against him.

If Gillibrand defenders can't even be honest about why people are criticizing her, then they themselves know she's in the wrong.

[silentEcho]

25. Oh, yes they are. They dismiss Frankens behavior consistently and constantly.

Seriously? His handlers new about the issue and tried to direct and guide him. Fact.

And if what you say is true we would see the hate directed at 37 other senators equally. We do not.

And... I am not a Gillibrand supporter. I prefer Warren. Then Harris, Klobuchar, and a couple other top tier Democrats. Gillibrand is not even on my list. But I do recognize hypocrisy.

[BlueStater]

26. His "behavior", at the present time, is just allegations.

And thanks to people like Kirsten Gillibrand, that's what they'll continue to be.

She's attacked more than other senators because not only did she try to make money off of this debacle for her presidential campaign, but she also keeps *blatantly* lying about why she's being criticized.

[silentEcho]

28. No. Thanks to Franken for not having the courage to stand up and address this. Geez,

we are continually giving these men an out. Let him stand up for himself instead of whimping out and walking away.

[Cetacea]

33. He did. But Schumer forced his resignation (according to the new New Yorker article)

So Chuck is emerging as the real culprit here.

[silentEcho]

36. Did not force. Franken acquiesced. Democrats told him to step down, and he did. EIGHT women

and during the Moore debacle and Franken stepped down. No one forced him, he chose. Everyone's fault but Franken. And it was all about his behavior that his handlers had already had conversation about. Ok. It is not even everyone elses fault. It is all and only about Gillibrand. Women are tired of men's behavior being dismissed and the finger pointing at the women that speak out. Frankens handlers spoke out, to him. But it is a "Hollywood" thing. Really?

[questionseverything]

43. franken stepping down was his only mistake

he listened to idiots inside the dc beltway instead of to regular people who could tell it was a hit job

the only thing franken was guilty of was being to open and friendly

I didn't think much of gillibrand before all of this so while she was the most vocal, I don't think much of the others that called for him to leave either

it is my biggest disappointment in Bernie and warren to date

[silentEcho]

46. So it is the "idiots" fault. Lol.

"franken was guilty of was being to open and friendly" He was inappropriate and his handlers knew it and direct and guided him.

[questionseverything]

48. same idiots that defunded acorn over a pimp video

so yes idiots

[pangaia]

68. Maybe you should just give it up..

[silentEcho]

70. You mean shut up? Not voice my opinion? No. Lol.

[Blue_true]

49. He could have told Schumer to go screw himself, that he was going to

immediately call a press conference and demand a Senate Inquiry. But he chose to quit.

[Cetacea]

75. ...

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/29/the-case-of-al-franken

[Blue_true]

83. Your point???????? He quit. He could have stayed and fought. nt

[Cetacea]

87. Any good dem would have fallen on his/her sword given the times

I have no dog in this fight. But I am a bit amazed that nobody is pointing out that Tweeden was a birther and a known liar. However I do not blame anyone for being politically ignorant given the Moore debacle and the rapidity of stories coming out involving celebrities and sexual assault. It's a complicated story with a lot of nuances.

[Blue_true]

90. Most people dismissed Tweeden, until seven other women came forward.

Last edited Wed Jul 24, 2019, 06:13 PM - Edit history (1)

Was Franken innocent? Maybe so. Maybe he didn't pay attention around the women and inadvertently touched them in a way that they felt was wrong. Roy Moore had pretty hard evidence against him and very public witnesses.

You are right, politics is politics. A good soldier sometimes has to fall on his or her sword. The issue that I have is the virulent and non ending attacks on Gillibrand.

[Cetacea]

91. Thanks

I have to agree with you. People need to read that new report.

[wellst0nev0ter]

208. Here's why he chose not to stay:

From the New Yorker piece:

Drew Littman, Franken’s first chief of staff, told me, “People said he didn’t have to do it, but he’s so social—his nerves are exposed all the time. It was like going to school and thinking these people are your friends and they really like you, and then one day they all get together and beat you up. You don’t want to go back to that school after that.” Norman Ornstein, Franken’s friend, said, “It was no more a choice than jumping after they make you walk the plank.”

Remember, Chuck threatened to strip him of his committee assignments and pretty much all influence if Franken had stayed, and he would have had to face the fact that most of the craven Democratic caucus thinks he's a sexual predator. That can't be good for the psyche.

[silentEcho]

213. Ok. It was hard. 8 accusations. It was not unreasonable for the Democratic senate to say enough

at that point. While fighting Roy Moore. It would have been hard for Franken and would have shown what he was made of. He couldn't do it because it was too hard. His choice. It isn't on the Senate. His behavior made it hard for them. They may have found it hard to finally draw the line. But, at 8, they did.

[wellst0nev0ter]

219. Three of the accusations were made by lying trumpanzees

And you and the rest of the lynch mob fell for those lies.

Four were anonymous and unknown to Franken, so he had no way to defend himself.

One was Tina Dupuy who doesn't like being touched at the waist during a photo op

[silentEcho]

221. First. There was a photo of him acting like a stupid teen boy impressing friends

mock grabbing breasts while a woman is sleeping. As much as we do not like that photo no one made Franken be that ass. I can see three types of people watching that behavior. Little boys giggling. Grown ups rolling their eyes. And people like me that say, knock it off.

As much as you do not like the woman that spoke out, or the reason she did it, or being connected to Stone; Franken did a sophomoric sexist act to get a laugh.

As much as you want to go after number one accuser, Franken did it. Bummer it fell right into the Republicans hands.

Why are we blaming everyone else?

[wellst0nev0ter]

223. The New Yorker Story poked holes in that photo

That photo was a re-enactment of a skit him and Tweeden did together, and there is another photo showing a similar pose where Tweeden laughed it off.

There was a perfectly reasonable explanation for the photo. Despite that, Franken recognized it was wrong and apologized. Do you think he should lose his job over that photo? One that was taken before he was a senator? Are you that disproportionate?

And yes, I'm blaming you and everyone else who fell for a trumpanzee smear campaign. I am proud to die on that hill.

[Trumpocalypse]

115. How did she attack more than the other Senators?

[Baltimike]

239. this. nt

[lame54]

37. The thread is about Gillibrand not owning her actions

[silentEcho]

40. She owns them. Franken doesn't. Gillibrand does it without excuses.

Giving you facts. Now, lets see Franken own it and put it behind him and figure out what he wants to do with life that betters us all, that he is so into.

[lame54]

41. She has not

[silentEcho]

44. "But when the eighth person comes forward, there's a pattern.

Women have been putting up with this B.S. from time immemorial. And we’re sick of it.”

Sounds like she is owning it way more than Franken ever had the courage to own his behavior.

[BlueStater]

58. So after accusations hit a certain number, they no longer deserve to be investigated?

Mazie Hirono is wrong and her statement disgusts me. She and the other senators chose quantity over quality with their knee jerk decision to call for Franken's ouster.

And, no. Gillibrand's not owning up to anything. As I have pointed out repeatedly, she keeps lying about why her critics are attacking her. Blatant fucking lying that doesn't make her look like an honest person at all.

And shifting the subject to Franken and attacking him doesn't change that.

[silentEcho]

60. They stated step down after 8 accusations. Franken could have easily said, he didn't do anything

and would be addressing it. Franken was weak. Franken stepped down. Franken walked away. Gillibrand and 37 others had the right to state, 8 accusations, time to step down. Stepping down is on Franken.

People are pissed that Gillibrand didn't continue to stand WITH Franken after 8 accusations. Not her job. Was Franken's to appropriately know how to physically be around females. His behavior, his to address.

Not everyone's else's job.

And, I am on Franken's side, that he could well come back. If he would only own his part and say he learned and actually did, unlike Biden. Don't joke, don't laugh at, just learn how to behave appropriately around women and girls. Is that really too much to expect?

[BlueStater]

64. No one was asking her or anyone else to "stand" with him.

What they wanted was for the claims against him to be investigated and she and the other Democratic senators clearly failed to do that with their coordinated, knee jerk call for him to go.

[silentEcho]

72. After the 8th claim, they decided that was too much.

Not unreasonable. They had every right to believe that 8 accusations was that one too many. Right? Or are you saying that your expectation is they continue to stand with Franken? Eight tipped it to beyond investigation which is not much of a proceeding at all. That these people at eight did not have the right to say enough. That they are to blame they did not wait longer?

All while going after Roy Moore.

[BlueStater]

82. Investigating the allegations isn't about "standing" with him.

It's about thoroughly examining an issue before making any final decisions that could affect someone's life. It's what they should have done instead of panicking and acting like a bunch of twits.

As for the accusations themselves, we have Tweeden, who has already been discredited as a con artist, several anonymous accusers, one who claimed that that she thought Franken made a face like he wanted to kiss her (WTF?), one who claimed Franken "groped" her waist, and one who claimed that he touched her butt while taking a photo with her yet had said photo on her Facebook page for years afterwards. You're telling me that none of these accusations warranted being investigated further? Really?

[brooklynite]

77. "Franken could have easily said, he didn't do anything"

Not after he'd already given an apology speech.

[silentEcho]

86. We saw with the photo he was sophomorically insensitive if nothing else.

That does not change just because she is a Republican operative. Who of us would have giggled like a little boys, who would have rolled their eyes and any of us tell Franken to knock it off? Probably me.

We can probably respect and support Franken while understanding that he is "obtuse in physical behavior with others".

[pazzyanne]

67. May I remind you that most of those alegations were not proven.

As soon as Al resigned - crickets. Not one thing since then. It was a Republican hit job pure and simple, and Democrats formed a circular firing squad to take down a decent man. KG lead the charge, still leads the charge, and owns what she did even if she denies it!

[pangaia]

71. " As soon as Al resigned - crickets."

Exactly !!!!

[Baltimike]

284. THIS!!!

[silentEcho]

74. One of the young woman was a Democratic party employee. Doing her job.

But ya, ... not only Gillibrand's fault but all about the Republicans because he pretended to grab a republican operative breast wile she was sleeping. Ya, we know she and Republicans were going after the Democrats. And ya, Franken was an ass being sophomoric pretending to grab her breasts while she was sleeping. Yea Franken for giving the Republicans the picture. All because he wanted to be cool with the boys.

That would be the point.

[pazzyanne]

76. Sorry, you are preaching to the wrong audience!

I happen to know Al Franken very well and have followed what happened to him from day one to the present day. He was railroaded pure and simple, and a couple of months later that same play book was used on another Minnesota candidate. THE SAME PLAY BOOK! Hit job all the way!

[wellst0nev0ter]

210. The New Yorker Piece covered that allegation

The woman was anonymous and Franken still does not remember the incident. He speculated that it may have been a misunderstanding (this was in 2006 when he was still a comedian) and that he may have given her a hug and when she balked, he might have said "that's what we do in show business."

Franken categorically denies the woman's claim that he said he tried to kiss her, then followed up by saying "It's my right as an entertainer."

When Mayer asked that woman if there was a chance Franken made a clumsy thank-you gesture, the woman replied "Is there a difference? If someone tried to do something to you unwanted?"

So I'll concede that people should not invade people's personal space without consent. But was that action enough to put him out of a job?

"I didn't end his Senate career—he did!" said the woman.

Not only do I think this account was, at best, embellished to be most damaging to Franken (people who know him, women who have worked with him from his SNL days to his time as a Senator, say he would never act that way) she has no perspective on proportionality.

[silentEcho]

214. First the young Democratic woman was known, but not to us.

He had handlers "teaching" him about physical space. The young woman is right, it is not on her.

Was it enough to end his career? I have already stated that if Franken had done the hard work, then no, he probably would not have needed to step down. But, he didn't do that because his feelings were hurt, per your post, because the senate now thought he was a "sexual predator".

Franken invades space and it is others problems. Franken's feelings are hurt because of his "physical obtuseness" and it is others problems.

I think Franken could easy come back, stating he gets it, and truly gets it. But what I have seen over the last year is allowing himself to be the victim, allowing supporters to blame ONE of the Democratic senators exclusively to the harm of her career because of his actions. And he has not had the guts to stand up and own the behavior and call fans off Gillibrand. That would have me respect the man. Doing the hard stuff. Instead the piece comes off as Franken being the victim in all this. I am good with Franken making a come back. I am tired of the men becoming the victim at the women's expense. Be brave. Be strong. Own it. He is a good Democratic leader and he is a advocate for women and girls. He could easily, rise. But, do it honestly.

[wellst0nev0ter]

217. Read the article again

The "minders" were on the lookout for potentially offensive humor from Franken, not physical contact that people are all of a sudden too precious about.

These minders have NEVER reported a single complaint about mistreatment of women. You're right that a staffer warned him that a friendly kiss to an acquaintance would be interpreted the wrong way—by the zero-tolerance-zero-sense crowd.

Sure, Franken could have stayed, but he would be burning a whole bunch of bridges and become a pariah in the Senate. Not only is he a "sexual predator" but he is also not a team player.

Franken does not owe Gillibrand anything. She called on Franken to resign while announcing a sexual harassment bill that Franken himself has originated and given to Gillibrand to sponsor. And she did that in front of Franken's staff to boot. She is not a good person.

[silentEcho]

220. Ya, whatever. Too hard.

I can see a lot of ways a grown man could have addressed this and come out gold. Personally, I do not think with sincerity and strength it would have been all that hard. Us Democrats are pretty forgiving and we listen. And try to grow. So no, I won't make Franken a victim.

[brooklynite]

225. FWIW - None of this has "harmed her career"

Notwithstanding the "I'll never vote for her" brigade, she was easily re-elected last year. She won't be the Presidential nominee, but that because, like 20-odd other candidates, she doesn't have the right mix of persona, policies and oratorical skills to appeal to the 30 M Democratic voters, of whom 99% don't hang out on political blogs.

[silentEcho]

226. Good point. You are right. She is at least tenth on my list.

[wellst0nev0ter]

209. Do you know who the eighth woman was?

She was someone who claimed that -- GASP!!! -- Franken placed his hands on her waist during a photo op.

So the allegation was basically this:



And you're defending this travesty? Give me a break.

[silentEcho]

215. No. He grabbed a part of her body and held on. That would be his physical obtusenss

of others space that his handlers had been instructing and addressing him, on. Why do we do that? We do that with Biden and only say it is about a hug. It is not about a "hug'. Nose to nose rubs, sticking his face in the back of a woman's head, pulling a girls face to his for a forehead to forehead. But we say, a "hug". That honesty has to be a part of the discussion.

So, the woman clearly stated it was not about rape or assault. She stated, let me make it really clear, it is not the level of rape. That doesn't matter, though, does it? She was saying he was inappropriate. And he was. Not a big deal, not the end of the world and not anything his handlers did not already know about him.

[wellst0nev0ter]

216. You know it was a photo op, right?

You hold on to a body part for an extended period of time for a photo op.

Al Franken was driven out of office because he didn't use the fucking hover hand.

If Tina Dupuy did not want to be touched, she should have said something right then and there. But she didn't, and immediately afterwards wrote social media posts praising Franken

We don't normally malign adults who hold people close for photo ops, and that is not something we push people out of jobs for. That would be excessive and disproportionate.

It was shameful for the Atlantic to run that piece by Dupuy, and I don't know what people were thinking when they thought "holding a waist during a photo op" was the last straw.

[silentEcho]

218. Franken himself knew he stepped over the line on this stuff. His people knew. Friends knew.

Doesn't mean he is not a good guy. Just stop invading space. And do not blame a woman when she said in his privilege he didn't care to curtail his grabbing because hey, that is just the type of guy he is.

That basically is what the me too discussion was about. All this stuff.

So no, I am not going to dismiss what the conversation was to play happy with Franken and his supporters.

The best I can give is I like the man, his voice, and I have no problem supporting him again, preferably not a victim, but a wiser and more controlled person. Unfortunately, this constant blame at the women that spoke out, Gillibrand and anyone that holds Franken accountable is only going to keep Franken in his victim mode. I am not the only Democratic woman to feel that we. We are tired of men being defined as physically obtuse, or a toucher and told we simply accept it. No. Supporters are becoming enablers. Just a thought from a different perspective.

[wellst0nev0ter]

222. Franken did not step over any line with that photo op

Franken denied he ever said "it's my right as an entertainer" but I guess it's his word against his accuser.

But if this were an actual court case, Franken would be given the right to face his accuser because how could you prove anything otherwise?

So at this point, we have four women who refuse to come forward and make themselves known to Franken. One Franken didn't actually touch.

One claims that Franken improperly kissed her... in front of an audience of 750 people and of whom nobody will corroborate her story. This particular accusation was so weak even the conservative station that aired Tweeden's lies passed on it when she shopped it around.

The other two claims Franken groped them during similarly public events, yet there were no witnesses. Go figure.

The 24 women who have accused Trump have all offered their names because they know their cases have merit. Although granting anonymity is necessary in this toxic media environment we live in, but it is also unsettling that people can be "cancelled" based on anonymous, unverified accusations.

[silentEcho]

224. "Franken did not step over any line with that photo op" He didn't? I disagree.

I cannot imagine any working environment where that would not be over the line. Interesting you do not see it as such. Probably indicative why I feel it is harmful to dismiss the behavior in order to make Franken the victim.

I think I am done with this conversation. Clearly I do not have an issue with Franken himself representing us, more with the handling of the issue over the last year, and the hypocrisy from some in our party, going after one woman when there were 37 others.

So, thanks for the conversation. Exploration of thought.

[wellst0nev0ter]

228. We are talking about Tina Dupuy, right?

The one who claimed Franken "inappropriately" held her waist during a photo op?


The thought of Dupuy portraying herself as a victim is frankly offensive to me, who was actually groped. But yes, this conversation is a waste of time.

And nothing will change the fact that Gillibrand was first out the gate.

[USALiberal]

73. Satire I assume??? Nt

[Butterflylady]

137. There was no bad behavior.

He was a comedian doing a skit. No one ever said a word till he came down hard on Sessions. Not a word said when he was running for Senator. But a of a sudden there are all these women showing up accusing him of bad behavior. Why didn't they come out, because they didn't know he was going make waves back than. But when he did it was time to attack.

[mntleo2]

13. I told her up front ...

I would never support her run because of her crap call for Al to step done. That she tries to claim however many others agreed with her is not the point. She was the loudest.

I am a retired female senior and worked over 35 years and some of it in non-traditional jobs. Let me tell ya, the accusations he got was nothing compared to what I got. From slaps on the butt, to fondling boobs, to words and actions that hurt so bad I cried for days (like working twice as hard and performing twice as good and getting passed over as well as earning 1/3 less). I am not saying my ordeal was right or proper, but what I am saying is this stuff he was accused of doing (and never proven) is not that bad.

This is a problem I have with younger women (and some men). I have raised both sons and daughters. I am glad things are better for them than it was for me. But IMHO they are acting like babies. If they are going to be adults, they simply need to straighten up and stop crying foul all the time. Life is *not* fair and it never has been. Deal with it. Period!

Cat in Seattle

[Trumpocalypse]

117. How was she the loudest?

[zentrum]

18. As furious with her now as

....I was when she first did it.

Felt then that she'd done it in a calculated---she saw it as bringing her a big MeToo following on her march to the Presidency. Pure ambition. It blew up in her face then and even more now.

Al was in the mold of Paul Wellstone. Miss him terribly.

[djg21]

22. She's a political animal.

Franken was a political rival and was gaining too much momentum. Gillibrand took an opportunity to remove him from the field to enhance her own political prospects. It was pure self interest. She’s my senator and will never lose her seat, and I once was a supporter. I’ve since asked to be removed from her mailing list.

[democratisphere]

31. Never say never.

We all found that to be true the hard way.

[zentrum]

38. Me too.

[dflprincess]

57. She's a political animal who walked right into a right wing trap.

And she'll fall for their tricks again.

[Cetacea]

61. Didn't Alfonse D'amato help her ?

Did she scuttle Kennedy's run?

[Trumpocalypse]

116. There is no evidence of that

You're demonizing someone with no facts to support your allegations. And all this time I thought only conservatives did that.

[djg21]

173. Facts.

It’s an opinion. You may not like it, but it’s mine.

[Trumpocalypse]

174. So you're saying that

it's ok to demonize someone without any supporting facts or evidence based on opinion alone. Again, I thought only the right did that.

[djg21]

177. I'm saying grow up.

The facts are that Gillibrand led the charge seeking Franken’s resignation, and she was motivated by something to do that. Altruism? I may be cynical, but I doubt it. She’s a career politician with aspirations.

This is a political discussion board. You’ve made clear that you have an opinion different from from mine. You don’t see me calling you a dumbfuckfor not sharing my opinion. Knock it off.

[Trumpocalypse]

178. What facts support your allegations?

Please post some with links to credible sources. Opinions are irrelevant, facts are not.

[djg21]

185. Feel free to post some links to 'facts' that prove me wrong.

I don’t have time to waste on you. We disagree. When you provide some actual facts, I’ll be happy to consider them.

[Trumpocalypse]

189. No you're making the allegation

I'm asking you to prove it. Either post credible evidence that support your allegations or admit that you can't.

[djg21]

200. Here you are.

Last edited Wed Jul 24, 2019, 08:03 PM - Edit history (1)

https://qz.com/1148972/al-franken-all-of-the-senators-calling-for-his-resignation/

She was first in line. Good bye.

[Trumpocalypse]

201. No argument that she was first

But that doesn’t prove or even address your original allegation.

[PatrickforO]

42. Maybe, like Wellstone, the POB decided that

having a Franken around asking hard questions and speaking truth to power was a bit much. So they destroyed him.

I'm not talking about Dems, either, but corporate interests. The people who actually do call the shots. Maybe Franken was making them nervous.

[Trumpocalypse]

119. What facts support your allegations?

How do you know what her motives were? Are you a mind reader?

[zentrum]

206. You have to be pretty naive to

...not understand a move like this coming from a politician. They are easy to read.
She was already making Presidential noises to us New Yorkers.

Franken was one of our most important Senators. You don't take him down without a pretty big motive. Hers, I maintain, was obvious.

I should add that elevator opinions among women were that she'd removed him to clear her path.

[Trumpocalypse]

230. That's not evidence

And was that also the motives of Harris, Sanders, Warren and Booker?

Please post some evidence from credible sources that prove your accusations.

I thought only republicans demonized someone based on opinion without any facts. Guess we’re not that different after all.

[zentrum]

289. Never said it was "evidence".

Always said it was opinion. Based on years of watching her for years.

We're allowed to voice opinion. It doesn't make us an ugly Repug.

Interesting how having an opinion about a Democrat becomes demonizing to you. Guess we have to docilely believe the best of all of them. Or we're like Trump. Again, interesting.

[AZ8theist]

24. And yet my post was removed because it violated a rule...

Of not attacking other Democrats. And all I said was I wouldn't support her if she was the nominee.
DU has about as much consistency as the refereeing in the NHL...

[Blue_true]

53. You are actually lucky that your post was just hidden.

What you said basically is that you would not support the Democratic Party nominee in the General Election. People can have their accounts closed for that.

My suggestion, calm down before you write something like what you wrote. All of us get hidden on occasion. I doubt that you would not support the democrat in the General. I passionately don't want Bernie and a few others to win the nomination, but if one of them do, I will swallow hard and be behind them 100% the very next day after it is clear one of them is our nominee.

[AZ8theist]

106. Yeah, you're right ...(sigh..)

I would end up doing as you suggest...swallowing HARD and voting for the Dem nominee.

I just don't get why my post was flagged and this post was OK. Like I said, it's becoming an NHL game with the quality of refereeing..

[Blue_true]

198. I get your point. But sometimes it is better to not post at all if the emotions

are so high that something that does not represent how you feel gets posted.

[democratisphere]

27. What goes around, comes around.

That's Justice.

[redstateblues]

29. Love Al but sorry. Don't do stupid things

[Blue_true]

55. People are putting all them blame on her.

There were larger players. She also has a long history of being very forceful about sexual abuse, touching, whatever by powerful people.

She is right, IMO, and I don't care if people don't like my position.

[BlueStater]

59. What's right about calling for someone to step down based on allegations alone?

In Gillibrand's world, anyone accused of anything should immediately lose their job and have their reputation destroyed without any of the claims being investigated.

That's a horrible precedent to set. How can some people think this is okay?

[Blue_true]

62. She is being hammered. 37 other Senators asked him to step down.

And now we know, Schumer gave him an ultimatum. Why blame Gillibrand with the virulence that is happening. People always throw up that she was the first and loudest, but those same people call her a lightweight. If she was in fact a lightweight, nothing that she said regardless of how forcefully should have mattered. Yet, people are saying that she made a massive difference, that is total bullshit and smacks of utter high-grade misogyny.

[BlueStater]

65. There are a few reasons why she's been singled out over most of them.

For starters, she made a Twitter post shortly after she announced her presidential campaign exploiting the scandal and trying to make money off of it. Harris, Booker, Sanders, and the others who called for his resignation never pulled any tacky crap like that.

Secondly, as I keep mentioning, she's lying about why she's being criticized. "I'm being attacked for his behavior" is a strawman argument. It's a dishonest framing of why people aren't happy with her. That's what's bullshit.

[Blue_true]

78. She was being attacked with virulence well before she decided to run

and announced. Why are you conflating that?

He has long been a champion of women not facing harrassment in their workplaces, be that the military, corporate, or government, including the United States Senate. She has a history in that area, why shouldn't she harp on it after she announced.

Conditions are being applied to her that no one else has faced. That is getting seriously fucking tiring. I don't plan to vote for her when the primary comes to my state, there are better choices. But her position on Franken is not among my reasons for not seeing her as the nominee, if you want to make it your condition knock yourself out, I just disagree with you and everyone that does.

[BlueStater]

85. Primarily because a lot of people still question whether Franken was actually guilty of anything.

That's why she shouldn't harp on it.

I don't give a shit about her past. That's irrelevant to how she reacted to this story. Also, demanding that accused people immediately be punished when all the facts haven't been completely examined is exactly the wrong way to combat sexual assault and doesn't help victims in the least. It only hurts the cause.

[Blue_true]

89. Franken could have sought due process. He chose to resign.

Gillibrand did not make that decision for him.

In the corporate world and even within government, people ARE NOT fired on accusations, doing something like that is a trapdoor to losing lawsuits and paying out big money. People ARE and SHOULD BE FIRED when an investigation uncovers evidence of their wrongdoing. Franken could have demanded such an inquiry, he quit instead.

[standingtall]

97. Except almost every Democrat in the senate already demanded he resigned

Due process was not a possibility after that, because his colleagues had already publicly declared him guilty.There was no way he was going to get a fair investigation after that. The numbers were already there to expel him, because every repuke in the senate would've been in favor of expelling him or any other Democrat for that matter. The only thing he could've done at that point would be to refuse to resign in anyway and threaten to run as a 3rd party spoiler if there were any effort to expel him. Maybe that is what he should've done? To bad the Justin Fairfax situation did happen until later, because Franken could've learned how to deal with these kind of allegations from him even though the allegations against Franken were nowhere near as serious.

[Blue_true]

199. I see your point, it would have been tough for him, but he could have chosen to fight on.

He could have called a press conference, called out some of the more agressive senators by name then said he understand how they feel and why they feel that way, but he is innocent and he demands the opportunity to prove that. Instead he fell on his sword to not muck-up the change of Doug Jones winning in Alabama by giving Roy Moore a liferaft.

[Trumpocalypse]

123. Please

The demonization of Gillibrand was going on long before that twitter post. And that post came after she was repeatedly asked and attacked about the Franken affair in several interviews and town halls.

[Trumpocalypse]

121. So would you apply the same measure to

Trump or Kavanaugh or Thomas?

[BlueStater]

193. Absolutely.

Of course they should be investigated. That doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to have their own personal opinions about their guilt or innocence.

[Trumpocalypse]

194. True

But it does seem to be a big double standard for some.

[Gothmog]

30. I do NOT think that she will make the third debate

[brooklynite]

80. Neither will many others...

Has nothing to do with Franken.

[ProfessionalLeft]

98. Take off the blinders

It has *everything* to do with Franken.

[brooklynite]

181. Actual voters don't care...

...they care about economic policies, immigration and civil rights.

[brooklynite]

190. Booker is at 2%; Klobuchar is at 1%...what's their excuse?

[dem4decades]

32. An example of what a politician says when their plan to take credit for an action does awry.

[PatrickforO]

34. I am certainly inclined to agree.

Her statement as cited here seems quite disingenuous in a self-serving sort of way. No doubt.

Just as there's no doubt in my own mind that Franken was railroaded, and that it was a right wing smear job.

Bottom line: Franken was one of our best. Gillibrand? Well you all can make your own decision. I won't be supporting her in the primaries. At all. For that reason.

Her campaign looks to be failing anyway.

And yes, I know others called for Franken to resign, too, including my candidate Warren. And yes, it is a soft spot.

[brooklynite]

52. "and yes, it is a soft spot..."

...but we'll look the other way.

[question everything]

39. And then, from the New Yorker article

The next day, Franken gave a short resignation speech. Gillibrand and other Senate colleagues flocked to hug him afterward.

Hug him? Not afraid of a wet smooch?

[Indykatie]

50. Her Doubling Down on Her Position Without Any Reflection is Why She'll Never Get Above 1-2%.

She wants to rewrite history. No one expected her to "defend his actions". Her blind ambition has always rubbed me the wrong way.

[brooklynite]

51. What's the excuse for all the other 1-2% candidates?

[ananda]

63. Who?

She is dead to me.

[USALiberal]

79. She thought it would make her look like a leader. He chose poorly! Nt

[cp]

81. We're still angry with her because she collaborated with Roger Stone's ratfecking of Franken

[Polly Hennessey]

84. Keep digging that hole, Gillibrand.

I love it.

[oasis]

88. It's over, get a grip.

[brooklynite]

95. Don't get your hopes up...

[susanr516]

96. It's not just the Franken incident

Gillibrand was one of the more conservative Democrats in the House, a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, 100% rating from the NRA, and only a tepid supporter of same-sex marriage. The second she became a Senator, she was a different person. She quickly became one of the most liberal Democrats, strongly advocating for the legalization of same sex marriage and soon earning an F rating from the NRA. It was a total transformation.

Honestly, I believe Gillibrand is actually a liberal. There are many occasions when she seemed to admit she was more liberal than her House voting record. However, I can't trust her to take a stand on a lot of issues. Gillibrand has already proven that her support depends less upon what she believes than upon what is best for her political future. When she led the charge against Al Franken, I was left wondering, did Gillibrand speak out on behalf of all of us women who have experienced unwanted sexual advances and abuse? Or had she made a coldly calculated decision that her stance would help advance her politically? I couldn't decide.

I'm 65 and I can't count the number of times I've had to deal with unwanted sexual advances and abuse from male coworkers. I fully support MeToo. I was one of them on multiple occasions. I just can't shake the feeling that Gillibrand spoke out against Franken in order to advance her own political career, rather than to seek justice for his victim/accuser.

I am certain I will not vote for Gillibrand in the primary and I don't believe she will be the Democratic candidate in the general. Should that happen, I will vote for Gillibrand in the general election without a moment's hesitation. However, I'll never trust that she'll actually support anything she says she will do if she's elected.

[ProfessionalLeft]

99. Great post!

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Eyeball_Kid]

101. A number of Dem pols made a major mistake when they

hopped on the bandwagon to oust Franken. It was a rush to judgment. For what? To prove your MeToo bonafides? His first accuser had numerous contacts with Roger Stone and Hannity BEFORE she went public. She's a right wing media hack. Gillibrand and Schumer got snookered. No excuse.

[Princetonian]

204. This ought to be an OP.

You go, girl!

96. It's not just the Franken incident

Gillibrand was one of the more conservative Democrats in the House, a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, 100% rating from the NRA, and only a tepid supporter of same-sex marriage. The second she became a Senator, she was a different person. She quickly became one of the most liberal Democrats, strongly advocating for the legalization of same sex marriage and soon earning an F rating from the NRA. It was a total transformation.

Honestly, I believe Gillibrand is actually a liberal. There are many occasions when she seemed to admit she was more liberal than her House voting record. However, I can't trust her to take a stand on a lot of issues. Gillibrand has already proven that her support depends less upon what she believes than upon what is best for her political future. When she led the charge against Al Franken, I was left wondering, did Gillibrand speak out on behalf of all of us women who have experienced unwanted sexual advances and abuse? Or had she made a coldly calculated decision that her stance would help advance her politically? I couldn't decide.

I'm 65 and I can't count the number of times I've had to deal with unwanted sexual advances and abuse from male coworkers. I fully support MeToo. I was one of them on multiple occasions. I just can't shake the feeling that Gillibrand spoke out against Franken in order to advance her own political career, rather than to seek justice for his victim/accuser.

I am certain I will not vote for Gillibrand in the primary and I don't believe she will be the Democratic candidate in the general. Should that happen, I will vote for Gillibrand in the general election without a moment's hesitation. However, I'll never trust that she'll actually support anything she says she will do if she's elected.

Gillibrand will nevah evah evah EVAH be President.

[susanr516]

227. Thank you.

[OnDoutside]

100. Randi Rhodes worked at Air America for 5 years when Al was there,

and while she has her differences with Franken, she said he's the opposite of the character assassination that Gillibrand portrayed him to be. This was a clear effort by her to get Franken out of the way. It's not a nice personality trait, and that is clearly reflected in the Democratic primary polls.

[brooklynite]

107. Get Franken out of the way of WHAT?

Franken was never discussed as a Presidential candidate and never said anything about running (and I had private meetings with him). You want to criticize Gillibrand's behavior? Fine. Don't layer on lazy conspiracy theories that you have no evidence for.

[OnDoutside]

167. That's not true. There were plenty of rumours about him running for President, especially around the

time he published his Giant of the Senate book.

[delisen]

104. Booker, Warren, Harris, Sanders called for Franken resignation

majority of democratic senators called for his resignation.

Schumer demanded his resignation.

I believe none of them should have.

[mtnsnake]

110. Were any of those folks anti-immigration like Gillibrand was when she pandered

to the voters in the 20th District of NYS to get elected to the House of Representatives in 2006?

Then after Governor Paterson appointed her to take Hillary's vacant Senate seat, she threw the Clintons under the bus after they had heavily supported her effort to remain in the Senate.

She also cozied up the NRA and was pro-gun during her reign in the House.

If by any strange quirk of luck she became the nominee, I'd have to wonder if she'd revert right back to being pro-gun and anti-immigration again if she thought it would help her chances of getting elected President. She seems to pander that much.

[Trumpocalypse]

128. So you would have preferred a Republican get elected to that seat?

And is she the only politician who pandered to win an election?

[mtnsnake]

132. So you would prefer Donald J Trump for 4 more years?

[Trumpocalypse]

134. Non-sequiter

Why not just honestly answer my question.

[mtnsnake]

136. Why is it a non-sequiter?

Why not just honestly answer my question.

[Trumpocalypse]

142. Because it is

and you know it is.

[mtnsnake]

147. The only other non-sequitor besides your other one is your initial question to me in post 128

because it is a silly question, and it was a silly question because you KNOW that I would not prefer a Republican to have been elected to that seat, yet you asked me that question just the same. What I would have preferred in Gillibrand's case is that we had a much more honest Democrat sitting in her seat, rather than someone who pandered to Republicans and rather to someone who was disloyal to fellow Democrats afterward.

[Trumpocalypse]

158. No it wasn't

You had issues with positions that Gillibrand took to get elected to the House in a conservative district. So it was a fair question? I would ask the same question about the over 20 Democratic Reps. who flipped GOP seats in 16.

[mtnsnake]

162. It was a silly question to ask, period

no matter which way you'd like to spin it.

[Trumpocalypse]

166. Not silly

Just uncomfortable.

[delisen]

202. Gillibrand work on protecting women in military

from sexism and sexual assault

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2017/1213/Senator-Gillibrand-takes-on-leadership-role-in-fight-against-sexual-assault

I know any other senator who has done as much work on mistreatment of women in the military

[Baltimike]

109. She fell for ROGER STONE'S SUCKER BET. #notgettingmyprimaryvote....ever. nt

[brooklynite]

112. In which case, so did every other Democratic Senator

[Baltimike]

118. Nope. They rallied to her bandwagon, but she was at the helm

and we ALL lost because of it

[brooklynite]

120. So you're saying we need a President who can rally every Senator to her side?

[Baltimike]

122. No...YOU'RE saying that. I'm saying we need a POTUS that doesn't fall for

ROGER STONE'S sucker bet.

[Trumpocalypse]

124. Is there any evidence to show

that Roger Stone was connected to all the other 7 women who accused Franken?

[Trumpocalypse]

125. So they were all just blind followers

Doesn't speak well for them.

[MicaelS]

293. No, it does not.

IMO, they were just trying to prove their political bona fides to MeToo movement, rather than give Franken a fair hearing. The fact some of them have stated they regret their previous behavior is very telling.

Franken was very weak in HIS behavior by withdrawing too soon.

Yet, I am still voting for Warren.

I am looking forward to then day Gillibrand withdraws from the race. It can't be soon enough for me.

[Butterflylady]

130. She still doesn't get.

Can't trust anyone who won't admit she might have rushed to judgement.

[Trumpocalypse]

135. Does that apply to

Warren, Booker, Sanders and Harris too.

[mtnsnake]

139. Warren, Booker, Sanders and Harris?? How about citing some specifics in regards to

whatever it is that you are implying between the connection between Gillibrand and those four folks.

[Trumpocalypse]

143. Because they all

called for Franken to resign the very same day.

[mtnsnake]

148. Who was the FIRST one of those four folks and Gillibrand to call for Franken's resignation?

[Trumpocalypse]

156. Gillibrand was but

the other four did so too on the very same day, some within minutes. So it is unfair to blame one and not the others.

[mtnsnake]

159. Correct. Gillibrand was the first one to get the ball rolling on ousting Franken.

[Trumpocalypse]

160. So the others were all just blind followers?

Doesn't say much for them.

[mtnsnake]

163. Those are YOUR words, not mine.

[Trumpocalypse]

168. So they were not blind followers?

Or did Gillibrand hypnotize them into doing her bidding?

[mtnsnake]

169. Why do you think they were blind followers, Trumpocalypse?

[Trumpocalypse]

170. I don't

I just see an unfair double standard to not hold them all to the same standard.

[kelly1mm]

191. Yes. Any Senator that called for Sen. Franken to resigns lacks judgement to be President. nt

[Trumpocalypse]

192. Thank you

That is a fair response.

[brooklynite]

196. SO you'll vote in the GE for someone without the judgement to be President?

[sage41]

203. She's so annoying

Can't wait for her to drop.

[wellst0nev0ter]

211. Gillibrand is a champion for woman

Unless she's trying to protect one of her own:

Former Gillibrand aide resigned in protest over handling of sex harassment claims

And when she got caught, she said that the allegations were—get this—"fully investigated." Just like Al, right?

Gillibrand defends handling of harassment complaints

[suegeo]

212. Here's what I find absurd: KG didn't speak to any of the accusers to get a sense of how credible

Last edited Thu Jul 25, 2019, 06:28 PM - Edit history (1)

They were. In this climate where Russians are attacking us, with assists from their allies, the Republicans.

Also absurd: the allegations were not to the level of sexual assult, harassment, or rape. If an accuser feels the alleged actions were sexual assult, it doesn't mean the alleged actions were assult, contrary to what KG claimed in Mayer's recent report.

None of the alleged actions were investigated, proven to be true. And even if true (which they aren't), the harsh punishment meted out was uncalled for.

Al is innocent. This matter was ratfucking and it was bullshit.

[kcr]

229. Not true. She talked to the congressional staffer. From the article:

Not long ago, I asked the woman if she thought that Franken had been making a sexual advance or a clumsy thank-you gesture.


“Is there a difference?” she replied. “If someone tries to do something to you unwanted?”

[BlueStater]

269. Uh, yeah, there is a difference.

The former is far less likely to care what you think than the latter.

Someone being physically affectionate doesn't make them a damn predator.

[suegeo]

294. Gillibrand (not JM, the reporter) didn't talk to any accuser

From Mayer’s article
She (Gillibrand) acknowledged that she had not spoken to any accusers, to assess their credibility

So without speaking to them, KG just started to sing the “resign” refrain. Without any thought that the accusations were made up, exaggerated by wingnut hacks, or if said wingnuts were paid in rubles to spew falsehoods.

Further, she (KG) makes a statement that whether or not acts of sexual harassment or assault were actually committed, if an accuser merely feels like sexual harassment happened, then sexual harassment happened. That’s absurd

Grabbing someone’s waist is not sexual harassment, for example.

[kcr]

295. Oops. I'm sorry. I misread your post.

[Gothmog]

296. I really hope that this is Gillibrand's last DNC debate