Al Franken did more to take on Trump than Kirsten Gillibrand ever did, or will do

[Ghost Owl]

203. Your poll is outdated

the most recent poll indicated half of Minnesotans DIDN'T want him to resign: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/366653-poll-half-of-minnesotans-dont-think-franken-should-go-through-with] 70% of Minnesotan dems didn't want him to resign, and he actually polled higher among women than men.

I don't know why you think more currant polls are less valuable than older ones. As more information got out, and people could really digest the information and make an informed choice rather than a knee-jerk reaction, they didn't want him out, they wanted him to stay and have an ethics hearing at least.

And there's no comparing Franken's accusers with Moore's and Weinstein's. Moore and Weinstein had their accusers thoroughly vetted over a period of weeks/months, by WaPo and Farrow. We know the vetting process because we were told it by the journalists that covered it. Franken's 8 accusers appeared in 7 different minor media outlets, two weren't vetted at all, four were anonymous, and we don't know what vetting standards the six that actually got them were put through. Vetting is more than just "The accuser brought a friend who told us that the accuser told them the story too", which is all most of the articles gave us. And most of these stories broke within days, there simply was not enough time to properly vet the accusation. And you do that not because you think the accuser is lying, but because you want to prove that they aren't by providing the most independent corroborating evidence you can.

If Franken's accusers had gotten the same vetting and corroboration that the Moore accusers did, there would not be this cloud of suspicion and doubt. Throwing these stories out there without proper vetting didn't help Franken OR the accusers. It only helped the media outlet get page hits.