Harvard Poli Sci majors were Kings of the Fratbros back in the '70s.

So "believe women" except, I guess, when she says that she doesn't think her allegations are serious enough to merit Franken resigning? There she should obviously know her place and shut the **** up.

The bolded bit covers what is usually going on and is commonly where believing the victim really matters. It's also usually what is being referred to when someone says 'if ... then I apologise'.

If there's some dispute over the facts then it's a different thing - that's where there's a need for inquiries and courts.

The victims view on what the punishment should be for a crime have no more standing than anybody else's. It's not about believing them or not.

If the statutes of limitations weren’t past should Franken get a trial or just go straight to prison?

I have said time and again the the totality of Franken's apology and the implicit conclusions are the problem.

Franken takes the sort of "if...then I apologize" pose to signal that he's on board with believing the victim. In isolation, perhaps it's OK (although I agree with Rococo and micro and have said myself that these "if...then I apologize" formulations are basically utter bull****).

But OK. Then says he supports an investigation which only makes sense if you don't believe the victim.

That is, to me, irreconcilable and one or the other doesn't fit. It's pretty clear for Franken and his defenders, "if...then I apologize" is utterly pretentious and performative and meaningless, and the investigation is deeply, deeply important to them.

Seems like she is better positioned than most people -- even dvault! -- to understand the seriousness of Franken's actions and what the reasonable consequences should be.

For the record I would value her opinion on the consequences highly but not make it the totality of how I would judge how to punish / censure Franken (if it were up to me). Besides, there's a party, optics, the political reality to consider. Maybe Tweeden says her account was overwrought, she's reconsidered, she's happy enough with the apology but Democrats want him to resign because it's embarrassing and the party doesn't want to tolerate even minor incidents of sexual harassment. That's fair enough, the are a lot of factors to consider.

I would just remind people make serious lapses in judgment that are essentially victimless but causes them severe professional consequences including termination anyway. I don't think it's up to Tweeden alone to decide what the consequences should be, although as I said, if she came out and said Franken deserves to keep his job and the offenses were minor I would change my mind. I don't read that from the account she posted.

The investigation isn't deeply important to me, as I said I'm on the fence about him resigning just from the picture.

I just think the move of not attacking these women, calling them liars, and having the media run wild with it, and instead allowing an investigation to determine the truth, is the best thing for all women of who've suffered from sexual abuse.

" shes lying " is the 100% standard for politicians in this scenario, and we've seen how it plays out time and time again. With them getting dragged through the mud badly. I mean it's the whole reason many of them don't come forward, even if they get vindicated.

Even if you know she's lying, I think it sets a better example to not have that happen and to let the investigation play out.

You think it's plausible that Franken is factually innocent, but deliberately wording his apology in a way that makes him seem sort of guilty so that the media won't go hard at his false accuser, and in the process discourage other victims from coming forward?

That seems highly unlikely. And if I'm Franken, and I'm factually innocent, to hell with that strategy. I'm defending myself vigorously and unambiguously, regardless of the collateral effect. There is no way I would take a bullet on that sort of claim if I was totally innocent.

Some people might be less bothered than others - that doesn't change the crime.

Nor is any decent justice system about how forgiving, annoyed, vengeful etc etc the victim may be.

Especially when you consider that it would have a negligible effect anyway. Even if Franken doesn't say "she's lying" and the media doesn't attack, the premise is that if he did say that the media would attack. And some future accuser of some different man doesn't have any reason to believe he won't say "she's lying" just because Franken didn't.

Franken has not been and will not be charged with a crime.

Over/under on number of days a Franken accuser comes forward being represented by Gloria Allred?

I think you can welcome an investigation even if you are factually innocent, and when I say that I would defend myself vigorously, I don't mean that I would hire a PI to dig into my accuser's sexual history or make wild claims about how she was a GOP operative.

The playbook is pretty simple if you are 100% innocent:

"I have read Ms. XYZ's account of what happened, and it is not accurate. Here is what happened. [INSERT.] I won't speculate about Ms. XYZ's motives, but neither will I admit to something I did not do. If anyone feels that it is necessary to do an investigation to confirm my version of events, I will cooperate fully, because I have nothing to hide. I'm happy to answer any questions."

I totally agree with you.

Only point I'd allow is that it can be a holding position. People when confronted with things like this are not generally thinking straight. They need some time to calm down mentally and reflect before they can properly consider it.

Same number of days it takes Trump and you to condemn the Alabamian pedobear.

I simply do not think those two things are as different as you do. It's all victim-shaming to varying degrees. She's apparently not allowed to have complex (aka: human) feelings about Franken, anything less than 100% cartoon-character fury from that date forward means she gets doubted.

I'm glad, btw, that adios popped in here while taking a break from Defending A Pedophile To Own The Libs so he can observe that not everyone else is as completely subservient to their team as he is.

No.

Because
Franken
Didn’t
Rape
Anyone

Stop
Comparing this to Moore

She says she thinks that the people of MN should decide. Seems reasonable.

If Franken did this to a co-worker and she complained, he could easily get fired, for sure. If he does this 11 years ago, starts a new job 9 years ago, then, I don't know, that picture shows up on his facebook page, would he get fired from his job? Most jobs I think no. You might say that we ought to hold US Senators to a higher standard, but, uh, historically that hasn't been the case.

The larger issue is that Franken has been one of the most vocal and sanctimonious people in DC crying about sexism and misogyny and now he is being exposed as a hypocrite (like so many others). The same can be said about all the people who have steadfastly supported sexual predator Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary who led the effort to smear and silence his victims for decades. Its fine and dandy to disparage Trump for his despicable behavior, but when you are engaged in similar behavior (or support those that are engaged in similar behavior) then it becomes clear that its really not the behavior you are criticizing - just political expediency.

The behavior is not similar.

You’re the one implying that women are always the subordinate. I actually think women can be the boss at jobs.

i'm starting to agree with dvaut.. if we burn one of our own on obvious phony allegations from partisan political opponents, then it'll prove to the republicans that all the phony allegations from the dozen+ women accusing trump of sexually assaulting them are worthy of impeachment even though we all know they're phony baloney politically motivated. the precedent will be set. this time WE flip it on THEM. so smart. 5d chess from our side, finally.