Are You Now or Have You Ever ...?
We are losing an excellent politician for what? He kissed a few women? One, two three? No one out here ever get kissed by someone uninvited? No one out here ever thought they got a signal and kissed someone who pushed them away? The first accuser said when Franken kissed her she told him don't ever do that again. Fair enough. End of story.
I watch the Senate and House on C Span to see who is saying what in context. Franken is amazing and there are few like him. I think Gillibrand pushed the party into an extreme position too quickly.
Morganna said:
.... I think Gillibrand pushed the party into an extreme position too quickly.
I agree, and against a Democrat, no less; and against a popular Democrat with a future. To be fair, however, I think she didn't want to be seen as a hypocrite, blasting Trump and Roy Moore and letting the Dem slide. Tough position to be in.
The_Soulful_Mr_T said:
Morganna said:
.... I think Gillibrand pushed the party into an extreme position too quickly.
I agree, and against a Democrat, no less; and against a popular Democrat with a future. To be fair, however, I think she didn't want to be seen as a hypocrite, blasting Trump and Roy Moore and letting the Dem slide. Tough position to be in.
She could not let have the Dems slide by saying the Ethics Committee needs to investigate Franken and then let the senate as a whole remediate. Instead, she led the "hound-him-out" mob.
Don't think this sudden "morality" by the Democrats will gain them 2018 votes. It also hasn't helped in Alabama as polls have shown us.
Considering "evidence", the was a lot more on Menendez. But he wasn't hounded out. There they are willing to wait for the Ethics Committee.
Was it really morality or because Franken will be replaced by a Democratic governor whereas Menendez would have been replaced by Christie?
Why the party will live to regret its hasty purge of Al Franken
Here is Masha Gessen's take on the topic. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/al-franken-resignation-and-the-selective-force-of-metoo
I regret that the New Yorker is giving Masha Gessen a platform. She is a scary Puritan.
breal said:
I regret that the New Yorker is giving Masha Gessen a platform. She is a scary Puritan.
I didn't get that sense when she concludes her article referring to
"the dangers of the drive to police sex."
breal said:
I regret that the New Yorker is giving Masha Gessen a platform. She is a scary Puritan.
How so?
The New Yorker has fired reporter Ryan Lizza in response to sexual misconduct allegation. His accuser has decided to remain anonymous.
Lizza is claiming it was a "respectful" relationship between two people who were dating.
The victim's lawyer disagrees.
brealer said:
The New Yorker has fired reporter Ryan Lizza in response to sexual misconduct allegation. His accuser has decided to remain anonymous.
in my opinion you can’t give any credence to anything a lawyer says about his or her client.
So the victim and victim's lawyer are lying? How do you know?
Red_Barchetta said:
in my opinion you can’t give any credence to anything a lawyer says about his or her client.
Silly Red Barchetta. Don't you know? The rule is: the anonymous accuser's and her lawyer's allegations are the ONLY things that the press may write about, and that we may talk about.
Among the things we may not talk about: The accuser's name. The accuser's relationship history with the accused. The accuser's possible motives.
No. In deference to the accuser's privacy, the only thing we may talk about is her/his accusation.
I sure hope The New Yorker's inquisitors gave Ryan Lizza a fair shake. I way do not assume that they did.
Where do you see me saying anything about the accuser? Nowhere, I didn’t.
Lawyers are paid to say whatever their client wants them to.
yahooyahoo said:
So the victim and victim's lawyer are lying? How do you know?
Red_Barchetta said:
in my opinion you can’t give any credence to anything a lawyer says about his or her client.
Red_Barchetta said:
Where do you see me saying anything about the accuser? Nowhere, I didn’t.
I was responding to your post “the victims lawyer disagrees”. Lawyers are paid to say whatever their client wants them to.
yahooyahoo said:
So the victim and victim's lawyer are lying? How do you know?
Red_Barchetta said:
in my opinion you can’t give any credence to anything a lawyer says about his or her client.
I definitely don't have any idea how it's defined in other countries. The EEOC defines it this way:
so the answer would be that one improper remark isn't going to get anyone fired. I suppose if you want to get all semantic over it, someone could argue what would constitute "frequent." But I'm sure it means more than once.