Things that republicans would never do
(asking a party member to step down/face consequences due to corruption)
Somewhat off topic, but it really gets my goat that this guy is pulling the “witch hunt” bullshit that the other side so often does:
“For years, forces behind the scenes have repeatedly attempted to silence my voice and dig my political grave. Since this investigation was leaked nearly a year ago, there has been an active smear campaign of anonymous sources and innuendos to create an air of impropriety where none exists,” Menendez said in a statement, adding that prosecutors see him as a political “obstacle.”
Motherfucker, you had envelopes full of cash stuffed in your pockets that had the DNA of the man who’s suspected of bribing you on them. For fuck’s sake.
Anyway, great to see some on team Dem call for his resignation. That said, I’m keeping my eyes peeled for any that that decide to circle the wagons.
It sickens me too that he pulled the "this is just how politics works and they are making a big deal out of nothing" card.
What he's doing is probably how a whole lot of Congress works.
It is, also, a really big deal. This shit needs shut down hard.
Schumer is explicitly backing Menendez.
Warnock is waffling and refusing to criticize him.
Other than Fetterman, those are the only Senate Democrats I've heard from.
SkinnerPathetic.jpg
Democrats are SO BAD at politics, my word! Keeping this dude around has only downsides politically, even if you don't care about him messing with international arms transfers to make a buck.
I call for him to be tried for his alleged crimes
Imagine that happening. Politicians breaking laws and instead of just stepping down with a "whoops, my bad", they actually had to go to trial. Ah, a person can dream.
He has been federally indicted. That greatly increases his chances of seeing real consequences for this.
He was charged before. Hung jury, mistrial, then acquitted. Weaker case as I understand it. But I agree he needs to resign.
Indeed. Even if he's not guilty, combating these legal troubles will almost certainly interfere with his ability to effectively govern.
As a life long progressive and Democrat voter, he needs to resign.
This really exemplifies the difference between the two parties.
In the Republican party, when someone is caught taking bribes or luxury vacations from billionaires then the rest of the party rallies behind them and says all the accusations are a fake DemocRAT witch hunt.
In the Democratic party, when someone is caught doing the same thing the rest of the party whines loudly about it and then does nothing to actually force the corrupt politician to face consequences.
Truly the best country on Earth!
No consequences other than the indictment and charges he's facing?
No consequences from the Party.
Democrats believe in The Process, rather than just forcing him out of the Party immediately.
So you're mad that they want there to be an investigation into wrong-doing rather than just jumping straight to the punishment?
It's not like AOC can kick him out of the Senate from her seat in the house.
What about Al Franken?
Sexual misconduct (with photo evidence!) is a bit different from corruption. You don't have to grope women to become a Senator. You do have to take money from generous donors. The difference between corruption and politics is a line in the sand.
There was no photo evidence though. And that was the problem.
There's definitely a photo of him joke groping a sleeping woman.
No there isn't. Even in the photo it's clear he didn't touch her. You're misrepresenting it wildly. Was the photo crass, tasteless and juvenile. Absolutely. Did he actually grope or sexually assault anyone? There's more evidence that the woman accusing him did herself. Than there is that he did. At least be honest.
That's what I meant by "joke groping"? Actually groping someone isn't a joke, pretending to clearly is (like you said).
Also? That's not "crass, tasteless and juvenile" it's just harassment. If a man treated me that way I'd raise hell too.
How is it harassment? If someone takes a single photograph of you. In a place where you have no expectation of privacy. Regardless of what they may or may not be doing in it. What makes that in and of itself harassment?
And let me be clear here that the following in no way justifies or makes what Franken did acceptable. But there's literally videos and pictures of her physically touching and groping enlisted men on stage. Non-consensually at that. I do not find her a trustworthy or reliable narrator. At worst, franken's photo was a rather benign product of the overly toxic environment in which it was taken. The accuser guilty of much worse. Both were bad. One was worse. What Franken did however doesn't really qualify as harassment without wildly misrepresenting what it was. A single photo. Not a series. And without any demonstrable larger intent to demean or harass. Definitely inappropriate. As is a lot of what goes on with USO shows. But calling it harassment is a bit beyond the pale.
To my knowledge (IANAL) sexual harassment can, in fact, be a single isolated incident and it does not require intent. That would mean that pretending to grope a sleeping woman and photographing it, by itself and in isolation, is harassment. All the other accusations and the other nine women are suspicious, but that one incident is enough.
And the fact that people are still mad about this is sus as hell
Fellas? Just don't get photographed pretending to grope sleeping women. It's that easy.
Harassment absolutely requires intent. If it did not. You could claim harassment simply for walking out your front door. You are being recorded through images and video everywhere you go every moment you spend outside the confines of your house.
There has to be some sort of threshold beyond which something becomes harassment. But before which Things Are not. Otherwise everything is. And nothing is. So your claim is a bit non sequitur.
So when does something become harassment? Does an image simply existing of you constitute harassment? Whether or not you are aware of it. Are all images of you without your consent harassment? If someone took a picture that you didn't know about where someone who wasn't trying to look like they were doing something to you that they weren't. Is that harassment? Or let's say I was going to go full Kids in the Hall and take a forced perspective picture where I look like a giant using my fingers to crush your head. Is it harassment? By simple existence? Or would it become harassment if it was something that I was intentionally pushed and published against your consent. These are important questions to ask and answer. And this is why people are rightfully upset with what happened in franken's case. Let me be clear people like Anthony Weiner can go f*** himself. I think Justice was not done in his case. Only because I think more should have been done.
Let me also be clear here. I am absolutely 100% behind believe all women. Absolutely. Believe all hyperbolic hypocrites? No. And she has objectively been shown to be a hypocrite in this case. There is a reason it was never taken to court. It would have gotten laughed out. It was a picture not taken by franken. It was also a picture not published by Franken to my knowledge. A singular unique picture in which he never touched her. The whole trial was held in the court of public opinion by someone accusing and clearly in bad faith where Justice was never served. And let me be clear. If someone levied such heavy accusations at yourself with so little evidence. You and other people around you would rightly be pissed if your life and career were heavily impacted by it. Pretending that it's suspect that people are still unhappy about an injustice is not their problem. It's yours.
Harassment absolutely requires intent.
Wrong. As long as a "reasonable person" would consider the act intimidating, hostile, or abusive then it is harassment.
A "reasonable person" is, itself, a legal fiction that creates a standard for a judge or jury to weigh the behavior against.
Hostility literally is intent. Abuse is a product of such intent. Your argument makes no sense. You are literally claiming it's not defined by intent, just by intent. Again, you aren't being objective or honest.
Acts can be intimidating without intent; making sexual gestures to a person while they are sleeping and then taking a sexually compromising photo of an unconscious person is pretty fucking intimidating. Forcibly groping or kissing someone, too, is pretty fucking intimidating.
What was the outcome of the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee's investigation into Al Franken's misconduct?
He was forced to resign because of the investigation started by McConnell.
Don't worry, I found it.
From Wikipedia:
"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer sent Tweeden's accusations to the Senate Ethics Committee for review, a decision supported by members of both parties, including Franken."
"Although Franken had asked to be allowed to appear before the Senate Ethics Committee to give his side of the story, on December 6 Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told him he had to announce his resignation by five o’clock or he could be censured and stripped of committee assignments."
Got to love due process and justice for all.
Fair enough. I thought he testified - so actually, Democrats are worse than I thought. They don't care about The Process or ethics lol
It's... a lot of women though. And looking at the article:
In September 2019, a ninth accuser told New York magazine that in 2006 Franken touched her buttock in a photo line at an event for Patty Murray. The unnamed woman, described as a "former staffer who served on Democratic campaigns and works at a large progressive organization", said she had not come forward because she feared it would be held against her in her career.[155] In response, Franken told New York, "Two years ago, I would have sworn that I'd never done anything to make anyone feel uncomfortable, but it's clear that I must have been doing something. As I've said before, I feel terrible that anyone came away from an interaction with me feeling bad."[156]
I can't help but notice he doesn't say say "these accusations are lies and the women are liars". He couches everything he's saying in "I would have sworn" and "I'm sorry you feel that way". That's such obvious bullshit he was trained to say by his lawyers lol
Sexual misconduct (with photo evidence!) is a bit different from corruption.
Democrats believe in The Process, until they don't.
There was an ethics investigation for Franken. That's a process.
Let's see if there is one for Menendez (this time, because this shit has happened before). Maybe Democrats will surprise me!
@queermunist @MicroWave You're right, but I do not think the US is the best country. I'm not saying Russia and/or China are good, they clearly aren't.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has joined the calls for Bob Menendez to resign, after the Democratic US senator from New Jersey was charged with accepting gold bars, a Mercedes-Benz and other gifts as bribes.
Menendez is accused of using his position to aid Egypt’s authoritarian government and pressuring federal prosecutors to drop a case against a friend.
Ocasio-Cortez’s remarks on Menendez come after she has previously called for a federal investigation into Clarence Thomas, the conservative supreme court justice, over his acceptance of undeclared gifts from wealthy rightwing donors.
In August, ProPublica reported that Thomas had taken “at least 38” undeclared vacations funded by billionaires and accepted gifts including expensive sports tickets.
Ocasio-Cortez had also previously called on Republican congressman George Santos to step down after he was indicted earlier this year for fraud, money laundering and other federal charges.
FBI agents investigating Menendez discovered “a lot of gold”, allegedly provided by businessman Fred Daibes, in the senator’s home, as well as about $500,000 in cash.
The original article contains 689 words, the summary contains 164 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
We will never know about the personal phone calls he's taking regarding the same thing. AOC probably doesn't mean much to him.
You know, after what happened to Al Franken, let the man have his day in court. Justice in the United States is supposed to operate on the idea of innocent until proven guilty. I'm not going to judge a man on reported facts, but will make a judgment on him based on court evidence.
Dude has had numerous bribery scandals throughout his career. Innocent until proven guilty applies to a courthouse, not your elected officials.
Oh, I believe the guy totally did it, but he still gets his day in court first.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News