Current Events > The worst people in the Democratic Party are at it again

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/26/al-franken-kirsten-gillibrand-2020-1014697

Just a month after Al Franken formally resigned from the Senate amid sexual misconduct allegations, the former senator met with an intimate group of Bay Area supporters at the home of major Democratic Party financiers Mary and Steve Swig.

As Franken and his wife, Franni Bryson, made the rounds, thanking supporters in the philanthropists San Francisco home at the February 2018 event, the conversation broke off into another subject: Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. The New York Democrat had, in their opinion, pulled the rug out from under Franken, a senator beloved by the group, forcing him out without any real vetting of the allegations facing him.

It was said not in front of Al to impress him; it was said privately in a corner. A group of us were standing there talking about it. He was one of our best weapons against this administration, his presence on these committees. [Gillibrand] did the damage that Republicans could not do themselves, one of the attendees told POLITICO. There were other people at this event who were saying the same thing. They said, Absolutely, I will never do anything for her.

Today, nearly a year after Gillibrand led the charge in calling for Frankens resignation, the anger is fresh on the minds of major donors across the country.

More than a dozen prominent West Coast, New York and national donors and bundlers many of them women said they would never again donate to or fundraise for Gillibrand or would only do so if she ended up as the Democratic presidential nominee.

Gillibrand has defended her approach by insisting she placed deeply held personal values over party loyalty. But the still-burning resentment among the donor class now confronts Gillibrand as she explores a presidential bid, cutting her off from influential and deep-pocketed contributors and their networks at a time when an expansive 2020 field will compete for their dollars.

Among those donors is Susie Tompkins Buell, a prominent Democratic fundraiser and cofounder of Esprit and the North Face clothing brands, who said the matter remains fresh in her mind and among those in her circles. The episode, she said, stained [Gillibrands] reputation as a fair player.

I do hear people refer to Kirsten Gillibrand as opportunistic and shrewd at the expense of others to advance herself and it seems to have been demonstrated in her rapid treatment of her colleague Al Franken, she said. I heard her referred to as she would eat her own and she seems to have demonstrated that. I know [Gillibrand] thought she was doing the right thing but I think she will be remembered by this rush to judgment. I have heard some of her women colleagues regret joining her.
...
I could stay on the phone all afternoon talking about this, said a Manhattan-based member of the Majority Trust of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, an elite group of top donors, who has donated to Gillibrand in the past. Let me tell you how strongly I felt about it I didnt even vote for her in the recent election. I left it blank.
...
I thought she was duplicitous, the donor said. Once the whole thing happened with Al Franken, it was confirmed 1 billion percent that shes not to be trusted. I think that she hurt the Democratic Party. I think that she hurt the Senate. I think that what she did for women in politics was dreadful.
...
Gillibrand has stood her ground, never publicly backing down from the criticism, even when it came from the Democratic Partys most prolific donor, George Soros. In June, he told The Washington Post he blamed Gillibrand for cornering Franken into resigning, accusing her of doing so in order to improve her chances, in 2020.

Gillibrand is whatever, but these people can fuck right off
---

i cant imagine how these donors can't see that party objectives trump the individual

we just received a 2-year object lesson in that
---

Nobody forced Franklin to quit. What the fuck are they mad about?
---

Sen. Gillibrand earned my respect by calling Franken out publicly. Was glad to learn she has some principles.
I'm not the least bit surprised that these donors don't get that actually supporting women means holding the party to an actual standard, but then, it doesn't affect them.

Gillibrand is absolutely an opportunist who tossed Frankin under the bus for her own gain, but these people suck
---

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Sen. Gillibrand earned my respect by calling Franken out publicly. Was glad to learn she has some principles.

she doesn't; it was clearly a calculated gambit in preparation for her 2020 bid, and I'm glad it burned her
---

Regardless of the reason she did it, it was the right thing to do and it had to be done, considering the Roy Moore situation at the time. It's possible that Moore would have had the cover he needed through whataboutism to win if Franken had tried to stay.
---

"It's ok if our team does it"

Fuck off
---

Balrog0 posted...

I'm glad it burned her

Why?
---

Antifar posted...

Balrog0 posted...

I'm glad it burned her

Why?

because rewarding naked political opportunism is bad, even if it's for an outcome that you support
---

especially because so many people are being duped into thinking it means something about her principles, i.e., the ploy worked
---

#believeallwomen #metoo
---

Remember, Gillibrand has talked about sexual harrassment and assault basically since her Senate career began. Her whole deal was addressing the issue in the military, years before the Franken controversy.
https://www.newsday.com/news/nation/kirsten-gillibrand-military-sexual-assault-bill-fails-in-senate-1.11915647
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/240943-gillibrand-releases-report-of-alarming-rates-of-military-sexual-assault
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/349672-dem-senator-military-sexual-assault-as-pervasive-as-ever

Is there anybody who could have publicly called Franken out without the accusations of opportunism, and if not, then wouldn't that pose an obstacle to his being called out?

It's cowardice from Franken's colleagues who refused to this. It was political opportunism from those who viewed it through solely the lens of a potential senate loss (a calculation that has been shown now to have been hugely misguided, though it was never particularly clear to begin with).
---

Balrog0 posted...

Antifar posted...

Balrog0 posted...

I'm glad it burned her

Why?

because rewarding naked political opportunism is bad, even if it's for an outcome that you support

this tbh. the general perception is that this originated as a republican hatchet job and these allegations didnt appear to have any merit. there should absolutely have been an investigation but franken shouldnt have been forced out like he was with only weak allegations to go on and gillibrand obviously used this as a political weapon and attempted (and did) to destroy the career of someone who was likely innocent.

hopefully this makes certain that she doesnt have any shot of winning the nomination in 2020
---

Antifar posted...

Remember, Gillibrand has talked about sexual harrassment and assault basically since her Senate career began. Her whole deal was addressing the issue in the military.

yeah I remember her stance on Bill Clinton well, too

Antifar posted...

It's not opportunism that she spoke out against him; it's cowardice from his colleagues who refused to. It was political opportunism from those who viewed it through solely the lens of a potential senate loss (a calculation that has been shown now to have been hugely misguided).

she literally did it because she guessed that people like you would be more likely to support her if she did it and that this would be worth the loss of support from the moneyed donor class
---

Godnorgosh posted...

If your politics have you reproaching Kavanaugh but lamenting Franken's resignation, you should probably reconsider your politics.

no, the evidence against kavanaugh remains extremely credible and damning.
---

Was Franken accused of something? I thought it was just for that picture of him hoverhanding some woman on a plane?
---

theAteam posted...

Was Franken accused of something? I thought it was just for that picture of him hoverhanding some woman on a plane?

Yeah I cant keep track anymore. I rememebe there being something about a forced kiss tho

if it's not about opportunism, then where are her denunciations of Keith Ellison? Same state, much more credible allegations. Of course, he's not a Senator so it doesn't matter to her -- which is why she never responded to requests for comment on the matter, and that should tell you everything you need to know about her principles and how much of this is driven by politics.
---

andel posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

If your politics have you reproaching Kavanaugh but lamenting Franken's resignation, you should probably reconsider your politics.

no, the evidence against kavanaugh remains extremely credible and damning.

There is no evidence, only accusations that have yet to be rebutted because again, there is no evidence to support either side.
---

Paragon21XX posted...

andel posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

If your politics have you reproaching Kavanaugh but lamenting Franken's resignation, you should probably reconsider your politics.

no, the evidence against kavanaugh remains extremely credible and damning.

There is no evidence, only accusations that have yet to be rebutted because again, there is no evidence to support either side.

To people like that the lack of evidence is more than enough evidence.
---

this is certainly something I haven't bothered to keep up with
---

Godnorgosh posted...

andel posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

If your politics have you reproaching Kavanaugh but lamenting Franken's resignation, you should probably reconsider your politics.

no, the evidence against kavanaugh remains extremely credible and damning.

Absolutely. And the same can be said for Franken.

not really at all comparable. kavanaugh allegations are well documented and substantiated through a therapist notes and even a polygraph, not at all the same scenario as franken
---

Godnorgosh posted...

If your politics have you reproaching Kavanaugh but lamenting Franken's resignation, you should probably reconsider your politics.

I think you're making a false equivalency here. You can think both of their conduct are worthy of resignation/not being approved/etc., but there are plenty of non-political worldviews that draw a line which would include one but not the other.
---

What was the story with Franken? Was there evidence against him or not?
---

andel posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

andel posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

If your politics have you reproaching Kavanaugh but lamenting Franken's resignation, you should probably reconsider your politics.

no, the evidence against kavanaugh remains extremely credible and damning.

Absolutely. And the same can be said for Franken.

not really at all comparable. kavanaugh allegations are well documented and substantiated through a therapist notes and even a polygraph, not at all the same scenario as franken

You do know that under oath she admitted to coaching someone to beating a polygraph test right?
And therapist notes are only proof that you spoke to a therapist. They are not Private Investiigators for goodness sake. Otherwise everyone who told a therapist they are Batman really are Batman.
---

andel posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

andel posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

If your politics have you reproaching Kavanaugh but lamenting Franken's resignation, you should probably reconsider your politics.

no, the evidence against kavanaugh remains extremely credible and damning.

Absolutely. And the same can be said for Franken.

not really at all comparable. kavanaugh allegations are well documented and substantiated through a therapist notes and even a polygraph, not at all the same scenario as franken

Polygraphs are not admissable as evidence 99% of the time and therapist notes mean nothing as well. When it comes to rape there needs to be physical evidence or it bogs down into he said/she said.
---

The parties both need to be done away with. Garbage through and through.
---

Monolith1676 posted...

therapist notes mean nothing as well.

proof?
---

Balrog0 posted...

if it's not about opportunism, then where are her denunciations of Keith Ellison? Same state, much more credible allegations. Of course, he's not a Senator so it doesn't matter to her -- which is why she never responded to requests for comment on the matter, and that should tell you everything you need to know about her principles and how much of this is driven by politics.

Hes not a senator and Ellison absolutely shouldve exited the race before he won the primary. The difference is Ellison was in a contested race, and MN had a Democratic governor so Frankens replacement would be a Dem. Thats why it was much easier to push on Franken.

I say this as someone who was very upset when the accusations came out because Franken was someone I could agree on a lot of things with and he was making a name for himself in the Senate pushing back on all of the things Trump was getting away with
---

Alpha218 posted...

Hes not a senator and Ellison absolutely shouldve exited the race before he won the primary. The difference is Ellison was in a contested race, and MN had a Democratic governor so Frankens replacement would be a Dem. Thats why it was much easier to push on Franken.

yes, those are very good explanations of some of the political considerations that went into what she did differently in the two situations
---

andel posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

andel posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

If your politics have you reproaching Kavanaugh but lamenting Franken's resignation, you should probably reconsider your politics.

no, the evidence against kavanaugh remains extremely credible and damning.

Absolutely. And the same can be said for Franken.

not really at all comparable. kavanaugh allegations are well documented and substantiated through a therapist notes and even a polygraph, not at all the same scenario as franken

The polygraph test was conducted improperly if you actually looked into the specifics of it. There was no interrogation format used; the proctor basically had her write her account on a piece of paper and was then asked two questions ("Is any part of your statement false?" and "Did you make up any part of your statement?"). There were no control questions to set a baseline nor was she asked anything specific about her testimony.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

Monolith1676 posted...

therapist notes mean nothing as well.

proof?

You can say anything to a therapist. Them writing down what you say is just documentation and not proof of anything.
---

Monolith1676 posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Monolith1676 posted...

therapist notes mean nothing as well.

proof?

You can say anything to a therapist. Them writing down what you say is just documentation and not proof of anything.

Proof?
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

Monolith1676 posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Monolith1676 posted...

therapist notes mean nothing as well.

proof?

You can say anything to a therapist. Them writing down what you say is just documentation and not proof of anything.

Proof?

When I was a kid I once told a therapist I saw a ghost by the Christmas tree. But I was just fucking with them. Therapist wrote it down though

I agree with Franken being ousted but I agree with Balrog even more. Gillibrand aint shit, wealthy donors who want to support creepy fucks also aint shit, and they can all fuck off together.
---

You all think everyone sucks.
---

Zikten posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Monolith1676 posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Monolith1676 posted...

therapist notes mean nothing as well.

proof?

You can say anything to a therapist. Them writing down what you say is just documentation and not proof of anything.

Proof?

When I was a kid I once told a therapist I saw a ghost by the Christmas tree. But I was just fucking with them. Therapist wrote it down though

Proof?
---

PiOverlord posted...

You all think everyone sucks.

well yeah but supporting someone doesn't hinge on whether or not they're garbage people; in fact, you should support Gillibrand if you think what should did sets a precedent on abuse and culpability. Whether she did it for purely personal reasons is kind of immaterial

the issue I have is thinking this was a demonstration of principles on her part, which I think is a bad take and is pretty clearly falling for the exact political gamble she was making in doing that.

if you understand the political expediency behind the action and still want to support her, that's fine. I don't think what she did was meaningful with respect to setting up better institutional norms for Congress but if you do then that's fine and a good reason to support her decision even though I disagree about that
---