Franken Should Not Resign (Yet)

It's Too Early To Call For Franken's Resignation Surely by now you've heard about Leeann Tweeden accusations regarding a 2006 USO trip she made with then-comedian Senator Al Franken. (He was elected two years later from Minnesota). In a nutshell, she accuses him of putting his tongue down her throat while rehearsing a skit that called for a kiss (but presumably not that kind of kiss). She also accuses him of groping her, based on the photo above, which she says was taken while she was asleep (and of course without her consent). Recently we have seen a plethora of articles written by opinion writers with a feminist and/or left-of-center political outlook: most of these pieces suggest that Franken should resign NOW - even before the Senate Ethnics Committee hearing that appears to be in the offing. I greatly respect (and generally agree with) all of these writers, including Michelle Goldberg, Ryan Cooper, and Mark Joseph Stern. There are also excellent pieces that argue that Franken should stay (at least through his current term, with caveats and conditions) such as this one by Kate Harding who describes herself (accurately) as a "feminist who studies rape culture." We should also not lose sight of New Yorker writer Rebecca Traister's perspective on what may become a backlash against the #MeToo movement. 1) Two Caveats First, if even one more accuser comes forward with a credible story, then Franken must go, pronto. That makes him a serial predator - which is intolerable. Second, there must be clear and convincing evidence that he was not touching her in the above photo either while it was taken, or before or afterweards. For starters, he must uniquivocally deny that. It's worth noting here that Tweeden declares that he was groping her, based on the photo. (If she was asleep how did she know this? As far as I know, she hasn't explained that one.) Furthermore, we know the photo was taken by a USO cameraperson. Surely their testimony is relevant. Was anyone else there? And what do the experts say about the photo itself - is there some way to forensically determine that he either was or was not touching her? Let me be very clear about this. If he was not touching her and this can be established then this was not sexual battery (i.e. "groping") and it was not sexual harassment. For more details, take a look at my post here. But, even if he wasn't touching her, isn't the photo alone enough to demand his resignation? As I argue in that post, it clearly is sexIST harassment. But perhaps not that much worse than a dirty sexist joke, which Franken has apparently told many of during his past career as a comedian, as Goldberg notes. (Remember, he was also a comedian at the time the photo was taken.) It's crass, it's cruel, it's sexist, it's outrageous, but are we really going to lump this in with the accusations against Trump, Moore, and Bill Clinton? Certainly I'd be more inclined to say that the photo alone would justify calls for his immediate resignation (even if he wasn't touching her) - had he been a senator at the time. But you say: the photo doesn't stand alone. Even if he wasn't groping her when it was taken, surely the sexual battery that she experienced during the kiss merely in tandem with the photo is enough to demand his immediate resignation? My answer is that the photo adds very little to the much more serious accusation of a nonconsensual kiss (at least the type of kiss), which is exactly why a Senate Ethics Committee hearing would actually be helpful. (To repeat: the critical caveat here is that he was not actually groping - i.e. touching - her at the time the photo was taken.) 2) Why we need an Ethics Committee Hearing The most obvious reason why we need a hearing is that Franken should be forced to explain many things under oath. For example, he said that he doesn't remember these incidents "the way she did." What does that mean, exactly? A Senate Ethnics Committee hearing can also help us get to the bottom of the central unanswered question about the photo. Was he groping her, or not?? Furthermore, there are peripheral issues in this situation. The USO supposedly had "minders" who were put in place to keep things like these incidents from happening. Where were they? Could some improvement in USO practices prevent future such victimizations? But there is another critical dimension here. If we're going to ask a sitting US Senator to resign based mostly on one incident, we have to at least ask the accuser to testify under oath. [Oh, but you say, there were two incidents. Isn't he obviously groping her in the photo?? (Please scroll up.)] Especially when there is only one accuser, s/he should be able to answer certain very basic questions. We need a location. It doesn't have to be down to GPS coordinates, but there has to be some kind of description. Similarly, we need an approximate time/date. Again, depending on the situation, it need only be approximate. We need details to flesh out the story, and especially the names of anyone who was informed by the accuser after the fact (not necessary, but helpful). None of these things have to be perfect, but there has to be something. At the very least, we need some credible evidence that shows that the perpetrator and the accuser could have had contact. For example, if Franken was accused by a woman who has lived all her life in North Korea, we shouldn't automatically believe her if Franken has never set foot in North Korea. (Yes, this is an idiotic hypothetical scenario. But I'm simply saying that we have to have minimal standards of proof, especially if we're going to demand that a US Senator resign on the spot.) Now I have little doubt that Tweeden can meet these tests. And it appears that all the accusers on record against Trump, Moore, Bill Clinton and so many others have met this burden. But we should at least ask them to. And if we're going to demand that a US Senator resign, it is not unreasonable to ask for testimony under oath. Would this cause unnecessary psychological trauma to Tweeden? Well, she's already gone public with the story, by writing a piece in her own words. If she wants to testify in closed session, that should be her choice. If she doesn't want Franken to be present, then he should not be. 3) Do We Lose the "Moral High Ground" Against the GOP? By putting witnesses (especially Franken) under oath, we are sending a clear message that this is to be taken with the utmost seriousness. We are in fact holding him accountable for his actions. In short, we are not letting him get away with Trumpian (or Bill Clintonian) blanket denials. We are not shielding him from the limelight - indeed, his testimony should be live. Anyone with C-SPAN or an internet connection should be able to see him squirm in the spotlight. We are not letting Franken "get away" with anything. Nothing prevents the party from demanding his resignation immediately after the hearings end. (Of course they should occur ASAP.) 3) Would #MeToo be better off with an Ethic Committee Hearing? I believe that for all the reasons stated in the previous part that this would actually help women. The big danger here, as described by Traister is that running Franken immediately "out of town on a rail" (so-to-speak) is not ultimately helpful. If we, as a party, were to do that, we would be feeding the narrative that the whole #MeToo movement has gone too far, i.e. that we have become a bunch of Jacobins. Hence it would weaken our ability to confront Republicans as the party of sexual predators. 4) We Gain the Moral High Ground by Eschewing Partisanship AND Ideology Many of the "run Franken out of town NOW!" pieces that you will read note correctly that Minnesota's governer is a Democrat, so we won't lose the seat if Franken resigns immediately. On a related note, it's worth remembering that many of Bill Clinton's defenders in the 1990s were citing his approach to abortion and other issues that concern women. I want to push back against this variety of argument. Yes, as a person of color who lived in the US before the civil rights movement and legislation, I am keenly aware that Democrats have done folks like me a lot of favors in the last half-century or so. That would not stop me from calling for the resignation of a Democrat who repeatedly made racist jokes in private. While I am obviously male and can never know precisely what women who are the victims of sexual harassment, sexual battery, and just plain sexual discrimination feel, I can certainly point out a simple analytical problem. As Senator Gillibrand has explained, Democrats made a big mistake by defending Bill Clinton based on policy and/or partisanship. The support for Trump and Roy Moore in Alabama may be based on a policy issue: namely abortion - as Matt Lewis has argued. If we, as Democrats, want to unequivocally stand up for the rights of women not to be de-humanized, then we can't go down that GOP rabbit hole. In short, we have to stand for our principles. One of them must be that "women are to be believed," but another must require some very minimal (and easily achievable) stanrds of proof. To avoid backlash we must take note of the significance of accusations, and the extent to which they are documented. Finally: we must NEVER let policy or partisan attributes of the accuser or the accused become relevant, because that would be to deny the requirement that every person deserves decency and respect. We can't lower ourselves to the Republican level in this regard. Do we want everyone to be judged by the content of their character, do we want to eschew facts ... is that our party? 5) This is about *PROCESS* not partisanship If we want to support the #MeToo movement, and send a message to millions if not hundreds of millions of powerless women around the world then we must: 1) Make it clear that there will be zero tolerance for this kind of predatory behavior. We, as the Democratic Party, are never going to shield sexual predators based on our own party advantage or even the alleged predators' past political postions. "You can run, but you can't hide." 2) However, we must also make it clear that when it comes to demanding the resignation of elected or party officials, we will not automatically believe or accept any accusation, without at least some minimal baseline of factual support. Virtually all accusers can provide that, and therefore this is not a problem. However if we assume that every allegation is valid, merely because a woman makes it, then we risk losing both the integrity of our party, and the great progress made so far by the #MeToo movement. Moreover we lose the ability to confront the Republicans on the grounds of hipocracy, because we have no rational basis for arguing against their knee-jerk denials of every accusation. 3) And finally, if this wasn't obvious already, we can never use politics or policy to excuse this variety of behavior from our elected and party officials. We can't ever fall down the GOP "rabbit hole" that gives folks like Trump and Moore a pass, merely because they oppose abortion and favor guns in kindergartens.