Franken resignatiion

[A response to Kerri Miller's coverage]

Dirty tricks. Isn’t it conceivable that Franken was “swift-boated?”  The big beneficiaries are the authoritarian right, and the big losers are progressives. Several of Franken’s accusers are anonymous. The only documented accuser is herself a right-wing radio personality. Is this all meaningless coincidence? Are Bannon and Stone above a campaign of dirty tricks?

Quite a few of your respondents defended the notion of due process. What is that other than a hedge against false accusation? Isn’t that all the more necessary in a case such as Franken’s, where the political stakes are so high? Outrageous political smears are fairly common in our history. Are we not even to consider the possibility that it is happening here? The only allegation that Franken has admitted is Tweeden’s. There is a good deal more to say about that, including an investigation into the raunchy culture of the USO tour, in which she was a willing participant, as attested by the same roll of pictures in which she found the objectionable one.

One of your panelists rejoiced that the burden of proof had been transferred “from the accuser to the abuser.” Is that really what we want? You object to the term, but that sounds like 17^th century Salem mentality to me: any accusation is not only credible, but probative; those accused of witchcraft are guilty unless they can prove their innocence. Franken wanted a “trial” in the form of an ethics committee investigation; Tweeden did not. I would like to know why.

As it is, the most progressive (arguably) Senator has been driven from office on the basis of accusations, some anonymous, only one substantiated, at a time when an evenly-divided Senate faces unusually momentous decisions. I smell a rat. I consider it irresponsible simply to assume that this affair is nothing more than it appears to be. All the Franken accusations ought to be investigated thoroughly.