Has Kamala Harris or any of the 38 other democratic senators who called for Franken to resign on the same day? And it was probably the 8 women, including democratic staffers, who accused him of inappropriate behavior that led to Franken’s resignation.

It was after other women made accusations against him.

Franken was a victim of very dirty politics. It was a set up and as I recall Sean Hannity was involved. It's been a long time, but I think Roger Stone was also involved.

but there were 8 others who came forward including a democratic staffer. There is no evidence that they were involved with them.

At this point, it was 8 years ago. Franken is doing fine living in NYC. People need to let it go.

He loved being a senator and he was really good at his job. It's hard to "let it go", as we witnessed a grave injustice perpetrated by right-wing operatives and reinforced by some Democrats.

No, He's still a millionaire living comfortably in NYC. There are people out there who are doing a lot worse these days. Who have suffered greater injustices than a rich white guy who lost a job. I rather worry about them.

Instead he moved back to NYC. And what made him one of the greatest senators ever? Other than one hearing when he questioned Jeff Sessions, I can't think of a single major accomplishment of his as a Senator that makes him 'one of greatest'. Yes he was a good Senator who did a lot of good things, but so has Tina Smith who replaced him.

Is there something lacking in Tina Smith? Has she been a bad senator for Minnesota?

He doesn't have to be poor or worse off than everyone else for it to be an injustice.
Dems have to stop falling for Republican con jobs

But in the end Minnesota got Tina Smith who's been a good senator for them and Franken hasn't had a bad life either.

I'm sure Minnesota has a lot of talent to take his place.

but he took one for the team.

but I can't say that inappropriately touching anyone else without their permission is not wrong.

But the picture wasn’t the issue. It was all the other women who accused him.

He could run against Gillibrand.

He could run against her in 24. He could run against Schumer in 28. Or he could run for a House seat this year. The 11th district is being redrawn to be more competitive. It’s a republican seat that he could flip.

She received more votes than anyone else on the ballot.

For president. The Democrats in this country were not happy with her spearheading the hit job.

As far as her Senatorial re-election, doubt there was anyone who seriously primaried her.

That doesn’t prove that people don’t still hold a grudge. I do.

Are you in NY State?

You certainly can hold a grudge. New York Democrats do not though.

NYers love Al Franken too. This just isn't a topic that comes up around here anymore.

And I dislike Gillibrand. I voted for her because she was the Democratic nominee. But, I rarely hear anything about her. She isn’t as vocal or passionate as some of the other great Senators.

I kinda wish AOC had primaried her. But those are the breaks.

Before they redrew the district, there was a scumbag Republican in what would now be Stefanik's district. Nobody thought Sweeney could be defeated. Gillibrand came in and knocked him out. I will always hold a soft spot for her just for that. Sweeney was just awful. Not my district, but a neighboring district.

She's not a showboat like some people seem to think. She's gets a lot done. Especially for military and the 9/11 first responders.

Good for her!

Any of them do anything about him since he resigned? Or have they all "let it go"?

And what should they be doing? Protest him for the rest of their lives? None of them accused him of a crime, so other than coming forward they had nothing else to do.

That people repeat despite being shown the truth multiple times. Those 8 women included a Democratic staffer, an elected official, and one of his own constituents.

https://abcnews.com/amp/US/sen-al-frankens-accusers-accusations-made/story?id=51406862

Gillibrand, Sanders, Warren, Booker and Harris.

Had any of them won the nomination, I would have voted for our nominee without hesitation. I am glad none of them won the nomination.

And the nominee in 24.

I fully supported her as our nominee.

That is a separate issue from the fact that at the time, I would have preferred another nominee.

and she will forever be the face of the ouster.

As a prosecutor in CA, she already had a rep for being more interested in getting convictions, rather than finding out whether or not if the accused was really guilty. One can can take that tendency too far, however. With Al, she certainly did.

Back years later and totally apologized for it saying he was wrong that they never should have done it.

It was awful, they were all swept up in trying to be the moral party. And look at what we have now.

I sincerely hope the dems have learned a lesson to fully check something out before taking action. We do want to get rid of criminals in office, but only if they have truly had their day in court with full investigations.

I miss Al. I think they took him down because he was headed to be president.

He certainly never mentioned it to me (not there was a particular reason for him to do so), but far more importantly, didn't mention it to (his best friend) Norm Ornstein, either.

I really liked him.

I liked him then, and I like him now, but the talk of a presidential run was 99% outside wishful thinking, not his idea.

Some, such as Bill Nelson and Jon Tester, are no longer members of the Senate.

However, as far as I know, none of the five who actively ran campaigns for the presidency in 2020 ever apologized. That is something I can never forget (nor can he).

Harris was among them, and she did win the nomination. Others included Chris Murphy and Sherrod Brown. There were more than two dozen.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/gillibrand-calls-on-franken-to-resign-282112

Al Franken.

I get the distinct impression you don't know him very well..........

He never should have walked away.

He received zero support from his Senate colleagues when he needed it most. That's asking a lot. He ended up spending weeks on Norm's couch. Not even Franni was able to console him, and that's saying a lot.

Sure, he shouldn't have walked away, but he lacked the support of those who should have had his back. That is asking a lot--more than most people would have been able to withstand. I don't pretend I would have been stronger, had I been in his shoes.

He wasn't tough enough.

None did. Not one spoke out in his defense. Don't talk to me about "tough" unless you have been in a similar situation. One man facing coordinated one-sided public condemnation with 40 of the most powerful and respected voices in the country turning their backs on him when they should have been supporting him--voices from whom he had every right to expect support. Show me who IS tough enough to withstand that. I know no one whose veins contain ice that runs that cold, and I know a LOT of DC people.

But Schumer gave him the final shove. I read an interview with Norm Ornstein (sp) where he said Schumer gave him an ultimatum: resign by 5 p.m. or I'll bring a vote forcing your resignation. And all your committee assignments will be taken. You will be a pariah.

For those who say he "caved" etc. I'd like to see them withstand that kind of pressure and humiliation! From the "boss" no less. (Very nice, Senator Schumer...).

The whole thing was disgusting. The betrayal by his own party being worse than the railroading and targeting by the right-wing.

He was never replaced. There simply is no one else like him. I wish him the best.

The other was the governor of Minnesota, who selected Al's successor before he had even said he was going to resign.

That one cut deeply as well. All these "heroes" who claim Al should have "toughed it out" can't possibly know what it was like. Al won't talk about it in detail, but Norm is a very good friend, and he doesn't keep anything back about what it was like for Al.

I mean, ever? All those good Democrats lined up against him. Maybe there was a good reason.
This hero worship of guys who run away and hide makes little sense.

... and still continue with abject criminality. You sure don't care much about the women who accused Mr. Franken of malfeasance.

Schumer was pushing Franken hard to drop out to help with a runoff Senate race. Franken fell on his sword for the good of the party. Since a democrat would replace him, he didn’t need to fight.

His own party deserted and betrayed him.

Last edited Thu Feb 26, 2026, 10:42 AM - Edit history (1)

Who betrayed whom in the end? I loved Franken's politics and outspoken nature.
But I just don't understand vilifying all these other good Democrats just to defend one man who left.
It's much like all the Hillary-above-all lovers who still berate Bernie Sanders supporters.

And I lost much respect for the others who eagerly joined the completely unfair attack.

The Democrats have a tendency to eat their own when it serves their own interests. It would be like the Fever dumping Clark because she missed curfew. All Al wanted was his day in court, but Gillibrand and the others -- to their everlasting shame -- chose to deny him that opportunity.

Yes she was the first to make a Facebook post but within 5 minutes others were doing the same. That’s a highly coordinated effort orchestrated by leadership.

Also Franken was never getting a day in court because he was never accused of a crime.

Both ‘led the change’ and ‘day in court’ are just lazy talking points that don’t reflect reality. And in the end it was Franken’s choice to resign.

which Franken’s own account of the events say. He was the caucus leader and no one else has the power or influence to coordinate with over 30 other Senators on any issue as quickly as they did.

... and the loudest voice, and the one the networks ran to for sound-bites... others fell in line for their own reasons (and fairness + due process being extended to Franken was not among those reasons.)

and her voice was no louder than anyone else's. The whole thing was a highly coordinated effort. https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/06/politics/senators-al-franken-resignation/index.html

In the end, Franken chose to resign. He could have stayed and fought it out but he decided not to.

Her voice was quite loud and frequent. That's no accident. That's largely how she's remembered and for good reason. It's unclear what reason anyone would have to try and deny the larger-than-life and aggressive role she played in taking down a good, honest and decent man.

With regard to his resignation... it's interesting that people like to give an abbreviated, stilted and truncated description of that. Often limited it to something as simplistic and abrupt as "and in the end Franken chose to resign" (implying guilt) but omitting other details that put his resignation in context of the time and in the context of his unselfish reasons and the party divisions and civil war that he had hoped would be avoided. I wonder why that is. (Actually, I don't.)

Yes, he resigned... but it was for the good of the party because he could see how divisive it was going to be. His resignation was not an admission of guilt or wrongdoing. He fell on his own sword out of deep respect for the party and recognition that cooler and calmer and rational heads would not prevail in the atmosphere and popular hashtag movement of the time. The argument that "he could have stayed" is a rather cynical attempt to mischaracterize or paper-over the reality at the time. The situation had already progressed beyond any hope of fairness, and he knew that. The bandwagon effect took over. The damage had been done and the saboteurs won.

So... let's be honest... Franken was no idiot. He could see what was happening and that the writing was on the wall. He could NOT have stayed and he could NOT have fought because everything was already rigged against him. He put the party above his own ego and what was right and fair. And still, in spite of his loyalty to the party and choosing to not put us through a drawn out process... there are still people who line up to eagerly bash him for it and to give him absolutely no credit. Sheesh. He was right. He knew it was a no-win situation, or that by demanding fairness, it would come at a political cost (to the party) that he was not willing to indulge for his own vanities and luxury.

He weighed the outcomes and the cost of each, and he chose the best one at the time. He put the party above his own pride and his own legacy. I admire him for making a difficult choice and I respect his reasons for doing so. So should you.

that have played into the narrative of the corporate media. But Gillibrand wasn't the leader of the effort, Schumer was, Franken's own account of events confirm this. Gillibrand made a Facebook post that was followed by many others on the same day, some within a few minutes. This was obviously a highly coordinated effort by leadership, not one junior senator. She wasn't even the first Senator to appear on national tv calling for Franken to resign, that was Harris:

... some sort of admission of guilt or wrongdoing. By the time the bandwagon had started rolling from the initial loud and largely self-serving attacks against Franken, the damage had been done. While there were some who joined the pile-on activities at Franken's expense, others were also seeing that the saboteurs had won, that the damage was done, and they were encouraging his resignation to save the party from an internal split... not because they agreed he had done anything wrong.

There are many smart people online who know how to avoid making an outright accusation that smears Franken. But I'm smart enough to read between the lines, and to know when something is being insinuated... and what the effect is with the abbreviated and context free summaries of "well, he did choose to resign after all". So, sure... I'll "let it go" as soon as the bullies and other revisionists and excuse-makers start telling the truth. Until then... I'll be here.

some sort of admission of guilt or wrongdoing. But I wouldn't characterize every single woman who accused him as saboteurs either. Maybe Tweeden, but not the others.

But it is 8 years later. Many of the Senators who called for him to resign are still in the Senate and have been re-elected, some twice since then. Franken could have run for another office but choose not to. He's moved on with his life, everyone else should too.

... this is more or less (mostly more) an accusation that he's "probably guilty of something" at some point in his life, and that he "probably" deserved this as punishment for something that may (or may not) have happened when he was on SNL, for example. And right on cue... here we go again with the "he could have done this" or "he could have done that" ... he could have fought, he could have stayed, he could have not resigned, he could have run again (blah blah blah) and these things are put forth with absolutely ZERO acknowledgement or awareness that such a thing would have not been good for the party. The damage had been done. The bandwagon effect had taken hold. It was trendy to attack Franken... and ultimately by "not attacking him" (and not hopping on the bandwagon) politicians risked their own careers, or risked being accused of not-supporting-women or not-believing-women. Someone "being reelected" does not justify or excuse their unfair and unjust treatment of Franken... it's unclear how this was meant to be a serious defense of those who made the wrong choice to attack and smear him.

The calls to "move on" are just code for "he deserved what he got". I get it. --- I'll always disagree, but I get it. --- You do you. Clearly, we're going around in circles here. Neither of us will change the other's mind. In the meantime, feel free to continue this "discussion" however you will do so without me. Bye.

Is there any evidence that every single woman was part of some conspiracy?

And me saying that after 8 years that everyone should move on is only code for one thing, that everyone should move on and nothing else.

"I respect women. I don’t respect men who don’t. And the fact that my own actions have given people a good reason to doubt that makes me feel ashamed.

“But I want to say something else, too. Over the last few months, all of us—including and especially men who respect women—have been forced to take a good, hard look at our own actions and think (perhaps, shamefully, for the first time) about how those actions have affected women."

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/al-franken-apology/

He acknowledged that his actions gave people reason to doubt. Setting aside the Tweeden claim, which I don't think you should, do you have an example of other cases where 7 women accused a guy of this type of harassment where it was all made up? Or is Franken special because you like him?

... inevitable outcome and to create an even deeper divide within the party.

It's not like the calls for him to resign came until after it was clear there were multiple women over the course of years, several with contemporaneous telling to others. But the blame continues to go everywhere else.

It sure felt like she was doing it for political purposes with the intention of running for president. I was so disappointed in a lot of senators at the time and she was on the top of the list.

But, as I pointed out in another post above, the bandwagon effect was in full motion, the hashtag movement of the time was in all the headlines, the saboteurs had done their damage and any attempt by Franken to demand or pursue fairness would have only created deep rifts in the party. Even now, those divisions still remain (as we can see). He deserves praise for making a difficult and unselfish decision and putting the party above his own career and legacy. He was, and remains, a good, decent and honest man. As a nation we are poorer because of his absence.

using a movement like ME TOO for political gain by slandering a decent person, only minimizes and undercuts those women who are real victims of sexual assault and harassment.

Sillybrand really jumped the shark when she threw Al Franken - one of the great Democratic senators of my lifetime - under the bus because that's the way she thought the wind blew.

She gave Needy Amin - and all his fascist misfits - exactly what they wanted. They must've laughed about it for months.

it was about political expediency - "the way she thought the wind blew."

Republican operatives must have been thrilled, as they used Democrats' positions against them. When a movement like #MeToo goes viral, there will always be bad actors who will take advantage of it and in the process, they'll undermine it.

I supported Franken and asked him to not resign but to go through the process.

However Gillibrand has spent years holding military accountable for vile treatment of women. Many democrats unfortunately have never educated themselves about her work.

It was the leader who demanded Franken’s resignation.

Gillibrand acted in accordance with her principles and her consistent history of defending women.

Schumer perhaps had his own reasons.

... created even more division and infighting. You do bring up an interesting point... that Franken was a symbolic target for those who were willing to sacrifice someone for their own agenda and possible career advancement, or to "make an example" of someone high profile whether it was deserved or not.

Great question

That only applies to Democrats.

Despite leadership and pretty much every other senator saying the same thing. Schumer leading the caucus into it, and Harris was absolutely in front of cameras then as well.

But the real issue was this - which people either forgot or pretend they never knew. The reason Gillibrand came in for some shit at the time is because she dared say that maybe Bill Clinton's past behavior with women wasn't great.

The lèse-majesté of it all.

And that's when the knives for her came out in behind the scenes Democratic circles. Oh, some insiders didn't like that one bit. So with Franken, they saw an opportunity to sandbag her as Single-Handedly Destroying a Democratic Man.

It shouldn't have been that easy to get people to swallow that narrative and carry it for years, but the Internet is a funny little place. Talking points from the right place get accepted wholesale.

When MeToo became, "MeToo . . . but not our people!"

It continues to be a look. A, dare I say, misogynistic one at that.

Why has she not led a charge with such zeal against anyone else for doing much worse?

Why not ask Harris about it? Or Schumer? They had similar zeal at the time.

You didn't put their names in your title. You put hers.

Are you letting them all off the hook? Because it seems like it. And Schumer arguably has more power and influence in these things. So perhaps I could be forgiven for perhaps side-eyeing the real motive, which is less about holding someone accountable, and more about taking some shots at a good Democrat.

She got in front of the cameras almost instantly and said
"Enough is Enough" before anyone else!

Was it wrong for Schumer to go along so quickly, absolutely, but don't deny that Gillibrand was ruthless and opportunistic.

It's a shame. This Gillibrand stuff was a misogynistic bs campaign from Day One by people whose feathers were ruffled that she wasn't genuflecting appropriately at the altar of the party's power couple.

And that this is perpetuated uncritically in Democratic spaces out of intrapartisan motivation rather than an exploration on how a woman was attacked by our own after criticizing a man for bad behavior is depressing.

Expected, but depressing.

As I said, it should not have been that easy to get that narrative going, but it was.

Maybe it's because I'm a Millennial and I've never held various figures in the party in the same awe or deference. Their little campaign against Gillibrand didn't fly with me then. I don't accept it now.

But go with it. It's so helpful! Surely we're in such a place as a country and a party that we can take swipes at solid party members for no reason whatsoever. How useful.

But seriously, it really is something people don't see how it looks to continuously - for years - hold one woman singularly responsible for collective behavior on the topic of men behaving not so great. We're supposed to be the party of women, ffs. How does this one keep flying under the radar? It's like zombie shittery that just doesn't go away.

It's an easy accusation to make but do you have an evidence that was her motivation? What about Harris, Warren, Booker and Sanders? Was that their motivation too since they all ran in 20?

And she wasn't the first one in front of the cameras. That was Harris:

and she did eventually call for Cuomo to resign.

However, you will never accept what I put forth to defend my opinion, so why don't you just give it a rest!

to call for his resignation. That is hardly a rush to judgement.

And I will not accept your opinion because it is just an opinion that is not backed up by any solid facts. You nor I have any idea what was in the minds of every Senator who called for Franken to resign. We don't know what their true motivation was. And demonizing someone based on a mere opinion of what their true motivation was is just a smear.

I assume you would be referring to becoming the nominee for President. At that point, there were MANY Senators with far more obvious Presidential aspirations. Wikipedia has polls starting after the 2016 loss. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries.

Note that Al Franken was not among them at any time. As his name was mentioned by pundits, he and his wife definitely ruled out a run in May 2017.

However, being seen as pushing Franken out ... and speaking of Bill Clinton's transgressions, Gillibrand lost favor herself.

Al Franken was not Kirsten's political rival.

Lol 😂

It makes zero sense.

Just blame someone with little evidence and make up reasons for it after the fact.

Senator Franken was my Senator.......AND I WILL NEVER FORGIVE OR FORGET. 🤬 🤬 🤬 🤬 🤬

Not to mention, the obvious assumption that Al Franken did something wrong, despite the highly questionable nature of the awfully conveniently timed accusations.
Mother Jones did a write up on that:

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/07/defending-al-franken-for-real/

While we may never know if any of those events actually happened, the fact that they never came up before the Tweeden accusation, no one can corroborate any of them with any hard evidence or even impartial witnesses, despite supposedly happening in public, and the women all went silent the second he stepped down, makes it all highly suspect.

that doesn’t apply to a congressional ethics committee hearing. And those hearings are not a trial. There’s no defense or prosecution. There is no cross examination of witnesses. There isn’t even a determination of guilt or innocence, just if congressional rules have been violated.

I know we are not supposed to disparage Dems but she is a big exception. She has the Roger Maris asterisk next to her name