Senator Al Franken (D, MN) has been accused Thursday of sexually harassing a woman while the two were on a USO tour in Afghanistan 11 years ago.  He’s apologized for it.

He was also quoted in a 1995 New York Magazine article about his generating a “joke” for Saturday Night Live, where he worked at the time, that centered on drugging and raping then-journalist Leslie Stahl.  He apologized for that, too.

Then he said about that apology during his 2008 campaign for Senate that he

didn’t think he should have to apologize for the cracks, which his opponents were taking out of context. “To say I was sorry for writing a joke was to sell out my career, to sell out who I’d been my entire life,” he writes [in his book]. “And I wasn’t sorry that I had written Porn-o-Rama or pitched that stupid Lesley Stahl joke at 2 in the morning. I was just doing my job.”

But…”I learned that campaigns have their own rules, their own laws of physics, and that if I wasn’t willing to accept that, I would never get to be a senator.” And so Franken took a deep breath and told a little white lie: “I’m sorry.”

Little white lie.  Franken still wants to be a Senator.  With his clearly stated position that apologies are just lies to be mouthed in order to get what he wants, how is it possible for anyone—let alone the woman who accused him last Thursday—to believe his apology for that Afghanistan harassment?  Or any other apology he might pretend to offer for any other transgression?  Or anything at all he might say on any matter?

And lest there be any question about that USO incident, understand clearly: the existence of Franken’s pseudo-apology stands as his blithe confession that he did the thing of which he’s accused.

And he’s still a Senator.

The stampede to call out sexual harassment is growing, and actionable complaints are being made.  These need to be carefully investigated, and the hides of those convicted nailed to the outhouse wall.

However, there also is a growing number of accusations made against unnamed harassers—just claims of workplace harassment devoid of useful specifics.  The latest round (eliding Al Franken, who’s the subject of a nearby post) is claims of harassment in Congress.

Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D, CA) said she knows of two current members of Congress who “have engaged in sexual harassment,” while another congresswoman, Congresswoman Barbara Comstock (R, VA) recounted a member who exposed himself to a female staffer.

The members were not named.

And

Senator Claire McCaskill (D, MO) told reporters that she had been harassed when she interned on Capitol Hill, but she did not report it.

And

[Former Congressional Black Caucus Fellow] M Reese Everson said that a member of Congress asked if he could flirt with her “in order [for her] to excel in [her] career.”

The problem with this sort of accusation is that there’s no reason to believe them, certainly there’s no way to check them out, and most importantly, there’s no way to go after the harassers if they do exist—they get off scott free.

That’s unacceptable in both ways.  Name names.

Have I mentioned the racist bigotry of the Left and its Progressive-Democratic Party?  Here’s an example of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s openly direct sexist bigotry, via Power Line (click on the image to get a larger version).

The emphasized line (emphasis by Power Line)—the money line—says I personally would prefer that you not forward to cisgender straight white males, since they’re already in the majority.  The line gains yet more significance coming on the heels of the first paragraph of Madeleine Leader’s (DNC Data Services Manager) missive.  After saying the DNC needs to rebuild its Technology Team into a capability for “tackling all elections,” she emphasized [emphasis added]

What’s more important is that we are focused on hiring and maintaining a staff of diverse voices and life experiences….

The Progressive-Democratic Party’s sexism, masqueraded as virtue signaling, is more important than merit—except that they define merit on the basis of gender and racial diversity, not on actual capability.

This is the gang that would rule our nation.  What damage would they do in the name of a diversity that favors Party-chosen groups?