The Daily - Senator Kirsten Gillibrand on Not Regretting Al Franken

Episode Date: August 20, 2019

Al Franken resigned from the Senate more than 18 months ago over allegations of sexual harassment. New reporting about those allegations has revived the debate over whether the Democratic Party — particularly senators currently seeking the presidency — moved too fast in calling for him to step down. In an interview, one of those senators, Kirsten Gillibrand, says absolutely not.Guest: Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat and 2020 presidential candidate. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: Ms. Gillibrand’s stance on Mr. Franken’s departure has come up persistently during her struggling presidential campaign.Our colleague Lisa Lerer interviewed Ms. Gillibrand for the On Politics newsletter.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today. A growing firestorm on Capitol Hill after Democratic Senator Al Franken is accused of forcibly kissing and groping a woman more than a decade ago. Conservative talk show host Leanne Tweeden accused Franken of sexually inappropriate conduct when they worked together on a USO tour. Another woman is coming forward to make groping accusations against Minnesota Senator Democrat Al Franken. Another woman

has come forward to accuse Franken of sexual misconduct. This just came in that Kirsten Gillibrand, senator from New York, she is now calling on Senator Al Franken to resign. This is marking the first time a senator has called on the Minnesota Democrat to leave office. First, it was Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, and then Claire McCaskill, Mazie Hirono, Maggie Hassan, Patty Murray, Kamala Harris, Tammy Baldwin have now called on their colleague to resign. Nothing I have done as a senator, nothing has brought this honor on this institution. And I am confident that the Ethics Committee would agree.

Nevertheless, today I am announcing that in the coming weeks, I will be resigning as a member of the United States Senate. Nearly two years after Senator Al Franken's resignation over allegations of sexual harassment, new reporting about those allegations has revived the debate. Al Franken is back in the headlines and trending tonight. That's thanks to this article published in The New Yorker today. Over whether the Democratic Party, particularly senators now seeking the presidency in 2020, moved too fast in calling on him to resign.

The New Yorker's Jane Mayer says parts of Tweeden's account don't hold up, like her claim Franken wrote one skit so he'd have an excuse to kiss her repeatedly. When asked if he regretted resigning, Franken replied, Oh yeah, absolutely. And seven senators went on the record saying they regret calling for his resignation. No regrets for the White House hopeful Kirsten Gillibrand. Furious Democrats called her a traitor. But on this subject, Gillibrand is unapologetic.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand says absolutely not. It's Tuesday, August 20th. You ready? Are we ready? Is Michael already on the phone? No, he's not. Okay. Hello? Hello.

Hey, Senator Gillibrand, it's Michael Barbaro. Hi, Michael. How are you? How are you? I'm well. Where are you? I'm well. Where are you? I'm in my house in D.C. So you're on a break from the campaign trail? Correct.

So we wanted to talk to you because you're running a presidential campaign that has really distinguished itself by focusing on gender, gender inequities, questions around harassment and equal representation. And for many Americans, the way that they first came to know you for that, and maybe the way they first got to know you, period, was through your leadership in calling for Senator Al Franken of Minnesota to step down after allegations of harassment back in 2017. And in recent weeks, there's been some new reporting on what happened back then. So to start, I want to go back to that time, to right before the first allegation against Franken. This is November of 2017. The Harvey Weinstein story has just broken in the Times, and that's followed very shortly after by accusations against Roy Moore, the Republican Senate candidate in Alabama. What do you remember, Senator, about that time?

Well, there was even more than that going on. There was a breaking story about rampant sexual harassment claims on Capitol Hill. And I was actually working on legislation to change the rules of how we deal with sexual harassment in Congress. There was also my constant fight to end sexual assault in the U.S. military. And so there was a lot going on at that moment before those allegations came out. So you were very actively working on this issue before the MeToo issue had kind of broken open? Absolutely. For over five years, in fact. So what was the conversation going on among Democrats as you were considering how to handle the allegations against Roy Moore? On those allegations, there was a lot of clarity

and there was a lot of clarity up front. You had someone who was accused multiple times of pedophilia and of inappropriate sexual contact with underage women, and there was really no ambiguity with regard to that. Certainly not from Democrats. I wonder, had it yet occurred to you that the Me Too movement would reach the Democratic Party? I had no doubt it would. The scourge of sexual assault, sexual harassment is prevalent everywhere. And I knew full well that it would at some point come to Congress. And it was coming to Congress. So what do you remember about the first allegation leveled against your friend and your fellow Democrat, Al Franken? Well, I remember I was sitting in an armed services hearing when a staffer showed me

the breaking news and the photo. And I read the article and it was disturbing and concerning. and concerning. And I think over a couple of hours, I was ultimately asked what I thought, and I said there should be an ethics investigation. So what happened that changed your approach? Because, of course, ultimately, you called for Franken to resign, and there wasn't an ethics investigation. Right. What transpired over the next three weeks was a lot of information. Eight allegations emerged. Each one was determined to be credible and was corroborated in real time by the national media. Two of the allegations that emerged were since he was elected. And the eighth allegation happened to be a congressional staffer.

And the nature of the allegations were all very similar. And with each allegation as it grew, it created more and more concern in my mind. I couldn't defend him. I couldn't carry his water. And my silence was doing exactly that. So I got to the point where I wanted to say very clearly that I didn't think it was acceptable and that I felt that he really needed to resign. Now, 34 other members of the Senate followed me pretty quickly, some within minutes, several who are running for president today. followed me pretty quickly, some within minutes, several who are running for president today.

I also, as you know, Michael, have two sons, and my oldest, Theo, is now 15. And the conversations we were having at home were upsetting to me as a mother. Mom, why are you so tough on Al Franken? And so I had to have clarity as a mom and just say to Theo at the time, it's not okay have clarity as a mom and just say to Theo at the time, it's not okay for anyone to grope someone without their consent or to forcibly kiss them without their consent. And it's not okay for Senator Franken. It's certainly not okay for Theo. So I had to have clarity. And so I made my decision. And Senator Franken, he had his own choices. He could have explained himself. He could have stuck it out to his ethics investigation. And he could have waited till his next election. Those were all his decisions, not mine. But why did you yourself no longer want to wait for the ethics investigation. You said he could have waited, but you called for his resignation.

Right. I just reached the point where I couldn't defend him. He had also already acknowledged that he had crossed a line. He acknowledged that he had to be much more careful and sensitive in the future. And when he had the opportunity to talk to me and our colleagues,

he didn't really take that opportunity. Did you reach out to him? Nope. And we were there, and he knew that we were concerned, me and several other senators. And what do you mean by clarity? You just used that word.

Because it's clear that some people looking back on this case see it as a gray zone. So how would you define clarity? You just used that word because it's clear that some people looking back on this case see it as a gray zone. So how would you define clarity for the Democratic Party? Well, from my perspective, when you grope a woman without her consent, when you forcibly kiss a woman without her consent, those are actions that are not appropriate for someone who wants to serve in the public. It's a pattern that is disturbing, and I just can't defend it, and I couldn't defend it. Over the last few weeks, a number of women have come forward to talk about how they felt my actions had affected them. I was shocked. I was shocked.

I was upset. But in responding to their claims, I also wanted to be respectful of that broader conversation. Because all women deserve to be heard and their experiences taken seriously. I think that was the right thing to do. I also think it gave some people the false impression that I was admitting to doing things that, in fact, I haven't done. Some of the allegations against me are simply not true. Others I remember very differently. Serving in the United States Senate has been the great honor of my life.

I know in my heart that nothing I have done as a senator, nothing, has brought this honor on this institution. We'll be right back. You said the allegations were corroborated by the national media, kind of in real time. Of course, there have been these developments in recent weeks with significant reporting in The New Yorker that has challenged many of those accounts, raised questions about their accuracy. I don't think that's accurate, actually. I felt that piece only challenged one account. There were eight credible allegations. From what I read, it really seemed to delve into only one. The one being the first. Correct. Not the one about the person who served in the military, not the one about the congressional staffer,

not the one about the former elected official, not the one about the former elected official, not the few who were groped at the state fair. Well, the reporting did address the former congressional staffer, the one that I... Not really. I think there was maybe two sentences on it. I think in the case of the other allegations, and this was what the New Yorker article seemed to establish,

several of them were about perception of Senator Franken's actions. And what Jane Mayer asked the congressional aide was if it was possible that Franken hadn't been making a sexual advance. This was a case where perhaps he had just been clumsy when he reached in to hug her. And the woman responded, quote, is there a difference if someone tries to do something to you unwanted? And I wonder what you make of that. The allegation, I just have to stop. Go ahead, please.

The allegation was of a forcible kiss. It was not a hug. Let's not confuse the issue. And when he made that gesture in whatever form he did, he said the words, that's my right as an entertainer. And as someone who is trying to make the workplace safe for all young men and women who work in Congress, to not stand by her and to not be able to protect her, I wouldn't be a good senator and I wouldn't be able to continue to lead on these issues. I think the question was, how do you feel about destroying a senator's career? And to ask

that question is the perfection of victim blaming. And it is unfortunate that that would be said to a young female staffer who has devoted herself to public service. Were you at all troubled by the new information that emerged when it came to the first allegation, Ms. Tweeden? I know you're saying that ultimately it was about a kind of cumulative understanding of behavior. There were some specific revelations about the people around the woman who made these allegations, about inconsistencies and inaccuracies of things she claimed happened or that were unique to her that turned out to not be right, according to interviews. A play wasn't written by Al Franken, according to Jane Mayer's reporting, just so he could kiss her. He had written similar skits before, and many women had played those roles. That allegation ultimately opened the door for these other allegations to come forward. So is it problematic? Is it worrisome to you that there are inaccuracies and lots of questions and challenges around that first allegation? The fact that he admitted to crossing the line

in many examples, he said, I quote, I crossed a line for some women. I know that at any numbers too many. The fact that he said he had to be much more careful and sensitive in the future. Those were his words that came out after the third allegation. So I think just picking apart one allegation is really harmful. So I think just picking apart one allegation is really harmful. I think it's harmful to the larger moment that we're in, because how would you feel, Michael, if you were the second, third, fourth, of your own institution saying you're not sure now, I think it's a pretty devastating feeling. And I think it pushed us back. I think for women and men across America who have been abused, assaulted, harassed, afraid to come forward because of retaliation. I hear you pushing back on all of the reporting there. Is there room to challenge those who accuse?

Of course there is. That's what justice is about. When you say believe women, what that means is not they get to decide whether something happened or didn't. It means that you will do an investigation. When a rape survivor runs into a police station and she said, I was just raped, and the police officer says to her,

oh, well, is that what you were wearing? Oh, you knew the person? Oh, you were drinking? They're disbelieving her, and so they are not doing an investigation. What the phrase means is, believe them as much as you believe someone else who runs into a police station and said, my car was stolen and start the investigation. And so that's the

whole point. The Me Too movement and being able to come forward with your truth is so that you can tell what happened to you. So perhaps there's a chance at justice. The truth is there's women and men all across America who will never be able to call out their boss, whose bosses aren't famous enough, where a public call-out would make a difference. They could never be able to even have the hope of justice. And so I thought that this is a moment where I needed to speak my truth, that this was something that I didn't think was okay. And given hate allegations and two since he was elected, and having the eighth one be someone who works in my place of work again. And as I said, this is something I'd been working on for months before this. It caused grave concern to me.

I completely understand the point you're making and how difficult it has been for women to come forward. But as you said, much of the investigation in this case has been done by the media, not traditional investigators. And this latest reporting seems to provide some new information that an investigation would likely have shed light on. to provide some new information that an investigation would likely have shed light on. So,

in retrospect, do you wish that Senator Franken had held on for the ethics investigation? So that when we talk about justice, we can look at the results of a proper investigation. And so there's no ambiguity. Right, Michael, but... Go ahead. You're asking me about something that's not my

choice. Whether or not to stick it out for an ethics investigation is Al Franken's decision and his decision alone. He's entitled to every bit of investigative work. He could have sued every woman that came forward and gone to the criminal justice system. He could have sued them for fraud. He could have had any measure of investigation that he wanted. He's the one who chose not to have that. But what he is not entitled to, Michael, and I want to be clear on this, is my silence. He's not entitled to the Democratic Party being in his corner. Because if that's

what's expected of us, then his role as senator is more important than the rest of our roles as senator, that we can be speakers of truth, that we can stand with a woman who works in our workplace, who felt not only attacked, but felt devalued. So those are my choices, whether to speak out or not. I am somebody who stands up for people who need protection, who need their voices to be lifted up. And I will stand with those eight survivors. I would do it again today. And that's the courage we need to have. And I'm grateful that the Democratic Party has the courage to do that. You're totally right that ultimately, it was his choice. It was. He decided to step down. I wonder if ultimately, though, your cause

would be strengthened by an investigation into allegations like this. Because wonder if ultimately, though, your cause would be strengthened by an investigation into allegations like this. Because in that case, there's no room for ambiguity. There's no room for anyone to say, we are just believing women with no proof. And in the process, we may be ruining careers without evidence. If it just makes everything you just said stronger, if you help ensure that there's due process, and that is a process that you can influence with your voice, and potentially, in this case, did influence. I was not willing to stay silent for however many months that investigation was going to take place. In a lot of these instances, we are asked

what you believe and what you think because we are members of Congress and because we are decision makers on these issues. I don't think people waited for Harvey Weinstein to have a full criminal investigation before they decided he had to go. I don't think people waited for any of the examples that you could raise in multiple venues and different industries. I just knew I got to the point where I couldn't defend him. So I chose to say I'm not okay with this. What do you make of the fact that in the months that have passed since Franken resigned, a number of your Democratic colleagues have now said that they regret joining you in calling for his resignation. What does that tell you? Does it mean that some of your Democratic colleagues have lost that clarity in your mind? No, I think it represents a struggle that a lot of people are having right now with this idea of redemption and this idea

of forgiveness? And how does someone who has made mistakes reemerge in any context or any industry? And how much room for forgiveness do you see there as being in this moment? I think it's there for anyone who wants it. It just is a matter of having the humility and grace to take responsibility, to know that you need to say you're sorry and move on from there. I think for everyone, there's always that path.

You just have to choose to take it. What would you like, in that sense, to hear from Senator Franken? In this moment, he is saying he regrets stepping down. He is denying many of the allegations and the way that they're being framed. I'm guessing you don't see that as the kind of contrition that you're looking for. My perspective doesn't matter. This is for Senator Franken.

What happens from here on in is his decision and how he decides to take this moment. Well, more broadly, as someone who has become a leader on this issue, what would you like to see men doing who are in the kind of position that Franken is in? You know, it's interesting. haven't really seen it yet, but I would imagine somebody who wanted to reemerge in whatever industry they're in just needs to apologize. Whatever the appropriate act of taking responsibility is would depend on what they were accused of and what the context is. Having the humility to recognize you're wrong and having the grace to seek forgiveness. That's it. That's all that it takes. It's not hard. It's just very rare. I want to talk about your presidential campaign

as it relates to all of this. As we talked about, in many ways, this kind of brought you onto the national stage. Your advocacy for women has become quite central to your campaign. And I wonder what you make of the fact, and I hate talking about polling,

but with apologies, that you're polling quite low in this moment and that the Democrat who's currently leading in the polls, Joe Biden, faced accusations of inappropriate touching himself a couple months ago and continued on with his campaign

and seems to be doing quite well. Does that trouble you? Or does that tell you anything? I don't think that's necessarily the reason. I don't think the Al Franken thing has helped. I think it's hurt when it comes to Democratic donors. I mean, I think it's been clearly established and written about that some donors

don't want to support my campaign. But I could have told anybody at the time that there is literally no reward for standing up to powerful men who are good at their day job. And I've been doing it for a long time. I know this is a provocative question, and that's why it's perhaps my last one. What about the possibility that you're not just hurting your own candidacy with this approach that you've just laid out, but perhaps hurting the Democratic Party? Just stick with me for a second. I'm mindful that just ahead of the 2018 midterms, Brett Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault, and he continued on with his Supreme Court nomination. Your Republican colleagues in the Senate, they stood by him, and they, and he, Kavanaugh, prevailed in getting confirmed. We started talking about this idea that Democrats should hold themselves to a different standard. And watching this play out, is there a danger in the Democratic Party playing by a different set of rules than the Republicans? That you might discover that Americans don't necessarily

agree with the standards that the party is using, that you, Senator Gillibrand, are applying, and that the party will suffer while the Republicans only gain power. So I couldn't disagree with you more, Michael. First of all, I disagree with the notion that Democrats paid a price over Al Franken. I think Tina Smith is an extraordinary U.S. senator doing a great job and having a higher electoral victory than her predecessor. I think Kamala Harris, who replaced Al Franken on the Judiciary Committee, has shown she is a tremendous voice on that committee and has done an outstanding job. The fact that Roy Moore was not elected, and we have an extraordinary Democrat in Doug Jones.

The fact that 2018 was an enormous victory for the Democratic Party. Not only did we flip the House of Representatives, because women ran in red and purple places across this country. We had extraordinary victories across this country. We had extraordinary victories across the country. Women in America know that the Democratic Party values them. Women in America know that the Republican Party might not. And I would challenge the Democratic Party, do not lose sight that you have to do the right thing even when it's hard. And I think that when we value women and do the right thing, long term, we will prevail, we will be stronger, and we will earn the support of Americans because we value their mothers, their daughters,

and their sisters. So if your candidacy might have been hurt by this, but you think that there are these other signs that the Democrats really gained from all of this, what's the takeaway that you want to leave listeners with? Sometimes it's very hard to do what's right. I know it's hard. It's really hard. And it's really hard when the person is someone you care about

and admire and like and enjoy and think is really good. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't anyway. Well, Senator, I really want to thank you for taking time to talk about this. I really appreciate it. We all do. You're welcome. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. The decision to ban me and my colleague, the first two Muslim American women elected to Congress,

is nothing less than an attempt by an ally of the United States to suppress our ability to do our jobs as elected officials. During a joint news conference on Monday, Congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib publicly condemned Israel's decision to bar them from visiting the country, but said that would not discourage them from speaking out about the plight of Palestinians living under Israeli control. Denying visit to duly elected members of Congress is not consistent with being an ally. And denying millions of people freedom of movement or expression or self-determination is not consistent with being a democracy.

Omar encouraged her congressional colleagues to take the trip that she and Tlaib have been denied. So I would encourage my colleagues to visit, meet with the people we were going to meet with, see the things we were going to see, hear the stories we were going to hear. We cannot, we cannot let Trump and Netanyahu succeed in hiding the cruel reality of the occupation from us. So I call on all of you to go. The occupation is real. Barring members of Congress from seeing it does not make it go away. Israel said it had barred the lawmakers because of Omar and Tlaib's support for boycotting the country over its treatment of Palestinians,

but said it would have allowed Tlaib, whose grandmother lives in the West Bank, to visit her if Tlaib agreed not to promote the boycotts during her visit. Tlaib said she could not comply with those conditions. I think my grandmother said it beautifully when she said, I'm her Asfou, Asfou in Arabic means her bird. And she said, I'm her dream manifested. I am her free bird. And she said, I'm her dream manifested. I am her free bird. So why would I come back and be caged and bow down when my election rose her head up high, gave her dignity for the first time. And so through tears at three o'clock in the morning, we all decided as a family that I could not go until I was

a free American United States Congresswoman coming there not only to... And... No one believes that Officer Pantaleo got out of bed on July 17, 2014, thinking he would make choices and take actions during an otherwise routine arrest that would lead to another person's death. Five years after the death of Eric Garner, whose final words, I can't breathe, became a rallying cry for the Black Lives Matter movement, the New York City police officer blamed for his death has been fired.

But an officer's choices and actions, even made under extreme pressure, matter. The officer, Daniel Pantaleo, who put Garner in a chokehold in Staten Island in 2014, was not charged with a crime by either the city or the federal government. But an NYPD judge found him guilty of reckless assault and had recommended his termination. In this case, the unintended consequence of Mr. Garner's death must have a consequence of its own. On Monday afternoon, Garner's mother responded to Pantaleo's firing. Yeah, Pantaleo, you may have lost your job, but I lost a son. July 17, 2014, I lost my son. That's right. July 17, 2014. I lost my son.

You cannot replace that. You can get another job, maybe at Burger King. Okay. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.