Senator Who “Wore” Diaper Considers 2020 Run Against President Trump

Most, if not all of us, remember the bizarre Minnesota senatorial race in 2008 between incumbent Norm Coleman (R-MN) and former Saturday Night Live “star” Al Franken.

It was impossibly close; on the morning after the election, after 2.9 million people had voted, Coleman led Franken by 725 votes.

Franken and his Democrat allies dispatched an army of lawyers to challenge the results. After the first canvass, Coleman's lead was down to 206 votes. 

During the controversy, a conservative group called Minnesota Majority began to investigate claims of voter fraud. Comparing criminal records with voting rolls, the group identified 1,099 felons─all ineligible to vote─who had voted in the Franken-Coleman race.

After months of wrangling and litigation, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes. He was sworn into office in July 2009, eight months after the election.  Franken was elected on the strength of voter fraud.

During the campaign, Republicans sought to keep Coleman’s seat in the Senate and unearthed a racy Playboy article, “Porn-O-Rama”, published in 2000.  The RNC also called attention to a 1995 skit on SNL where Franken joked about raping CBS journalist Lesley Stahl.

Franken: “And, I give the pills to Lesley Stahl. Then, when Lesley's passed out, I take her to the closet and rape her. That's why you never see Lesley until February. When she passes out, I put her in various positions and take pictures of her."

Senator Yuk-Yuk was forced to distance himself from his crass and profane comedy routines when he accepted his party’s endorsement in 2008:

“For 35 years I was a writer. I wrote a lot of jokes. Some of them weren’t funny. Some of them weren’t appropriate. Some of them were downright offensive. I understand that. And I understand that the people of Minnesota deserve a senator who won’t say things that will make you feel uncomfortable.” 

To get and stay elected, he had to suppress his sense of humor and project an air of utmost seriousness. The people of Minnesota, after all, were not interested in being represented in Washington by a clown—a truth revealed to the candidate in multiple focus groups with Minnesota voters.

In his new memoir, “Al Franken, Giant of the Senate”, Franken admits the truth: His inner clown never went away. It just got suppressed, forcibly and with great effort. He became a giant phony.

There’s an old axiom that says every senator wakes up humming “Hail to the Chief”.  That axiom now includes just about any Democrat who isn’t a convicted felon.  Enter Senator Al “Yuk-Yuk” Franken.  According to The Hill, political associates say they think he could be talked into running for president if he believes he’s the best positioned to defeat President Trump.

As much as Franken and his army of toadies would like to scrub the Internet of that photo of him donning a pair of bunny ears wearing a diaper or a video of him holding two traffic cones suggestively, the Minnesota senator has never failed to beclown himself.

While the aforementioned tasteless antics are years old, the antic that conclusively proves his tenure in the Senate has been a colossal farce was the Neil Gorsuch confirmation hearing.

NOTE:  Franken serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee.  He has not one scintilla of knowledge about the law.  He neither attended law school nor practiced law.

Franken grilled Gorsuch about the case of the freezing truck driver who had been fired after he had driven away from his broken trailer after waiting several hours for help. 

"Don't you think it was absurd that this man was fired?" Franken asked.

"My heart goes out to him," Gorsuch said.

“But the plain meaning rule has an exception. When using the plain meaning rule would create an absurd result, courts should depart from the plain meaning. It is absurd to say this company is in its rights to fire him because he made the choice of possibly dying from freezing to death or causing other people to die possibly by driving an unsafe vehicle. That’s absurd.  Now, I had a career in identifying absurdity,” Franken said.

GORSUCH: Senator, a couple of things in response to that, if I might. Going back, the absurdity doctrine argument was never presented to the court. And it usually applies in cases where there is a scrivener's error, not where we just disagree with the policy of the statute.  So, I’d appreciate the opportunity to respond there.

FRANKEN: When there’s a scribner there?

GORSUCH: Scrivener’s error.

FRANKEN: Error. Okay. I’m sorry.

GORSUCH: Not when we just disagree with the policy.  With respect to…

FRANKEN: Well, if I read my statutory interpretation from─let's see. This is from the Notre Dame Law School National Institute for Trial Advocacy. This is a pretty well-known exception to the plain meaning rule.

GORSUCH: Oh, yeah.

FRANKEN: And I think you can apply it without it. I mean don't you think it is absurd that this man was put─given that choice and then fired for it? Don't you think that was absurd?

GORSUCH: Senator, my heart goes out to him.

FRANKEN: Okay, never mind.