instruction:
Given a document, generate a short title of the document. The title should convey the main idea/event/topic about which the document is being written. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
question:
1.  He  was resigning  his  seat by the end of the year.
2.  He  didn't believe  he  had done anything for which  he  should have been forced to resign.
 Franken 's speech was defined primarily by  his  lack of any real apology and the clear bitterness  he  carries for being pushed out amid allegations that  he  had groped several women and forcibly tried to kiss others.
Here's the key bit from  Franken  (bolding is mine):
That's a remarkable statement.  Franken  is simultaneously saying that  he  believes the women who have accused  him  have a right to be heard while also making very clear that  he  is not admitting  he  had done the things they alleged.
 He  went on to note that "I know in my heart that nothing I have done as a senator  nothing has brought dishonor on this institution " adding: "I am confident that the ethics committee would agree."
And  just in case there was any question that  Franken  believed  he  was being unfairly railroaded  the senator's turn to Donald Trump and Roy Moore cleared all that up.
Said  Franken :
"I am leaving while a man who has bragged on tape about  his  history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office and a man who repeatedly preyed on young girls campaigns for the Senate with the full support of his party. But this decision is not about me. It's about the people of Minnesota."
 Franken  got support in that view from an unlikely source on Thursday: Former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. " Franken  should not have resigned.  His  fate should have been left 2 the people of MN. Moore  who had sexual contact w a 14-yr old  should drop out. Conyers  who hit on his employees  should have resigned.  Franken  is a creep who acted inappropriatly  but  his  facts are different " tweeted Fleischer shortly after  Franken 's resignation announcement.
The second part of  Franken 's conclusion will have a lot of Democratic heads nodding. Why is  Franken  resigning for allegations of groping and unwanted kissing while Trump is in office after more than a dozen women accused him during the campaign of sexual harassment? Why is  Franken  resigning when Roy Moore  who faces multiple allegations of pursuing relationships with teenagers as young as 14 when  he  was in  his  30s  is looking more and more like a winner in next Tuesday's special election?
Those are fair questions. The simple reason is because  Franken  gave in to the pressure to step aside while Trump and Moore just kept saying they didn't do anything wrong and had no plans to leave their respective races. And the political willpower didn't exist in Alabama or the country to get rid of them.
But the first part of  Franken 's contention -- that  he  did not do anything wrong and these women were either mistaken or misremembering -- will sit less well even with  his  most ardent supporters.
If  Franken  truly believes -- as  he  said -- that  he  did nothing wrong here  then why is  he  resigning?  His  explanation was that  he  couldn't simultaneously deal with an ethics investigation and represent the state effectively. But  he  was the one who called for an ethics investigation when  he  announced last week that  he  was planning to stay on the job and work to win back the trust of  his  colleagues and  his  constituents!
The answer is that almost three dozen of  Franken 's colleagues called for  him  to step down over the last 24 hours -- including a united front of Democratic female senators . There was just no way that  Franken  could realistically stay on amid that depth of condemnation. (Although  per Trump and Moore  maybe he could have.)
 Franken  bowed to what he believed to be the inevitable political reality facing him. But in so doing   he  wanted to make sure everyone -- in the chamber and outside of it -- didn't see  his  resignation as an admission of guilt. Because  Franken  just doesn't think  he 's guilty.
answer:
Al Franken 's totally unapologetic resignation


question:
Hillary Clinton . (Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)
Thereâs not much to do when youâre home for the holidays  so this season some have decided to fill up their free time by melting down over  a video that snipes at Hillary Clinton .
âTake up a hobby in the new year â a young writer holding a glass of champagne says to  Clinton  in the short  which Vanity Fair magazineâs âHiveâ vertical produced as part of a series proposing âresolutionsâ to various political figures. âVolunteer work  knitting  improv comedy â literally anything that will keep you from running again.â
Well  no.  The video  had sexist overtones  and the lameness of the jokes made them all the more offensive.  It âs harder to plead comedic license when your comedy isnât funny. But  Clinton  occupies an odd place in the political sphere:  She  was so close to the Oval Office for so long leading up to 2016 that  her  heir apparentness discouraged potential challengers. A career candidate from a Democratic dynasty held little appeal for anyone dissatisfied with the party status quo then  and will hold even less in 2020. Itâs not surprising that some cringe to think  Clinton âs shadow could still loom over races to come.
So then why resurrect  her ?
Although ride-or-die  Clinton  supporters werenât they only ones who took umbrage at the knitting comment  it was that cohort who turned particularly hysterical. These all-in  Clinton  fans seem determined to keep their candidate relevant: Even if they arenât calling on  her  to run again  they want  her  at the center of the political conversation. Every faux pas of President Trumpâs becomes an opportunity for Clinton-would-have-been-bettering. No kidding  she  would  yet thatâs neither here nor there when it comes to countering the damage Trump does every day  or to cultivating a roster of candidates who will win the seats to turn things around.
[Vanity Fair staffers provide snotty  condescending life tips for  Hillary Clinton ]
But more perplexing than the multitude of Clinton crusaders who are still crusading are the  Clinton  critics who continue to place the defeated candidate center-stage in their narratives even as they shriek that they want  her  out. This  besides its blatant unfunniness  may be the greatest failing of Vanity Fairâs ill-advised advice video. The staffers have devoted one minute and three seconds to telling  Clinton  to go away  and all theyâve succeeding in doing is bringing  her  right back.
This is âWhat Happened?â week on repeat. Journalists lambasted  Clinton  for re-litigating the 2016 primary in writing  and then they did the exact same thing. Over and over. They rolled their eyes at  her  play for attention  cash  catharsis or whatever else it was â and then they helped  her  find all of the above.
And itâs not only professional pundits who canât seem to give  Clinton  up. For every amateur commentator or plain old civilian re-upping a  Clinton  campaign talking point on Twitter  thereâs someone ready to fire back with an explanation of why  Clinton  is the worst politician of all time. This goes on  every day  more than a year after the election and almost a year after the man who beat  Clinton  walked into the White House.
Hours before the Vanity Fair outrage  Trump sent a Boxing Day Twitter missive from Mar-a-Lago in his usual style: âThey used this Crooked Hillary pile of garbage as the basis for going after the Trump Campaign!â he concluded  harping on his beef with  Clinton  yet again. Which prompted all his critics  left  very left and right alike  to tell him to get over it. Perhaps they should  too.
answer:
The Vanity Fair Hillary Clinton video isn't worth the fuss


question:
One defendant  Juan Angel Napout  a Paraguayan who was former president of South American soccerâs ruling federation  was big on personal grooming with his manicures  pedicures and massages discretely arranged by his chauffeur  according to testimony.
 Napout âs driver performed another duty -- he drove 30 hours from Asuncion  Paraguay  to Buenos Aires and back to pick up and deliver cash bribes to his boss and facilitate payments to another Argentinian official  according to former sports-marketing executive Alejandro Burzaco  who pleaded guilty and is cooperating with the U.S. government.
Prosecutors say  Napout  collected millions of dollars in bribes as well as gifts -- such as $10 175.88 worth of tickets to a Paul McCartney concert in Buenos Aires.
âWe grew up with him  we owe it to the Beatles and Paul is a genius!â  Napout âs friend said in an email after the sold-out November 2010 concert. âFor me this is my dream come true.â
âI also had the feeling it was not real  thatâs how good it was!â  Napout  gushed.
One of  his  co-defendants  Jose Maria Marin  the 85-year-old former president of the Brazilian football federation  is out on bail during the trial and is living under house arrest at his $3.5 million apartment in Manhattanâs Trump Tower. The case could go to the jury by Thursday.
answer:

Soccer Bosses' High