Those of us, regardless of our political views, who believe in fairness to BOTH SIDES in these disputes should be clear:
1) Only accusations by IDENTIFIED INDIVIDUALS should be given credence
2) Some sense of PROPORTIONALITY needs to be considered. What Franken did and what Weinstein did are not at the same level. Lauer raped women. Franken did not. Proportionality means that you levy a consequence which is related to the offence. Keillor is accused of patting someone on the back. For this, he gets publicly executed? How is that right? And I don't care if he did a bunch of misdemeanors. Capital outcomes (career execution) requires a pretty serious offense. What is it in this case?
3) Multiple misdemeanors do not put a person into the position of being executed.
4) Processes which take place in secret have no more credibility than any secret process
5) Using "ethical requirements" in which the process takes place in secret but the consequences are public is unfair and wrong. Keillor has subjected to a secret tribunal, but his head was cut off in public. This is profoundly unfair, and it is doubly, triply wrong that the perpetrators of this beheading are screening themselves behind a "personnel matters are not allowed to be stated publicly" defense.
A process of these kind of allegations and accusations is needed, and proportionate response is required.