On Franken
1. This took place during your 15 month long hiatus, not sure why you think I "admonished him and forced him to leave office". Really weird that you are blaming me for that.
2. Your thinly veiled defense of him is cute.
3. I've always maintained that it was up to the voters to remove him. He did stupid things, didn't commit impeachable/expellable crimes though in my opinion. I didn't think he should be pressured into resigning and you should note that it was democrats that put the pressure on, not republicans.
On Kavanaugh
1. My position has been consistent.
2. You have no idea what it is.
3. Here is what my opinion is: 35 year old memories are not reliable, both could be telling the truth, some corroboration would be nice. Something could have happened, or not, no way to know. Absent corroboration, have to tilt towards innocent until proven guilty. If there were pictures of the event occurring, like with Franken, then we'd have something to go on.
On the other accounts.
1. They are increasingly less credible.
2. I remain open minded on all, but none approach a level that could be considered credible.
3. For instance, NYTimes and WashPost rejected the 2nd story because they couldn't verify it. The last 2 are worse on the credibility front.
So back to my original point... Agree or disagree?