(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

Funny how your arguments work for you, but not for others. Perhaps you think logic is malleable...and therefore not really logic. That explains how you can believe what you believe.

We have a justice system to deal with sexual assault, and a principle of that is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Same thing I said about Platner.

The party/faction will decide whether to keep him based on his probability of winning. Just like the other party/faction.

An accusation is an accusation. A pattern of accusations from different sources may heighten the credibility of the accusations or may just be a feeding frenzy.

Termination of employment based upon accusations can be grossly unfair and ruinous to one's reputation. Employers do not require much to terminate people, certainly not proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" that is scrutinized in a courtroom.

Public office is about public trust which ultimately is about the voters.

The House has its ethics committee to sort out accusations. Speaker Johnson has a habit of slow playing accusations involving Republican members because the caucus votes are more important to him, particularly in gerry-mandered red districts. Hold serve at all costs.

(no message)

Franken won his Senate seat by 11 points in 2014. Democrats were uncomfortable with the groping allegations and made clear that Franken needed to resign.

If Miller's seat was a swing district (that GOP could lose), my sense is that Johnson would feel more political urgency to address the allegations.

Do you agree that allegations against a sitting member of Congress -- whether sexual assault, corruption, substance abuse, breaches of classified information -- be investigated with the same urgency and objectivity regardless of the safety of the seat?

That is, do you agree that the House of Representatives, regardless of which party has the majority -- owes a duty to the nation to protect its integrity?