John Dickinson, Face the Nation host, brought up that several women made allegations of sexual misconduct against President Donald Trump before the election last year, and that many voters knew about them and voted for Trump anyway. "Why wouldn't that same standard apply to Roy Moore? The voters of Alabama know exactly what has been alleged. If he gets elected, what business does the Senate have telling the voters they're wrong?" Dickinson said.
Collins agreed, distinguishing between Moore's situation and that of U.S. Senator Al Franken (D-Minnesota). "Well, I think that's the tough question. If the allegations are known prior to the election, which they weren't in the case of Al Franken, for example, then we have a very tough decision to make about whether it's our role as senators to overturn the will of the people," Collins said. "Now, I think it's a different situation if the allegations are not known, or if they occur while the person is sitting in the Senate."
U.S Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), who appeared after Collins on Face the Nation stated that expelling Moore from the Senate wouldn't be easy. "I agree with Senator Collins. It's a complicated issue".There was no political calculation in here. It was just a painful moment when we made a decision, moved forward on the Democratic side. I hope the Republicans will face that reality as well."
After the young women in Alabama's accusations were made public, many top Republicans called on Moore to "step aside," and some said that if elected he should not be seated in the Senate. His critics have now waffled and stepped back from that point, conceding that the Constitution requires that Moore be seated if he wins, although many senators have called for an Ethics Committee investigation that could lead to Moore's expulsion.
U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-South Carolina), who is a critic of Moore, said Sunday he would withhold judgment about expelling Moore until he saw the results of an Ethics Committee investigation. On Meet the Press on NBC, Scott said that he finds so far that "the allegations are significantly stronger than the denial," but he wouldn't clarify what he felt in the context of Expulsion vs. Censoring. "I'm going to let my decision be made by the breadth of information and evidence that I'm able to review during that process," Scott said.
>>>>>
Democratic Candidate in Alabama Doug Jones saved his fiercest attacks on Moore for the final weeks of the campaign.
"I damn sure believe that I have done my part to ensure that men who hurt little girls should go to jail and not the U.S. Senate," Jones said at a campaign rally in Birmingham last week.
In today's Washington Post an important opinion by Robert L. Walker, former Counsel to both the Senate and House Ethics Committee:
Finally, the finders of fact in a Senate ethics inquiry -- the six members of the Ethics Committee -- would have the same exhaustive record before them before deciding whether to charge Moore with any violation and, if the matter gets to the adjudicatory phase, whether any charge is proven by clear and convincing evidence. Among the electorate on Tuesday, the extent and sources of knowledge about the allegations against Moore will vary widely from voter to voter.
If Moore is elected, his fellow senators will have the discretionary authority and power to commence ethics proceedings against him as soon as he takes his seat among them.
>>>>>>
From Jenna Ellis' recent article in the Washington Examiner:
In 1983, a North Dakota senator was accused of embezzlement, alleged to have occurred 13 years prior to his election. The Senate in that instance determined that it lacked jurisdiction to punish a member prior to their election. In other cases, such as the 1907 expulsion proceeding against a Utah senator, the Senate decided not to expel the alleged offender because he otherwise fit the constitutional requirements to hold office.
Regarding Moore, the Senate may very well choose to initiate an ethics investigation and pursue expulsion. Whether those leading the charge would attain a two-thirds vote to expel remains to be seen, and depending on what the investigation yields in terms of fact, not just political interests, coupled with the fact that Roy Moore historically has not been a person to go quietly, we also could see the Supreme Court take up a new constitutional issue and look to interpret Article 1, Section 5.
>>>>>>>
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
