Don't see the relevance? Surely, you jest. Don't hurt yourself leaning over backwards trying not to see it.
If you do not see the relevance, then you fall below the basic threshold of knowledge and intelligence for participating in the discussion of it. I don't play the "post a link to show me where my brain is" game.
You’re trying to act like times have not changed. They have. The way congress operated in 1969 is not the way it operates today. Perhaps you think it should but I do not. 1969 and 2017 are two different eras.
Do you believe that the allegations against Franken, which only came out now, are anything more than right-wing retribution for the Roy Moore allegations -- which were dug up by left-wing media outlet The Washington Post. I actually find the allegations against Franken to be nothing that the Senate should take ethics action over. The first, the photo, is merely in bad taste. The second, from a woman claiming he touched her butt in a photo op does not rise to a level of being something actions should be taken over without further evidence. I do agree that the allegations against Moore are disqualifying IMO, but if he does get elected I doubt whether the Senate will want to hold a vote to not seat him -- in view of how many skeletons are in all of their closets which can easily be pulled out. As you noted this is 2017, not 1969 when media outlets would never touch stories about the sexual improprieties of politicians. Now there is a feeding frenzy to dig up sexual dirt on politicians and entertainers.
A couple of points, Susan Collins said they have to seat Moore if hegets elected, and I trust her, she does her homework, so he would be seated and for quite some time. The senate could vote to expel him right away, without a hearing, as I understand it, or they can take the traditional route and have hearings, do an investigation, compile a report and decide based on that to have an expulsion vote. I keep trying to not conflate Moore with anyone else and vise versa. It is improper to do that.
Right. Menendez would be first on the list. More than likely, the ethics committee will review the matter. And, then nothing will happen, like most ethics committee investigations.
"1969 and 2017 are two different eras." To bad the left doesn't hold this same standard when it comes to race relations. To hear them today you'd think Jim Crow happened last weekend.
Susan Collins is absolutely correct- based on a scenario where he is properly elected and properly certified by the state. They need to seat him. Note though- if you have followed the points I have made several times- that this scenario presumes that he and his election are certified by the state. THAT IS BY NO MEANS A GIVEN AT THIS POINT EVEN IF HE GETS THE MOST VOTES. As discussed, the republicans are following a plan to let him keep campaigning to get the majority of votes but at the last minute have the republican party decertify him to the state as their nominee. So if he gets the most votes he still is not a valid candidate, which would touch off a special election. Whereupon they want to run again with Luther Strange. If Moore does not get the most votes, well then, end of game. The democrat wins. No way that Susan Collins will argue that a candidate not certified by the state- usually by the state's Secretary of State- should be seated. So, the state has to accept him first. In regard to the other thing, the expulsion powers, I will make a point but then let it go. Don't want to try to handle it through posts. And that is that there has been little to no case law on these legal issues so it is uncharted territory. Most importantly, we don't know whether the courts will even take an appeal from someone who is aggrieved. It is mixed bag. Lots of things that go in the senate, they just say "that's political crap and falls under senate rulemaking power." Other times they say, "not so fast, that is in the constitution, we get to weigh in on it." We don't know yet. And it depends on the make-up of the court. My view as I have said before, is that the senate has power to expel senators for wrongdoing in office, and maybe even for wrongdoing that the voters did not know about at the time of the election because the senate would sort of be looking out for them. But to try to expel a senator for an issue that the voters fully knew about at the time of election. No, I can't get there yet.
There is not much guidance given for expulsion except two-thirds vote is needed. As I have looked into this, the question of who knew what, when doesn’t seem to come into play constitutionally. The two thirds standard sets the bar and inherently the house seeking expulsion has the power of what warrants expulsion by meeting the vote standard. This is not to say the courts may want to weigh in and muddy the waters. We all know they have a way of doing that.