Trump indicted as a Russian spy in 5 … 4 … 3 …
The first rule of Job Club is you don’t take away another member’s job.
This is why election reform is nigh impossible to do. No politician is motivated to change the very process by which they came into power.
As far as I’ve read elsewhere quite a few Senators have now suggested that he resign (though he’s clearly and repeatedly said that he won’t) but so far Fetterman is the only Democrat in the Senate who has publicly said that he would actually support expelling him. (That requires a 2/3 vote and hasn’t happened in the Senate since 1862). I sure hope that changes soon.
Here’s what folks were saying a couple weeks ago:
Seriously. I’ve been hearing about Menendez being corrupt in various ways for more than a decade now, to the point that it’s the only thing I associate with him. He’s an embarrassment to the party and needs to go.
Come on Dems, do the right thing, tee up an expulsion motion. Actually walk the talk you’ve been giving us about corruption.
(I say this as a resident of Chicago, where my city, county, and State all have had some serious corruption issues since I’ve lived here since '97)
If my math is correct, they only need 17 Dems to vote to expel him… because I doubt a single R would vote to keep him on, just out of party hatred if not out of morals.
Or does the Senate have a rule about the majority party’s majority supporting legislation before it can come up for a vote?
(edited for simple math)
Depending on how self serving he is, I can see a party switch if expulsion seems likely
That’s only true because in every other similar situation, the Senator has resigned before he could be kicked out. The Senate Ethics Committee recommended expelling Bob Packwood in 1995, and he resigned shortly after. Likewise, Harrison Williams, convicted in the ABSCAM scandal, resigned ahead of an almost certain vote to expel. Ed Gurney resigned in 1974 after getting caught up in an influence peddling scandal. Hell, Al Franken resigned just to avoid the distraction of an investigation that almost certainly would have cleared him of wrongdoing. So it’s not like expulsion hasn’t been on the table since 1862.
Of course alll those Senators had some sense of shame. I suspect Menendez is going to stick it out to the bitter end, or at least try to hold back his resignation until he can use it as a bargaining chip in a plea deal.
Hoping the Democrats kick him out before that happens.
But wouldn’t you agree that it’s long past time for other Senators to clearly and publicly state that expulsion very much is on the table for Menendez if he doesn’t resign? It’s really disappointing that only Fetterman is saying that.
It’d be on-brand if he flipped to the GOP and just kept on keepin’ on.
To be clear, I wasn’t disagreeing with anything you said. But a lot of people (not you) seem to be making the argument that things like expulsion and impeachment are so rarely done that they must be reserved for the worst imaginable offenses. And they’re ignoring the fact that the threat of impeachment and expulsion, historically, have forced people to resign before that could happen. So the threat should absolutely be on the table with Menendez, was my point.
Okay, the gold bars I can see; they make really nice paperweights.
Everything else? Oh dear.
Neither chamber formally has such a rule, although it’s a common practice by House republicans, referred to as the “Hastert Rule”.
On whether republicans would vote to keep him or not, I can see an argument that keeping him in the Senate is ammunition in their constant “both sides!” refrain to help deflect criticism of Dear Leader.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.