Below is my column on the rather transparent calls for ethics investigations of Roy Moore and Al Franken despite the limited scope of potential discipline and the checkered history of congressional ethics.
Here is the column:
Sexual assault and harassment allegations are flying in Washington as Republican and Democratic politicians are called out by women alleging abuse in prior years. From Roy Moore to Al Franken, the frog march down Pennsylvania Avenue is getting longer by the hour. Washington, however, is already moving to control the damage by calling for ethics investigations for everyone. In a town that specializes on managing scandals, the impassioned call for congressional ethics investigation is a standard method of appearing to demand change while changing little, particularly in terms of House or Senate seats.
I have long been a critic of congressional ethics rules, which were written by politicians more as a shield than a sword in corruption or abuse investigations. Like the equally predictable “blue ribbon commission,” these moves allow politicians to claim that they are cooperating with a full and open investigations to dampen calls for their resignations or expulsions. The problem is the rules themselves and the limits of congressional disciplinary action under the Constitution.
The lack of teeth in ethical rules is more than evident in the continued conduct of members who have maintained massive ethic loopholes allowing them to invest in areas in which they legislate, securing jobs for themselves and families with lobbyists, employing relatives in their campaigns, and circumventing nepotism rules. For that reason, it was little surprise that Franken was one of the first to demand a congressional ethics investigation of himself after accused of sexually groping a sleeping woman. It is the equivalent to volunteering to be chased by a wild pack of golden retriever puppies. They are likely to catch you but hardly likely to devour you.
Consider the two leading investigations into Moore and Franken demanded this week. Faced with a nightmare scenario of an Alabama Republican candidate alleged to have not only habitually pursued young girls but to have been put on a watch list at the local mall, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has pledged an immediate effort to bar Moore from taking a Senate seat. He and others have pledged a comprehensive and immediate investigation should Moore be elected.
Despite my agreement with McConnell that Moore would be anathema as a senator, this is one time where the Constitution would actually support Moore. McConnell could move, as many have suggested, to bar Moore from taking the oath of office. However, the Supreme Court has already rejected such an effort at “exclusion” as unconstitutional in 1967 in Powell v. McCormack. Despite the extensive evidence of corruption against New York Congressman Adam Clayton Powell Jr., the court ruled that he had to be seated since he met the stated conditions in Article I of the Constitution: age, residency and citizenship.
If Moore cannot be excluded for ethical reason, how about “expulsion”? Again, however, this is not as easy as it seems. Article I of the U.S. Constitution states, “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.” Yet, the alleged Moore misconduct occurred decades ago and was never the basis of a criminal or civil action. The citizens are aware of the allegations and could reject them as unproven or false. The congressional ethics committees have always correctly noted that it has little ability to punish members for actions taken in a prior Congress, let alone a prior decade.
Voters are entitled to the representatives of their choosing. Moreover, if Congress could expel a member on such allegations, it could use the power to bar unpopular members by simply producing a couple witnesses or, worse yet, secure a majority through expulsions. Despite all of the pledges for immediate action against Moore, the Constitution favors his taking his seat if elected. Despite the greater number of women denouncing Moore, Franken has one element that is much worse: a photo. The picture of Franken laughing while groping a sleeping woman is the type of image that will not be easy to erase even with Franken’s self-submission to the six-member ethics committee.
Nevertheless, the Senate has not expelled a member since the Civil War. In 1797, William Blount was expelled for treason in his effort to encourage insurrection by Creek and Cherokee Indians to join Great Britain in the invasion of Florida. In the 1860s, 14 senators were expelled due to their treason in aiding the Confederacy. Since the, no one has been expelled despite 17 such efforts. To expel Franken, the Senate would need all 52 Republicans and 15 Democrats to vote for such expulsion.
If Franken follows the well-thumbed guidebook on congressional scandals, his next move would likely be to invite a censure from his colleagues. Such a self-censure move would do little legally since Franken would continue to be able to vote and act as a senator. His colleagues could also strip him of his seniority and committee positions. Franken however can, like Moore, oppose any effort to expel him on constitutional grounds. While the appearance of a challenge with both Moore and Franken as co-plaintiffs is highly unlikely, the Minnesota Democrat could challenge more than symbolic or internal forms of discipline.
None of this will, of course, protect either man from the political costs of these allegations. Yet, one should again not make any assumptions. Like the congressional ethics investigations, the public has a less than stellar record when faced with tainted members. Voters have returned members to Congress after criminal charges like Jesse Jackson Jr. and Mel Reynolds. In the case of Powell, he simply ran for reelection in Harlem on the slogan “keep the faith, baby.” They did and reelected him despite such allegations as paying his wife out of congressional funds for no work.
In the case of Moore, there are still a surprising number of people willing to send a man to the Senate who allegedly could not freely go to the local mall. In the case of Franken, he is no less of an icon for the left. More importantly, Bill Clinton showed the willingness of many Democrats, including liberal women, to ignore comprehensive allegations from multiple women, including a rape allegation. Despite his well-known affairs, which he denied, Clinton was reelected twice and still draws huge adoring Democratic crowds. In the end, many in Washington hope that Moore will lose and Franken will resign. If they do not, however, history is on their side.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
There apparently was some dispute earlier regarding voting that might be illegal. This is just one state and one reporting of the problems being faced. A few other states are mentioned at the end, but this is just the tip of the iceberg.
“Judicial Watch Sues Kentucky Over Dirty Voter Registration Rolls
NOVEMBER 15, 2017
48 Kentucky counties have more registered voters than citizens of voting age
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a federal lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Kentucky over its failure to take reasonable steps to maintain accurate voter registration lists. The lawsuit alleges that 48 Kentucky counties have more registered voters than citizens over the age of 18. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Alison Lundergan Grimes et al. (No. 3:17-cv-00094)).
Kentucky was one of 12 states to which Judicial Watch sent notice-of-violation letters this year threatening to sue because they have counties in which the number of registered voters exceeds the number of citizens of voting age. Both the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act require states to take reasonable steps to maintain accurate voting rolls.
Judicial Watch analyzed registration data and compared it to the most recent census data to determine the registration rates of United States counties. In its complaint, Judicial Watch notes that Kentucky’s registration rates are sky high, and are national outliers:
Whenever a jurisdiction has more voter registrations than individuals old enough to register – in other words, a registration rate exceeding 100% of adult residents – it is a strong indication, recognized by federal courts, that the jurisdiction is not taking the steps required by law to remove the registrations of ineligible registrants.
Kentucky leads every other state in the nation in the number of counties in which total registration exceeds the citizen voting-age population. Specifically, the number of voter registrations exceeds the number of age-eligible citizens in 48 Kentucky counties, or 40% of all Kentucky counties.
Judicial Watch also notes that Kentucky is one of only three states in the country where the statewide active registration rate is greater than 100% of the age-eligible citizen population.
Judicial Watch cites several other deficiencies in Kentucky’s handling of voter registration and related issues. Kentucky is required by law to disclose to the federal Election Assistance Commission the number of inactive registrations it carries on its voter rolls. It failed to do so. Kentucky is also required to report the number of address confirmation letters it sent to citizens who were thought to have moved out of state. It failed to release this information as well.
Kentucky is also required by the NVRA to keep registration-related records and to make them publicly available on request. Judicial Watch made such a request, and Kentucky initially promised to disclose these records. But it broke this promise and, to date, has failed to make records available.
Judicial Watch points out that Kentucky’s inflated voter rolls indicate that it is not complying with federal laws requiring it to cancel the registrations of citizens who have died or moved elsewhere. This conclusion is bolstered by Kentucky’s failure to divulge registration-related records it is required to disclose by federal law. In its lawsuit, Judicial Watch asks the court to declare Kentucky in violation of Section 8(a)(4) of the NVRA; to require it to implement a program to remove ineligible registrants; and to compel it to turn over relevant records and information.
“Kentucky has perhaps the dirtiest election rolls in the country,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Federal law requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up their voting rolls – and clearly Kentucky hasn’t done that. Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections. This lawsuit aims to ensure that citizens can have more confidence that elections in Kentucky won’t be subject to fraud.”
Judicial Watch Senior Attorney and Director of its Election Integrity Project Robert Popper recently provided testimony to the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity concerning the NVRA. Popper was formerly Deputy Chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.
Judicial Watch previously filed successful lawsuits under the NVRA against Ohio and Indiana that resulted in those states taking several actions to clean up their voting rolls. Judicial Watch is currently suing the State of Maryland and Montgomery County over their failure to release documents in violation of the NVRA.
Judicial Watch is being assisted by Mark Wohlander of the Wohlander Law Office in Lexington, and by Thomas E. Clay of Clay Daniel Walton & Adams in Louisville.”
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-kentucky-dirty-voter-registration-rolls/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tipsheet&utm_term=members&utm_content=20171120225715
Note how Leftist lowlife JT falsely suggests that Roy Moore was “put on a watch list at the local mall.” There is ZERO evidence for that BS, but JT–the Leftist liar (an oxymoron)–still makes the claim. (Leftists HATE facts and evidence, as goes without saying.)
Moore’s attorney stated on these bogus allegations that “From what I have been told, [there] has never been a list with Roy Moore banned from being at the mall.” The lying accusers of Moore cannot even produce one credible witness to support their bogus claim. They simply repeat the lies of Moore’s paid accuser. And note that neither Gloria Allred, another Leftist lowlife, nor the lying accuser will agree to submit their forged yearbook for independent third-party testing. That is the SURE mark of lying lowlifes.
Ralph, you seem angry. There was evidence of poor mall behavior from the recollections of some 70s mall goers but the manager immediately after the events (1980 forward) has no recollection of it. It looks like a tie going to the runner.
No, there is no “tie,” Mespo, because there is ZERO evidence. All the Left has is BS and innuendo on top of innuendo. For example, when you drill down to get some facts, you find there are ZERO supporting the bogus allegations.
For example, one piece of purported “evidence the Left points to is Greg Legat, who claims to know something about Moore’s alleged activities at Gadsden Mall. But let’s see where that leads.
Legat says that he saw Moore at the mall “a few times.” He also claims to have “an understanding” that Moore was banned from the mall. “It started around 1979, I think,” Legat said. “I know the ban was still in place when I got there.” Legat recalled a Gadsden police officer named J. D. Thomas, now retired, who worked security at the mall. “J. D. was a fixture there, when I was working at the store,” Legat said. “He really looked after the kids there. He was a good guy. J. D. told me, ‘If you see Roy, let me know. He’s banned from the mall.’ ” Legat recalled Thomas telling him, “If you see Moore here, tell me. I’ll take care of him.’ ” Legat said that his boss, Eddie Hill, also told him to look for Moore.
Okay, so now Legat attempts to implicate Moore by mere hearsay. He claims to have ZERO direct knowledge about anything. Legat can only point to other purported first-hand witnesses, like J.D. Thomas and Eddie Hill.
So, let’s see what Eddie Hill and J.D. Thomas have to say about Moore:
Per New Yorker Magazine: “A phone call to Hill’s number was not returned. Reached by phone on Saturday, Thomas, who lives in the nearby town of Southside, declined to discuss the existence of a ban on Moore at the Gadsden Mall. “I don’t have anything to say about that,” he said.”
New Yorker’s writers are, of course, actually attempting to do some “investigative journalism” for the first time in their lives, but they come up empty handed every time in their attempt to smear Roy Moore:
“A former manager of the mall, who began working there in the late eighties, confirmed the existence of a ban list, but did not recall Moore being on the list during the manager’s tenure there. Barnes Boyle, who is eighty-six, also managed the mall, from 1981 to 1998. His wife, Brenda, told me that Moore was a longtime acquaintance of his—they went to the Y.M.C.A. together often—and that he planned to vote for him. The recent allegations against Moore, the Boyles thought, are likely liberal propaganda and, as Brenda put it, “a sign of the times.”
Get it, Mespo? ZERO evidence. That’s ZERO, as in zip, zilch, nada, nothing, niente. Or expressed in mathematical terms: 0 x (0 + 0) + (0 – 0)x (0 + 0). If you need further explanation, let me know.
No there’s evidence in the form of statements from accusers, a yearbook entry and corroborating statements of friends, but I don’t find any of it persuasive. But to say there is “zero” is the voice of ideology.
Memories can be selective, especially during a witch hunt. Here are some photos of Leeann Tweeden, that are not supportive of her victim status. One shows her groping a country singer’s ass during the 2006 USO tour that she attended with Franken:
http://verifiedpolitics.com/rest-photos-videos-franken-tweedens-uso-tour-just-emerged/
Dartmouth College to host ‘What’s Up With White People?’ event
Secure a majority through a mechanism available only to a supermajority? That doesn’t sound very workable. Not that it’s a good thing, but it seems unlikely to be a practical means of gaming the system to achieve or maintain a majority.
Apparently progressives don’t want Franken gone because other Democrats might have to leave as well. They can’t be assured to have a Democrat governor select the replacement. So much for principles.
It would feel good, momentarily, to see Franken resign and the Democratic governor of Minnesota, Mark Dayton, appoint a senator who has not (as far as we know) harmed women. If I believed for one second that Franken is the only Democrat in the Senate who has done something like this, with or without photographic evidence, I would see that as the best and most appropriate option. But in the world we actually live in, I’m betting that there will be more. And more after that. And they won’t all come from states with Democratic governors and a deep bench of progressive replacements. Some will, if ousted, have their successors chosen by Republicans.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/19/most-insane-media-reactions-allegations-sexual-assault-al-franken/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=179aa1dcd1-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-179aa1dcd1-79248369
How about Pence replacing da predator T rump?
Ken, do you think by posting an inconsequential reply under a legitimate intelligent poster you gain respect?
His comment was to Olly so we will never know.
Now, now, YNOT, Chief Olly deserves a modicum of respect for having praised “girlfriend’s” post just upstream from, here.
BUt then he just had to spoil it with the quote from The Federalist. So, on second thought, you’re right, YNOT.
BUt then he just had to spoil it with the quote from The Federalist.
Spoil what? Girlfriend made a comment that focuses attention right where it belongs: Sexual predation of woman is not a democratic problem nor is it a republican problem.
The Federalist article highlights the hypocrisy of the progressive left where they put party before principles. The principle being exactly what Girlfriend wrote. If that truth spoils it for you then so be it.
Olly, you correctly noted what girlfriend said, “Sexual predation of a woman is not a democratic problem nor is it a republican problem.”
Then you said this, “Apparently progressives don’t want Franken gone because other Democrats might have to leave as well. They can’t be assured to have a Democrat governor select the replacement. So much for principles.”
Thusly did you spoil the “spirit” behind the “principle” in girlfriend’s post.
As I said; So be it.
Olly, Diane’s comments were typical of her low-quality partisan comments. You were being quite fair and accurate. The Democrats and the media are hiding a lot. The Republicans in the past were pretty quick in dumping their own trash.
“Voters are entitled to the representatives of their choosing.” That should be the end of discussion for the Constitution dictates the rest. The left has a problem in that they have a double standard so they believe Franken deserves a seat while Moore should be denied a seat even though Franken’s actions are likely worse, more recent and better documented. The left lives in a dream world where such inconsistencies are not cared about. Their opposition, the conservative right, lives in the reality world where double standards are not supposed to exist.
Therefore, the left can accept Franken while denying Moore without any qualms, but the right has to be more discreet, but that doesn’t mean they wish to adhere to the Constitution. For all we know it was McConnel that set the dogs running at Moore.
A lot of these legislators in Congress seem to believe their personal seat on the floor is more important than the Constitution. I think we need term limits.
In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. Federalist #51
Perhaps Madison had this backwards. While the electorate has proven an inability to put a check on their government; and despite whatever auxiliary precautions are in place, all have failed. So the first great difficulty to be addressed should have been to oblige it to control itself BEFORE enabling it to control the governed.
Franken is a nerd, has always been a nerd, looks like a nerd, and acts like a nerd. Franken presents that guy who was awkward because he has a sort of a clown face. Girls and then women must have had a hard time keeping from laughing regardless of how sincere and/or appealing he tried to be. The guy is intelligent, progressive, and what this country needs. Unfortunately he is a goofy looking nerd. So, the nerd gets a chance to ham it up ‘pretending’ to grope a sleeping girl’s melons. If he did touch her she would have awoken and this would be an entirely different thing. The forced French kissing is another example, a more disgusting example, of Franken’s awkward nerdiness. One imagines a teenage party kissing game that goes a bit too far. “ooh disgusting” If a history of this sort of behavior surfaces then perhaps it should be seen as something more than a goofy looking nerd who girls would rather laugh at than smooch. Moore on the other hand is being confronted with a decades long history of predation. Many more than one woman has come forward. Mall employees have described him as somewhat of a ‘dirty old man’ legend. Moore has some serious problems that go well beyond ‘locker room’ hijinks. If Trump can use the ‘locker room’ excuse then Franken should be the next President. But then again Clarence Thomas is a Supreme Court Judge. So maybe sexual morality is not the problem here but hypocrisy.
The real reason Franken should exit is because he is a coward and has yet to unequivocally admit to being an awkward goofy looking nerd who was foolish enough to include this sort of humor in his routine. That is the main reason Clinton failed, not because he was smoking a flavored cigar, talking to the joint chiefs of staff on the phone, while getting a hummer, but because he was a coward and simply didn’t say, “Yes, I am a hopeless horn dog. Hillary and I deal with it. It’s none of your business.”
Isaac, if Roy Moore publicly admitted to having been a thirty-two-year-old pick-up artist with a penchant for chasing the skirts of girls half his age at the time, would you have the rest of us admire his courageous honesty warts and all? Hmmm . . . It would be fair to the voters of Alabama (unless it’s not true). Maybe we should all be brazen in the flaunting of our warts (if we’ve got them).
Diane, The state has determined what a sex offender is. It is not up to you to define the morality of other people, though you would like to tell everyone what to do.
Perhaps you would like to go to dictator school where you can learn to be another Sadam so that you can fully accomplish your goals.
Allan, an agonistic argument should be both relevant and proportionate to the topic at issue. The atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein, or by any other cum laude graduate of dictator school, are both irrelevant and disproportionate to the topic at issue, here, Allan. Ergo, you’re current agonistics over the allegations against Roy Moore effectively trivialize Saddam’s crimes against humanity. And that makes your agonistics frivolous, as well, Allan.
Diane, this has nothing to do with the trivialization of anything. I stand up for the law and support it. You stand with Saddam when you judge his aims the same as yours.
Late for more than dinner
There is a big difference between momentary lapses of civility and decades long obsessions. Full acknowledgment is the only way to respond. Acknowledgement to momentary stupidity is one thing. Acknowledgement of obsessions that continue for decades is quite another. It looks like Franken may be developing into a serial groper, like Trump. How many gropes does it take to become serial?
Isaac, you detect something missing from the “fullness” of Franken’s acknowledgement, perhaps? If the acknowledgement is less than “full,” then would you have us consider it to be a non-denial denial?
Moore’s statements thus are mostly just straightforward denials. Except for the bit with Hannity when Moore said he couldn’t remember having dated any girl without her mother’s permission. Would you have us put those statements from Moore in the non-denial denial category?
As for your question about serial groping, consider the following analogy: Two gropes define a straight line; three gropes define a plane. Were we confronted with a series of planar gropes jotted down on index-cards in an index-card file-box, we might then call it a decades long obsession with groping on the theory that history adds depth to perception as well as to reality (whatever that might be).
“Unfortunately he is a goofy looking ”
It’s not his goofy looks, it is his perversions that make him a bad candidate. He is mean-tempered and uses humor to expresses his personal perversions. Perhaps it is that perverted mean streak that is so attractive to your type of progressive.
Allan said, “The state has determined what a sex offender is. It is not up to you to define the morality of other people, though you would like to tell everyone what to do.”
Allan also said, “It’s not his goofy looks, it is his perversions that make him a bad candidate. He is mean-tempered and uses humor to expresses his personal perversions. Perhaps it is that perverted mean streak that is so attractive to your type of progressive.”
Allan cannot follow his own arguments, least of all heed his own advice.
Diane, you seem to like perverted behavior and the perversion of the law. Don’t blame anyone else for your moral failures.
On Nov 2, 2016 Allred’s daughter, Lisa Bloom, held a much-hyped news conference in which an alleged rape victim (13 years old at the time) was to tell her story of Trump raping her in the 1990s.
This press conference “just happened” to be scheduled less than a week before the election.
The alleged victim was a no-show, and the entire fiasco came off as a phony stunt.
Now, the allegations against Roy Moore “just happened” to surface just prior to the special Alabama election, when Moore’s name is on the ballots and those ballots can’t be changed.
It’s not as if Roy Moore was an unknown figure in Alabama politics, but these decades-old accusations “just happen” to surface at the ideal time to torpedo his candidacy.
Suzy Collins said those women are not lyin about T rump.
Ken,
I didn’t realize that Sen. Collins was one of Trump or Moore’s alleged victims.
Maybe she’ll have a press conference with Allred.
The most explosive allegation against Trump in 2016 was the accusation that he had raped a 13 year old girl.
There were some pretty flaky characters that had been involved in floating that rumor for months.
So it was fitting that this stunt blew up in Lisa Bloom’s office, crowded with media eager to finally hear from the alleged victim.
It is da media’s fault T rump attacked da women.
Your logic is almost as good as your English, Ken.
Here is a much greater investigation that is calling the International Criminal Court;
The Afghanistan War: Legal or Illegal?
When can a war be legal?
1. Self-defense
2. Authorization by the U.N. Security Council
The invasion of Afghanistan was not for self-defense.
Authorization was not given by the U.N. Security Council.
Therefore by not meeting either point of criteria the War on Afghanistan is ILLEGAL.
International Criminal Court Prosecutor Calls For Afghanistan War Crimes Investigation
https://youtu.be/eScuZ-_iHBw
ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda: US military and CIA leaders may be investigated for war crimes committed in the armed conflict in Afghanistan
by Marjorie Cohn
Professor Emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law
https://www.sott.net/article/368366-ICC-prosecutor-Fatou-Bensouda-US-military-and-CIA-leaders-may-be-investigated-for-war-crimes-committed-in-the-armed-conflict-in-Afghanistan
http://buenavistamall.com/bushobamatrump3.jpg
“Last week, terrorists from around the globe were taken out by U.S. strikes. Here’s a look at three places America hit last week, making the world a safer place for everyone.
America drone striked ISIS terrorists in the center of Libya, the first of such strikes since September, sending a signal to extremist groups in Africa that they will not be tolerated. U.S. strikes there last September killed 17 terrorists, while a major bombardment close to a year ago saw 500 strikes against terrorists holed up in the coastal city of Sirte.
The U.S. conducted six days of airstrikes against ISIS and al-Shabaab in Somalia, bringing the number of strikes against Somali terrorists to 28 this year. The strikes were carried out in coordination with Somalia’s government. They were in retaliation for a previous attack by al-Shabaab against a convoy of U.S. and Somali forces. Al-Shabaab is al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Somalia.
Two Iraq brothers, Yusuf and Umar Demir, both terrorists, were killed in an American airstrike in the city of Al-Qa’im, a town in western Iraq close to the Syrian border. Just days later, two German news outlets quoted security officials saying that a group of terrorists led by the brothers were planning to launch terror attacks in Germany using remote-controlled cars rigged with explosives. The brothers were of Turkish origin and had “direct relations” with the self-styled caliph of Islamic State Abu Bakr al-Baghdad”
These guys are equally as bad, Roy Moore alligations are even worse because there are children involved. Both of them should resign from public office.
Was age 16 considered a child by the state of Alabama at the time?
Morality is a funny thing. It differs from person to person. The law is based on the morality of the people it governs and is supposed to be consistent.
Fare point, there is also the extra charge of hypocrisy by virtue of the fact that he is a Christian and should have known better
Fair*
This unproven and flawed accusation occurred ~30 years ago against a man who since has been married without any claims of unfaithfulness to his wife or his Christian lifestyle.
ACL, I don’t know that the Bible would look down on a thirty-year-old courting a 16-year-old. I believe there were age gaps in Biblical time and they may have been even more severe than today. By the way, there are also older women that seek out young men. Many left-wingers love to play the part of the morals police but it is their morals that should be placed in the spotlight.
Do you reckon then that if these allegations turn out to be true Roy Moore should step down?
ACL, a person who went to jail 30 years ago still has a right to run for office in Alabama. The most credible of the witnesses is Nelson and she was 16 so in common terms she was legal. There is no evidence that has been presented for evaluation that is credible other than he said she said. The timing is demonstrative of a hit job by the left or even by someone on the right.
My voice doesn’t count in an election that takes place in Alabama. Those registered to vote in Alabama have a right to vote for whomever they desire (and is legal under Alabama law) unless suddenly people wish to void the Constitution and tell Alabaman’s how to vote. After he is voted into office it becomes a Constitutional matter.
ACL, Let’s live peacefully under the Constitution.
You have to differentiate what is moral and what is legal under the law, just because the law allows him to have sexual relations with a 16 year old does not mean the act is moral. The reason why I said the extra charge of hypocrisy has to be applied at least socially. The bible only allows sexual relations in the confines of marriage. If Roy Moore was a Democrats, I bet Republicans would asking for his resignation.
“just because the law allows him to have sexual relations with a 16 year old does not mean the act is moral. ”
That depends upon the moral codes of a society. There are some societies where young women first marry old men. We develop a culture over hundreds or thousands of years and that culture is codified into law. Alabama has its culture and its laws. If you lived in Alabama and were voting you would be voting on both issues. Take note that there is no claim that any sexual relations took place with Nelson so I think the premise you suggest is wrong.
“If Roy Moore was a Democrats, I bet Republicans would asking for his resignation.”
This type of hit job more frequently comes from the left, though this particular one could have started in McConnel’s office and he, as you know, is a Republican. (Take note I didn’t say Democrats and used the term (leftist).
So do you think people of Alabama would have ok with what he is being accused of 30 years ago? What would be your reaction if Roy Moore was teacher or a member of the clergy. Even if they are just accusations, I bet you would be asking for the teacher or the pastor to be stood down pending investigation. Am just saying the same standard should be applied here
ACL, I don’t know what the people of Alabama will say. The law doesn’t even find Moore guilty of a crime and the Constitution (amendment) has set the method of choosing a Senator. Moore qualifies to run. Are you in favor of discarding the law and the Constitution?
You ask, “What would be your reaction if Roy Moore was teacher or a member of the clergy.”? If no law was broken it would be up to the church. The people of that church would then vote with their feet as to whether or not Moore should continue as a teacher or a member of the clergy.
We are a nation of laws where we are supposedly ruled by law. Do you wish some type of theocracy to rule our nation so that a person whose morals don’t meet the leader’s desires is not permitted to run for office or even live?
“Am just saying the same standard should be applied here”
If that is your standard then you have to ask yourself who enforces such a standard? The police? The police supposedly function under the law, but it appears you wish them to enforce laws that don’t exist. That desire creates a police state. Do you want a police state?
Again I am not making a legal argument, am making moral argument based on the moral code judge Moore espouses, look at the way CBS has handled Charlie Rose sexual misconduct allegations. They have suspended him, the Catholic Church is still paying for the child sexual abuse, even though they happened along time ago. The allegations judge is facing are serious and very horrific. I hope am wrong and that this is just a witch hunt.
“Again I am not making a legal argument, am making moral argument based on the moral code judge Moore espouses,”
ACL, This is not a one-sided question and answers session. You have an obligation to answer questions just like I do if you wish to have a balanced discussion.
Has Moore been found guilty of any crime?
Can he be found guilty of the allegations leveled at him? If so how?
Are we a nation of laws and do you support those laws?
How do you not impose a police state if your moral codes take precedence over the law?
Do you believe in the Constitution?
Anticipating that you will answer the above with diligence I will do my best to answer your question which wasn’t put as a question rather as some interesting statements put together.
I’ll restate the question. Since you (me) are against sexual predation should Judge Moore step down and if he doesn’t would you force him to step down if you had the power?
CBS suspended Charlie Rose. Charlie Rose has a legal contract with CBS so they have a right to suspend him if the contract permits and Charlie Rose has a right to sue them for damages and let that suit be adjudicated in a court of law. Morally I don’t know what is right for you or anyone else, but I find that many broadcasters on the right and left are not the most moral people so I don’t listen to them in the way you might.
Judge Moore has been accused of something, but the law permits him to continue to run for the Senate. Is it moral? Each person will have their own idea of morality. It certainly wasn’t moral to withhold this information until right before an election. That action strains morality so should I believe people who have not acted morally in this circumstance? Their morality doesn’t indicate trustworthiness. Should I impose my morality on them and ask that they suffer a penalty because what they did was immoral? I can’t do that for their laws reflect their morality and it is not criminal to do what they have done so far.
But I think you are asking whether or not Judge Moore is moral with regard to the sexual predation issue. How can one answer if one doesn’t know the truth and can’t validate the morality of the accusers?
I’ll go a step further and pretend that the allegations are true and were made years before an election, but too long after the incident to be prosecuted. How should one feel now? Many moral people believe in redemption. It is 30 years later and Moore has led a life married to one woman without any reported incidents of predation. For many, the slate would be wiped clean and many others would judge him based on what they see. I believe in forgiveness (which opens an entirely new discussion) so I would likely judge him based on his entire history.
Fair points you rise, i will wait you raise, would like to discuss with you further, you sound like a really smart person. My email address is email@alcoser1ook.com, i would like to discuss this further, but not here. There are some good points you make, If it was just Woman, their would not be cause for concern, the number of women that are coming out accusing are too many to simply throw it under the water. Moore has not been found guilty you right, but Bill Cosby not found guilty either.
The moral codes of a society have to take precedent, laws are created based on the current norms of a society. For example I find Abortion morally wrong, but it is the law of the land. Does that mean that just because it is the law of the land all of the suddenly it becomes Moral.
This is why we elect people, so that the laws of the land reflect what ever is going on in society. Look There was nothing in the German laws that made would have made the Nazi’s guilty. And I am not comparing Judge Moore to Hitler.
There has to be certain norms that we as society should hold on to. The allegations being levelled against the judge are too serious.
I don’t know how they would prove this happened, let me just though that Judge Moore is not helping himself
“For example I find Abortion morally wrong, but it is the law of the land. Does that mean that just because it is the law of the land all of the suddenly it becomes Moral.”
Cultural norms or what the people would like cultural norms to be, usually precede long lasting laws. We try to live by two sets of laws, our own moral laws and the laws of the state. That is the conflict some are facing when considering the politics of the day. I don’t see a lot of morality in the decisions being made by to many of those on the left.
Many people will forgive Judge Moore because they don’t believe the accusations or they don’t believe the accusations represent who Judge Moore is today. Some don’t believe in his innocence merely because he is a Republican.
I think your problem rests with the fact that you have accepted a man’s guilt before considering that in this country one is innocent until proven guilty. That type of logic would have let a lot of people be executed that were innocent.
German law didn’t cause what happened after Hitler came into power. His rule could be considered similar to a theocracy. Whatever his moral beliefs became more important than the law.
“The allegations being levelled against the judge are too serious.”
But, are the allegations true? Has the evidence been proven? It is very easy to satisfy one’s belief in the law when one is facing simple issues. The question is how much faith you have in the law when the issues are more difficult or trigger your emotions.
“let me just though that Judge Moore is not helping himself”
That is your judgment, but your judgment is not necessarily correct. Perhaps you are basing such judgment on what you wish not what is truly in Judge Moore’s best interests.
Alright man, I will reserve my public judgement for when we get the full story. Right now I believe the Women more than judge Moore, whether will change I don’t know. Thanks for the discussion by the way
ACL, reserving judgment on Judge Moore’s character is a positive way of managing situations like this. I assume other than your personal choice you now believe that it is up to the laws of the State of Alabama and the US Constitution. The only question that remains unanswered is whether individuals are ever forgiven their sins committed at a young age. When I say sins his actions with Nelson weren’t illegal. She was 16 and they didn’t have sexual relations. Age spans in relationships are cultural. The yearbook remains evidence that Nelson’s attorney refuses to release to a third party for validation. Without validation the yearbook is valueless.
…And thank you as well ACL
You are correct, I believe the rule of law should be applied here over out personal opinions
The arguments I was making where not political or legal, they were purely based on my own personal opinion. And off course they are subject to change
Sexual harrasment
I am no fan of Al Franken. Never have been. However, in my opinion this evidence…the so called picture
only shows this entire storm to be a mere comic act. He was trying to be funny….it’s not like he had a boob firmly in his grasp ….in my opinion, the picture shows him “ hovering” in an effort to create laughs.
Lighten up, for God’s sake. Has mirth been eliminated in the U.S. now too.?
The female in the picture is a human being who had a right to go to sleep without such a picture being made.
For a more pleasant diversion
I am a fan of permutations, especially in common subjects rendered through interpretation of differing times, cultures, forms and styles. Of particular interest is the setting of Madonna and Child.
From a musical standpoint, and in reference to this article’s title….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McOmcNwqprA
My confidence in Congress’ ability to police their own ended when Representative Charlie Rangel received a slap on the wrist for violating ethics codes by his rental property scandals. I expected to see him expelled from the House of Representatives. Instead he received a censure–a non-punishment.
Incredulously, Speaker Pelosi made an announcement of the censure, providing an obvious attempt to express reluctance and personal tragedy in what she implied to be a most heavy application of punishment about to befall Charlie Rangel.
What followed next was a truly pathetic example of insincerity where Mr. Rangel spoke presumably before an audience of his peers. He proffered how ashamed he was, played the victim, then retreated to his laurels of being a soldier who saved his country. He used his acclaim in the military as payment for his exoneration before the public–the same public who for some otherwise suffer significant consequences for acts done of lesser violation. Yet, Charlie Rangel like everyone else in Congress finds sanctuary in what Hillary Clinton once described as “hallowed grounds” of the Capitol Building. Perhaps at one time the truth was closer to her hyperbole, but a 12% favorable rating currently attached to members of Congress leaves much to be desired.
Words above the Supreme Court façade read “Equal justice under law”. Sadly, it is a phrase inapplicable to politicians it seems.
12% favorable.
thanks. changed
Franken was kind enough to leave us pictures.
JT
The mall manager has debunked the claim about not going to the mall.
SC
Stop it, Sherry. You’re ruining a good delusion here. Facts are optional.
There is no equivalency between Roy Moore and Al Franken.
No, Al Franken actually groped.
Some people apparently cannot distinguish between comedy and perversion.
Yeah, like Franken’s proven by admission victim.
Some people’s perverted acts are shown in their comedy and many that wish to show support for their favorite perverts simply forget the physical actions involved.
Don’t go to da comedy show. Ya PC er.
Allan,
There was a time when I found those comedy sketches funny. It wasn’t until I looked at the bigger picture of how our culture was transforming away from having any recognizable moral center that I decided I could no longer enable it. This reminds me of a quote by James Garfield:
“Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption.”
Olly, Ken has no understanding of what you are saying and has no understanding of how silly he sounds. He is the type of person that soils everything he touches.
Allan,
I have no idea what he understands. At this point, I’m not sure he understands how to spell the word the.