In reaction to the allegations of sexual misconduct levied against Minnesota Sen. Al Franken that led the news yesterday, the editors of the Washington Post write:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) have both called for an investigation into Mr. Franken’s conduct, to which the senator pledges his cooperation. We’re glad to see members of Mr. Franken’s own party voice their support for a fair probe by the Senate Ethics Committee. Mr. McConnell’s commitment to supporting committee investigations into “all credible allegations of sexual harassment or assault†also must hold firm for members of his own party — not only Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore, into whom Mr. McConnell has promised an ethics probe if Mr. Moore triumphs in an Alabama special election. Ms. Comstock’s and Ms. Speier’s stories show that abuse of power on Capitol Hill is a problem that crosses party lines.
As the committee looks into Mr. Franken’s behavior, it will have to consider what comes next. What level of misconduct merits a lawmaker’s departure from Congress? Should the legislature have a zero-tolerance policy, or can gradations of offense be recognized? If a member’s wrongdoing took place entirely before his time on the Hill, should that affect continued service? Members of the House of Representatives should be asking these same questions.
There’s also a story out there that the Congress paid millions in hush money to victims of harassment over the last few years. If true that not only increases the scope of any investigation but it raises additional questions of misuse of funds and abuse of power.
Far be it from me to defend Sen. Franken or, indeed, any member of Congress but I’m curious as to what standard the Congress would apply to these cases? The situation is a minefield. Too lenient a standard and they’ve essentially giving a pass not just to Roy Moore but to future harassers and abusers. Too strict a standard and it will apply to a very large proportion of Congressmen. IMO any reasonable standard applied evenhandedly will make it difficult to convene a quorum. Not that that’s a bad thing.
Keep in mind Sam Clemens’s wisecrack: “the United States has no native criminal class excepting, of course, the Congress.”
Update
Scanning down the page a little and there’s an op-ed opposing Franken’s being forced to resign on the grounds that such demand would not be applied evenhandedly.
I frankly don’t know what authority Congress has to investigate misconduct that predates and is unrelated to their Congressional service. Not that my views will stop them, but they would be less transparent in their partisan motivations if they opened up to public scrutiny the details of past Congressional harassment payouts. Physician heal thyself.
Under the Constitution as written—none. Under the Constitution as it’s presently construed the Congress can do whatever it cares to.
Barring out right criminal behavior, it should be left to the voters in their district/state. The various noise machines will make sure it becomes an issue.
Criminal behavior should be left to the courts with appropriate amicus briefs on how Congressional Immunity does not apply. Civil suits likewise though if Congressional funds are part of the settlement, the offenders name and brief synopsis published in the Congressional Record.
Considering the constitution requires only a bare majority for quorum, wow.
But then I see 3 of the last 5 presidents have been accused of harassment or worse.
Seat back and get the popcorn ready.
Henry Kissinger: “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac”.
With the Republicans trying to push through massive changes to tax policy and health insurance policy with a bare majority of the Senate, I fear that we will descend to government by witch-hunt (except that there really are witches).
There are Senators — and candidates — on both sides of the aisle that have engaged in everything from sexual harassment to financial improprieties to child molestation, and some of them are going to be in states where there is a governor of the opposing party (or in the case of Moore, it’s all coming out at the last minute in his race, so the Democrat might win, despite being a Democrat in Alabama).
With the Senate so closely divided, and the stakes so high, there is every incentive to begin picking off these Senators to flip votes.
What does that do to democracy, when major policy decisions aren’t decided by the preferences of the voters, but rather by the random chance of finding out that a Senator was snorting cocaine off the posterior of an underaged prostitute? And what does it do to our institutions when hunting for votes this way becomes the norm?
In a just world, Bob Menendez would have been forced to resign, Al Franken would be sitting through hours and hours of mandatory sexual harassment training (his story is plausible, and there’s only one accuser — abusers tend to abuse many times, so until we get more cases, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt), and Moore would be in jail. Is David Vitter still around? He shouldn’t be if he is.
But in that just world, some seats would have flipped from one party to the other, thwarting the will of the voters. That’s not a good thing.
I would be more eager to see the bums tossed out if they were replaced by a retired politician of their own party — a caretaker congress critter until the special election.
A law mandating 24/7 body cams (or at least waking hours) on all our representatives (local, state, federal). Wonder what the compliance rate would be for a mandate like that.
The logical end to “the United States has no native criminal class excepting, of course, the Congress”.
The logical end to the stories of abuse in Hollywood is a sort of Hays Commission on steroids that provides chaperones whenever performers meet with producers or directors in public or in private.
“But in that just world, some seats would have flipped from one party to the other, thwarting the will of the voters. That’s not a good thing.”
The “will of the voters” in that context is only because they’re presented with a binary choice with no real alternatives. We shouldn’t deconstruct an entire state’s political will to support for one party or another.
This goes back to my point about “valence issues”. Let’s say, hypothetically, that all of the candidates running for, say, county commissioner support higher taxes. If a sizeable minority or even a majority of the voters don’t support higher taxes, doesn’t that thwart the will of the voters as well?
You are correct that setting a standard would be tough. If forced to do so I would probably make some distinction between someone with a single accusation and someone with many. The age of the person being abused also matters. If you have some Congressmen chasing a 16 year old high school student doing summer work in his office, that strikes me as different than a 30 y/o.
That said, looking at Vitter and even Larry Craig, it looks like if you can outlast the initial outrage, it just dies out and you can stay in office.
Steve
Does anyone find it interesting whose name is NOT on this list?
President Donald Trump. If it were out there they would’ve found it by now.
The media puts a finger on the scales that would make a butcher blush
Trying to read the tea leaves has become a game for fools
The standard is so arbitrary that this is nothing but an instrument of campaign politics.
To be fair, quite a few accusations of inappropriate behavior were leveled against the President last fall, right after the Access Hollywood tape. But then they dissipated from the media’s eye after Nov 8 – replaces by Russia and the outrage de jour.
Maybe we will get the evidence of misbehavior (of this sort) someday. One observation is that truly rich men like Weinstein and Ailes settle credible claims, unlike the “merely rich†like Franken and Moore. What are the odds that the Washington Post, IJR, New York Times have multiple investigators looking for such a claim?