What should happen upon indictment of a Legislative Member?

[jaF0]

In my view ....

Removed from office under suspension without pay or benefits.
Prohibited from performing any official duties or entering any official office.
Prohibited from retaining any Government property or documents.

Governor appoints an interim member from the same party that assumes all basic duties including voting, but not committees without chamber approval.

If the criminal case is resolve by acquittal, the member is reinstated to all former duties.

Points 4 and 5 could get complicated if the case spans an election however.

 

[ll74]

Politically, the public could pressure them to resign or pressure other members to take action.

Indictment doesnt indicate guilt. (hence the innocent until proven guilty part) so I don't believe anything should be legally required for their status in government.

 

[HisArpy]

Yup, innocent until proven guilty has been thrown out with the bathwater once again.

 

[Rightguide]

Innocent until proven guilty. An indictment is an accusation. It isn't a trial by jury.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Innocent until proven guilty. An indictment is an accusation. It isn't a trial by jury.

Yup, innocent until proven guilty has been thrown out with the bathwater once again.

Here we go, Politicians are supposed to represent the best, and always work towards the betterment of their constituents. Any possibility of being suspected of being guilty of any illegal activity should be acted upon. At the very least the person should take a leave from which ever legislative assembly they are a member of.

It has nothing to do with due process, and everything to do with trust and transparency in the countries political process. That you two dumbfucks can't understand that is not really surprising, after all you support more than a handful of people who also fall into "questionable illegal activities".

 

[ll74]

Here we go, Politicians are supposed to represent the best, and always work towards the betterment of their constituents. Any possibility of being suspected of being guilty of any illegal activity should be acted upon. At the very least the person should take a leave from which ever legislative assembly they are a member of.

It has nothing to do with due process, and everything to do with trust and transparency in the countries political process. That you two dumbfucks can't understand that is not really surprising, after all you support more than a handful of people who also fall into "questionable illegal activities".

So is it a requirement (i.e. legal) or a political move (i.e. not legal)?

I think politically, stepping aside temporarily might be warranted, but it depends on the indictment. Legally, you're truly going to get into a mess.....indictment for sedition is much different than indictment for campaign improprieties.

 

[Dribble]

1) Immediate removal from all Committees

2) Party Leadership should be given access to indictment evidence

3) If indictment deemed warranted by Party Leadership...a motion to censure should be undertaken

 

[Fuzzy1975]

So is it a requirement (i.e. legal) or a political move (i.e. not legal)?

It could be a legal requirement in some places, I don't think it is in the US though.

I think politically, stepping aside temporarily might be warranted,

It goes a long way to ensuring the public has the best possible view of it's elected officials. Whats the polling again in the US on 'faith" in it's elected offcials?

but it depends on the indictment. Legally, you're truly going to get into a mess.....indictment for sedition is much different than indictment for campaign improprieties.

Yep, and as I said this is just my opinion. But stepping aside is the best course of action. Regardless of the charge. When you look at today's politicians who are under indictment, honestly how many of those charges would be considered "frivolous"? Most are of a very serious nature, and the "evidence" out in the public is pretty damning.

 

[jaF0]

The Chambers make their own rules. They could enact rules to require the points I made regardless of 'legal' status.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Yup, innocent until proven guilty has been thrown out with the bathwater once again.

Bullshit. Innocent until proven guilty is for official channels, not public opinion.

 

[Dribble]

Innocence has nothing to do with Rules established by both Chambers. Those thinking differently should read them. But we know they won't

 

[ll74]

What specific indictment is worthy of removing someone (temporarily or otherwise) from their positions? Could someone abuse that power to take out a prominent politician with a pivotal leadership on a committee?

 

[jaF0]

^^^ That would involved getting the courts in on the deed.

 

[ll74]

^^^ That would involved getting the courts in on the deed.

I can see an indictment being brought based on what seems like credible evidence and then dropped when the evidence is investigated further.

I think you need to let political pressure work instead of some automatic lever.

 

[Dribble]

What specific indictment is worthy of removing someone (temporarily or otherwise) from their positions? Could someone abuse that power to take out a prominent politician with a pivotal leadership on a committee?

Any.

It is simple. If you hold politicians to a higher standard...they will uphold to it. No different than a child.

Any abuse...results in those people being removed

 

[dkovic77]

Innocent until proven guilty. An indictment is an accusation. It isn't a trial by jury.

Spoken like a true criminal.

 

[Dribble]

I can see an indictment being brought based on what seems like credible evidence and then dropped when the evidence is investigated further.

I think you need to let political pressure work instead of some automatic lever.

I think you should do some research as to how an indictment is determined. Credible evidence...has already been investigated further.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Any.

It is simple. If you hold politicians to a higher standard...they will uphold to it. No different than a child.

Any abuse...results in those people being removed

I think holding them to a "higher standard" is part of how we get all this fuck ups. If you're not Donald Trump having been divorced is just the end of your campaign. Having a child out of wedlock even if you're doing right by them that's game. While Obama slid through if we know you do pot its done.

So many of these things mean nothing about your actual character or ability to do the job. Granted this is just the Right doing their normal stupid shit they've been up to since at least the Obama Era but John fettermen is catching shit for wearing shorts and a hoodie. Granted I wish they worked more days a year but if I'm gonna be sitting around for hours and hours fuck I want to be comfortable not look like I'm going to a work interview!

Now as far as indictments go it really depends on why. Like Menedez should just resign take the L and disappear into never, never comeback land.

 

[ByteMe13]

Unless the feds have tape recordings of Menendez offering votes in return for cash etc, they are going to have a hard time convicting him. In Virginia, we had a governor (Bob McDonnell) who took all kinds of gifts and favors from a businessman in exchange for the gov promoting said businessman’s interests. He was convicted by a jury of his peers and the conviction was upheld by the us court of appeals. But the US Supreme Court unanimously overturned his conviction on the last of the term saying it was “unseemly” but not illegal. Of course, McDonnell was a Republican, so there is that.

 

[ll74]

I think you should do some research as to how an indictment is determined. Credible evidence...has already been investigated further.

I'm against automatic actions and I think it's shortsighted to want it to be that way, but to each their own.

 

[Dribble]

I'm against automatic actions and I think it's shortsighted to want it to be that way, but to each their own.

You are no different than any Republican here...but we already knew that. If you understood what a censure is...you would know it isn't a removal from office. Committee removal sets a known standard. It removes perceived impropriety.

If I violate standards dictated by work...I can be automatically removed. Usually...this happens with pay until final determination. What is the difference?

 

[dkovic77]

You are no different than any Republican here...but we already knew that. If you understood what a censure is...you would know it isn't a removal from office. Committee removal sets a known standard. It removes perceived impropriety.

If I violate standards dictated by work...I can be automatically removed. Usually...this happens with pay until final determination. What is the difference?

Maybe he can get paid in envelopes of cash or gold bars. That hasn’t caused issues yet…,. Oh wait.

 

[ll74]

You are no different than any Republican here...but we already knew that. If you understood what a censure is...you would know it isn't a removal from office. Committee removal sets a known standard. It removes perceived impropriety.

If I violate standards dictated by work...I can be automatically removed. Usually...this happens with pay until final determination. What is the difference?

Thanks for your valuable feedback. I care

Other people have suggested removal from committees in this thread. Others have suggested temporary removal from duties (i.e.office)

 

[adrina]

This would be weaponized. Especially by the GOP. It's what they do.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Unless the feds have tape recordings of Menendez offering votes in return for cash etc, they are going to have a hard time convicting him. In Virginia, we had a governor (Bob McDonnell) who took all kinds of gifts and favors from a businessman in exchange for the gov promoting said businessman’s interests. He was convicted by a jury of his peers and the conviction was upheld by the us court of appeals. But the US Supreme Court unanimously overturned his conviction on the last of the term saying it was “unseemly” but not illegal. Of course, McDonnell was a Republican, so there is that.

Unless we are talking about tossing people in jail perhaps lowering the standard for kicking people out of government jobs should be lower. Cus in many, many cases you will never find a smoking gun. You can't actually prove that say Clarence Thomas even knew cases affecting his friend were even going to happen when the gifts were given.

Not that he didn't know but unlike Trump he doesn't tend to allow himself to be recorded and even Trump being recorded has not been an instant slam dunk like it should have been over and done with. If nothing but a literal smoking gun, which isn't even what you get in a jury trial. A lot of the evidence that are used to accuse people is circumstantial.