First, the “accusations†have not been proven false...nor, to be fair...have they been proven true. But an election...and even a Senatorial expulsion...is not a trial. If 67 members of the Senate determine any other member is unfit to serve, the Constitution grants them the power to expel. The clause in question give the Senate VERY broad authority to determine what is an expellable offense.
So, while the accusations are not conclusive evidence of guilt in a trial setting, they are nonetheless sufficiently credible for a political determination...a determination which the Constitution itself empowers 67 Senators to make. Just like Franken and Conyers, a POLITICAL determination can and should be made leading to expulsion.
If, as some are saying, such an act will make GOP voters not vote in subsequent elections...because they are insufficiently outraged over a 32 year old prosecutor dating under age teenagers...that is a decision each voter must make from their own conscience. The Senate cannot fail to act in an ethical manner...by expelling such reprobates...because it fears losing votes. Ethics and integrity must override the desire to gain such dubious support IMHO.
The only teenagers who claim to have been 'dated' who are credible are 17 year-olds, and that is above the age of consent in Alabama. NOT "underage". Young, yes, but that has been discussed at length on this forum, and apparently the social amenities were observed, and no sexual contact occurred.
The others have more holes in their stories than rotten cheesecloth, but only one of those claimants was "underage" by the letter of Alabama Law. Your continuous use of "underage" is pejorative, prejudicial, and objectionable.
If the Senate was to eject every member who was demonstrably a crook, they would never reach a quorum. There are only allegations against Moore which have all the substance of smoke when carefully examined.
