They tried before.
Oh that's nice.
Hubby (or his lawyer) beat her to it:
Many of Trump's felony charges are from many years ago- and they still have not gone to trial yet. And even after 34 felony convictions already, it's been months and the criminal is still left loose walking around on the streets.
A year since he was charged, but like … what? A week since he was convicted? I've always wondered about the logic of whether you should resign if you were simply -charged- with a crime. I mean, the case could be flimsy, etc. But once a conviction has happened, yeah, it's time to head for the doors.
I opine that the wife got him in his present fix.
Prolific felons rarely take the high road.
If a sitting Senator/Representative gets charged for crimes like these, they should have to relinquish committee seats and definitely committee chairmanships, until things get sorted out, imo.
Shopping?
Well, if we're going to go the suspended with pay route, then I wouldn't say they have to relinquish -all- of their committee seats or chairmanships -- BUT definitely the ones related to their accusation since there's a somewhat inherent conflict of interest. So Menendez should have been precluded from any and all committees related to foreign affairs, for instance.
She looks like someone who's just seen a spider on the wall.
abcnews.go.com
Checkout the female aide-de-camp sideways look!
:If you follow my statements back a few, that was a follow-up to a generic statement about whether politicians should automatically be required to resign if they were simply -accused- of something, not specifically about Menenedez. Menendez reminds me of Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist with the money in the fridge. So I agree with your assessment of Menendez himself, but question whether simply -being charged- with something should be enough to force a resignation in a general sense. I apologize for poor communication here.Hundreds of thousands in cash and a big ass pile of gold bars is preeeeeetty unlikely to be innocent. He'd have to be one of those crazies who is willing to not only forego term typical market gain from stock/etc and also depreciate the cash over time out of a fear that the economy will completely collapse at any moment to explain that.
(And I could have sworn I read something about the gold or some of the gold being tied to some other crime, though I could be wrong about that).
So yeah, innocent until proven guilty but that's in a court of law. Whether the public chooses to apply a different standard is up to the public. I think he looked about as clearly guilty as he could look without having sat on the jury this whole time. . . :
