[JockoManning]

The House and Senate have the ability to not accept new members.

If any newly elected members (that includes re-elected members) are implicated before the start of the next session (Jan2?), the respective chamber can choose NOT to seat them.

I still think you are right to remind folks of this. Whether it is used, or not, remains to be seen. I certainly think the odds are better than 55% that such might eventuate. What to you think the odds are--assuming that convincing evidence of serious guilt about horrific crimes are published beforehand?

[Publius]

If any newly elected members (that includes re-elected members) are implicated before the start of the next session (Jan2?), the respective chamber can choose NOT to seat them.

It ain't necessarily so. Run a search on the Supreme Court's decision in Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. v. US House of Representatives.

[Wneighbor]

If any newly elected members (that includes re-elected members) are implicated before the start of the next session (Jan2?), the respective chamber can choose NOT to seat them.

Just thought about this, it behooves us to pay close attention to those implicated by Huber's testimony for an activism standpoint. When it becomes clear which individuals Huber has the evidence on we need to start calling our CongressCreatures to rally for refusal to seat the accussed. I may nag at y'all about calling but doing so not only let's them know we are paying attention to this, but that it hasn't escaped our notice during the Holidays when things get buried.

[Defiant]

There are not enough questionable races to take away the majority, and therefore, the rats will be the majority and won’t refuse to seat anyone, except maybe a Republican who barely won.