[Red Badger]

The difference is that even if Moore stays in and wins, the Senate Majority Leader can reject his credentials.

The POTUS election can’t be ....................

[MortMan]

Actually, his credentials that can be revoked are ONLY whether or not he is eligible to be a Senator. There is a specific court precedent for this.

[robroys woman]

The difference is that even if Moore stays in and wins, the Senate Majority Leader can reject his credentials.

---

True, but as a Kentuckian may I just say that decisions have consequences - and Mc’connel is NOT an idiot.

[odawg]

If that were to happen, then Alabama should go nuclear and secede.

[Nifster]

You are wrong

SCOTUS weighed in on this

Adam Clayton Powell

[Stingray51]

"The difference is that even if Moore stays in and wins, the Senate Majority Leader can reject his credentials."

Think about the gross illogic of that position. If the Senate could nullify the results of elections just because the majority wants to, well there would be very little left to our democracy. This is even more the case when we are talking about unproven and denied allegations from four decades ago. Powell v. McCormack (USSC 1969) establishes that the Senate can NOT refuse to seat Roy Moore if he wins the election. The Senate could vote by 2/3 to expel him but I think it would be extremely unlikely to do so, and doing so would set an insane and anti-democratic precedent that would shatter the GOP (which might not be a bad thing...)

[fortheDeclaration]

Let him try and we will see what happens to the GOP Senate!

[USS Alaska]

The difference is that even if Moore stays in and wins, the Senate Majority Leader can reject his credentials.

Turtle soup for the appetizer with red badger pot pie for the entree.

You could be a red, but badger?