As somebody pointed out, the General Assembly isn't a court of law. It answers to the court of public opinion. Several of his supporters pointed to the fact that he was re-elected as a reason for him to stay but that can be discounted because his was the only name on the ballot, due to the timing of the indictment. As OCF said, there's a strong likelihood of conviction. I mean, the fact that the DOJ got an indictment shows there's very strong evidence against Larry.

I'll admit that this is a murky area of state constitutional law. Many state constitutions provide for impeachment and leave the definition of who is liable for impeachment somewhat unclear. The Ohio Constitution says this about impeachment:

"The governor, judges, and all state officers, may be impeached for any misdemeanor in office; but judgment shall not extend further than removal from office, and disqualification to hold any office under the authority of this state. The party impeached, whether convicted or not, shall be liable to indictment, trial, and judgment, according to law."

So, is a state legislator a "state officer"? I can see lawyers arguing that both ways in terms of legislative branch members. As far as I can tell, there has only been one state legislator impeached in the U.S. and that was in Vermont.

On the federal level back in the 1790s the House impeached one of its own members.

So, while this is an extremely rare process, it appears that it is at least possible. I understand the motive behind Edwards calling for it as an alternative to expulsion.

And, finally, BTC, I'm glad you have appointed yourself in the role of judge, jury and executioner. While, I suspect that you are correct about the final outcome of the case, even scumbags deserve their day in court.

Ok, perhaps, circumstantial was the wrong word. My point was that none of us have all the evidence, and that we should wait for a trial before we conclude that we know the full story. I agree with you it’s probably every bit as bad as it looks, but one needs to have a modicum of doubt until all the facts are known, including any possible exculpatory evidence.

I did NOT say he had been impeached — only that Jay wanted him impeached so that there could be a trial in the legislature to better determine if he merited expulsion. I think that was a rather far-fetched idea on Jay’s part since it’s been so rarely used in this kind of situation.