I'd say both approaches are a bit off.
It looks to me that the best option is to take time to figure what happened before making decisions.
Then decide allowing for the fact that (1) nobody's perfect and the test for office isn't sainthood but (2) consistent bad actors and people who have done really bad things need to be removed.
The Schumer-Gillibrand approach is still wrong because they pulled the trigger too soon, before all the facts are in. And if you do that, then you will find people make allegations lightly in the future. That's the woke model. It invites people to claim the mantle of victimhood and leaves their motives unchallenged. The mere fact of an allegation is proof of guilt.
I am not sure if Cuomo is a villain. He may or may not be. From here, I can't tell. He has few friends but that ought to be no barrier to office.
What you want is a procedure that takes the time necessary to figure the facts first. Give it a name. Let folks know it will issue a report at some defined date in the future. And then wait for it.
| 