Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
Shorten some texts to try to pass the automated tests that are failin…
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
…g on CircleCI, although the test script doesn't fail locally
  • Loading branch information
JoshData committed Nov 17, 2021
1 parent 9a2d441 commit 11bd51d
Showing 1 changed file with 7 additions and 8 deletions.
15 changes: 7 additions & 8 deletions misconduct.yaml
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -4742,11 +4742,10 @@
tags: ethics resolved
- person: 402990
name: Alan Cranston
text: In 1989, Sen. Cranston (along with Sens. DeConcini, Glenn, McCain and Riegle)
was accused of improperly intervening with federal banking regulators on behalf
of Charles Keating, Jr. and his savings and loan business. Because Keating's campaign
text: In 1989, Sen. Cranston improperly intervened with federal banking regulators on behalf
of Charles Keating, Jr., a campaign donor, and his savings and loan business. Because Keating's campaign
contributions came so close in time to Cranston's actions, he was [reprimanded
by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics in front of the full Senate](https://alamedamgr.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/cq-almanac-online-edition-keating-five.pdf).
by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics](https://alamedamgr.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/cq-almanac-online-edition-keating-five.pdf).
An odd aspect of Cranston's "punishment" was that he was allowed to rebut his
reprimand on the floor of the Senate. To his colleagues' displeasure, he declared
that [if he was guilty of wrongdoing, then so was the entire Senate](https://alamedamgr.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/cq-almanac-online-edition-keating-five.pdf).
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -7628,10 +7627,10 @@
allegation: disloyalty to the Union
text: Stark faced an allegation of disloyalty to the Union. On Feb. 27, 1862, the
Senate voted to seat him 26-19 since his public statements came before he was
in the Senate. On Feb. 28, 1862, Stark requested another investigation, presumably
to more fully exonerate him. On Apr. 22, 1862, the committee reported that based
on Stark's public statements, he supported the rebellion and Charles Sumner introduced
a resolution to expel him. On Jun. 6, 1862, the Senate expulsion vote was defeated
in the Senate. Stark requested another investigation, presumably
to more fully exonerate him, and on Apr. 22, a committee reported that based
on his public statements, he supported the rebellion, and Charles Sumner introduced
a resolution to expel him. On Jun. 6, the expulsion resolution was defeated
21-16, apparently because Stark had only a few more months to serve.
consequences:
- date: 1862-02-27
Expand Down

0 comments on commit 11bd51d

Please sign in to comment.