The problem is that taking away privileges (like a seat on a powerful committee) before conviction raises the question as to what level of accusation is needed before you do this.

To me the answer is simple. Let a party leader (Minority leader, whip, etc) or a significant number of fellow congressmen (5% - 10% ought to be about right) raise the question. Then have a secret ballot. Essentially, you are having the congressmen acting as jurors based on the limited evidence. Let there be a closed door session where the accused guy can defend themselves. That's how you should differentiate in these hard cases.

Then you have the republican system where chairs and party leaders lose their position on an indictment (even one as lame as Earle's). This keeps the high profile positions automatically out with a bright line and allows for the lesser positions to be weighed by their piers as to what is the right/politically expedient thing.

I agree--and have written--that the GOP should have been quicker to distance themselves from DeLay. Otherwise, though, I'm not sure there's a case to be made here.