For the Republican Party hypocrisy is a feature, not a bug.
As they should.
Since 1862, that’s been how it works. Normally, they resign after conviction, but if they don’t, they face expulsion.
Reversing the results of an election, without a trial, is IMHO a terrible idea.
Santos apparently lies a lot more than most people, politicians or otherwise. But resume padding happens in the political world, and I wouldn’t want my vote reversed for something like in my last link. Expel Santos for lying a lot, and Democrats who only lie a little will also face expulsion.
The voters can’t recall him either. About the only thing left would be to assign him to kn committees and give him a closet-office.
While I don’t know that what’s been documented regarding Santos so far warrants expulsion, I wouldn’t agree that a criminal conviction is necessary for the House to expel a member. The Constitution deliberately gives each chamber complete latitude to determine what conduct warrants expulsion (if you can get 2/3 to agree). If video comes out of Santos taking an envelope full of cash from the Russian ambassador and promising to stop all aid to Ukraine, I don’t think the House needs to let the judicial process grind through to its conclusion before deciding he needs to go.
I think that if he lied about his name, that would be enough to get him out. If the voters elected George Santos, then why the heck are we allowing this Anthony Devolder guy to hold his seat? Anthony Devolder isn’t the person who was elected.
Though of course, like Yolanda/Saffron/Brigid, probably neither of those is his actual name.
His full legal name being George Anthony Devolder Santos, that would not by itself rise to the standard.
And yes, the criterion for expulsion is what does 2/3 of the House think is proof enough by their standard of something that should disqualify you from continuing to serve. Which does not have to be “beyond reasonable doubt” or require an independent conviction, but probably should be reserved for things that are arguably criminal as opposed to just dickish.
His lies are strange and almost pathological (I am not a mental health expert), and IMHO should bar him from office. It’s the financial shell game he seems to have played to get there that should make him a prime candidate for expulsion in a normal situation.
Yes.
That could soon be a deepfake.
Santos is going to vote pretty much the way the 54 percent of voters in his district — or, at least, those who paid attention to the campaign — expect him to. Just as Chaka Fatah (D-PA), my former congressperson who turned out to be a felon, and who I usually voted for, did. Getting embarrassments like Fattah and Santos out of the House wasn’t and isn’t an emergency.
As for the idea of expelling (or stripping committee assignments) only when, based on pretrial publicity, guilt is really, really obvious, I question the objectivity of public opinion.
I’m of many minds about removing Santos from government based on the current publicly known information, but based on his self-admitted lies, omissions and/or Jedi Truths (Jew-ish my ass), he isn’t a person trustworthy enough to be seated on any committee worthy of the name. The reported irregularities in income, employment, felonious status, and campaign contributions, if they are born out by impartial investigation, do IMHO, warrant removal prior to conviction, due the risks his position puts the American public at with such a deeply compromised individual, but I fully acknowledge not everyone will agree.
But again, many of the issues he’s trying to handwave away are fully admitted to by the individual himself, and those alone are worthy of censure.
Most will agree, just not me 
The foreign policy danger Santos creates is trivial compared to that of TFG, and no more than other far-right Republicans in Congress. Consider:
— Marjorie Taylor Green (R-GA)
And unlike Santos, Greene is almost certain to be re-elected next year.
With a Congress having 535 members, some will always be a security risk. I think that, in the spirit of democracy, we should accept that, up to the point where there is a legal conviction. If expulsion, or shunning, without a conviction, becomes a new norm, I don’t think its use can be limited to Republicans.
P.S. There is a Greene “must go” thread here, but I think that is hopeless. By contrast, Santos is less popular in his party.
I could keep playing devil’s advocate, but . . . I largely agree with you. Expulsion is the most severe punishment available to Congress and must be used with extreme care. It’s hard for me to come up with a realistic scenario outside of a criminal conviction that would warrant expulsion. I don’t think Santos is there yet, although it shouldn’t take long with all the three-letter federal agencies prying into his finances.
However, stripping committee assignments is a much lesser punishment and is entirely appropriate in less-than-criminal circumstances. Committee assignments are a privilege, not a right, of Members of Congress. Kevin McCarthy acted correctly in 2019 when he moved to strip Steve King of his committee assignments in the wake of comments defending the terms “white nationalist” and “white supremacist.” Likewise, Paul Gosar’s censure and removal from committees after disseminating an anime video photoshopped to portray him killing Alexandia Ocasio-Cortez was an entirely appropriate response to a member making a clear threat of violence against another member.
Agreed. See also MTG’s removal from all committees by the former Speaker, in her first term.
The election as representative is the choice of the voters. The posting to a committee is not.
And as I stated, what he has already admitted to, while he tries to describe it as resume padding, is far from such. It is out and out falsification. Which I tried to make clear in my post, should be enough to prevent him from being seated on any committee.
Side note to @PhillyGuy - please note also that when I was saying he should be removed if an impartial investigation was done, even if he had not been convicted of a crime at the time. In a world where the Republicans weren’t doubling down on party loyalty over the good of the nation, THEY would be doing an honest investigation and if even a fraction of the current allegations had merit, they’d be removing him prior to the slow but steady criminal investigations.
The fact that they won’t, and in fact, spend most of their time excusing him, speaks a great deal about both them and Santos. Win at all costs, and we’ll support you as long as you hold the party line seems to be completely clear to all.
That’s a tough one for me. I can see putting a death threat, against a colleague, in a separate category from racist protected free speech. However, I think censure alone would be a better idea, avoiding the retaliation now under way:
McCarthy amplifies vow to keep Schiff, Swalwell off Intel Committee
I help elect members of Congress to vote not just on the floor, but also in committee.
The difference is that Greene is a lying idiot who is advancing the interests of the Republican party while Santos is a lying idiot who is hurting the interests of the Republican party. When the Republican party decides who gets forgiven and who gets expelled, they won’t be basing their decision on any moral or legal principles.
“There will always be icebergs and we’re bound to hit a few. What’s the big deal?”
With as much “padding” as Santos has done, the question could even be asked if the person sitting in the House is the same person that the voters elected. I’d argue no.
As an old time liberal, I am skeptical of the value of loyalty testing, and think there is a slippery slope. If we go down the path of looking for national interest security risks, the most obivous place to look is citizenship. When it comes to getting a government security clearance (I’ve gotten very low level ones), the nationality of yourself, and your close relatives, is a focus. But, as what I consider a liberal tradition, that question is considered unaskable for elected officials, as explained in this article:
I think the above has the ring of truth, even though I disagree with opinions in my link.
Santos is probably just loyal to himself. But he might be loyal to Brazil. He even might be loyal to Russia, although evidence for that is extremely weak and indirect.. And he’s conceivably loyal to the United States. What I do know is that he won an election, to federal office, despite his opponent saying he was a liar.
Ted Cruz lied about being a Canadian, implausibly saying he didn’t realize being born in Canada made him Canadian – despite Ted being a law school honors gradutate. When it comes to nationality, Santos is less of a liar than Ted.
Ted Cruz shouldn’t be the benchmark for who shouldn’t and shouldn’t be in congress. We shouldn’t allow someone into congress based on them having lied less than Ted Cruz about their nationality.
Maybe we could compromise and get rid of both of them for lying.
I haven’t read this entire thread (just most of it) but has there been any speculation on the source of the implausible $700,000 he supposedly lent to his campaign? It seems to me there’s a non-zero chance that this is Russian money funneled to him, and that his anti-Ukraine position is an obvious quid pro quo.
I can’t find it now while at work, but Lawrence O’Donnell had a piece on his show last night about how the source of that funding was kin to some Russian Oligarch, and is a NY-based real estate guy who was also involved in the Stormy Daniels payoff somehow.