I understand he has been asked to be the next King of Sweden.
As long a they make him eat a full can of surstromming every morning, he has my full support.
from the can no dissecting, no accoutrements.
from last nights round of news shows, it sounds like more rep.s are getting on the expel train. some said they would check the “temperature” of their districts.
the ethics report uncovered more crimes, i wonder if charges will be added.
It’s official:
The Republican chair of the Ethics Committee isn’t going to introduce a motion to expel unless leadership is on board. This is going to pass.
In ordinary times I’d agree completely. These are far from ordinary times. That doesn’t mean you’re wrong; just that you’re no longer guaranteed to be right.
We shall see, but there’s nothing these bozos can do that is too dysfunctional. Everything, and I do mean everything, is now in-bounds for the revised game they are playing.
It’s simple math. If the democrats gain one seat after a special election it won’t matter. If whoever wins that election wins the next one it doesn’t matter. Republicans are due to gain several seats due to gerrymandering next election anyway. Chances are they will still have control after the next election. Getting rid of Santos doesn’t hurt republicans. Supporting him could hurt them.
Now that the writing is on the wall, so to speak, and expulsion seems more or less a foregone conclusion, what are the odds that Santos finally, finally resigns?
Or maybe he just stops showing up altogether. That’ll show 'em.
Well, sure, nothing’s guaranteed until the vote actually happens. But it’s in no one’s interest now to keep Santos in the House except for Santos. He’s not an FC member and has sided against them on many votes. More institutional Republicans have clearly decided he’s a millstone. Democrats would like to have him around as a campaign issue but it would be too cute by half for them to oppose the motion to expel.
Will he resign? I don’t see why. There’s no pension or other benefits he’d lose being expelled versus resigning. His resignation could conceivably be used against him in his criminal trial. If he’s expelled, at least he’d be consistent in maintaining his innocence.
I want him to pull a rubber mask off, revealing that “he” is actually Tom Cruise, and he drives away to the Mission Impossible theme.
OTOH who knows how many Rs would go against the institutional leadership just out of petulance about their own internal dumpster fire of a conference. But if all Dems vote to expel you only need 78 Republicans, so it’s achievable even in the face of the FC. Though You Know Who can always pop up decreeing that keeping him is a loyalty test.
Again?!?
Politico has an article up that nearly 60 House members who previously opposed removing Santos will now vote for his expulsion. Only eight indicated that they would continue to oppose his removal, with the rest still considering the report and weighing their decision.
If he pulls off a mask, I fully expect that it’s Madison Cawthorn under there.
She’s my representative – and a normal centrist (by her party’s standards) Democrat. Sound like Santos will be expelled.
I posted earlier that I’m against expulsion without a prior criminal conviction. But if the precedent is that a bipartisan Ethics Committee finding results in expulsion, I have no serious objection.
“Mein Fuhrer! I can walk!”
Bravo. Much better than what I was preparing to post.
Yes, @Smapti wins the thread there.
Or perhaps Number Six.
@Smapti still wins the thread, though.
I agree. I understand the reticence to expel a member absent a criminal conviction, but I think it’s just as bad precedent to require a criminal conviction before expelling a member. That’s essentially turning Congress’ Constitutional responsibility to determine what conduct warrants expulsion over to the executive and judicial branches. The system worked here.