Vote to remove George Santos fails in the House.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Phoenix

Not sure why considering they're completely different situations. For one, Obama didn't break the law.

Yeah, right under the radar nonetheless it is illegal to receive foreign donations even small ones.

Just because not pursued doesn't didn't happen.

This was an easy choice for House members to make. No one is going to lose constituents over expelling Santos, some will even gain supporters. Santos was an infamous bad actor and a real clown. OMG! That baby stunt? What an idiot!

The House did a good thing, today. It helped their credibility when it's at an all time low.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude

What rules changed?

innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. it's a silly concept, but those damn paralegals are always talking about junk like that.

I think Santos is a piece of sh!t, and needs to be gone, but I have to agree that he should have stayed until his trial ended and the result was given. This sets a precedent that only charges of impropriety are needed to remove someone. Hank Johnson is an idiot and thinks Guam will tip over if too many people all go to one side of the island at the same time, can he be removed as well?

All the corrupt politicians need to go.

The American people don't want to do what needs to be done. Joseph McCarthy had the right idea.

a reply to: network dude

I think Santos is a piece of sh!t, and needs to be gone, but I have to agree that he should have stayed until his trial ended and the result was given. This sets a precedent that only charges of impropriety are needed to remove someone.

The "precedent" was set when the US Constitution was ratified. The Constitution doesn't say anything about "innocent until proven guilty" and lays no guidelines for which Congress can decide to oust a member. Congress can make its own rules, and as long as a 2/3 majority of agree, Congress can oust a member for anything.

Article I, Section 5, Clause 2
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

yes, and much like impeachment that was used twice for the wrong reasons on the same guy, this will likely be used again, in the same way this was. I wonder if you will cheer then as well.

a reply to: network dude

yes, and much like impeachment that was used twice for the wrong reasons on the same guy

That's your opinion. Facts and evidence say something different.

this will likely be used again, in the same way this was. I wonder if you will cheer then as well.

I hope so! Menendez should be next.

It's long past the time to drain the swamp! And, while we're at it, Congress should oust those members who were a deliberate part of the Jan 6th insurrection plan.

a reply to: network dude

Remind me again, what crimes was Clinton convicted of when he was impeached?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude

Remind me again, what crimes was Clinton convicted of when he was impeached?

I believe it was perjury. Does a judge just rule on that, or does there need to be a trial? I'm not a paralegal.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Not sure but he was campaigning for at least one voter when he was caught so it cannot got to the upper courts.

He lied under oath to a grand jury and was charged with obstruction. We all know he lied because he televised his same statement to all of America.

Perjury and abuse of power did not get the votes.

a reply to: network dude

Clinton was never convicted a crime. Especially not when Congress tried to remove him from office.

So, would you state that Congress' attempt to remove Clinton from office was illegitimate as he had not been convicted of a crime?

a reply to: Threadbarer

Impeachment is a trial. FFS really? That is where he would have been found guilty.

However, we all know he is guilty. He even admitted to it afterwards.

a reply to: matafuchs

Still looking for the conviction that allowed Congress to attempt to remove Clinton from office.

Congress tried to remove Clinton from office based on an investigation they performed but didn't have the necessary votes.

Congress tried to remove Santos from office based on an investigation they performed and did have the necessary votes.

The Dems have named Tom Suozzi as their candidate to fill Santos' vacant seat. Suozzi held the seat before Santos. He chose not to run in 2022, instead opting to run for governor.

a reply to: Phoenix

Just because not pursued doesn't didn't happen.

huh? doesn't didn't.....din do nufin, right?

a reply to: network dude

innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. it's a silly concept,

Yeah, and the constitution is just a piece of paper...right?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: matafuchs

Still looking for the conviction that allowed Congress to attempt to remove Clinton from office.

Congress tried to remove Clinton from office based on an investigation they performed but didn't have the necessary votes.

Congress tried to remove Santos from office based on an investigation they performed and did have the necessary votes.

They never got the votes to remove Clinton because most of them didn't want to get murdered later. Santos is just a pathetic moron that nobody cared about with no power of vengeance.

So, it now looks like there are talks to plea to his charges. He is not scheduled to go to court till September 2024.

Also, it is very interesting as it looks like things he has been associated with were done by people working for him.

Samuel Miele, a former campaign fundraiser for Santos, last month pleaded guilty in Long Island federal court to wire fraud related to impersonating a top aide to ex-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy while soliciting donations for Santos.

In October, Santos' former campaign treasurer Nancy Marks pleaded guilty in the same court to multiple campaign finance felonies related to her work for him.

Link

This was all about grabbing back a seat and it also got rid of some real dirrtbags who were ripping people off.

....and the GOP will select a registered Democrat to run for his office.

Link

Yeah. It was all about the things we was accused of....

a reply to: Threadbarer

300 + violations of the stock act...

I just dont get it anymore.