My apologies for what little thought I put into that George Santos expulsion thread yesterday

Yesterday, the House voted against removing George Santos from his seat in the House. I was very surprised as it should be clear to all by now what a fraud this fellow is. I just could not understand why so many from both sides of the isle would allow him to remain.

But, what I had failed to take into account was that there are still 23 felony counts, including wire fraud, credit card fraud and identity theft against him, which when played out will likely swing another House vote to removing him. Progressive Raskin stated his intent clearly

“Santos has not been criminally convicted yet of the offenses cited in the resolution, nor has he been found guilty of ethics offenses in the House internal process,”

He noted that the House has expelled only five people in its history: three for fighting against the U.S. government in the Civil War, and two after they were convicted of criminal offenses.

He said he would certainly vote to expel Santos if he’s found guilty in either investigation.

“I can think of four or five Democratic members the Republicans would like to expel without a conviction or adverse ethics findings,” he told Axios. “We can’t abandon due process and the rule of law in the House of Representatives.”

a reply to: BingoMcGoof
So basically goose/gander situation.

If we do it to them, they'll do it to us.

a reply to: FullHeathen

Both ways I suppose. He has not been found guilty of crimes so he stays. I get the thinking here, not rushing to judgement. And on the other hand as you suggest, ''we do it to them and they will do it to us''. .
However, as it needs 2/3ds vote of the members, that our side and their side would have to be very stretched to reach, so more likely it is just the ''let's not rush to judgement motive I think.

a reply to: BingoMcGoof

Personally, can't wait to see this guy in prison... he's nothing but a Jussie Smollett. Times ten.

How narcissistic and megalomaniacal does one have to be to use this phrase for himself:

"If you aim for the king, you best not miss."

Only he changed it to if you aim for ME.

I've saving my schadenfreude for that day.

a reply to: Mahogani

Yeah, we can wait. Until then he does make a great target for comedians..
Let's see how this Menendez thing goes as well.

originally posted by: BingoMcGoof
Yesterday, the House voted against removing George Santos from his seat in the House. I was very surprised as it should be clear to all by now what a fraud this fellow is. I just could not understand why so many from both sides of the isle would allow him to remain.

But, what I had failed to take into account was that there are still 23 felony counts, including wire fraud, credit card fraud and identity theft against him, which when played out will likely swing another House vote to removing him. Progressive Raskin stated his intent clearly

“Santos has not been criminally convicted yet of the offenses cited in the resolution, nor has he been found guilty of ethics offenses in the House internal process,”

He noted that the House has expelled only five people in its history: three for fighting against the U.S. government in the Civil War, and two after they were convicted of criminal offenses.

He said he would certainly vote to expel Santos if he’s found guilty in either investigation.

“I can think of four or five Democratic members the Republicans would like to expel without a conviction or adverse ethics findings,” he told Axios. “We can’t abandon due process and the rule of law in the House of Representatives.”

Yes, the House voted 179-213 in favor of a resolution to expel Santos from Congress, falling short of the two-thirds majority needed to oust a member under the Constitution. Nineteen members voted present. The resolution was introduced by five vulnerable New York Republicans who wanted to distance themselves from Santos and his scandals. However, most Republicans and some Democrats opposed the resolution, arguing that Santos should be given due process and a fair trial before being expelled. I also don't understand their decision.

Maybe they just want the people of his district to decide what to do with him ... ya know "Democracy"

Do you (the generic) live in New York's 3rd congressional district? If not why do you care who represents the district? They aren't representing you.

a reply to: Dandandat3

I think that is a fair and valid point Dan. But don't you think that it also raises the question by example of just how gullible we, the public, are? Gullible AND careless? We could, if we wished, just chalk it up to ''those dummies in the district'' and leave it at that but if not should we not understand that we all fall for the charades that are to one degree or another played out by all of the people who apply to represent us?

I think the framers set the bar high for expulsion because of your point, that a representative was chosen by a set of citizenry to represent them while still leaving that smaller percentage open for expulsion just in case the citizenry were in gross negligence or zealotry in their choice.

So for me at least, I care because to me, this Santos show can be a learning lesson on the diligence we the public need to exercise in our choices of leadership. And to that lesson we naturally must add Trump and Biden and a long list of others.

originally posted by: BingoMcGoof
a reply to: Dandandat3

I think that is a fair and valid point Dan. But don't you think that it also raises the question by example of just how gullible we, the public, are? Gullible AND careless? We could, if we wished, just chalk it up to ''those dummies in the district'' and leave it at that but if not should we not understand that we all fall for the charades that are to one degree or another played out by all of the people who apply to represent us?

I think the framers set the bar high for expulsion because of your point, that a representative was chosen by a set of citizenry to represent them while still leaving that smaller percentage open for expulsion just in case the citizenry were in gross negligence or zealotry in their choice.

So for me at least, I care because to me, this Santos show can be a learning lesson on the diligence we the public need to exercise in our choices of leadership. And to that lesson we naturally must add Trump and Biden and a long list of others.

That is also a fair point BingoMcGoof; learning a lesson from what happens in other districts is always a good thing.

However this OP doesn't seem to be about what might have gone wrong in NY's 3rd; but instead it seems to be about why congress has not expelled Santos.

But to the topic of what might have gone wrong in NY's 3rd. I live close to that district and know many people who vote in it. Here's what I think happened.

1) Not enough people prioritize understanding their local politics. And it's not entirely their fault as it is extremely difficult to do so. With all the local news papers, radio and tv networks being gobbled up by a few national companies all news is framed at the national level and the local level is ignored. For example this Santos story is all about what Congress is going to do about Him and no time is spent at the local level with the voters of NY's 3rd.

2) Given the above, Santos was voted in by an uniformed electorate enabled by a negligent news media. But he was voted in for a very specific reason... he was the Republican candidate and New York’s 3rd, which is normaly a deep purple, had decided they wanted to send a message to New York Democrats that they have gone to far and need to check themselves. Truth be told NY's 3rd would probably vote for Santos again for the exact same reason if it was not for the national embarrassment factor. Or to put it another way had Santos' misdeeds been know, vetted, and debated during the election (and not a surprise after the fact) he very well may have still won ... not because he was a great candidate, but because NY's thrid was/is interested in sending a message to the Democrat party.

a reply to: Dandandat3

ya know,I wondered at how the media seemed not to have looked into his candidacy much at all until just after he won. I recall, possibly erroneously, that there had been some local info on his falsehoods a week or so before the election but it was not picked up by local press.

And I get that message idea as well. I kinda thought that he had portrayed himself as a moderate Republican if not a ''liberalish'' republican being gay and all, so many decided to vote for him because of the schmoozing he had been doing on the ground. I guess that fits with your observations.