The George Santos Circus

[Victoria Raverna]

How many Democrats voted no or present?

[Blackhawk]

I saw earlier that it was 30-ish that voted against. The one reason I saw was that it was inappropriate to remove someone from office over accusations that have yet to be legally proven.

I don't disagree with that in principle (I'm not a fan of punishing people for being accused of something), but this is an extreme case. But at the same time, I'm not sure I can condemn someone for standing up for that principle. It is, to me, and understandable objection.

[Victoria Raverna]

Then I guess they also were against Donald Trump's impeachment, right? Did they stand up for that principle during the impeachment votes, too?

[Blackhawk]

Then I guess they also were against Donald Trump's impeachment, right? Did they stand up for that principle during the impeachment votes, too?

That is a completely different procedure. The procedure for impeachment is a vote to determine whether the charges themselves should be brought, followed by proceedings, followed by a determination of guilt. Those who objected here weren't acting separately from the legal proceedings in the impeachment votes.

The procedure for determining guilt on federal indictments is handled in a courtroom, and there are internal procedures for violations as well. Those are not yet complete, and at least some of these 31 felt that they were bypassing the process.

I don't know that I'd agree with them (I'd need to study a lot more to make that decision), but - like I said - it's a principle I can understand them standing up for.

[Smoove_B]

From Representative Raskin:

"I’m a Constitution guy. The House has expelled five people in our history, three for joining the Confederacy as traitors to the Union and two after they were convicted of criminal offenses. 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. This would be a terrible precedent to set, expelling people who have not been convicted of a crime and without internal due process...

It’s a very risky road to go down and we have to stick by due process and the rule of law, as obvious as the eventual result seems."

I can't really find fault in that reasoning. That said, anyone that voted "present" should be embarrassed.

[Carpet_pissr]

Strongly agree. Santos is an obviously sneaky, tricksy turd of a human, but he should still get due process.

I feel like typing that out is kinda silly.

[malchior]

The only reason I'd shift towards kick him out is that he's brazenly lied about everything, he has been convicted of the alleged crime before, etc. Not strongly but it's not like these charges are out of the blue.

[GreenGoo]

Administrative leave is a thing.

[Unagi]

I think the implication in his statement is that the ethics committee has failed to flag him, and so it's really then up to a court to convict him of the offenses cited in the Resolution... perhaps it's an "and" - as he said , but I think one or the other should be good enough.

or, , just Santos feeling like he should resign, of course.

[Smoove_B]

Tent flaps are going to stay open:

The House Ethics Committee will not call for the expulsion of Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) from Congress in its public report on the investigation into his actions, which will be released later this week.

Ethics Committee chair Michael Guest (R-Miss.) told reporters on Wednesday that the report will not include a recommendation of formal punishment, such as expulsion, for the New York representative, who has become infamous for his serial lies, because doing so would have extended the investigation into the next year.

For months, the investigative subcommittee has been looking at whether Santos engaged in unlawful activity and lied about significant aspects of his personal and professional background during his campaign, Forbes reported.

Santos has been indicted a New York federal court on 23 charges of fraud, money laundering, identity theft and making false statements. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

[Unagi]

Ok, that just reads weird (or pathetic) to me...

The reason they will not recommend any formal punishment is because making that recommendation simply would have taken a bit longer and they are just tired of all this work. Is that about right?

[hepcat]

What I read was that they want folks to read about his numerous lies and scams now by issuing a report listing them all, instead of waiting until next year at some point to release all the crap he's done.

[Skinypupy]

Ethics Committee chair Michael Guest (R-Miss.) told reporters on Wednesday that the report will not include a recommendation of formal punishment, such as expulsion, for the New York representative, who has become infamous for his serial lies, because doing so would have extended the investigation into the next year.

"Here's a full accounting of all the unethical and probably illegal things he's done...but we're not gonna actually do shit about it."

What, exactly, was the point of all this?

[Smoove_B]

"We investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong."

That's the point.

[Skinypupy]

"We investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong."

That's the point.

Except they did find something wrong. Quite a lot of somethings wrong.

[LordMortis]

"We investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong."

That's the point.

Except they did find something wrong. Quite a lot of somethings wrong.

Yeah, but they've tried exactly nothing to fix it and none of it worked, so wahtchagonna do?

[hepcat]

As I mentioned earlier, I don't see this as a "we're going to do nothing" situation. But rather one in which they knew that using this to eject Santos was going to take a while. So instead of waiting, they went ahead and released the report, noting that there was "substantial evidence" of Santos'' wrongdoing. It's chock full of "knowing and willfull violations".

Hell, they even found MORE dirt while investigating him

A statement from the committee accompanying the report said the panel unanimously voted to adopt the report. The committee said it uncovered additional “uncharged and unlawful conduct” by Santos that go beyond the criminal allegations already pending against him, and would immediately refer these allegations to the Justice Department for further investigation.

The tactic appears to have worked as Santos is saying he won't seek reelection.

edit: Marjorie Taylor Greene is now saying it's a crime to go after Santos so close to Christmas. "What about all those children who won't be getting toys this year thanks to this smear campaign!?". Shortly after that, an aide pulled her aside, and after a brief and animated private discussion, she returned to the podium, pointed out the window across from her and shouted "WHAT'S THAT!?" and then ran.

[Unagi]

The tactic appears to have worked as Santos is saying he won't seek reelection.

Well, I suppose we should take him for his word, he's earned that at the very least.

[Carpet_pissr]

Wouldn’t be surprised if he goes one way or another, before his terms ends.

Good riddance, ye bespeckled, priest-dressing imposter.

[Blackhawk]

Two questions:

1. Is there something magical that happens after the ball drops in Times Square that makes releasing it then a problem?
2. Congress recently refused to expel him because the investigation wasn't over. Once it's over, does the lack of a recommendation for a punishment somehow exclude the possibility of punishment? If not, couldn't they just vote again? Although 2/3 still isn't guaranteed.

[malchior]

Jake Sherman reported out he talked to enough Congress critters to predict he'll be booted after T-Giving break. HIs usefulness has come to an end.

[Unagi]

Wait, why has his usefulness come to an end?

Actually, maybe I'm not following it all close enough. Are they having a (another) vote on this sometime coming up here?

[malchior]

It's one thing to be a distraction when everything is chaos and there is no election imminent. And another thing when there is an election season coming. He becomes a problem for them and one vote isn't going to matter much. Not that the GOP base cares much about law but the material coming out about him is especially toxic. Too much prurient grift versus the "virtuous" sort of grift the GOP embraces.

The committee filed a petition to expel him this morning. He'll be out soon.

[Unagi]

I'm also guessing the GOP division that has blossomed recently has removed any "we must remain in lockstep" political strategy that most of them have successfully maintained until now.

[Unagi]

He'll be out soon.

Before we all stop talking about him.... I've been wanting to say that every time I see him, I imagine he's wearing 3-4 different outfits stacked on top of each other. As if he's always ready to reveal the 'next' Santos.

[Smoove_B]

I'm also guessing the GOP division that has blossomed recently has removed any "we must remain in lockstep" political strategy that most of them have successfully maintained until now.

I don't think so. I mean, I want a GOP civil war to tear the party apart, but I don't think it's happening. After Santos is gone and the next stage of awful happens, I think it'll be clearer in retrospect as to why they supported formally ejecting him right now. Like malchior said, his immediate usefulness is over (vote for new speaker; vote for funding); whatever they're planning next doesn't require him to play along.

[Unagi]

So you think the GOP is now ‘voting together’ and can start passing bills, or are they still needing Dem votes? Cause it seemed to me the most recent CR was temporary (by definition) and didn’t have enough GOP support to pass.

So I think numbers still matter to them, but these House Follies have managed to make them turn on each other just ever ever so slightly, and simply to the degree to which they no longer feel like protecting the cross dresser.

Not a full blown civil war, just a crack in the solidarity they used to seemingly enjoy.

[Blackhawk]

How confident would they be that a special election would give them the vote back, vs give it to the Democrats?

[Unagi]

How confident would they be that a special election would give them the vote back, vs give it to the Democrats?

The word is that it would be very competitive, NY's 3rd district - went for Biden in 2020 ( by 8%), but then Santos also won by 8% last year.

The main Dem that is gunning for the seat is former Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi (previously represented the 3rd District before running for governor last year, and failing).

NY District Map

Spoiler:

[Unagi]

Ethics Committee chair Michael Guest (R-Miss.) told reporters on Wednesday that the report will not include a recommendation of formal punishment, such as expulsion, for the New York representative, who has become infamous for his serial lies, because doing so would have extended the investigation into the next year.

"Here's a full accounting of all the unethical and probably illegal things he's done...but we're not gonna actually do shit about it."

What, exactly, was the point of all this?

Okay, so it looks like it was indeed to expidite removing Santos.

New resolution filed to expel GOP Rep. George Santos from Congress

"Republican Rep. Michael Guest, chairman of the House Ethics Committee, filed the resolution electronically as the House adjourned Friday for Thanksgiving recess."

[Victoria Raverna]

[Daehawk]

Is that man child still running around DC?

[malchior]

Santos vote upcoming. He is out there on the floor right now whining about how he is being railroaded out of Congress and general "swamp behavior". At the very least, though he has Matt Gaetz in his corner!

[coopasonic]

Byeeeee....

[malchior]

Next stop prison.

[Octavious]

He's so fucked. Bummer for him. If that only applied to all people the run crazy on the rule of law..

[Grifman]

He's baaaaack . . .
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/07/politics ... index.html

Former GOP Rep. George Santos, who was expelled from the House last year and is facing federal charges, announced Thursday night that he’s running for Congress again — this time to challenge a Republican congressman in New York.

“Tonight, I want to announce that I will be returning to the arena of politics and challenging Nick for the battle over #NY1,” Santos wrote on X, referring to GOP Rep. Nick LaLota. “I look forward to debating him on the issues and on his weak record as a Republican. The fight for our majority is imperative for the survival of the country.”

[LawBeefaroni]

Smug fuckers:








This is how it ends.

But I'll just get this in first, he needs to get on some GLP1s if he wants to be invited to the afterparty.

[hepcat]

Whenever you see a picture of Boebert with others, the first thing you have to ask yourself is "where's her other hand?".

[Carpet_pissr]

Whenever you see a picture of Boebert with others, the first thing you have to ask yourself is "where's her other hand?".

Certainly explains his unnatural head position on n that bottom pic.