Republican George Santos expelled from Congress in bipartisan vote

[CharlieH]

 

Congressman, who has pleaded not guilty to 23 federal fraud charges, becomes only sixth member ever expelled from US House

• How Santos responded to being fact-checked on his lies
• Who’ll replace him in his New York swing district?

 

The New York Republican, fabulist and accused fraudster George Santos has been expelled from Congress.

The vote to expel Santos, the second since his election last year, required a two-thirds majority of those present. The final tally on Friday was 311-114, with two members recorded present and eight absent.

Santos therefore becomes only the sixth member ever expelled from the US House. The first three fought for the Confederacy in the civil war. The other two were expelled after being convicted of crimes.

Santos has pleaded not guilty to 23 federal fraud charges but has not been tried. A previous expulsion attempt, mounted by members of his own party, failed in part because senior Democrats voted no, citing the dangers of expelling members without convictions secured.

 

FULL STORY

 

 

 

[Morch]

Nice to see some things can be agreed upon.

[Tug]

It’s about time good riddance hopefully some of his identity crimes and misuse of campaign funds will be brought to trial perhaps he will do time!that would be nice now let’s get after the big one!!(ps) I still think George is the illegitimate love child of Donald trump and Kari Lake lol if so the apple 🍎 doesn’t fall far from the tree 🌴 lmao 😜 

[bendejo]

"You can't ask me questions when I'm holding a baby!"

 

[Danderman123]

I disagree with this motion.

 

Members should only be expelled after conviction, not indictment. Innocent until proven guilty is a thing.

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

I disagree with this motion.

 

Members should only be expelled after conviction, not indictment. Innocent until proven guilty is a thing.

Agree with this. No doubt he is guilty, but there should be a rule of law.

[Georgealbert]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Agree with this. No doubt he is guilty, but there should be a rule of law.

Seeking guidance on this, as I think also that a conviction was needed, as in the 2 previous expulsions for crimes. Yes 3 were expelled for disloyalty to the union 170 years ago.
 

He has been expelled after an investigation by the Ethics Committee of the House of Representatives. 
 

The motion to expel was supported by almost 50 % of his own party, who voted to expel, and he was only saved on previous vote by the opposition voting against the motion.

 

As the evidence was contained in an Ethics Committee report, was the motion in line with normal house rules? Was the committee report deemed to be a convictions (against house rules)?

 

Can not help but wonder why such a bipartisan vote, given current situation

 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24169355-report-on-ethics-george-santos

[gargamon]

Can he still get onto the presidential race? Santos would be a much better candidate than Trump. 

[Danderman123]

14 minutes ago, gargamon said:

Can he still get onto the presidential race? Santos would be a much better candidate than Trump. 

Too young, he says he is only 27.

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

I disagree with this motion.

 

Members should only be expelled after conviction, not indictment. Innocent until proven guilty is a thing.

Apparently you do not understand that this has absolutely nothing to do with the justice system. Congressional rules apply. Expelling someone from a party, organization, or association is the right of that group and has zero to do with criminal law standards. 

[Danderman123]

18 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Apparently you do not understand that this has absolutely nothing to do with the justice system. Congressional rules apply. Expelling someone from a party, organization, or association is the right of that group and has zero to do with criminal law standards. 

You are correct. Congress can expell anyone it wants.

 

My point is that this sets a bad precedent.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

You are correct. Congress can expell anyone it wants.

 

My point is that this sets a bad precedent.

In a rare moment I agree with you. If Congress is not bound by the rules it sets for everyone else, they can do anything.

[HappyExpat57]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

Nice to see some things can be agreed upon.

 

There were STILL 114 Repubs and 1 Dem who voted against expelling him.

[HappyExpat57]

3 hours ago, Tug said:

It’s about time good riddance hopefully some of his identity crimes and misuse of campaign funds will be brought to trial perhaps he will do time!that would be nice now let’s get after the big one!!(ps) I still think George is the illegitimate love child of Donald trump and Kari Lake lol if so the apple 🍎 doesn’t fall far from the tree 🌴 lmao 😜 

Oh, he's gonna be held accountable. The best he can hope for is a plea deal, and I can't imagine what he has of any value to negotiate for a lower sentence.

[HappyExpat57]

Here's the deal - the Republicans fought like hell to defend him cuz they needed his vote. Then it became apparent he would tarnish their already filthy party reputation and hurt their reelection bids. At that time, they turned on him and the rest is now history.

 

The trouble with government is there's just too much politics.

[scottiejohn]

3 hours ago, gargamon said:

Can he still get onto the presidential race? Santos would be a much better candidate than Trump. 

He is not quite as qualified as Trump as he only has 23 charges pending against the MEGA's 91(and counting)!

[Bangkok Barry]

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

You are correct. Congress can expell anyone it wants.

 

My point is that this sets a bad precedent.

 

There WAS a vote you know. Where's the bad precedent in that.

[RayC]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

In a rare moment I agree with you. If Congress is not bound by the rules it sets for everyone else, they can do anything.

 

I would agree if they were setting lower standards for themselves but the opposite is the case here.

 

If those who represent us wish to apply higher standards for themselves than they expect of us, then I'm all for it.

[ardsong]

5 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

I disagree with this motion.

 

Members should only be expelled after conviction, not indictment. Innocent until proven guilty is a thing.

if you would follow this rule, than none sitting member can ever be expelled , as any lawsuit takes longer then 4 yrs, the sitting period.

[Danderman123]

34 minutes ago, ardsong said:

if you would follow this rule, than none sitting member can ever be expelled , as any lawsuit takes longer then 4 yrs, the sitting period.

Members of Congress have 2 year terms, but can be re-elected many times.

 

And members have been convicted and expelled.

[sirineou]

6 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

I disagree with this motion.

 

Members should only be expelled after conviction, not indictment. Innocent until proven guilty is a thing.

This is wrong in two levels.

    If there are overwhelming evidence of criminal behaviour, what do you do? do you let someone remain in office while the case goes through the legal system?  

If that's the case the damage to the country could be substantial. while the case is being litigated.

But of course we can't have  congressmen and senators' removed for political reasons, 

 That's why the constitution provides mechanism for removal that requires two thirds of congress to vote for expulsion.  

Same as it does for amending the constitution. 

  Second , Criminal behaviors' is not nessacery for expulsion. Article I, section 5 of the United States Constitution expressly states " disorderly behavior," requiring also a 2/3 of the house to vote for removal, 

As we said 2/3 of the house to remove that would require substantial bipartisan participation. No way would the Democrats or Republicans vote to expel a member of their own party and leave a seat open and in play, if there wasn't sustancial  justification. 

As it is the  vote was a substantial 311-114 which is almost three fourths!!!!

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by sirineou

[sirineou]

11 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Members of Congress have 2 year terms, but can be re-elected many times.

 

And members have been convicted and expelled.

only half right. 

Congress has two institutions. The house of representatives and Senate

Members of the house have a two year term. But Senators have a six year term. 

But the point is moot anyway. Criminal behaviour is not nessacery for expulsion, according to the constitution it requires a 2/3 vote of disorderly behavior,.

[Caldera]

6 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

I disagree with this motion.

 

Members should only be expelled after conviction, not indictment. Innocent until proven guilty is a thing.

 

Firstly, who cares if you disagree. You aren't a member of Congress.

 

Secondly, this isn't a criminal trial. 

 

Good riddance.

[Srikcir]

6 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

I disagree with this motion.

 

Members should only be expelled after conviction, not indictment. Innocent until proven guilty is a thing.

You mean like Republicans wanting to impeach POTUS Biden without any evidence or criminal conviction?

Congress is a political organization and not a prosecution or judicial organization. Two-thirds of the House and of the Senate has poliyical power to excel members. 

[Srikcir]

"Republican George Santos expelled from Congress in bipartisan vote"

But not by 2/3's House Republicans. Majority power trumps guilt.

[Tequila makes me happy]

Where are all the Lefties screaming Gay/Trans Phobia ? Or doesn't he qualify for OUTRAGE  because he is from the GOP ?

[candide]

6 minutes ago, Tequila makes me happy said:

Where are all the Lefties screaming Gay/Trans Phobia ? Or doesn't he qualify for OUTRAGE  because he is from the GOP ?

Nonsense! He wasn't expelled for this reason. BTW, Santos has always supported GOP anti-LGBT initiatives.

[stevenl]

47 minutes ago, Caldera said:

 

Firstly, who cares if you disagree. You aren't a member of Congress.

This is a forum where people voice opinions. Your take on this would shut down all threads here.

[mikebike]

40 minutes ago, Tequila makes me happy said:

Where are all the Lefties screaming Gay/Trans Phobia ? Or doesn't he qualify for OUTRAGE  because he is from the GOP ?

He doesn't qualify for outrage because he doesn't qualify to be in the House, pretty simple 😉

[newnative]

Yaa!  Glad they threw the lying bum out.