George Santos Charged
-
2/3 majority required to remove him from office.
I assume that all Democrat will vote to remove him. Then it will require about 78 Republics to also vote to remove him.
It will be in interesting vote.
-
With the election a year away, there's probably little risk to removing him. The Governor will appoint a (Democrat) replacement who will then probably win the seat in 2024. Legislatively and politically, I think the GOP is at the point where the loss of one seat matters little.
-
"My pronouns are FA/FO." - Mik, 2024
-
@Mik said in George Santos Charged:
Do you hear me Congressman Menendez?
(Senator)
I'm waiting for something other than "He should resign" statements from the Democrats. Has anyone filed a motion?
One can make the case that his (alleged) crimes are of a more serious nature than Santos'.
-
Republican-led push to expel George Santos fails in the House
The resolution needed a two-thirds majority to succeed, but fell well short. The final vote was 179 to 213 with 19 members voting present.
-
@Axtremus Interesting
The resolution, introduced by Santos' fellow freshman Republicans from New York, received 179 votes, while 213 voted against it.
24 Republicans broke with their party and voted to expel Santos, but 31 Democrats voted against expelling him. Four Republicans and 15 Democrats also voted present.
Many of the Republicans who voted to expel Santos were moderates or swing-district members, including Santos' fellow New York freshmen who introduced the resolution.
What we're hearing: Some Democrats were concerned about the precedent of voting to expel Santos before either a conviction or an Ethics Committee report, several senior House Democrats told Axios.
-
@taiwan_girl said in George Santos Charged:
What we're hearing: Some Democrats were concerned about the precedent of voting to expel Santos before either a conviction or an Ethics Committee report, several senior House Democrats told Axios.
I've read that the representative who introduced the measure to expel Santos plans to reintroduce it after the Ethics Committee releases its findings.
-
Why did they elect him, exactly?
-
Embattled Rep. George Santos said Thursday he will not seek reelection in 2024 after the House Ethics Committee released a scathing report that concluded there is “substantial evidence” the New York Republican “violated federal criminal laws,” including using campaign funds for personal purposes and filing false campaign reports.
"I will continue on my mission to serve my constituents up until I am allowed. I will however NOT be seeking re-election for a second term in 2024 as my family deserves better than to be under the gun from the press all the time," Santos said in a statement on the social media site X.
In its wide-ranging 56-page report, the Ethics subcommittee tasked with investigating Santos found "a complex web of unlawful activity involving Representative Santos’ campaign, personal, and business finances. Representative Santos sought to fraudulently exploit every aspect of his House candidacy for his own personal financial profit."
"He blatantly stole from his campaign. He deceived donors into providing what they thought were contributions to his campaign but were in fact payments for his personal benefit. He reported fictitious loans to his political committees to induce donors and party committees to make further contributions to his campaign—and then diverted more campaign money to himself as purported 'repayments' of those fictitious loans," the report continues.
Santos "used his connections to high-value donors and other political campaigns" to enrich himself, the report contends. "And he sustained all of this through a constant series of lies to his constituents, donors, and staff about his background and experience," it says.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@George-K said in George Santos Charged:
Santos "used his connections to high-value donors and other political campaigns" to enrich himself,
LOL
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/16/1213261293/george-santos-reelection-ethics-committee-report
Investigators say cash contributed to Santos's election effort wound up being spent on personal expenses, including botox treatment, purchases at Hermes and Sephora and "purchases at OnlyFans."
-
There will be a House vote as to whether to expel Santos.
I'm of mixed mind on this one.
In my opinion, the guy's a dishonest, inveterate liar, who, besides those endearing attributes, appears to have engaged in some serious criminal activity. He has no place being a Congressman.
But...
I fear it sets a dangerous precedent (as if we needed another). So far, everything has been accusations and allegations. He's been convicted of nothing, and he's innocent of these crimes until...
So it comes down to the House voting to expel him because he's a horrible person, and there would be a long list of such people in DC, and they don't like him.
Should this be left up to the voters?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@George-K said in George Santos Charged:
Should this be left up to the voters?
In a sane world he'd have resigned months ago.
In the British system when something like this happens they can remove the party whip from him, essentially kicking him out of the party. He would still be an MP, but without access to any party resources. He would continue to sit as an independent. Is there anything similar in the US?
Proud supporter of Plan 2525. Everything you think, do and say will be in the pill you took today.
-
The same here as well. He would be thrown out of caucus and forced to sit as an independent.
-
That would be best scenario and one that is available for the caucus
-
Santos expelled:
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/12/01/nyregion/george-santos-expulsion-vote
311 to 114. A majority of House Republicans voted to expel Santos.
