George Santos Charged
-
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.
-
Yeah, this is a little troubling. This could be abused very easily.
-
So Gaetz next?
-
This post is deleted!
-
@LuFins-Dad said in George Santos Charged:
So Gaetz next?
On what grounds, being an a-hole?
AFAIK the ethics charges against him are questionable and there are no indictments.
"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.
-
@Axtremus said in George Santos Charged:
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.
Good.
When convicted, they can toss him.
If reprehensible behavior is the key to expulsion, have I got a couple of hate-spewing antisemites for your consideration.
-
@George-K said in George Santos Charged:
@LuFins-Dad said in George Santos Charged:
So Gaetz next?
On what grounds, being an a-hole?
AFAIK the ethics charges against him are questionable and there are no indictments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution
Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.
Nothing there about ethics committees, convictions, etc… Would you say Gaetz’s attacks on McConnell were disorderly? And do you think you could get enough votes?
How about Omar? Or Tlaib in the Senate? Think you could get 17 Dems in the Senate to vote for expulsion? There are currently 9 Jewish Democrat Senators… Add in Manchin, Sinema, Lurch… I bet you could find 17 members, especially since she’s attacking the sitting President with an upcoming election…
