US House defeats move to expel Republican George Santos
The 35-year-old New York lawmaker has pleaded not guilty to charges accusing him of crimes including laundering funds to pay for his personal expenses, illegally receiving unemployment benefits and charging donors' credit cards without their consent.
The former treasurer for Santos' campaign pleaded guilty on Oct. 5 to a conspiracy charge for inflating fundraising numbers.
"I must warn my colleagues that voting for expulsion at this point would circumvent the judicial system's right to due process that I'm entitled to and desanctify the long-held premise that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty," Santos said ahead of the vote.
Expulsion of a lawmaker requires a vote by two-thirds of the chamber. Only five people have been expelled from the House in the country's history, three for fighting against the U.S. government in the Civil War.
he’s literally a con man, how is he still in office
He’s in a conman club and they look out for each other? Idk, I’m just trying to make it make sense.
Republican.
Repuglicunt.
This would imply that there republicans that are not cunts
Nah, the words are interchangeable. All republicans are repugnant and cunts.
The republicans have a thin majority in the House. Even without whatever other justifications that’s a strong incentive not to bleed any more seats. Particularly when Gaetz and the Arson Caucus keeps setting the place on fire.
Conservatives love con men. Were you in a coma since 2015?
*1981?
1828?
Based on the last line, you pretty much have to be actively at war with the country to get expelled pretty much.
There's not much precedent for it successfully being used for this.
Not to say he hasn't done anything wrong, just that there's not much to expect from this.
It's literally called con-gress
This is why I keep telling people we can't pass an Amendment to do things like change gun control.
It starts with a 2/3rds majority in the House, 290 votes.
We couldn't get 290 votes to agree on Santos' obvious crimimal behavior, we'll NEVER get it on something like the 2nd Amendment, or Supreme Court term limits, or anything else remotely useful.
Why do you want to make people disarmed and defenseless?
Because there's very little reason to own a gun except to defend yourself against someone with a gun...
There are SO many more murders committed with firearms than there are any other type of weapon or method.
If we were to sufficiently restrict firearm ownership, there'd be almost no reason to own one at all.
How fucking privileged of you. Not everyone can beat any random person in a hand to hand fight.
Cowardly criminals are more likely to commit a violent crime if they have a gun to hide behind. Doubt most of them would even consider doing some of the stuff they do if they only had access to knives and bats.
If you're resorting to fists and further to guns in a dispute, you're part of the problem.
A fist fight shouldn't resort to murder by a gun.
And there were only 655 murders by fists, kicks, etc. in 2022. It should absolutely not be of any concern.
Oh well if you're not gonna die then it's totally fine to get jumped and beaten
My guns would be FAR more likely used against a crazy animal than a human. But the option is there.
How much time you spend in the woods and how you set for gators, panthers and bears? And I don't hunt BTW. But the option is there.
https://imgur.com/a/pR7CuLA
From 1979-1990 there were only 1,882 deaths from animals in the US.
https://www.wemjournal.org/article/S1080-6032(97)70944-X/pdf
This is literally not a concern.
I don't necessarily, I'm explaining why it won't happen.
My thoughts on the subject.
:)
Democrats should make him the poster child Republican. The most honest shining member of the bunch who at least admits he's blatantly lying. The one they all banded together to save. They deserve him.
31 Democrats voted to keep him. 24 Republicans voted to boot him. It didn't even make a simple majority, though that 62 vote swing would helped a bunch.
So, he got more support than several of their own candidates for speaker. (I think. Can't be bothered to look up the numbers. It's all kinda pointless.)
They're waiting for the official ethics board, or whatever, to make their ruling. It's not so much that the Dems support Santos, as they do the rules and means of Congress
You aren't wrong and that's pretty funny to think about.
What a shitshow.
Who can talk the most lies (who can talk the most lies)
Pretend they are a Jew (pretend they are a Jew)
Cover up with sequins for a contest or two
The Republican can (the Republican can)
Oh, the Republican can (the Republican can)
The Republican can 'cause he mixes it with lies
And makes his world a falsehood (makes his world a falsehood)
The republican fakes;
obfuscates, opaque,
always lying and pernicious
Every statement is fictitious, you could even say malicious
Had to sing it in my head 😂💙
And just like that, a vote that should have been the simplest, most-straightforward choice with one outcome obviously preferable to its alternative, proved to be too much to ask