Okay, sounds good. Let's clean House and Senate. We can start with Menendez and, on the same day, the Jan 6th seditionists that voted to overthrow our Republic, all of them.I agree with Fetterman for once. They need to / can boot Menendez now.
Sen. Bob Menendez ‘much more sinister’ than George Santos: Fetterman
Sen. John Fetterman said Friday that he was “not surprised” by the House vote to expel former Rep. George Santos, but was more concerned with the allegations against Sen. Bob Menendez.nypost.com
Okay, sounds good. Let's clean House and Senate. We can start with Menendez and, on the same day, the Jan 6th seditionists that voted to overthrow our Republic, all of them.
The real reason Republicans ate one of their own—he stole money from another Republican rep, and the rep’s own MOTHER:
George Santos Accused Of Stealing House Member’s Personal Credit Card Info
GOP Rep. Max Miller of Ohio made the allegation not long before Santos was expelled from Congress.www.huffpost.com
…and even then, 113 other Republicans still supported him!!!
He hasn't even had his congressional privileges revoked yet (won't happen unless convicted of felony or House changes its rules), just lost his office and position. Still can parade around House grounds all he wants & still collect his pension & access all House facilities as any other member. So he still has time and access for grifting/theft...Have they taken an inventory of the fixtures and furnishings of Congress? Before he's escorted off the premises, maybe check the cutlery in the canteen, and the supplies of toilet roll in the washrooms?
Why? Being Rep is a job. Don’t need to be convicted of crime to be fired from a job. The ethics report and charges are more than enough to justify him being fired from job. He has no agency to be a House Rep.It definitely appears Santos is a POS liar and thief, but I'd have preferred for them to wait for him to actually be convicted of some crimes before kicking him out of the house.
I keep seeing statements like that here and elsewhere. But keep in mind, this was not about criminal activity. It was about ethics and whether or not a devout liar should be in office. There was more than enough proof that he was unethical. Trial and conviction were not necessary.
In my view, he should not have been seated initially as much of this came out before that happened.
Should this be a precedent to remove others? Sure. Why not. We need to insist that Congress upholds ethics above all else. If it means removing half or more of Congress, I'm not sure I see a problem there. Maybe we'll get better candidates.
It definitely appears Santos is a POS liar and thief, but I'd have preferred for them to wait for him to actually be convicted of some crimes before kicking him out of the house.
He defrauded the people who voted for him, is that really not enough for you?It definitely appears Santos is a POS liar and thief, but I'd have preferred for them to wait for him to actually be convicted of some crimes before kicking him out of the house.
So... if you were hired for a job and your employer found you lied about your qualifications, experiences, certifications, licenses, previous employers, job responsibilities and performance, etc., he shouldn't fire you until you had been convicted of a crime for doing something else?
That really makes no sense to me.
That's at least one good thing...even if he isn't convicted, he's not eligible for that pension.He hasn't even had his congressional privileges revoked yet (won't happen unless convicted of felony or House changes its rules), just lost his office and position. Still can parade around House grounds all he wants & still collect his pension & access all House facilities as any other member. So he still has time and access for grifting/theft...
So what is the prospect of this precedence being weaponized by the fascists?
TBH, that analogy pretty much fails when you consider that the voters hired him, so the people firing him are not the same as the people who hired him. That is a key difference between a democratically elected pol and a standard worker. Still, Santos is an extreme case so IMO an extreme remedy applies.
I fully expect it ASAP. They weaponize everything they can, including entirely fabricated bullshit. The performative theater is coming IMO.So what is the prospect of this precedence being weaponized by the fascists?
Exacttly. I have no problem kicking him out of office...or sending him to Guantanamo...but, the other representatives aren't his "bosses," and AFAIK, he's the first member of congress to be expelled without a conviction. Sets a bad prescedent.
Exacttly. I have no problem kicking him out of office...or sending him to Guantanamo...but, the other representatives aren't his "bosses," and AFAIK, he's the first member of congress to be expelled without a conviction. Sets a bad prescedent.
The other representatives have a constitutionally given right to expel members with a 2/3rds vote, so, in that area they are his "bosses" and I believe only 2 of the 5 House members previously expelled were convicted of anything,
The other three House expulsions all came in 1861. John Clark of Missouri, John Reid of Missouri and Henry Burnett of Kentucky were all deemed disloyal to the Union for engaging with the Confederacy during the war.
Santos' situation is unique, Smock noted, partly because he has not yet been convicted of a crime.
Is "deeming disloyalty to the Union" by the rest of Congress an indictment and conviction of a crime? I don't see how those three are somehow discluded from the history of Congressional expulsion without conviction.
Usually at a company, who hires you is not the same person(s) that fires you. So isn't it really the same?TBH, that analogy pretty much fails when you consider that the voters hired him, so the people firing him are not the same as the people who hired him. That is a key difference between a democratically elected pol and a standard worker. Still, Santos is an extreme case so IMO an extreme remedy applies.