can i place a bet that this absolutely won't happen? easy money as your "opinions" are pathetic and absurd.When Santos is expelled, it is likely the Republicans will nominate Mike Sapraicone as the next congressman there.
It's Long Island, they are the home of a lot of cops and a lot of cops are trending Republican right now, Sapriacone will run the the BLM "threat" and he will win the special election.
View attachment 89520
Retired NYPD cop Mike Sapraicone emerges as GOP challenger to lying Rep. George Santos for 2024
Mike Sapraicone, a retired NYPD detective and private security honcho, announced his bid on Monday to topple indicted serial lying Republican Rep. George Santos.nypost.com
Retired NYPD detective Michael Sapraicone announces bid to unseat Rep. George Santos
A former NYPD detective and Nassau County business leader announced his bid Tuesday to unseat fellow Republican Rep. George Santos.abc7ny.com
Long Island has been trending red since 2020 and the Floyd protests.....can i place a bet that this absolutely won't happen? easy money as your "opinions" are pathetic and absurd.
Also, let's assume it is unprecedented to remove rampant criminals from Congress. Isn't that a bad thing?It is hilarious how Repugnicans are saying it’s unprecedented to vote to remove sitting member of congress. Like supporting actions committed by this clown is the unprecedented act. But the party that chooses party over country, so hardly a surprise.
GOP members when the threat of accountability for illegal actions arises...Also, let's assume it is unprecedented to remove rampant criminals from Congress. Isn't that a bad thing?
I kind of agree that he shouldn't be thrown out until convicted.
One problem with that is criminal trials for wealthy and powerful people like members of Congress can take years, which would mean in many cases people would end up serving their whole terms even if they were obvious criminals.I kind of agree that he shouldn't be thrown out until convicted.
With Congress controlling the power of the purse, it's already hard enough for the justice system to go after corrupt members. The body needs to do some self policing and throw out obviously corrupt and criminal members.One problem with that is criminal trials for wealthy and powerful people like members of Congress can take years, which would mean in many cases people would end up serving their whole terms even if they were obvious criminals.
I completely agree. Congress is a job, and nobody has a right to a job. If I were indicted for even one of the things he was indicted for I would be fired. Why should he be special?With Congress controlling the power of the purse, it's already hard enough for the justice system to go after corrupt members. The body needs to do some self policing and throw out obviously corrupt and criminal members.
These people are capable of creating reasonable standards, weighing available evidence on their own, and deciding whether a member broke those rules without having to wait for a conviction.
I kind of agree that he shouldn't be thrown out until convicted.
Why?
Geez. Why? should not the things he's admitted to and the things that have already been shown to be untrue be enough?
Read this:
Should any sane person actually want someone like that to remain in a seat of power when the ability to remove him is available? Not in my world.
Hehe yup Repugnicans accused them for not calling for his removal months ago for this reason.Plus, he's probably a net positive in terms of messaging/campaigning/etc for the Ds right now. Remove him, and it's one less punching bag to use in ads.
GOP has a razor thin margin in the House. A few deaths/resignations/convictions and the House would flip. Plus he promised he would vote for and support McCarthy for the chair (when that was important) so he was protected by the GOP leadership, that is until he was not.The inevitable "tit for tat" removal votes that we'll see for much lesser offenses for members of the opposite party. Similar to what we'll shortly be seeing with impeachments for Biden. We'll likely see votes to remove Omar/Tlaib for obvious reasons, and AOC because she scares them. Again, for made up reasons.
He's basically powerless as is right now. Sure, he's an extra vote but it's not like he's a tie breaker or anything. Plus, he's probably a net positive in terms of messaging/campaigning/etc for the Ds right now. Remove him, and it's one less punching bag to use in ads.
The inevitable "tit for tat" removal votes that we'll see for much lesser offenses for members of the opposite party. Similar to what we'll shortly be seeing with impeachments for Biden. We'll likely see votes to remove Omar/Tlaib for obvious reasons, and AOC because she scares them. Again, for made up reasons.
He's basically powerless as is right now. Sure, he's an extra vote but it's not like he's a tie breaker or anything. Plus, he's probably a net positive in terms of messaging/campaigning/etc for the Ds right now. Remove him, and it's one less punching bag to use in ads.
I'm fine with 'tit-for-tat' prosecutions of political opponents that actually did something wrong. Republicans making shit up and trying to get it to stick has been happening for decades though, so who the fuck cares if they cry crocodile tears at what Democrats are going to force them to do?I heard some major Republican figure solemnly arguing that it was a bad idea for Trump to be prosecuted for anything because it would just lead to cycles of 'tit-for-tat' prosecutions of political opponents, and citing the Republicans he knew of who wanted to prosecute over the Hunter Biden nonsense.
GOP has a razor thin margin in the House. A few deaths/resignations/convictions and the House would flip. Plus he promised he would vote for and support McCarthy for the chair (when that was important) so he was protected by the GOP leadership, that is until he was not.