104
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

New York Republican Rep. George Santos’ short and dazzling political career came to an end on Friday as a supermajority of his colleagues executed a maneuver as rare as the man they’re poised to evict from the House.

No less than two-thirds of the chamber voted for a resolution from Ethics Committee Chair Michael Guest, a fellow Republican from Mississippi, that made Santos only the third person to be booted from Congress since the Civil War – a dishonorable distinction previously reserved for convicted felons.

Santos is not one – at least, not yet. He’s been charged with a litany of wrongdoing, from fraud and money laundering to theft and stealing donors’ identities. His list of offenses, some alleged and others confirmed (often by him), runs much longer and places him comfortably among the foremost rogues and reprobates to make a cameo on America’s nearly 250-year-old political scene.

In less sweeping terms, Santos’ many transgressions are sure to endanger the GOP House majority, thin before and now looking downright bony after his number was taken off the board.

top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 19 points 9 months ago

I think the American government wants to turn their politics into as much of a joke as possible because even more stupid and insane stuff is on the way in about a year.

Insanity is becoming the norm and in a year George Santos will look like a reasonable controversy compared to what's coming.

[-] Hominine@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago

Interesting thought. I keep thinking that we are rapidly approacing a "snapback" moment wherein folks will see the abyss below and edge away fom the cliff and towards functional politics. Then I think of Brexit and the like and feel just a bit ill.

[-] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 10 points 9 months ago

That's called hope ... I lost mine a good while ago

[-] MutilationWave@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago

As of 30 minutes ago, he's officially kicked out.

[-] MicroWave@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Thanks. Updated the title.

[-] SuiXi3D@kbin.social 11 points 9 months ago

Someone gets caught with a few grams of weed? Toss ‘em in jail seems to be the common punishment. Defraud companies and regular folks? Slap on the wrist, if that. A fine, the cost of doing business.

It’s sick. Folks like George Santos should be rotting in a jail cell for what they’ve done.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

FTA:

"described himself as the “Mary Magdalene of United States Congress”"

Now more like the Mary Queen of Scots of Congress...

[-] Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

How about "Typhoid Mary"?

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 7 points 9 months ago

I am sympathetic to the 'precedent' argument but I think Santos is unique in his level of fraud and the amount of proof that is available. We know he did at least some fraud for sure, and it's with his campaign funds.

That's just a little different than a congressman getting caught being a domestic abuser or something where it's definitely worth kicking them out but it's not related to their job and the Ethics Committee isn't going to find proof the same way.

[-] PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

If your employer discovers you lied on your resume, you’re going to get fired. He not only blatantly falsified his biography in order to make himself a viable candidate, he then used his campaign as a grift for his personal enrichment.

Just like with Trump, I don’t think “precedent” applies here, because the actions they took were without precedent. At any other time, these people would have resigned in shame or been pushed out by their party. Nixon only left office when it became obvious he would be removed from office in a bipartisan vote. The current gop is going to make sure that never happens again.

Precedent would have seen Santos (and others) resign. I don’t think we realized how much of our government’s power was built around the idea of good faith, but since Trump that’s been completely destroyed. The new precedent needs to recognize that the entire game has changed.

[-] flug@midwest.social 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Assuming the Santos seat flips Democrat, the house goes from 222-213 to 221-214.

So a 9 vote margin to a 7 vote margin.

It is mighty thin indeed...

For comparison, in the previous Congress the Democratic majority mostly ranged from 218 to 222 (for the last couple of weeks of 2022 it was as low as 216-213 due to resignations etc). See

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/117th_United_States_Congress

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 9 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


New York Republican Rep. George Santos’ short and dazzling political career may come to an end on Friday as a supermajority of his colleagues prepares to execute a maneuver as rare as the man they’re poised to evict from the House.

No less than two-thirds of the chamber is expected to vote for a resolution from Ethics Committee Chair Michael Guest, a fellow Republican from Mississippi, that would make Santos only the third person to be booted from Congress since the Civil War – a dishonorable distinction previously reserved for convicted felons.

The 56-page ethics report that ultimately appears to have doomed Santos, who recently described himself as the “Mary Magdalene of United States Congress” and dared members to kick him out, does a thorough – and, befitting its subject – colorful job ticking off his “constant series of lies,” misrepresentations and, most seriously, fraudulent spending.

“Santos’ congressional campaigns were built around his backstory as a successful man of means,” they wrote, “a grandson of Holocaust survivors and graduate from Baruch College with a Master’s in Business Administration from New York University, who went on to work at Citi Group and Goldman Sachs, owned multiple properties, and was the beneficiary of a family trust worth millions of dollars left by his mother, who passed years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks as a result of long-term health effects related to being at one of the towers.”

What is clear now is that the tens of thousands of donor dollars Santos allegedly spent on Botox, Hermès and OnlyFans is a drop in the bucket compared to what he may cost Republicans, who are already on the backfoot in attempting to keep their House majority ahead of next year’s elections.

The county and state GOP, along with fellow Republican House members from New York, have all condemned Santos – and all are expected to vote for his expulsion – but Democrats have spent the year since the scandal cracked the headlines doing their best to link them all back to the freshman congressman.


The original article contains 1,248 words, the summary contains 340 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] NAXLAB@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I thought it was expelled. Didn't know expulsed was a word. Cuz otherwise it implies that expelled has a noun form counterpart too, and expellation doesn't seem right.

[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

I believe when I see it. I doubt all Republicans will vote to remove him I doubt he will be removed.

[-] StorminNorman@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Well, this was a dumb comment cos not every Republican needed to vote to expel him, and they got the votes and he's expelled anyway.

this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
104 points (94.8% liked)

politics

18850 readers
3399 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS