Republican Congressman-elect is a total charlatan with an entirely fake résumé
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Full list of no votes
|
Anonymous
Again, a competent media would be asking what else is the GOP hiding from America. |
Anonymous
I'm sure he'll launch his successful POTUS campaign shortly. Maybe Ye as VP? |
Anonymous
Yuck. Well now he is free to take his con games over to their districts. Good riddance form NY district 3, George. Let the door hit you on the way out. |
Anonymous
+1 new Republican representatives Anna Paulina Luna and Andy Ogles have similarly suspicious résumés and we hardly hear anything about it. |
Anonymous
This is exactly why journalism is needed. I'm amazed there were enough non corrupt Republicans to finally vote yes to expelling Santos. |
Anonymous
|
Special election info:
Full explainer on #NY03 special election, post-Santos expulsion. Some key notes: • Special likely to take place on Feb. 20 or 27 • NO primaries—party leaders will pick nominees • Biden carried district 54-45, but Lee Zeldin won it 56-44 last year https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/12/1/2209081/-George-Santos-expelled-here-s-what-happens-to-his-seat |
Anonymous
All of the Republicans representing districts Biden won voted to expel. There are a few Rs in close districts who didn’t, though. 
|
Anonymous
All the GOP leadership — Mike Johnson, Steve Scalise, Tom Emmer and Elise Stefanik — all voted NO. Richard Hudson (who?), who chairs the NRCC and has to defend that seat, voted to expel. Kevin McCarthy, the former speaker, did NOT vote. What a coward. |
Anonymous
He didn't get expelled because of the lying. He got expelled because of the blatant misuse of campaign funds. |
Anonymous
+1. When it was only the lying, he survived two earlier attempts to oust him. It wasn't until the House Ethics committee report came out which got referred to the Justice Department because their research suggested illegal misuse of campaign funds, that suddenly 105 Republicans voted with the Democrats to oust him. |
Anonymous
| Can someone synopsize the R's arguments for voting "No" in this case? Do they question the evidence, or just don't want the precedent of expulsion? |
Anonymous
Dp- lying is the same as stealing in the regard. They stole the seat under false pretense. And they stole them likely from another republican. Their party has been infiltrated. |
Anonymous
The Republican argument has always been that they are supporting the rule of "innocent until proven guilty". If you just expel someone for suspicion of being guilty of crimes, then you open the door to political hatchet jobs. It's a dangerous precedent to say that just being suspected of a crime is sufficient to expel. This is a good way for someone to turn the House majority over on political claims. You can look for a person of the majority party who was elected in a minority party district or leaning state and then trump up accusations against them, and get them expelled and then replace with a person from the minority party. This is a case in point. Kathy Hochul is a Democrat and will be appointing the replacement for Santos, a Republican. The position of the nay sayers in his case has always been that it looks bad, but they were going to wait for the Justice Department to bring charges or for him to be convicted. But, apparently, the House Ethics committee report cited enough very damning evidence that even half of the Republicans couldn't wave away. Especially when you look at arguments by Republicans like Max Miller (OH-R) who said that Santos defrauded both Miller and Miller's mother by fraudulently charging their credit cards for more than the legal limit for campaign donations. When you add that to the fact that there were unexplained payments from his campaign funds to pay for personal luxury items/services like Botox and vacations, it gets even worse. The evidence was enough that even without a conviction, half of the Republicans voted to expel. |