Anonymous wrote: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?
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.