this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023

141 points (94.3% liked)

politics

18898 readers

3047 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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.
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.
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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
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.
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

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

141

31 Democrats vote to keep Santos in Congress [thehill.com] (thehill.com)

submitted 10 months ago by catharso@discuss.tchncs.de to c/politics@lemmy.world

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A total of 31 Democrats joined 182 Republicans in voting to keep Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) in Congress, killing a Republican-led effort to oust the embattled lawmaker.

The lower chamber on Wednesday voted 179-213-19 on a resolution to expel Santos, marking the second unsuccessful attempt this year to eject the first-term lawmaker from the House. A two-thirds threshold is needed to expel a member of Congress.

A total of 31 Democrats and 182 Republicans voted against the resolution, while 24 Republicans and 155 Democrats voted to expel Santos.

The effort to oust Santos was spearheaded by a group of freshman New York Republicans — led by Rep. Anthony D’Esposito — who moved last week to force a vote to expel Santos in the wake of his mounting legal battles. D’Esposito called the legislation to the floor as a privileged resolution, a procedural gambit that forces leadership to set a vote within two legislative days.

Santos faces a total of 23 federal charges ahead of his trial, slated to begin in September 2024.

He pled not guilty last week to a set of 10 new criminal charges in a superseding indictment alleging he inflated his campaign finance reports and charged his donors’ credit cards without authorization.

In May, he was charged on 13 counts of misleading donors, fraudulently receiving unemployment benefits and lying on House financial disclosures.

Santos admitted earlier this year to embellishing parts of his background while campaigning, but he has reiterated he will not resign despite his legal troubles.

Here are the 31 Democratic House members who voted to keep Santos in Congress:

Rep. Collin Allred (Texas)

Rep. Jake Auchincloss (Mass.)

Rep. Ed Case (Hawaii)

Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver (Mo.)

Rep. Henry Cuellar (Texas)

Rep. Sharice Davids (Kan.)

Rep. Chris Deluzio (Penn.)

Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (Texas)

Rep. Jared Golden (Maine)

Rep. Jim Himes (Conn.)

Rep. Steven Horsford (Nev.)

Rep. Jeff Jackson (N.C.)

Rep. Hank Johnson (Ga.)

Rep. Rick Larsen (Wash.)

Rep. Susie Lee (Nev.)

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (Calif.)

Rep. Seth Magaziner (R.I.)

Rep. Morgan McGarvey (Ky.)

Rep. Rob Menendez (N.J.)

Rep. Gwen Moore (Wis.)

Rep. Marie Perez (Wash.)

Rep. Katie Porter (Calif.)

Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md.)

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (Md.)

Rep. Brad Schneider (Ill.)

Rep. Kim Schrier (Wash.)

Rep. Bobby Scott (Va.)

Rep. Elissa Slotkin (Mich.)

Rep. Mark Takano (Calif.)

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (Mich.)

Rep. Nikema Williams (Ga.)

Mychael Schnell contributed.

all 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 39 points 10 months ago

He also survived the sinking of the Titanic and 9/11. So, not surprised.

[–] ericisshort@lemmy.world 36 points 10 months ago (6 children)

Someone please explain why the dems would want to keep him in Congress?

[+] Bsher8365@lemmy.world 66 points 10 months ago (1 children)

[deleted]

[+] DragonTypeWyvern -6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

6: They're actually fucking stupid or compromised.

[+] Bsher8365@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago (1 children)

[deleted]

[+] DragonTypeWyvern -9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If "let's keep blatantly corrupt fuckwads in Congress to own the cons" is their strategy, they're stupid or compromised. There's not an alternative.

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 26 points 10 months ago (3 children)

We have never expelled a congress person without a conviction. Doing so creates a dangerous precedent where anyone can be expelled at any time.
The dude is a millstone around the neck of Republicans in New York that can be used to win seats there and also nationwide.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 10 months ago

It's a 2/3rds threshold. There's no slippery slope where this gets used for partisan purposes and the "norms" never end up being a defense against partisan fuckery anyway. This is a political tool, with political limitations, and people should absolutely be kicked out of congress for non-criminal acts.

Democrats breaking away here makes headlines like this that sidestep the Republican party showing up en masse to protect their fraud. They could have had a headline of "only 24 Republicans vote to expel George Santos", but instead we get a muddled mess where clickbaity outlets highlight the bigger surprise of Democrats supporting Santos rather than the ethical wasteland of the Republicans.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I understand the electioneering argument, but anyone who would deliberately leave a terrible person in the government to win an election really isn't putting America first. To say, "we're going to leave things a bit fucked right now so we have a better chance of unfucking it later"? There's no guarantee he'll be defeated in 24 which means things could be fucked for much longer, and there's no guarantee they'd struggle to defeat his replacement. I take think this is bad logic.

As for your first point, bad precedent is certainly a thing. But not everything is a crime. I'd vote to expel him just for lying about every damn thing that got him elected, even though lying is generally protected speech. So to continue a tradition of requiring a conviction to expel someone when the reason to expel them isn't a crime seems to rather miss the point.

That all being said, no one seems to give a fuck about lying any more except performatively when it's useful rhetoric, so maybe the real answer is it just doesn't matter if he's kicked out.

[–] xhieron@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No one on that side of the aisle is deliberately leaving the prick in Congress. It wasn't going to pass due to Republican obstruction, even if the entire Democratic conference had voted for it (and the Democrats previously initiated a measure earlier this year). The question wasn't "Do you want this asshole out of Congress?" It was "The asshole stays. Do you want your opponent next year to get to campaign on you voting to oust him prior to a conviction, and do you want to be on record for being in favor of ousting Congress members without a conviction if the GOP takes the chamber and decides to weaponize the practice in '25?"

Conviction is the rubric because it's a bright line with a high bar. Bad public opinion and lying on the campaign trail is just politics. This year's egregious exception is next year's status quo. Notice how everything is an "insurrection" for the fascists now? Same deal.

Electioneering isn't just an argument. It's the only rational argument.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 3 points 10 months ago

Good points. Fair enough.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, we have.

And Santos has already pleaded guilty on fraud conspiracy.

https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/three-charts-show-rare-congressional-expulsions-are-rcna123251

Myers wasn't convicted, they just had evidence so strong it was a forgone conclusion.

You know, exactly like with Santos.

Expulsion is rare not because it is unthinkable, but because most Congress critters resign first.

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

He has NOT pled guilty for anything.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Just his, you know, campaign treasurer.

Who named him as co-conspirator.

Because the money went directly, indisputably, into his personal accounts, and was used to pay off personal loans among other things.

You concern trolling halfwit.

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Oooh. Name calling. That will win people over to your side for sure! Have a great day.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

"My side"

The side of at least attempting to have standards, you contemptible moron.

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Lmao. You ok, homes?

Wait.

You think I'm defending him?

#LMAO!

Go back to bed and reset your day. Your reading comprehension is way off.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I understand your pathetic, bad optics, dirty politics, corruption enabling stance just fine you spineless sycophant.

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I know you are, but what am I?

[–] Matrim@lemmy.world 29 points 10 months ago

Per NPR:

Congress has rarely resorted to the most extreme punishment at its disposal. The House has expelled only five members in its history — three during the Civil War and two after their convictions on public corruption charges. It would be groundbreaking for the House to kick out Santos before his case in federal court is resolved.

There's not really an established precedent for booting Congress members out before a conviction. So, while I agree he's a 10/10 shitbag, I think there's value of letting due process play out and then kick him to the curb.

[–] BugKilla@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The only hypothesis I think works is he is an electoral liability. Keeping him there provides ammunition during the election and means the GOP can't get a better candidate. The guy is a massive fucknuckle.

[–] Whimsical@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

I think the Democrat strategy this cycle is pretty much this on even a larger scale. The right wing says they're timing trump's trials to interfere with the election, but the thing is I think they're right in the exact opposite way of what they expect.

Trump caught the US by surprise and now people are sick of him, so suddenly he and every other scumbag in his party are the best ammunition the dems could ask for. The dems want to keep them all around and actively give them more chances to be obnoxious in order to scare more voters toward voting blue while splitting the GOP's votes.

[–] Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Democrat Rep. Tlaib wasn't censured over remarks about Israel yesterday when 23 republicans surprisingly voted against the resolution. That's probably why dems, in turn, voted to not toss Santos.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Never interrupt your enemy after he elects a self destructing clown?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Same reason they spend money on ads for MAGA candidates.

[–] madeinthebackseat@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If Jeff Jackson voted to keep him in, there must be a good reason. The guy is a straight shooter.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Seems they don't want to set a bad precedent. And honestly, I can't disagree. He's been indicted but not found guilty yet.

[–] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So is our country being run by blackmailers? Is this why we can’t clean up our government, they are all being blackmailed to do this shit, or the puppeteer will cut the strings and leak video of them doing something heinous? Cause wtf? Al Franken stepped down because of inappropriate behavior, but lying is perfectly acceptable?

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Franken willingly resigned of his own accord. This fucker is too craven to do so.

I understand why they want to wait, then though I'd prefer him yeeted. He's been indicted, but not found guilty. I don't think the House ethics committee has released a final ruling either.

[–] krayj@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

The vote was an attempt to expel without waiting for due process to run its course. There is an ethics investigation that will wrap up in under 2 weeks.

Many of the democrats who voted not to expel did so because they didn't want to see a new precedent set in congress where the body can expel a member without some form of due process. If all it takes is a vote to eject someone, then the party in power would be able to expell at will, and that would be bad for everyone.

Also, republicans were trying to get rid of him as a publicity stunt to look better for the Nov 2023 elections running across the country and wanted to be able to pull this stunt off to make themselves look better to help their regional elections.

The democrat holdouts are eager to expel just as soon as the ethics investigation is complete. Those holdout democrats are playing 4d chess and winning. They made the right call.

Rep. Jeff Jackson explains it nicely here:

https://youtu.be/QEvUmJ4gpWM?si=UbhtJhGhDrKvcRrJ

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

A total of 31 Democrats joined 182 Republicans in voting to keep Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) in Congress, killing a Republican-led effort to oust the embattled lawmaker.

The lower chamber on Wednesday voted 179-213-19 on a resolution to expel Santos, marking the second unsuccessful attempt this year to eject the first-term lawmaker from the House.

The effort to oust Santos was spearheaded by a group of freshman New York Republicans — led by Rep. Anthony D’Esposito — who moved last week to force a vote to expel Santos in the wake of his mounting legal battles.

Santos faces a total of 23 federal charges ahead of his trial, slated to begin in September 2024.

In May, he was charged on 13 counts of misleading donors, fraudulently receiving unemployment benefits and lying on House financial disclosures.

Santos admitted earlier this year to embellishing parts of his background while campaigning, but he has reiterated he will not resign despite his legal troubles.

The original article contains 266 words, the summary contains 160 words. Saved 40%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] Thrawne@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Perhaps, as he hasnt been convicted, its an innocent until guilty thing. /shrug

[–] mriormro@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago

This is a motion in response to his legal troubles not whether he is guilty of them or not.

I feel like we really need to have some sort of yearly national civics competency/refresher course. So many in the USA have disengaged with the process of governance.