Mr. Santos is the sixth member of the House to be expelled in the body’s history, and the first who had not been convicted of a crime or accused of treason.
“Unfortunately, George Santos won a free and fair election and elections have consequences. He also has not yet been convicted of a crime and the ethics investigation is ongoing. It would be dangerous to set the precedent of expelling a Member of Congress who has not been convicted of a crime. When and if Santos is convicted of these serious offenses an expulsion resolution would be more appropriate. Let’s be clear – we have current members who have been accused of even more egregious crimes while the Republican majority continues to look the other way.”
“The Ethics Committee is charged with investigating alleged wrongdoing by members of the U.S. House of Representatives. In the past, I have been appointed to serve on multiple investigative subcommittees, and I can personally attest to the nonpartisan, rigorous and deliberative process conducted by the committee. In fact, the committee is expected to soon release findings and recommendations on the Santos matter. These resolutions were rushed to the floor outside of that deliberative process. In 2002, I voted to expel Rep. James Traficant but that was after he was found guilty in a court of law. Absent any report or recommendation from the committee, or a criminal conviction, these resolutions are premature. For the sake of the institution, we must stop the cheapening of the censure and expulsion processes for political expediency and get back to the process that we already have in place to appropriately deal with these matters.”
Congressional expulsion is not a “innocent ‘til proven guilty” situation and has never intended to be. Expulsion and conviction are unrelated, and these people struggle with basic elementary school level civic concepts for their reasonings.
“We want to drag things out when people are blatantly lying because there is a sliver of a chance that it might set a precedent that clearly does not apply to the things we are worried about, like false accusations.”
If any of those processes took less time than the two year term of a Representative I might agree with them.
The two year term is key here. Let’s say that instead of just being a conman and liar, he was accused of being put into office by Chinese or Russian spies. Should he be allowed to spend 2 years voting on things, attending confidential meetings, serving on committees, etc. while there’s an investigation about whether or not he’s an agent of a foreign government?
If he’s found innocent of everything, all that happens is that he lost his job. He could run again, and being kicked out over lies and rumours would be a good grievance to campaign on. But, the potential damage he could do during the time it takes to investigate, try and convict him is enough to say that he should be removed now.
Which two Democrats voted against expulsion and which two voted Present?
According to NYT, Robert Scott of VA and Nikema Williams of GA voted No.
Al Green of TX and Jonathan Jackson of IL votes Present
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX), AOC (NY) and Dean Phillips (MN) have no vote recorded
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/01/us/politics/santos-expulsion-vote.html
Overall vote tally:
98% (206) of Democrats voted yes (to expell)
1% (2) voted No
1% (2) voted present
49% (105) of Republicans voted to expel
51% (112) of Republicans voted No
I’m betting AOC is because they’re both from NY and they’re very close geographically. Definitely seems like a conflict of interest
She voted to expel him last time. I’m assuming she just wasn’t there today.
Probably. They can’t all be there for every session
That’s a weak excuse.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/01/us/politics/santos-expulsion-vote.html
[No]
Nikema Williams
Robert C. Scott
[Present]
Jonathan Jackson
Al Green
Their no votes were because they wanted due process and judicial conviction before kicking him out.
Nikema Williams’ statement:
Robert Scott’s statement:
Congressional expulsion is not a “innocent ‘til proven guilty” situation and has never intended to be. Expulsion and conviction are unrelated, and these people struggle with basic elementary school level civic concepts for their reasonings.
“We want to drag things out when people are blatantly lying because there is a sliver of a chance that it might set a precedent that clearly does not apply to the things we are worried about, like false accusations.”
If any of those processes took less time than the two year term of a Representative I might agree with them.
deleted by creator
The two year term is key here. Let’s say that instead of just being a conman and liar, he was accused of being put into office by Chinese or Russian spies. Should he be allowed to spend 2 years voting on things, attending confidential meetings, serving on committees, etc. while there’s an investigation about whether or not he’s an agent of a foreign government?
If he’s found innocent of everything, all that happens is that he lost his job. He could run again, and being kicked out over lies and rumours would be a good grievance to campaign on. But, the potential damage he could do during the time it takes to investigate, try and convict him is enough to say that he should be removed now.
Which is bullshit, because his open, verified non-criminal lies should have been enough to have him expelled from Congress.
I guess we know which side of the truth these particular so called politicians are on.
Lying is the default position for politicians. Save the “so called” label for the rare honest one