this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
142 points (94.4% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2199 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
142
31 Democrats vote to keep Santos in Congress [thehill.com] (thehill.com)
submitted 1 year ago by catharso@discuss.tchncs.de to c/politics@lemmy.world
43 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 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Heresy_generator@kbin.social 115 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

They're just waiting on a report from the Committee on Ethics (like they probably should). I know Santos' guilt seems obvious but that can't be the standard; Joe Biden's guilt on every crime ever conceived "seems obvious" to the MAGA insurrectionists in our government. The Committee on Ethics says we should hear from them within the next two weeks.

The ISC has contacted approximately 40 witnesses, reviewed more than 170,000 pages of documents, and authorized 37 subpoenas. The Committee’s nonpartisan staff and the ISC Members have put countless hours into this investigation, which has been a priority for the investigative team and involved a significant amount of the Committee’s resources.

The Committee will announce its next course of action in this matter on or before November 17, 2023.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's a fair point, but GOP members will never , not for a second, be bound by a standard like that just because some Democrats hold themselves to it.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Doesn't matter they're wearing this stain and they can't shake him. Last time we did this yeah we got trump and now he's the weakest candidate in the general election in history almost.

No one else has been a convicted felon and running for pres.

[–] Clusterfck@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s nice to see a sane explanation at the top of a post like this.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Yes, and it's also important to follow up with the fact that even if 100% of Democrats had voted to expel him. It still would have not been enough. 90% of Republicans voted not to expel him. And Republicans have the majority.

[–] FrankTheHealer@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

That makes more sense. Thanks for pointing it out. I was wondering why Dems would want to keep a controversial republican in the house.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago

If Santos's guilt is only obvious to his political opposition then the vote would fail on its own with no help needed from Democrats (2/3rds threshold). Democrats aren't going to get kicked out of office because MAGAs are crazy.

Santos's complete lack of ethics isn't some big question that needs a thorough investigation to objectively consider. He just straight up lied about his life, with no real excuse or counter. This idea that only a special report could possibly confirm someone shouldn't be a representative is just standard congressional cowardice.

[–] ericisshort@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago (7 children)

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

[–] Matrim@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year 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 30 points 1 year 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 1 year 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.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

"Do not interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake."

[–] Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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 4 points 1 year ago

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

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Same reason they spend money on ads for MAGA candidates.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 39 points 1 year ago

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

[–] madeinthebackseat@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year 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 1 year 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 8 points 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year 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 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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

[–] mriormro@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year 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.