Former congressman George Santos arrest watch. Federal prosecutors have filed criminal charges against New York Rep. George Santos. (Charged with money laundering, wire fraud, unemployment fraud, lying to the House)

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, China said:

 

So if all of the Democrats (201) had voted to expel, along with the 24 Republicans that voted to expel, that would have been 225 votes to expel.  Still well shy of the two-thirds (290) needed to expel.  So, yes, many more Republican votes were needed.  Fair to say the GOP supports Santos' corruption much more than the Democrats.

 

I was more pointing to the 31 Dems that voted to keep him.

[China]

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I was more pointing to the 31 Dems that voted to keep him.

 

I don't understand them or their vote, but if you look at my latest post it's 88% to 11% Dem to GOP in terms of voting to oust.  Without the majority Dems can't do it by themselves.  So the point that the Republicans majorly are supporting the corruption, stands.

[Fergasun]

If you didn't vote to expel, you are not worth your word.  NY deserves the chance to vote a reasonably honest person in that seat. 

 

Ridiculous.

 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, China said:

 

I don't understand them or their vote, but if you look at my latest post it's 88% to 11% Dem to GOP in terms of voting to oust.  Without the majority Dems can't do it by themselves.  So the point that the Republicans majorly are supporting the corruption, stands.

 

I guess we just see it differently.  I expected 100% of the GOP to be morally bankrupt.  But I'm not cool with the 11% of the Dems that voted against it.

 

If we want to pretend that a bill with 1 other-party support is "bipartisan", then this failure of the House is bipartisan.  It's not a GOP issue.  I'll just file this one away with congressional stock trading rules.

[China]

47 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I guess we just see it differently.  I expected 100% of the GOP to be morally bankrupt.  But I'm not cool with the 11% of the Dems that voted against it.

 

If we want to pretend that a bill with 1 other-party support is "bipartisan", then this failure of the House is bipartisan.  It's not a GOP issue.  I'll just file this one away with congressional stock trading rules.

 

So a double standard is expected?  Got it.  Not sure why you or anyone thinks that's OK.  

 

 

Edit:  BTW, I think expecting 100% from the Democrats is an an unrealistic expectation.   Why focus on the 11% of Democrats (31 reps) instead of the 182 (88% of) Republicans?  Why not go for the bigger target.  As I mentioned before, even if you had gotten that 11% of Democrats, it's not enough. You need to have at least 42% of Republicans (not even a majority of them).  That should be the focus.  I expect significant differences in policy between Republicans and Democrats, I don't expect significant differences in ethics.  Apparently Trump has lowered the bar for not just himself, but the whole GOP.  To me, that's unacceptable.

Edited November 2, 2023 by China

[tshile]

6 hours ago, China said:

Technically 31, 15 voted present.  I thought the original point that was made he was countering was:

Voting present is voting against expelling

 

i know they think it’s a cute way to do it, but if they thought he should be expelled they certainly didn’t vote to expel him. 
 

and yes, I know how to calculate percentages  

Edited November 2, 2023 by tshile

[tshile]

6 hours ago, China said:

So a double standard is expected?  Got it.  Not sure why you or anyone thinks that's OK.  

The republicans have already been criticized. No one here is defending them 

 

It’s being pointed out a good portion of dems voted against it. And I’m not sure where your 11% comes from. 31 voted no out of 212 which is 14.5%. 15 voted present so 46 out of 212 refused to vote to expel him which is 21.6%
 

The only one defending any of it, even if by just ignoring or downplaying some of it, is you, best I can tell so far in the thread. So if there’s a double standard, that would be you, not anyone else. 
 

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by tshile

[TheGreatBuzz]

6 hours ago, China said:

 

So a double standard is expected?  Got it.  Not sure why you or anyone thinks that's OK.  

 

 

 

 

I know you pretty much keep the Tailgate running so I'm sure you know this but.....yes, I have a double standard.  I have come to expect far less from the GOP than the Dems.  Seems to be a common theme around here really.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Does anyone know the reason(s) why those 31 Dems voted to keep him?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

 

 

^^^ One answer to my question above:

 

 

[Fergasun]

Katie Porter:

Quote

Rep. Santos clearly violated the public trust, and I would’ve voted to censure him and do believe it would be appropriate for him to resign. The gravity of expulsion demands due process—by the Ethics Committee, our courts, or another impartial fact finder. To date, the Ethics Committee has not finished its investigation, and Rep. Santos has not been convicted. The House would set a dangerous precedent if we expelled a member without allowing one of these processes to conclude.

Raskin:

Quote

I’m a Constitution guy. The House has expelled five people in our history, three for joining the Confederacy as traitors to the Union and two after they were convicted of serious criminal offenses. Santos has not been criminally convicted yet of any of the offenses he has been indicted for that were cited in the Resolution nor has he been found guilty of ethics offenses in the House internal process.  This would be a terrible precedent to set, expelling people who have not been convicted of a crime and without internal due process. If and when Santos is convicted of these serious criminal offenses or ethics charges, I will certainly vote to expel him.... [he had more].

 

To me, Santos made up his whole backstory.  He will not be re-elected.  He is a fraud and we shouldn't compare this to other precedents.  

[LadySkinsFan]

The election process will take care of him. And the legal process. He's going to prison for at least some of his felonies.

[Bang]

Unfortunately, i have no faith that voters will hold any of the worst accountable.
They never do. 
Especially when a lot who vote that way think the "D" behind the name means "Devil worshipping blood drinking pedophile".

 

"Oh, I'll definitely take a complete fraud over that", says your average GOP voter. 
And they do again and again and again.

I fully expect them to do it again for Santos unless the GOP itself decides to primary him, and so long as he votes their way like a good boy, they won't. 
 

~Bang

[TheGreatBuzz]

Yup.  MAYBE voters will be smart enough to deal with a Santos.  And that's a bug maybe.  But plenty of other corrupt assholes will win reelection. 

[tshile]

waiting for some sort of official body to conclude its investigation, including ethics committee, seems totally reasonable. 
 

which is not to be confused with the people that’ll use that excuse while it’s available, only to find a new excuse once it’s no longer available. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

35 minutes ago, Bang said:

Unfortunately, i have no faith that voters will hold any of the worst accountable.
They never do. 
Especially when a lot who vote that way think the "D" behind the name means "Devil worshipping blood drinking pedophile".

 

"Oh, I'll definitely take a complete fraud over that", says your average GOP voter. 
And they do again and again and again.

I fully expect them to do it again for Santos unless the GOP itself decides to primary him, and so long as he votes their way like a good boy, they won't. 
 

~Bang

 

13 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Yup.  MAYBE voters will be smart enough to deal with a Santos.  And that's a bug maybe.  But plenty of other corrupt assholes will win reelection. 

 

 

Poll: 78% of Santos' voters want him to resign

That number includes 71% of Republicans in his district.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/poll-78-santos-voters-want-resign-rcna68349

 

This was back in January, but I can't imagine he turned things around since then...

[Dan T.]

The Ethics Committee is getting close to wrapping up its investigation.  Revote then.  He'll be gone.

[Larry]

59 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

The election process will take care of him. 

 

I've heard that before. 

[PleaseBlitz]

15 minutes ago, tshile said:

waiting for some sort of official body to conclude its investigation, including ethics committee, seems totally reasonable. 
 

which is not to be confused with the people that’ll use that excuse while it’s available, only to find a new excuse once it’s no longer available. 

 

Counterpoint is that it's not really an open question whether Santos lied about a great many things in order to get elected.  He's on record saying things, and those things have been fact checked by many reputable people and found to be untrue, and Santos himself is really the only person who disputes any of it (and he doesn't really dispute the substance, he obfuscates and claims that anything not-nice said about him is politically motivated and therefore invalid) .  So, the voters of his district have a person representing them that obtained that position based on fraud, and that should be corrected as soon as possible.  If, somehow, he's found to have committed no crimes and made no ethical violations, he can run for the seat again. 

 

That said, I kind of agree with Jamie Raskin as a practical matter, but my old law professor (the same Jamie Raskin) knows as well as anyone that due process requiring conviction in a court of law does not apply to retaining one's House seat.  

Edited November 2, 2023 by PleaseBlitz

[Bang]

1 hour ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

 

 

Poll: 78% of Santos' voters want him to resign

That number includes 71% of Republicans in his district.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/poll-78-santos-voters-want-resign-rcna68349

 

This was back in January, but I can't imagine he turned things around since then...

Yay.

By the time he runs again, some new horrifying threats to God and Kids and "Murica will be slopped all over their favorite propaganda trough, and they will eat it up.

Like i said,, unless they primary him, those registered GOP will vote for him again.

The GOP could tell you his opponent Democrat is a former cross dressing fraud with multiple identities, ties to Russia and dark money, that they funnel off campaign contributions to pay for their lifestyle, they make up phony campaign officers when questioned about it, and that George Santos is the All American High School quarterback who just loves God so much he'd give Jesus himself a handjob.
And they'll believe it. And they will vote for him, even though everything they accuse his opponent of will be exactly what he is being charged with, right in front of their faces.

And if any of them question his actual charges, they wlll be told that the Deep State is out to get him and molest their kids.

 

Doubt it?

 

You shouldn't by now.

 

~Bang

Edited November 2, 2023 by Bang

[tshile]

18 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Counterpoint is that it's not really an open question whether Santos lied about a great many things in order to get elected

Yeah. I struggle there too. 
 

as a well as everything else you’ve said about due process vs having a seat in the house. 
 

I do feel like waiting for the ethics committee to finish its investigation is reasonable. 
 

that said if they voted to expel them beforehand because the outcome of the investigation is obvious and not up for debate, I’d be OK with that too. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 hour ago, Bang said:

Yay.

By the time he runs again, some new horrifying threats to God and Kids and "Murica will be slopped all over their favorite propaganda trough, and they will eat it up.

Like i said,, unless they primary him, those registered GOP will vote for him again.

The GOP could tell you his opponent Democrat is a former cross dressing fraud with multiple identities, ties to Russia and dark money, that they funnel off campaign contributions to pay for their lifestyle, they make up phony campaign officers when questioned about it, and that George Santos is the All American High School quarterback who just loves God so much he'd give Jesus himself a handjob.
And they'll believe it. And they will vote for him, even though everything they accuse his opponent of will be exactly what he is being charged with.

And if any of them question his actual charges, they wlll be told that the Deep State is out to get him and molest your kids.

 

Doubt it?

 

You shouldn't by now.

 

~Bang

You really think Santos won’t have any Republican challengers?…That seat is ripe for the taking. 

[Larry]

I sèm to remember something called "ABSCAM".  Multiple congressmen recorded on video taking hands full of cash from (Undercover FBI) "Arab sheiks"  

 

Congress voted to expell them, even though they were elected after the story leaked. Reason given was that at the time the voters voted for them, the critters had not yet been convicted. And therefore the voters didn't fully know who they voted for. 

Edited November 2, 2023 by Larry

[Bang]

18 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

You really think Santos won’t have any Republican challengers?…That seat is ripe for the taking. 

It truly depends on which one of them the party decides should be there. Will he protect Trump? That is the key question. No other position matters, there are no other issues.
Santos is already pals with that cabal.
If he votes their way and definitely pisses off the libs just for being there, they will endorse him.
the GOP voters will be straight up told which one to vote for, and they will.

 

~Bang

[Califan007 The Constipated]

13 minutes ago, Bang said:

It truly depends on which one of them the party decides should be there. Will he protect Trump? That is the key question. No other position matters, there are no other issues.
Santos is already pals with that cabal.
If he votes their way and definitely pisses off the libs just for being there, they will endorse him.
the GOP voters will be straight up told which one to vote for, and they will.

 

~Bang

 

I dunno...a Trump endorsement hasn't been paying dividends at the polls for Republicans for about a year now. I could see both Santos and Boebert booted out by voters in the next election.