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.

  • eric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

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

      • be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Dems seem to have adopted a larger strategy of “fine, then you will reap what you sow” philosophy against the Repubs and those who vote for them (i.e., House speaker elections, etc)

        So far it seems like the entire country is reaping a lot of what the Repubs have sown while Dems continue to play from the “high ground” playbook. (i.e., Roe, Book Bans, Anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, etc)

        I’d like to respect them for it, but it’s starting to wear a little thin.

        Everything goes to Hell in a hand basket and chaos reigns supreme in the US, electorate says enough is enough, and Dems sweep elections in 2024.

        If that’s the plan, they are standing by while a lot of folks are hurt to get that sweep. It better pan out, and they better do something with it.

        • SpaceBar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          The Democrat party is in the minority.

          It’s amazing that you are expecting them to magically bail the US out after the electorate voted for this.

          • be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’d settle for them taking the gloves off (looks at OP, looks at the defense of OP that I replied to) in the meantime.

            And yes, if their plan (again, using the context of the comment I replied to) is to let the World burn to get themselves into power, it better be “…so we can finally fix this shit” not “so we can satisfy our lobbyists and corporate interests.” (Edit: and their plan needs to work)

          • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            19
            ·
            1 year ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              27
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago
              1. We have never expelled a congress person without a conviction. Doing so creates a dangerous precedent where anyone can be expelled at any time.

              2. 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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year 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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  14
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    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.

    • Matrim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        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.

    • 👍Maximum Derek👍@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      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.