The vote followed the release two weeks ago of a scathing 56-page Ethics Committee report. The freshman lawmaker has resisted calls to resign.
  • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
    3181·
    11 months ago

    Let it be know that if you take office while actively committing fraud, embezzlement, and lying through your teeth about nearly every single detail of your life and accomplishments, the rest of Congress will ONLY let that slide for 11 months! You’ve been warned!

  • dirthawker0@lemmy.world
    160·
    11 months ago

    Mike Johnson said “I personally have real reservations about doing this [expulsion], I’m concerned about a precedent that may be set for that.” Yes, let’s NOT set a precedent of holding politicians accountable for lies, fraud, and theft!

    It should be pretty easy to find the list of everyone else who voted not to expel, so we know who is pro-corruption.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        21·
        11 months ago

        Congress did an internal investigation and determined he likely broke the law. There you go.

        This is just like any other workplace.

        • rhythmicotter@midwest.socialEnglish
          16·
          11 months ago

          The bar for losing your job as a congress person or any public servant for corruption should be way lower than the bar for being sent to prison.

      • dirthawker0@lemmy.world
        12·
        11 months ago

        He said this well after the Ethics Committee released its findings. Santos was effectively shown to be guilty.

        In the previous attempts at expulsion, a lot of people voted against simply because the report wasn’t out yet. It would have set a dangerous precedent to vote to expel someone without proof of wrongdoing.

      • hglman@lemmy.world
        6·
        11 months ago

        He literally was just convicted in a trial by his peers. His explosion is exactly the basis for common law including many of the points of the magna carta.

  • TWeaK@lemm.eeEnglish
    1081·
    11 months ago

    including stealing money from his campaign, deceiving donors about how contributions would be used

    I bet this was the real reason he was expelled. Congressmen rely on donations for their grift, and their donors were no doubt asking if they supported his practice.

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      801·
      11 months ago

      Hell, he literally stole money from another Republican Congressman and his wife.

      You almost have to respect it.

      • SuperDuper@lemmy.world
        521·
        11 months ago

        For how blatant his lies and fabrications were, and how brazenly he stole and misued money, I’m honestly impressed that he got into office in the first place (who tf was running his opponent’s campaign?). Surviving 11 months after that was just standard “Republicans refusing to hold each other accountable” behavior. But man, gotta admit the guy pulled off a pretty decent con.

        • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.worldEnglish
          53·
          11 months ago

          I’m honestly impressed that he got into office in the first place (who tf was running his opponent’s campaign?).

          His opponent repeatedly tried to blow the whistle at what was going on with Santos’ campaign, but was all but ignored by the media who considered it a low-level race not worth covering. I think it took about a month after the election before the media started to actually give a damn.

        • psmgx@lemmy.world
          4·
          11 months ago

          The GOP wants blackmail and leverage options, and only when they have the power.

          Santos’s lies were pretty clear, blatant, and he was grifting his own party. Useless as an asset, and detrimental to his own people.

        • Furedadmins@lemmy.world
          1·
          11 months ago

          He is from a safe very red district so the craziest person wins the primary and then basically gets in free after that.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            111·
            11 months ago

            It’s a blue district, though only D+2 (meaning it tends to be 2 points more towards Dems than the national average). It did vote for Bush in 2004, but is otherwise straight blue for President since 1992. Most recently went for Biden by +10 points.

            • Furedadmins@lemmy.world
              9·
              11 months ago

              Republicans have historically held that seat with very large majorities. Over 70% during Bush and Obama presidencies. Trump was enough to drag it down but then as soon as he was off the ballot it’s back to crazy land Republicans. I might be wrong but to me that says deep red.

    • tburkhol@lemmy.world
      37·
      11 months ago

      I don’t even think that deceiving donors was the line. I think it was exactly what he bought. OnlyFans? Scandalous. Botox for a man? Shameful. If he’d bought guns and an F350, or just Venmo’d a high school student, he’d still a congressman.

      • TWeaK@lemm.eeEnglish
        153·
        11 months ago

        Friendly reminder that OnlyFans talking about banning porn on their platform was just a cover to distract from the news story about them allowing users hosting child porn, prostitution and other illegal material to get away with warnings, so long as their accounts were profitable.

          • TWeaK@lemm.eeEnglish
            31·
            11 months ago

            Because it’s illegal to solicit prostitution in most countries. The other common illegal content was scat. That was the point of the exposé, to highlight that they were allowing illegal users making illegal content on their platform to get away with warnings - I mean, how can you merely warn someone who is underage that they should stop posting underage content?!

            • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
              5·
              11 months ago

              Fair enough, though it does still seem a bit odd to list prostitution in particular. Whats the joke? If you fuck while recording it it aint prostitution.

    • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
      114·
      11 months ago

      Exactly. It’s like Bernie Madoff. Bernie was doing the same thing as everyone else in 2008, but his clients were all rich folks. He went to jail. The hilarious thing is that Donald Trump was interviewed about Bernie and even Donnie had to admit that it was mostly victimless, because everyone Madoff had stolen from could afford the loses.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        11·
        11 months ago

        Bernie is an interesting case. As part of his guilty plea, he admitted that from around 1990 onward, basically every transaction in his company was fraudulent. The actual start was probably at the beginning of his company in the '70s.

        What makes that interesting is that his clients weren’t just rich, but experienced. They knew how to smell out a con. He was able to keep his claims just plausible enough that they didn’t notice for decades.

        A lot of Ponzi schemes will claim 300% or 5000% percent returns in a year. Experienced investors know that’s bullshit; maybe you can get lucky in one or two trades, but it’s never sustainable. The SP500 will tend to give you returns of 8% or so in the long run (with plenty of year to year variation), and it’s hard to beat that while accounting for transaction costs. Bernie was claiming 15-20%, which is good, but not crazy.

        • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
          8·
          11 months ago

          imho, they all knew it was a scam, but they all figured that they were the insiders and only the rubes were getting fleeced.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        123·
        11 months ago

        Bernie was doing the same thing as everyone else in 2008, but his clients were all rich folks.

        CITATION NEEDED

        Lots of companies were using legal but sketchy as hell financial instruments and over inflating safety on investments where lots of people lost lots of money. Bernie was different. He was creating fraudulent statements saying you had money in your account with him for years and only paying out with what other new investors put in; classic Ponzi scheme.

        What other large Ponzi schemes at the time are you saying were occurring?

          • Fal@yiffit.netEnglish
            7·
            11 months ago

            Yes. That’s a fundamentally different situation than a ponzi scheme

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            52·
            11 months ago

            Of course, these weren’t schemes or a rip off because it was ‘legal.’

            Now you’ve got it. One was unethical but legal (most of the housing crisis), Madoff was breaking established written law. Only Madoff was the Ponzi scheme.

  • paddirn@lemmy.worldEnglish
    63·
    11 months ago

    Pffft, big whoop, he’ll go back to being CEO of Goldman-Sachs and owner of the Denver Broncos, this is barely a speedbump.

    • Treczoks@lemmy.world
      261·
      11 months ago

      **Took them long enough. But the bad thing about this is that it was at all.necessary. A criminal should not join the house, and if found out should immediately resign on his own. But he stuck to the seat and it took ages to get rid of him.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        211·
        11 months ago

        Sorry, as a Jew, I’m not really seeing the comedy in a guy pretending to be descended from Holocaust victims and then passing it off as a joke.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            6·
            11 months ago

            Are you seriously saying that I support Israel’s genocide because I’m a Jew?

            I’m not an Israeli, I’m an American. I have no interest in Israel at all. You do know that not all Jews are Israelis, right?

      • pheet@sopuli.xyz
        201·
        11 months ago

        Either you are not american or you are the type who thinks burning this to the ground is always somehow the easier and better way to fix things.

          • orcrist@lemm.ee
            16·
            11 months ago

            And yet no, they really aren’t. The criminal charges are not something most of his contemporaries are facing.

          • mriormro@lemmy.world
            161·
            11 months ago

            Are you fucking kidding me? Jesus, every day I lose more and more hope in our citizens.

              • mriormro@lemmy.world
                141·
                11 months ago

                congress is a full of utter scum. they just expelled poorer and less successful guy - seriously qui bono?
                im not not the only one who thinks that - congress approval is at 15 %

                This isn’t a fucking wrestling show. What happens in there has very real, very deep ramifications for everyday working people out here. Your contempt isn’t protest or positive political action and only serves to minimize the effort, blood, sweat, and tears of people putting in the hard work to organize and mobilize in order to help their constituents and communities. If you don’t like how things are then either get out there and fucking do the work to help us change it for the better or sit the fuck down and stop trying to be an irl 4chan edgelord.

          • pheet@sopuli.xyz
            1·
            11 months ago

            This guy, given his proven baseline morals, would’ve become one of the worst in terms of corruption.

  • Chainweasel@lemmy.worldEnglish
    50·
    11 months ago

    311 to 114
    The house has a Republican majority, you really have to fuck up for them to break the 11th commandment.

    • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
      47·
      11 months ago

      Funny story about Reagan and the ‘11th Commandment.’

      Back in the day, a group of Dem women approached their GOP counterparts with a story about Nestle’s Africa operations. Basically, Nestle was tricking poor women by giving away free formula to new mothers. The supply lasted until the mothers stopped lactating, then they had to pay full price. This meant that the babies were not getting enough food at the time they needed good nutrition the most.

      The GOP women wanted the Party to stand up to Nestle, but Reagan talked thme down, and explained that conservatives shouldn’t shaft one another.

      Later on, Reagan attacked President Ford for sticking by the treaty that returned the Panama Canal. There was no way Ford could renege on the treaty, but it made Reagan look like a tough guy.

      • TrumpetX@programming.devEnglish
        4·
        11 months ago

        Ohh, that news story in “For All Mankind” makes a lot more sense. Alternate timeline, we didn’t give it back.

        • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
          3·
          11 months ago

          It was the 1980s version of ‘The War On Christmas.’ The treaty had been signed decades before, and handing over the Canal meant nothing strategically. WW3 wasn’t going to be decided by a big naval battle. It was pure grandstanding, but Ronnie managed to orchestrate it to perfection

  • FoundTheVegan@kbin.social
    34·
    11 months ago

    Nehls claimed, without evidence, that the Ethics Committee had been “weaponized” against Santos.

    “You may accept this report as grounds for expulsion from Congress, but I say no,” Nehls said. “It’s not right. The totality of circumstance appears biased. It stinks of politics.”

    Any amount of ethics will always be resisted by Republicans. 🙄

  • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
    32·
    11 months ago

    In the entire history of the US, there have only been five ever expelled from the US House of Representatives. Three of those five that were expelled because of that whole Civil War thing.

    Today, we’ve added a sixth name to that list. George Santos.

    And don’t forget the guy has in front of him a very long list of Federal indictments that include hits like conspiracy against the United States, wire fraud, credit card fraud, and money laundering all of those being really big no-nos. Dude has absolutely not been having the greatest last eleven months of his life and boy oh boy we’re JUST getting started on the downhill for him.

    Like it’s a surprisingly very LONG list of crimes he’s facing, like WTF dude did you just spend the last eleven months going, “Okay I’ve had my morning coffee, time to crime!” And then investigators found more crime after he was indicted and was like “Oh no we’ve got to put all that other crime on pause because … I mean JUST LOOK AT THIS SHIT!!” and filed a superseding indictment. Like shit was so bad, US Prosecutors were like “all his previous crimes, we’ve got to put that shit on pause. This new shit, it’s GOT to take priority.” There’s no way you violate that much of the law just by happy chance.

    I don’t know where we’ll all be at in five years from now, but I DO know that each day from now onward, for George Santos it can only get worse for him. Like today, today is the worse day in George Santos’ life. And tomorrow, tomorrow will be the worse day in George Santos’ life. And that pattern will continue for a good amount of time going forward.

    • Billiam@lemmy.world
      171·
      11 months ago

      Turns out, the whole “can’t arrest me for criming as long I commit new crimes for you to investigate” only works for a certain fat, orange, drowned-muskrat-wearing Floridiot.

      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
        5·
        11 months ago

        Now im imaging Trump wearing the rotting corpse of Musk on his head like Heracles wearing the skin of the Nemian lion. But instead of being noble and a sign of power its just slowly decaying rich fuck wearing a rapidly decomposing rich fuck.

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    29·
    11 months ago

    “It almost would have been a dereliction of my duty if I did not support this,” Guest said Friday. “I did what I felt was right from a personal point of view.”

    It absolutely would have been yet another dereliction of your duty.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    25·
    11 months ago

    311 to 114… And they only needed 290 to bounce him. +21 more than necessary!

    Apparently we CAN work together!

    • kboy101222@lemm.eeEnglish
      17·
      11 months ago

      Scott (VA) and Williams (GA) voted Nay

      Green (TX) and Jackson (IL) voted present. Couldn’t give you a reason though

      Jackson Lee (TX) and Phillips (MN) were not voting for some reason as well as AOC who I suspect didn’t vote since she’s also a NY member

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        8·
        11 months ago

        It’s probably time to check those closets for some skeletons. AOC at least makes a little sense, not wanting to make it seem personal, but I would have rather she ran up the score.

          • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
            27·
            11 months ago

            She’s become a bit of an establishment Republic recently, the thing she’d rally against. The defense is that you need to play their game to get anything done. Ok, but if she’s playing their game, she’s already lost.

      • Rob T Firefly@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        11 months ago

        Jackson Lee (TX) and Phillips (MN) were not voting for some reason as well as AOC who I suspect didn’t vote since she’s also a NY member

        Out of NY’s 26 Representatives in Congress 22 voted to oust Santos and 3 (including Santos himself) voted to keep him in. AOC was the only NY Representative who chose not to vote. I wonder why she abstained.

        Source