Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“Embattled Republican U.S. Representative George Santos said on Thursday he will not run for re-election in an announcement made shortly after the release of a scathing report by fellow lawmakers that referred more ‘uncharged and unlawful conduct’ to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution…
“Santos, 35, previously pleaded not guilty to federal charges of laundering campaign funds to pay for personal expenses and charging the credit cards of donors without permission… Santos survived an expulsion vote on Nov. 1. The ethics panel's Republican chairman, Representative Michael Guest, intends to file a fresh expulsion motion.” Reuters
Many on both sides call for Santos to be expelled from the House:
“Expulsion from the House is a drastic measure, one the Constitution wisely requires be accomplished by a two-thirds majority. The House has resorted to that step just five times — ousting three members for joining the Confederacy and, more recently, two others who were convicted of criminal offenses. So, it was understandable earlier this month that lawmakers of both parties balked at voting to expel Santos…
“[But] Santos has had all the process he is due — and all the donor-financed Botox he deserves. With the release by the House Ethics Committee of a damning report that offered new details about Santos’s endless lies and sordid self-dealing, the New York Republican must be expelled as soon as possible. Santos poses a test that even this House should be able to summon the will to pass, and his belated declaration that he will not seek election to a second term is entirely inadequate to the appalling circumstances of his conduct.”
Ruth Marcus, Washington Post
“Yes, everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence in a court of law, but when a lawmaker is proven to be a shameless, notorious, and perhaps even pathological liar, the public and other lawmakers are no longer required to give him the benefit of the doubt on accusations of fraud…
“Apparently the Ethics Committee report is adding new fuel to another effort to expel Santos from the House. It would require a two-thirds majority to dismiss Santos. While House Republicans would have a slightly smaller majority until a special election is held, I think it’s worth it to be rid of the perpetual embarrassment of Santos.”
Jim Geraghty, National Review
Other opinions below.
“Having already stated that they would wait and allow the committee to decide the matter, the GOP leadership could conclude that they haven’t been given enough to go on to make a decision. They could launch their own review of the thousands of documents and witness testimony that the Ethics Committee collected. It would be an obvious dog and pony show, but it would buy them more time before having to give Santos the boot and keep his vote in their pocket for a while longer…
“Going that path would carry an awful stench, however, and the Democrats would jump all over them for it. It’s probably better to just bite the bullet and schedule an expulsion vote after the Thanksgiving break. As long as they don’t ‘lose’ any more members between now and next November they should at least be able to retain the majority.”
Jazz Shaw, Hot Air
Some argue, “The House has expelled only two of its members since the Civil War, and both were first convicted on criminal charges. The violations the Ethics Committee has attached to Mr. Santos are on the same order as the bribery and fraud that ended the careers of Michael Myers in 1980 and Jim Traficant in 2002. Yet each was granted the privilege of a trial to vet the charges against them…
“Mr. Santos is headed for political defeat whether he’s convicted or not, and he’s clearly an embarrassment to the House. But Members might think twice about breaking with the precedent that Members be convicted before expulsion…
“In this hyperpartisan era, the temptation to do so will come up again, and perhaps when the evidence isn’t so voluminous. Even the notorious Mr. Santos deserves the judgment of a jury of his nonpolitical peers.”
Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal
“Santos has remained remarkably buoyant throughout this ordeal. He still shows up to Congress in his expansive wardrobe of tight crew-neck sweaters. He still takes the floor to sponsor a variety of odious bills, and his colleagues in the Republican Party often present an image of mutual respect toward him. All of this is counterfeit, of course. Everyone knows the jig is up. In fact, lately it seems like Santos has leaned into the spectacle…
“After surviving an expulsion vote in early November, enacted due to his mounting list of financial crimes, Santos tweeted a Photoshopped image of him wearing a crown with the caption, ‘If you come for me, you best not miss.’ (The post has since been deleted.) In the days leading up to the vote, Santos announced to the world, ‘They’re not after me, they’re after you, I’m just in the way,’ as if the average American citizen is facing multiple federal indictments.”
Luke Winkie, Slate
“Santos is simply the most extreme version of a new approach by American politicians to dealing with scandal, showing the disappearance of shame from public life. At one time, a scandal-ridden politician would resign in disgrace and quietly leave the scene… Later, politicians learned that they could apologize, perhaps with tears in their eyes, but obstinately stay in office—an approach popularized by President Bill Clinton…
“But in retrospect, that looks like merely a transition phase to the new phase, in which an embattled politician doesn’t apologize, doesn’t resign, and in fact insists he’s a righteous martyr… Shame had a purpose. It kept some bad actors from public life, and it chased other ones from public life. With its decline, people like Santos will blithely charge into office and make a mockery of representative democracy.”
David A. Graham, The Atlantic
The 2023 Nature Conservancy photo contest winners.
The Guardian
