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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s nice to see a sane explanation at the top of a post like this.
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.
That makes more sense. Thanks for pointing it out. I was wondering why Dems would want to keep a controversial republican in the house.
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.
Someone please explain why the dems would want to keep him in Congress?
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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)
deleted by creator
I hope you are right. I have a lot of faith in the progressive wing of the Democrats - less so in the more centrist majority.
6: They’re actually fucking stupid or compromised.
deleted by creator
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.
-
We have never expelled a congress person without a conviction. Doing so creates a dangerous precedent where anyone can be expelled at any time.
-
The dude is a millstone around the neck of Republicans in New York that can be used to win seats there and also nationwide.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, we have.
And Santos has already pleaded guilty on fraud conspiracy.
https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/three-charts-show-rare-congressional-expulsions-are-rcna123251
Myers wasn’t convicted, they just had evidence so strong it was a forgone conclusion.
You know, exactly like with Santos.
Expulsion is rare not because it is unthinkable, but because most Congress critters resign first.
He has NOT pled guilty for anything.
-
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.
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.
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.
“Do not interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake.”
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.
Never interrupt your enemy after he elects a self destructing clown?
Same reason they spend money on ads for MAGA candidates.
He also survived the sinking of the Titanic and 9/11. So, not surprised.
If Jeff Jackson voted to keep him in, there must be a good reason. The guy is a straight shooter.
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.
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?
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.
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:
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!
Perhaps, as he hasnt been convicted, its an innocent until guilty thing. /shrug
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.
