As of Friday, Rep. George Santos (R-NY) is now former Rep. George Santos. The House voted to expel him from Congress amid numerous allegations of wrongdoing and corruption before and after he took office.
While a significant number of Republican lawmakers voted in favor of removing the former lawmaker, most voted against it.
Before the vote was taken, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) gave a spirited speech on the House floor outlining his reasons for not supporting the effort to remove Santos. Among other reasons, Gaetz argued that expelling Santos, which has only happened to two other lawmakers since the Civil War, would violate tradition given that he has not yet been convicted of any crimes.
The outcome of the vote has also prompted members of the chattering class to take another look at Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), who is also facing federal allegations of misconduct. Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) has been one of the leading voices calling first for Menendez’s resignation, then his expulsion after it became clear that Menendez would refuse to step down.
Now, Fetterman has renewed his campaign against Menendez after Santos’ ouster. He recently explained his position during an appearance on "The View."
Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) was on The View and he too argued that Menendez was far worse than Santos: "I think, you know, Menendez, I think is really a senator for Egypt, not New Jersey."
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) December 1, 2023
Hostin whines that there are calls for Menendez to go before "adjudication." pic.twitter.com/3FSvEEg190
When it comes to expelling members of Congress, the question centers on whether they should stay true to tradition, or if it is time to rethink the standards.
One of Gaetz’s arguments, and that of those who opposed Santos’ ouster, is that the latter had not yet been convicted of a crime. The House Ethics Committee released a damning report detailing allegations of misconduct, fraud, misuse of campaign funds, and lying to the public. The former lawmaker is facing federal indictment, but has yet to be prosecuted. Gaetz is suggesting that expulsion should only occur if a member of Congress is actually convicted of criminal activity.
Others have suggested that it is up to the voters to decide whether Santos and other lawmakers remain in their seats. They contend that removing him from Congress without input of his constituents means going against the will of the voters.
Those supporting Santos’ removal might argue that in 2023, it might be time to change the standards. Given the rampant corruption on Capitol Hill and the rest of the swamp, this argument might be even more persuasive than in the past.
The criminal allegations against Santos have not yet been proven with a conviction. However, what is clear is that the former lawmaker told a series of lies on the campaign trail to deceive voters into supporting his candidacy. He has even admitted to some of the falsehoods he told while vying for his congressional seat. Indeed, Santos fabricated much of his biography, including his education, employment history, and even his claims of Jewish heritage.
Rep. George Santos (R-NY) has been a controversial figure since being elected to Congress. Within weeks of his November win, Democrats were demanding an investigation into the freshman Congressman over his largely made-up biography (never mind the fact that they apparently hadn’t bothered to delve into these charges prior to his election).
The New York Times had a lengthy breakdown of Santos’ biography, and almost all of it seems to be fake, if the Times reporting is anything to be believed. I have no reason to suspect it is a fake report, because while it does expose a Republican, the fact of the matter is that the Democrats were so unbelievably horrible at their jobs in this one that it makes them look worse than Santos.
The fact that the Times has unearthed all this information (which, for the record, Santos’ camp denies) is a hilarious indictment of the Democrats’ own opposition research capabilities. This is a guy whose entire biography seems to be fake, and no one in the Democrats’ camp had any clue? That’s amazing.
After the initial denials, Santos admitted that, yes, in fact, many of his claims regarding his work experience, education, and heritage were fabricated. Democrats immediately demanded his resignation, but Santos declined to do so, though he did ultimately step down from his committee assignments.
One could argue that because of Santos’ many lies, voters were not given the opportunity to truly know who they were supporting. In essence, the person voters thought they were electing was someone completely different. Of course, he might have won without lying to his constituents, but there is no way to know whether that is true. Expelling him from Congress could give people in his district the opportunity to actually elect someone who is who they say they are.
Of course, if the standard for removing a sitting congressperson is altered in this way, it would mean that many serving in the legislature could face possible removal. While some of the ethical considerations are strictly legal matters, Santos’ lies could justify the vote that was taken on Friday. The question is: How much of this should be under the purview of Congress and how much of this should be left up to voters?
