Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Try to follow along bug.Nothing you have written shows the expulsion of Santos was in any way prohibited or a violation of his constitutional rights or his rights as a congressman. Get back to me when you find something supporting your erroneous position.
Not according to the Constitution. That’s just your claim based on your usual crap fate of “because I said so, that’s why.”The other requirements of the Constitution you refer to, ones that would call for a congressman to be protected by the same rights afforded to an average citizen in a criminal proceeding, are unequivocally absent in an expulsion proceeding.
Nah. You’re just too committed to dishonesty to ever admit that the Constitution is the highest law of the land.I can see now these concepts are unsurprisingly too complex for you to comprehend.
I know you imagine that only you have the right to spread manure. And that’s all you do.Do not fret. Every new day is another opportunity for you to clutter the board with more horseshit.
Long overdue. I can't believe all that Republicans are able to support anymoreMy, my. George Santos becomes only the sixth member in history to be expelled from the House. It would seem the latest crop of GOP lawmakers have been scraped from the bottom of the barrel, so hopefully this is some sign of reforms to come within the chamber.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/CZGLAZONMJKFZFEGYLHIRN4RPA.jpg)
Indicted Republican lawmaker George Santos expelled from US House
Indicted Republican George Santos' brief career in the U.S. House of Representatives came to an end on Friday, when fellow lawmakers voted to expel him over criminal corruption charges and accusations of misspending campaign money.www.reuters.com
Thoughts?
They took his name off the office and replaced it with New York's 3rd. Congressional District Office. Santos cannot enter the office. His clerk Kevin McCumber is now on.charge until the special election in no more than 90 days replaces him.Nope. Being expelled just means you are not allowed to participate in their proceedings. Unless he resigns or something else happens at home like a recall, he will still keep the job until the end of the Congressional term. It is one of those quirks I assume was designed to make sure the majority cannot unseat the minority. He can do constituent services or stay at home googling "fool-proof fraud schemes", whichever he prefers if he elects not to resign or isn't removed from office.
The plaque temporarily reads , " New York's Third Congressional District " until a new representative can be elected.
He’ll get his trial. 23 federal indictments.Try to follow along bug.
He was denied procedural due process. He was also denied a presumption of innocence.
That’s all I’ve said. And it’s you who is wrong. Not me.
I never assumed you’d be able to follow along.
Get back to licking the window in your short bus.
Then that must be a state law controlling the special election.They took his name off the office and replaced it with New York's 3rd. Congressional District Office. Santos cannot enter the office. His clerk Kevin McCumber is now on.charge until the special election in no more than 90 days replaces him.
State law largely determines how it goes from here in the same way that some states have recall elections and some do not.Hmm, didn’t know that…I thought expel in the quite literal sense.
You defend a liar like Santos? You must be MAGA.And yet they didn’t. Less than 100 votes to expel.
On that not… any Republican who voted to weaken the GOP ought to be voted out of ofice
Get on it Republicans
Nah. Just fucking with the RepublicansYou defend a liar like Santos? You must be MAGA.
Gotcha! Sorry about the confusion.Nah. Just fucking with the Republicans
Well, I only have one account; not three like some people.I know. That’s the point.
Youre really quite astoundingly slow on the uptake.
"I’m not predicting that he will do so. But Santos might very well have a right to file a lawsuit against the Sgt at Arms to compel that he be seated.As usual, you lie.
I am not defending anyone here.
However, I do seek to defend a basic precept of justice. This explains your panty-wetting consternation.
Wrong again. Santos survived two previous expulsion votes specifically because he was afforded the presumption of innocence and because in the minds of many congressmen he had not yet been given due process. That changed after the Ethics Committee released their findings. Findings more than a 2/3 majority found compelling........because they are.He was denied procedural due process. He was also denied a presumption of innocence.
That’s all I’ve said.
One more thing and then I'll stop since you are clearly unable to defend yourself. An expulsion proceeding in the House, because it is not a criminal court proceeding, more closely resembles a civil court proceeding. The standard of guilt or innocence in civil trials being the “preponderance of the evidence.” Upon examining the Ethics Committee report a substantial majority of House members found Santos guilty using said standard.Not according to the Constitution. That’s just your claim based on your usual crap fate of “because I said so, that’s why.”
Nah. You’re just too committed to dishonesty to ever admit that the Constitution is the highest law of the land.
