Impeach George Santos

[Skylar]

I believe that the Republican House should impeach George Santos and totally throw him under the bus. That way they can show everyone that they are not going to show a bias. Then they are free to impeach Biden twice, Mayorkis, Pelosi, Garland, Schiff, Swalwell, Omar, and many others.

Or, you can just investigate where Santos got $700,000. His story has already changed repeatedly.

 

[BlindBoo]

You're talking about saying something after the fact. I'm saying that the left and the lefty media incited this lady to do this through all of their constant nonstop anti-Trumpness.

No one ever incited assassination attempts on the poor 'perpetual victim' Trumpybear. Beside you provide no examples of any msm doing that. You even claim Biden was responsible for inciting riots as well. Your claim is just not credible.

 

[Skylar]

Fudged?

We don't even know his real name.

And where did a guy making $55k a year suddenly get $700,000 from?

His pathological lying only demonstrates the absurdity of a GOP with actual principles. Santos is *perfectly* aligned with what the GOP actually believes.

He was banned from GoFundMe. Allegedly because he pocked the $3000 raised for surgery for a vet's ailing service dog. The dog didn't get the surgery and died as a result. That's pretty fucking evil, if true. But also not a deal breaker for the GOP that has zero principles.

The campaign finance questions are far more germane to his suitability for office.

 

[Independent thinker]

nope

you're delusional

I'm delusional that the left have been saying for six years that Trump being jailed is right around the corner?

 

[Independent thinker]

No one ever incited assassination attempts on the poor 'perpetual victim' Trumpybear. Beside you provide no examples of any msm doing that. You even claim Biden was responsible for inciting riots as well. Your claim is just not credible.

The left have incited violence on a massive scale, including Bernie inciting one of his followers to go to DC and shoot up Republicans and they incited this Canadian lady to assassinate Trump.

 

[BlindBoo]

The left have incited violence on a massive scale, including Bernie inciting one of his followers to go to DC and shoot up Republicans and they incited this Canadian lady to assassinate Trump.

Examples?

 

[Pete7469]

RetiredSgt in post #2 is spot on correct. Impeach George Santos

So, unless any of his lies could yield an actual criminal conviction somehow, he really can’t be removed from office. There is no such thing as a “recall election” for Congresscritters, either.

In any event, it is unlikely he will ever be a voice for any change in the way America operates. He’s basically a ridiculous non-entity at this point.

He also comes from the state that gave us all AOC....

So it's not as if they would replace him with something better.

 

[Pete7469]

I didn't realize you made it to the 8th grade level.

That should be difficult to believe, but modern "public education" tends to produce such results.

 

[Pete7469]

And I'm sure many of the congresspeople don't want their backgrounds dug into too deeply.

Even if they aren't even a 10th of the liar Santos is.

There isn't a single democrook as honest as that Santos ass clown is regardless. May as well keep the giant douche, because turd sandwiches are offensive to multiple senses and just might kill you if not just make you violently ill.

 

[Independent thinker]

Examples?

Ummmmmmmmmmmm, Bernie repeatedly called for a revolution. One of his followers took him up on it. Democrats and their lefty media constantly claim Trump wanted to take democracy away, inciting the Canadian woman to try taking him out. The left and their lefty media are always encouraging BLM protesters and taking a knee with them, inciting some of them to riot. The left also incited a guy to attempt to kill a Supreme Court justice and they refuse to stop protests on justice's properties.

 

[busybee01]

There is no process to impeach a house member.

A House member can be expelled by the House.

 

[busybee01]

RetiredSgt in post #2 is spot on correct. Impeach George Santos

So, unless any of his lies could yield an actual criminal conviction somehow, he really can’t be removed from office. There is no such thing as a “recall election” for Congresscritters, either.

In any event, it is unlikely he will ever be a voice for any change in the way America operates. He’s basically a ridiculous non-entity at this point.

The House can expel a member.

 

[busybee01]

Democrats have been abusing their power for six years now trying to find alleged crimes of the other side. Democrats have committed every level of crime there is and they find that acceptable. And, Biden and the left have incited numerous riots all over the country, including rioters taking over swaths of territory from the US government and turning them into lawless zones. They even took a knee with BLM.

That is so much bullshit. It is Republicans who have inspired hate and hate crimes in this country. Many of these mass shooters sound exactly like Republicans.

 

[Independent thinker]

That is so much bullshit. It is Republicans who have inspired hate and hate crimes in this country. Many of these mass shooters sound exactly like Republicans.

Bernie incited his follower to shoot up Republicans. The left and their lefty media's constant hatred of Trump incited the Canadian lady to try to assassinate Trump. The left and their lefty media have incited numerous BLM riots, of which even Biden and Pelosi took a knee with them. The hatred of the left and their media incited the guy to go to DC and try to kill a Supreme Court justice. Just about every white nationalist peaceful protest has been met with violence from the other side. There is no hatred like the left's hatred.

 

[Dagosa]

I believe that the Republican House should impeach George Santos and totally throw him under the bus. That way they can show everyone that they are not going to show a bias. Then they are free to impeach Biden twice, Mayorkis, Pelosi, Garland, Schiff, Swalwell, Omar, and many others.

Naw.
George like Trump is just an indicator of what the GOP represents; lying sack of shit from old white guys with limited linear thinking skills.

 

[Independent thinker]

Naw.
George like Trump is just an indicator of what the GOP represents; lying sack of shit from old white guys with limited linear thinking skills.

Nice to see your tolerance and non hate.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

I believe that the Republican House should impeach George Santos and totally throw him under the bus. That way they can show everyone that they are not going to show a bias. Then they are free to impeach Biden twice, Mayorkis, Pelosi, Garland, Schiff, Swalwell, Omar, and many others.

He played the lefts identity politics game and won, good for him

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Why? He was duly elected. The Rs need should be investigating biden's ties to ukraine. Santos is a non-story that the dems want at the front to keep the public from looking at the real crimes being committed.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That ^ is correct. But, to amplify, the SCOTUS did interject some finer points about what even that Constitutional provision entails.

Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969). That case clearly holds that, in doing so, the houses are NOT permitted to merely override the democratically expressed will of the voters.​

Id at 547.


Id at 548.

It would indeed require 2/3rds of the House to concur in the removal of Santos to overcome the “will” of the voters who put him into that seat.

I was bored, so I went back and checked.

Just to point out a major difference between Powell and Santo's.

Powell was elected and EXCLUDED from being seated, taking the oath, and functioning as a Representative. That is not the case with Santo's, he has been seated and the action would not be to EXPELL him. "Exclusion" and "Expulsion" are two different things.

In the SCOTUS decision, the limitation mentioned apply to seating a Representative by rejecting the vote of the district. Which, as you pointed out would be a limit on Congress to the Constitutional qualifications to hold office. However Powell appears to be less germane to the Santo's situation since he has been seated and would be expelled. The difference appears to still be open before the court.

So the Constitutional qualification requirements are:

• 25 years of age,
• 7 years a citizen,
• Inhabitant of the State at the time of election

Congress's refusal to seat Powell in 1967 was not based on age, citizenship, or residence and that was the basis the SCOTUS judged on. It would make no sense, to imply those are the only reasons that the Congress can therefore expel a member. It does make since for Congress to have the power to expel a member after being seated for ethics or criminal violations.

WW

 

[BackAgain]

I was bored, so I went back and checked.

Just to point out a major difference between Powell and Santo's.

Powell was elected and EXCLUDED from being seated, taking the oath, and functioning as a Representative. That is not the case with Santo's, he has been seated and the action would not be to EXPELL him. "Exclusion" and "Expulsion" are two different things.

In the SCOTUS decision, the limitation mentioned apply to seating a Representative by rejecting the vote of the district. Which, as you pointed out would be a limit on Congress to the Constitutional qualifications to hold office. However Powell appears to be less germane to the Santo's situation since he has been seated and would be expelled. The difference appears to still be open before the court.

So the Constitutional qualification requirements are:

• 25 years of age,
• 7 years a citizen,
• Inhabitant of the State at the time of election

Congress's refusal to seat Powell in 1967 was not based on age, citizenship, or residence and that was the basis the SCOTUS judged on. It would make no sense, to imply those are the only reasons that the Congress can therefore expel a member. It does make since for Congress to have the power to expel a member after being seated for ethics or criminal violations.

WW

I agree with the distinction you observed. In my estimation, your reading of the case makes sense and is consistent with the holding. But it doesn’t change the fundamental precept. Congress does have the ability to act — but it is a bit circumscribed and there is a very decided thumb on the scale. The preference of the voters is weighted in the favor of the voters.