Santos Expelled from House

[BackAgain]

Are Repubs?

Here are the Democrats who have called for Menendez to resign

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) is under pressure to resign from office after he was indicted on bribery charges Friday. New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy leads the chorus of voices, which also includes…

thehill.com

Irrelevant. As you know.

 

[JustAGuy1]

My, 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.

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?

Unlike the Left who protect their criminals I say see ya.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Allegedly. And I’m fine with him getting tried for his alleged conduct. But that hasn’t occurred yet, you hack.

Not on that basis. At least not yet.

Wrong. I oppose it, for now, on the ground that it is improper. He hasn’t been convicted of anything yet.

You unAmericannlefturds disdain our Constitution when it serves to protect the rights of others. You’re a scumbag.

And as usual the reprehensible right attempts to defend the indefensible.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Unlike the Left who protect their criminals I say see ya.

The criminals in the democratic party seem to have the good sense to resign when they fuck up.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ignore reality.

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.

And his grounds could include a flat out denial of his constitutionally guaranteed right to the presumption of innocence.

I know you’re hopelessly ignorant and a biased hack, but seriously. It wouldn’t kill you to open your mind and accept a kernel of the truth.

Again, as I already noted, you ASShole, the presumption of innocence does apply in non criminal matters.

Wrong.

The right to due process as codified in the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments concerns solely government action where a citizen is in jeopardy of losing his life, liberty, or property through criminal prosecution or civil action – none of which applies to Santos.

Santos doesn’t ‘own’ a seat in Congress, he’s not at risk of imprisonment or loss of personal property. The House expulsion process is neither a judicial proceeding nor a criminal prosecution.

Consequently, there is no ‘entitlement’ to due process, no rights of Santos have been violated.

 

[JustAGuy1]

The criminals in the democratic party seem to have the good sense to resign when they fuck up.

Dream on

 

[berg80]

Nice try at a quibble. But you’re wrong.

The reason the only correct answer is “no” and has to be “no” is obvious to any thinking person. I can see why you’d have difficulty with it

And the Constitutionally provided provision is absolutely NOT a grant of authority to ignore the other requirements of the Constitution.

The 2/3rds supermajority is indeed (as you imply) a safeguard. But it’s not necessarily a sufficient safeguard. You Democraps could fuckup a wet dream.

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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Unlike the Left who protect their criminals I say see ya.

Red herring fallacy; failed attempt to deflect.

 

[berg80]

Wrong.

The right to due process as codified in the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments concerns solely government action where a citizen is in jeopardy of losing his life, liberty, or property through criminal prosecution or civil action – none of which applies to Santos.

Santos doesn’t ‘own’ a seat in Congress, he’s not at risk of imprisonment or loss of personal property. The House expulsion process is neither a judicial proceeding nor a criminal prosecution.

Consequently, there is no ‘entitlement’ to due process, no rights of Santos have been violated.

Irrelevant. As you know.

Have Repubs moved to expel him?

 

[22lcidw]

Have Repubs moved to expel him?

Progs are pushing pedophile legality and then bestiality. In what realm are republicans all these things you guys' spiel every day when the movement of our nation moves further and further left.

 

[berg80]

Wrong.

The right to due process as codified in the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments concerns solely government action where a citizen is in jeopardy of losing his life, liberty, or property through criminal prosecution or civil action – none of which applies to Santos.

Santos doesn’t ‘own’ a seat in Congress, he’s not at risk of imprisonment or loss of personal property. The House expulsion process is neither a judicial proceeding nor a criminal prosecution.

Consequently, there is no ‘entitlement’ to due process, no rights of Santos have been violated.

Read thru post #318. The House must essentially follow, or not stray too far from, established protocols. But the kind of absolute constitutional protections afforded an average citizen in a criminal proceeding unequivocally do not apply to Santos.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Red herring fallacy; failed attempt to deflect.

Nope. Fact.

 

[berg80]

And the Constitutionally provided provision is absolutely NOT a grant of authority to ignore the other requirements of the Constitution.

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. I can see now these concepts are unsurprisingly too complex for you to comprehend.

 

[berg80]

Nice try at a quibble. But you’re wrong.

The reason the only correct answer is “no” and has to be “no” is obvious to any thinking person. I can see why you’d have difficulty with it

And the Constitutionally provided provision is absolutely NOT a grant of authority to ignore the other requirements of the Constitution.

The 2/3rds supermajority is indeed (as you imply) a safeguard. But it’s not necessarily a sufficient safeguard. You Democraps could fuckup a wet dream.

Do not fret. Every new day is another opportunity for you to clutter the board with more horseshit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Progs are pushing pedophile legality and then bestiality. In what realm are republicans all these things you guys' spiel every day when the movement of our nation moves further and further left.

Santos was expelled from Congress reflecting the will of the great majority of the American people, via the votes of their elected representatives.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nope. Fact.

Logical fallacies and failed attempts to deflect are typical of the dishonest right; conservatives lack the courage and integrity to address issues that reflect poorly on Republicans, so conservatives attempt to deflect from the corruption, failings, and crimes of Republicans.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

Hmm, didn’t know that…I thought expel in the quite literal sense.

 

[Nostra]

Whole lotta Libtard hate for the gay minority.

 

[BackAgain]

And as usual the reprehensible right attempts to defend the indefensible.

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.

 

[BackAgain]

Wrong.

The right to due process as codified in the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments concerns solely government action where a citizen is in jeopardy of losing his life, liberty, or property through criminal prosecution or civil action – none of which applies to Santos.

Santos doesn’t ‘own’ a seat in Congress, he’s not at risk of imprisonment or loss of personal property. The House expulsion process is neither a judicial proceeding nor a criminal prosecution.

Consequently, there is no ‘entitlement’ to due process, no rights of Santos have been violated.

Wrong. I’ve already provided at least one case that establishes that the presumption of innocence applies n civil cases too.

I forgive your standard display of ignorance.