Santos Expelled from House

[Dante]

There was no due process in this matter. You dolt.

There was no criminal charge.

Due process?

Section 5: Powers and Duties of Congress​

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.


Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

 

[Failzero]

I still don’t have a rat’s ass about Santos.

And the House rules are not part of the Constitution. And any House rule which denies a member of his or her presumption of innocence has gone afoul of the Constitution, itself.

You never have anything to tell anyone. Youre a void.

Primary half of the GOP congresscritters who voted to oust him

 

[Dante]

I still don’t have a rat’s ass about Santos.

And the House rules are not part of the Constitution. And any House rule which denies a member of his or her presumption of innocence has gone afoul of the Constitution, itself.

You never have anything to tell anyone. Youre a void.

Section 5: Powers and Duties of Congress​

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.


Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

 

[JimH52]

Yea!

View attachment 866586

THEY FIT LIKE A HAND IN GLOVE!

 

[BackAgain]

There was no criminal charge.

Yea. There was. There still is. He stands indicted for a number of alleged crimes,?you ignorant gasbag hack.

Due process?

Section 5: Powers and Duties of Congress​

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.


Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Yes. We all know what the Constitution says. Even a dope like you was able to look it up. But, as usual, you crow over something that wasn’t even in dispute.

The point you studiously seek to avoid, however, still stands. He has been alleged to have lied (etc) and committed related crimes. But those claims have not yet been proved.

You could be weaker. But it’s not clear how.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Well he gets to keep getting paid and doesn't have to go to work. I doubt he is crying too much over it behind closed doors.

Perhaps. He was damn near crying about it on camera a couple of days ago, but he's also known to be theatrical, so who knows.

 

[BackAgain]

Primary half of the GOP congresscritters who voted to oust him

And vote out all the Dims.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Well he gets to keep getting paid and doesn't have to go to work. I doubt he is crying too much over it behind closed doors.

He will be when he's in jail.

 

[JimH52]

He will be when he's in jail.

Yeah, he better be saving his salary for bail money.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

So much for being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

.

 

[Dante]

Yea. There was. There still is. He stands indicted for a number of alleged crimes,?you ignorant gasbag hack.

Yes. We all know what the Constitution says. Even a dope like you was able to look it up. But, as usual, you crow over something that wasn’t even in dispute.

The point you studiously seek to avoid, however, still stands. He has been alleged to have lied (etc) and committed related crimes. But those claims have not yet been proved.

You could be weaker. But it’s not clear how.

You are forgetting what you've posted here in this OP, or chosen to completely ignore realities.

And you claim a "rush to judgment" here? It was not a trial. It's like getting banned on a forum -- for not following the rules.

The rules of each house exposes every Congressperson (notice you went all Juvenile with 'critter'), to expulsion. Has since day one:

Section 5: Powers and Duties of Congress​

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

 

[Orangecat]

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?

That kid was a shit-heel. The Republican did the right thing by removing him. Too bad the dims didn’t have the same integrity regarding Schiff.

 

[Dante]

He will be when he's in jail.

He will spin such tall tales in prison (I doubt he'd be in a jail), I believe many of the dopes inside will consider him a hero.

 

[Dante]

So much for being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

.

It was not a trial.

Section 5: Powers and Duties of Congress​

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.


Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

 

[BackAgain]

You are forgetting what you've posted here in this OP, or chosen to completely ignore realities.

And you claim a "rush to judgment" here? It was not a trial. It's like getting banned on a forum -- for not following the rules.

The rules of each house exposes every Congressperson (notice you went all Juvenile with 'critter'), to expulsion. Has since day one:

Section 5: Powers and Duties of Congress​

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Wrong. We all know it’s not a trial.

I never said it was.

What I said was that the ones voting to expel Santos didn’t prematurely since he hasn’t yet been proved guilty of any alleged crimes as spelled out in the indictment.

I’m sorry you’re having so much difficulty following along. But it’s not surprising.

I am guessing that you’re so ignorant that you don’t understand that the Constitutionally authorized grant of authority for each house to expel a member doesn’t mean that merely acquiring 2/3 majority in favor is all that’s required.

 

[Dante]

The rules denied the member in question due process.

Try to follow along.

Headline for the intellectually challenged:

Republican George Santos becomes first House member expelled in more than 20 years​

Santos left the chamber and the Capitol before the vote was announced.

His removal comes two weeks after a scathing House Ethics Committee report detailed what investigators said was Santos' use of campaign funds for his own personal benefit. Santos repeatedly criticized the report as political smear, though he's yet to refute specific allegations.

Momentum grew to oust Santos after the report's publication, but at one point earlier Friday it appeared House Republican leaders might be able to save him.

Johnson, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, House Majority Whip Tom Emmer and No. 3 House Republican Elise Stefanik all said they would be voting against the resolution just moments before it reached the floor.

"No Member of Congress has ever been expelled without a conviction; this is a dangerous precedent and I am voting no based upon my concerns regarding due process. I have said from the beginning that this process will play out in the judicial system which it currently is," Stefanik wrote in a post to X.

=========================

LaLota: Santos has been afforded ‘much more process than a person in his shoes deserved’​

LaLota: Santos has been afforded ‘much more process than a person in his shoes deserved’

Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) pushed back against allegations Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) was not afforded due process during the House Ethics Committee’s investigation, arguing the embattled law…

thehill.com

“Mr. Speaker, while this proceeding is not covered by the due process clauses, George Santos has indeed been afforded much more process than a person in his shoes deserved,” LaLota said during a debate on the expulsion Thursday.

...

Santos has long argued he was not given due process in the House Ethics Committee’s investigation, which he has repeatedly called “rushed” as part of an effort to push the New York Republican out of the lower chamber.

LaLota, along with House Ethics Committee Chair Michael Guest (R-Miss.), largely rejected Santos’s argument Thursday, pointing to Santos’s decision to not testify before the committee. Santos claimed the committee’s deadline to testify was the same day he needed to go to court, adding the committee required a “hard-liner yes or no,” and that “they wouldn’t settle for anything else.”

“Santos had every opportunity to be heard when the Ethics Committee invited him to confront the accusations, an invitation Santos rejected,” LaLota said on the floor.

Guest also pushed back against Santos’s claim that he was cooperative with the committee’s investigation, telling the House floor “the record of investigation reveals otherwise.”

 

[BackAgain]

Headline for the intellectually challenged:

Republican George Santos becomes first House member expelled in more than 20 years​

Santos left the chamber and the Capitol before the vote was announced.

His removal comes two weeks after a scathing House Ethics Committee report detailed what investigators said was Santos' use of campaign funds for his own personal benefit. Santos repeatedly criticized the report as political smear, though he's yet to refute specific allegations.

Momentum grew to oust Santos after the report's publication, but at one point earlier Friday it appeared House Republican leaders might be able to save him.

Johnson, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, House Majority Whip Tom Emmer and No. 3 House Republican Elise Stefanik all said they would be voting against the resolution just moments before it reached the floor.

"No Member of Congress has ever been expelled without a conviction; this is a dangerous precedent and I am voting no based upon my concerns regarding due process. I have said from the beginning that this process will play out in the judicial system which it currently is," Stefanik wrote in a post to X.

=========================

LaLota: Santos has been afforded ‘much more process than a person in his shoes deserved’​

LaLota: Santos has been afforded ‘much more process than a person in his shoes deserved’

Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) pushed back against allegations Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) was not afforded due process during the House Ethics Committee’s investigation, arguing the embattled law…

thehill.com

Stefanik was right. The balance of your post is just you reiterating your mindless, preconceived and biased position.

 

[okfine]

The rules denied the member in question due process.

Try to follow along.

Common sense over emotion. Geez.

 

[BackAgain]

Common sense over emotion.

Wrong. Denial of our fundamental notions of fairness over common sense.

What would have been the harm in awaiting a conviction?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I still don’t have a rat’s ass about Santos.

You're triggered, BackFlush. We see it. Otherwise why comment about his due process if you don't care, you lying douche.

And the House rules are not part of the Constitution.

The Constitution provides that each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings. So, tough titties, you're wrong, BackFlush. Like always.

And any House rule which denies a member of his or her presumption of innocence has gone afoul of the Constitution, itself.

His lies did him in. He admitted to being a lying liar himself. Now he can focus on his criminal indictments full time.

George Santos Admits to Lying About College and Work History (Published 2022)

The congressman-elect confirmed The New York Times’s findings that he had not graduated from college or worked at two major Wall Street firms, as he had claimed.

www.nytimes.com

Youre a void.

And you're a stain, BackFlush. Just like your boy Santos.