The 35-year-old New York lawmaker has pleaded not guilty to charges accusing him of crimes including laundering funds to pay for his personal expenses, illegally receiving unemployment benefits and charging donors’ credit cards without their consent.

The former treasurer for Santos’ campaign pleaded guilty on Oct. 5 to a conspiracy charge for inflating fundraising numbers.

“I must warn my colleagues that voting for expulsion at this point would circumvent the judicial system’s right to due process that I’m entitled to and desanctify the long-held premise that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty,” Santos said ahead of the vote.

Expulsion of a lawmaker requires a vote by two-thirds of the chamber. Only five people have been expelled from the House in the country’s history, three for fighting against the U.S. government in the Civil War.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    608 months ago

    This is why I keep telling people we can’t pass an Amendment to do things like change gun control.

    It starts with a 2/3rds majority in the House, 290 votes.

    We couldn’t get 290 votes to agree on Santos’ obvious crimimal behavior, we’ll NEVER get it on something like the 2nd Amendment, or Supreme Court term limits, or anything else remotely useful.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -108 months ago

      And even with simple majority there’s still stupid argument that ‘if we pass something without bipartisan support, the other party will just revert it when they’re in power’. No shit. That’s how democracy in every civilized country works. Only in US is this preventing the ruling party from doing any serious reforms. And obviously they know. It’s just that both parties are equally corrupt.

    • spyd3r
      link
      fedilink
      -158 months ago

      we’ll NEVER get it on something like the 2nd Amendment

      Why do you want to make people disarmed and defenseless?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        6
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Because there’s very little reason to own a gun except to defend yourself against someone with a gun…

        There are SO many more murders committed with firearms than there are any other type of weapon or method.

        If we were to sufficiently restrict firearm ownership, there’d be almost no reason to own one at all.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          38 months ago

          Because there’s very little reason to own a gun except to defend yourself against someone with a gun…

          How fucking privileged of you. Not everyone can beat any random person in a hand to hand fight.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            18 months ago

            Cowardly criminals are more likely to commit a violent crime if they have a gun to hide behind. Doubt most of them would even consider doing some of the stuff they do if they only had access to knives and bats.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -18 months ago

            If you’re resorting to fists and further to guns in a dispute, you’re part of the problem.

            A fist fight shouldn’t resort to murder by a gun.

            And there were only 655 murders by fists, kicks, etc. in 2022. It should absolutely not be of any concern.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -88 months ago

          My guns would be FAR more likely used against a crazy animal than a human. But the option is there.

          How much time you spend in the woods and how you set for gators, panthers and bears? And I don’t hunt BTW. But the option is there.

          https://imgur.com/a/pR7CuLA

  • uphillbothways
    link
    fedilink
    408 months ago

    Democrats should make him the poster child Republican. The most honest shining member of the bunch who at least admits he’s blatantly lying. The one they all banded together to save. They deserve him.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      9
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      31 Democrats voted to keep him. 24 Republicans voted to boot him. It didn’t even make a simple majority, though that 62 vote swing would helped a bunch.

      • uphillbothways
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        So, he got more support than several of their own candidates for speaker. (I think. Can’t be bothered to look up the numbers. It’s all kinda pointless.)

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          58 months ago

          They’re waiting for the official ethics board, or whatever, to make their ruling. It’s not so much that the Dems support Santos, as they do the rules and means of Congress

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    148 months ago

    Who can talk the most lies (who can talk the most lies)

    Pretend they are a Jew (pretend they are a Jew)

    Cover up with sequins for a contest or two

    The Republican can (the Republican can)

    Oh, the Republican can (the Republican can)

    The Republican can 'cause he mixes it with lies

    And makes his world a falsehood (makes his world a falsehood)

  • mtdyson_01
    link
    fedilink
    English
    68 months ago

    They will not expel him even if he is found guilty because they absolutely need his vote. He will be forced to vote however they want because if he doesn’t he will lose his job and the money and protection his job provides.

  • BeautifulMind ♾️
    link
    fedilink
    English
    58 months ago

    And just like that, a vote that should have been the simplest, most-straightforward choice with one outcome obviously preferable to its alternative, proved to be too much to ask