• Treczoks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      11 months ago

      It has already set a bad precedent because a) he didn’t resign on his own after all what became public knowledge and b) that it took so long to get rid of him after is was clear that he had no honor left.

      • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        The best time to hold Republicans accountable was 60 years ago when they were trying to foment a race war and sabotaging US led peace talks in Vietnam to win a presidential election. The second best time is today.

    • lagomorphlecture@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 months ago

      I am one of those people. He is a conman and a criminal, end of story. This isn’t some political gray area here.

    • pewter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      In theory, yes. In practice, he had to be everything Republicans hated for them to vote against him. I don’t believe his lies or suspicious finances were the problems.

      The true things about him that got his party to vote against him were: he’s gay, he’s brown, he’s done drag, his Wikipedia page doesn’t have a birth place.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I’d like to see more expelled. Starting with those that signed on for OJ’s (Orange Jesus) coup.

    Also, is there any chance that Santos goes to prison?

    • HikingVet@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Probably, he went after rich people’s money for his own gain, not their’s or the party’s goal.

    • HikingVet@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      He didn’t do 5 years, so most likely not. And if the new bill about expelled representatives goes through, it will we upgraded to no.

  • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    It can be both. Very specifically, expelling someone who hasn’t been convicted of anything is bad precedent. But it’s also necessary when the crimes are this obvious, this tied in to his job as congressman, and the legal system moves as slow as it does.

    • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      expelling someone who hasn’t been convicted of anything is bad precedent

      In most cases, I would agree with this. In the case of Santos, I do not. He ran his campaign claiming to be several things he is not. When that information was discovered, I think that would be enough to throw him out. At the point of knowing his entire persona was lies, he was not the person the people elected.

  • Jaysyn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Crimes aside, his open & admitted lies alone should have been enough to expel him.

  • macattack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    I want him gone too, but saying the impact has been minimal a week after his expulsion seems a little myopic.

  • Bilb!@lem.monster
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    I acknowledge George Santos as rightful president of the united states.

  • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    11 months ago

    If you want to credit somebody, credit the Republican congressmen from New York who early on went after Santos and hung in there to completion. They were afraid he would put their seats in jeopardy

    • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      11 months ago

      Bro literally did the bare minimum to hold a colleague accountable for embezzlement. The reason why we haven’t used expulsion for this before is that most other times someone is caught with so much overwhelming evidence against them and a unanimous bipartisan ethics committee determination, their party distances themselves from the appearance of corruption by calling on them to resign.

      Rather than credit people who did the bare minimum in their duties to stand up against blatant corruption, maybe we should be instead looking at the Republicans and Democrats who voted Nay, Present, or Not Voting and asking them why they think this kind of corruption is okay.

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      They were afraid he would put their seats in jeopardy

      You should also remember that if Santos hadn’t been a threat to their own personal power they never would have supported anything like this because they’re Republicans, and the Republican party has only been a vehicle for amoral hacks willing to garrote their own grandmothers’ for power and social status and the completely braindead bigots who gets used as the hacks’ foot soldiers for several generations now