this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
638 points (98.5% liked)

politics

18315 readers
5116 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dirthawker0@lemmy.world 131 points 8 months ago (7 children)

Mike Johnson said "I personally have real reservations about doing this [expulsion], I’m concerned about a precedent that may be set for that." Yes, let's NOT set a precedent of holding politicians accountable for lies, fraud, and theft!

It should be pretty easy to find the list of everyone else who voted not to expel, so we know who is pro-corruption.

[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I mean, yeah...They're all criminals. Would be pretty stupid of them to want this to be normal. Because of all the crime, ya know?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 94 points 8 months ago (13 children)

including stealing money from his campaign, deceiving donors about how contributions would be used

I bet this was the real reason he was expelled. Congressmen rely on donations for their grift, and their donors were no doubt asking if they supported his practice.

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 62 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Hell, he literally stole money from another Republican Congressman and his wife.

You almost have to respect it.

[–] superduperenigma@lemmy.world 41 points 8 months ago (4 children)

For how blatant his lies and fabrications were, and how brazenly he stole and misued money, I'm honestly impressed that he got into office in the first place (who tf was running his opponent's campaign?). Surviving 11 months after that was just standard "Republicans refusing to hold each other accountable" behavior. But man, gotta admit the guy pulled off a pretty decent con.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 46 points 8 months ago

I’m honestly impressed that he got into office in the first place (who tf was running his opponent’s campaign?).

His opponent repeatedly tried to blow the whistle at what was going on with Santos' campaign, but was all but ignored by the media who considered it a low-level race not worth covering. I think it took about a month after the election before the media started to actually give a damn.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 31 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I don't even think that deceiving donors was the line. I think it was exactly what he bought. OnlyFans? Scandalous. Botox for a man? Shameful. If he'd bought guns and an F350, or just Venmo'd a high school student, he'd still a congressman.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 11 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Friendly reminder that OnlyFans talking about banning porn on their platform was just a cover to distract from the news story about them allowing users hosting child porn, prostitution and other illegal material to get away with warnings, so long as their accounts were profitable.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] June@lemm.ee 60 points 8 months ago (21 children)

Jesus fucking Christ finally

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 25 points 8 months ago

**Took them long enough. But the bad thing about this is that it was at all.necessary. A criminal should not join the house, and if found out should immediately resign on his own. But he stuck to the seat and it took ages to get rid of him.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 52 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Pffft, big whoop, he’ll go back to being CEO of Goldman-Sachs and owner of the Denver Broncos, this is barely a speedbump.

[–] kmartburrito@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago

He's also an angel investor with the resurgence campaign of Glamour Shots

[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

He's one of the founding members of the Beatles, he'll be ok

[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 42 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

311 to 114
The house has a Republican majority, you really have to fuck up for them to break the 11th commandment.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 33 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Funny story about Reagan and the '11th Commandment.'

Back in the day, a group of Dem women approached their GOP counterparts with a story about Nestle's Africa operations. Basically, Nestle was tricking poor women by giving away free formula to new mothers. The supply lasted until the mothers stopped lactating, then they had to pay full price. This meant that the babies were not getting enough food at the time they needed good nutrition the most.

The GOP women wanted the Party to stand up to Nestle, but Reagan talked thme down, and explained that conservatives shouldn't shaft one another.

Later on, Reagan attacked President Ford for sticking by the treaty that returned the Panama Canal. There was no way Ford could renege on the treaty, but it made Reagan look like a tough guy.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] superduperenigma@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Santos broke the most important commandment:

Thou shall not fuck with wealthy people's money.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 28 points 8 months ago (1 children)

“It almost would have been a dereliction of my duty if I did not support this,” Guest said Friday. “I did what I felt was right from a personal point of view.”

It absolutely would have been yet another dereliction of your duty.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 8 points 8 months ago

Wow, I didn't know you could be a Congressman without logging in.

[–] FoundTheVegan@kbin.social 26 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Nehls claimed, without evidence, that the Ethics Committee had been “weaponized” against Santos.

“You may accept this report as grounds for expulsion from Congress, but I say no,” Nehls said. “It’s not right. The totality of circumstance appears biased. It stinks of politics.”

Any amount of ethics will always be resisted by Republicans. 🙄

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"It stinks of politics"

  • A politician about a political event.
[–] Vant@lemm.ee 6 points 8 months ago

The call was coming from inside the House!

[–] IHeartBadCode@kbin.social 24 points 8 months ago (2 children)

In the entire history of the US, there have only been five ever expelled from the US House of Representatives. Three of those five that were expelled because of that whole Civil War thing.

Today, we've added a sixth name to that list. George Santos.

And don't forget the guy has in front of him a very long list of Federal indictments that include hits like conspiracy against the United States, wire fraud, credit card fraud, and money laundering all of those being really big no-nos. Dude has absolutely not been having the greatest last eleven months of his life and boy oh boy we're JUST getting started on the downhill for him.

Like it's a surprisingly very LONG list of crimes he's facing, like WTF dude did you just spend the last eleven months going, "Okay I've had my morning coffee, time to crime!" And then investigators found more crime after he was indicted and was like "Oh no we've got to put all that other crime on pause because … I mean JUST LOOK AT THIS SHIT!!" and filed a superseding indictment. Like shit was so bad, US Prosecutors were like "all his previous crimes, we've got to put that shit on pause. This new shit, it's GOT to take priority." There's no way you violate that much of the law just by happy chance.

I don't know where we'll all be at in five years from now, but I DO know that each day from now onward, for George Santos it can only get worse for him. Like today, today is the worse day in George Santos' life. And tomorrow, tomorrow will be the worse day in George Santos' life. And that pattern will continue for a good amount of time going forward.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Turns out, the whole "can't arrest me for criming as long I commit new crimes for you to investigate" only works for a certain fat, orange, drowned-muskrat-wearing Floridiot.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 22 points 8 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Who are the two Democrats who voted present instead of yes? And why did they do that??

[–] kboy101222@lemm.ee 10 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Scott (VA) and Williams (GA) voted Nay

Green (TX) and Jackson (IL) voted present. Couldn't give you a reason though

Jackson Lee (TX) and Phillips (MN) were not voting for some reason as well as AOC who I suspect didn't vote since she's also a NY member

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago (2 children)

It's probably time to check those closets for some skeletons. AOC at least makes a little sense, not wanting to make it seem personal, but I would have rather she ran up the score.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dynamojoe@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago

Of course, Gaetz, Boebert, and MTG all voted Nay. the record

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago

311 to 114... And they only needed 290 to bounce him. +21 more than necessary!

Apparently we CAN work together!

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 8 points 8 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The House on Friday voted to expel Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) from Congress — an action the chamber had taken only five times in U.S. history and not for more than 20 years — in response to an array of alleged crimes and ethical lapses that came to light after the freshman lawmaker was found to have fabricated key parts of his biography.

The vote followed the release two weeks ago of a 56-page Ethics Committee report that accused Santos of an array of misconduct — including stealing money from his campaign, deceiving donors about how contributions would be used, creating fictitious loans and engaging in fraudulent business dealings.

Santos, the report alleges, spent hefty sums on personal enrichment, including visits to spas and casinos, shopping trips to high-end stores and payments to a subscription site that contains adult content.

A defiant Santos has long denied wrongdoing and resisted calls to resign, claiming at a news conference Thursday that fellow House members were “bullying” him and that the Ethics Committee report was incomplete and “littered with hyperbole.”

During House debate Thursday over the resolution, Guest defended the work and report of the panel, saying investigators spent eight months reviewing 172,000 pages of documents and interviewing 40 witnesses.

During long-winded remarks on X Spaces last week, Santos — despite saying he would not step down from office — said he no longer wanted to work with “a bunch of hypocrites” in Congress, whom he accused of committing infractions more severe than his, including being “more worried about getting drunk every night” with lobbyists.


The original article contains 1,411 words, the summary contains 262 words. Saved 81%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Doesn't his last name mean saints? Oh the irony. 😇

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago (3 children)

wow that only took half a year. good thing he still got to sit there and vote and get paid in the meantime

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›