George Santos, the lying, fraudulent, criminal Congressman from New York who was elected to Congress by almost completely fabricating his résumé, is likely to be expelled from the House at the end of this week in a bi-partisan two-thirds vote. Good.
Santos will be the first House member to be jettisoned without having first been convicted of a crime or being a supporter of the Confederacy. The bi-partisan effort is even more remarkable because House Republicans have so small a majority including Santos. But George is special. He is an embarrassment to the party, his district, New York, the House, the nation and his species.
Some Republicans, however, don’t comprehend that “integrity of the institution” stuff. Meet Roger Williams of Texas, who explains why he is not inclined to vote against Santos. noting that he has serious reservations about voting to remove a fellow member and saying, “I think we set a really not a good example if we can just pick and choose who comes and who stays. I don’t agree with what he’s been accused of, but at the same time it’s not our job here in Congress to decide who the congressman in some state or some district is. I just don’t like the idea of that.”
This is the quality of analysis offered by an elected official who helps make our laws. Ugh. Let’s see…
1. Congress isn’t picking and choosing “who comes and who stays.” Congress, like all institutions with any integrity and respectability, is enforcing minimum standards for its members. If it won’t do that—and it usually doesn’t—it forfeits the trust of the public.
2. Not only will Congress be setting a good example by ridding itself of an unqualified, dishonest phony who was elected under false pretenses, it is an essential example that should be repeated more frequently. All Americans, the unfortunate districts that elect unqualified representatives, and Congress itself are harmed when sociopaths like Santos are elected. Citizens should be on alert that if they vote irresponsibly and end up with a toxic representative, he or she might end up being rejected. I can think of at least 10 other members of the House—none quite as bad as Santos, of course—who would benefit Congress by their absence. It’s ridiculous that so few Representatives have been expelled in three centuries.
3. “I don’t agree with what he’s been accused of…” Can you be any more equivocal, Congressman? Santos’s lies about his background are a matter of record. The scathing report from the House Ethics Committee earlier this month concluded after a thorough investigation that he “sought to fraudulently exploit every aspect of his House candidacy for his own personal financial profit.” The fact that Santos also has more than 20 criminal charges pending against him doesn’t even need to come into consideration.
4. Congress isn’t deciding “who the congressman in some state or some district is.” Santos’s New York district will do that in a special election after Santos is metaphorically kicked out the door and down the Capitol steps.
Williams’ rapier-like analysis reveals him as a dim, dim bulb, but at least he might be honest…unlike Rep. Santos.
Ethics Alarms 
I agree wholeheartedly that Santos needs to go. Now, Ethics Committee, do Ilhan Omar and the rest of the Squad.
The whole pack of grifters needs to be exposed, both parties. Even if they can’t be expelled, at least the folks back home deserve full disclosure, which we sure can’t depend on the MSM to do evenhandedly.
Never happen. Hey, one of my co-workers thinks the Squad are the greatest, calling them “the Four Sisters” (never mind the fact that AOC is no “sista.”)
…and that there are six of them, with one guy.
Even if Santos goes trust has been eroded in Congress and we should not blame that entirely on Santos. Santos should have known not to use campaign funds for personal gain but simply use inside information to improve his investment portfolio like so many others have done.
Until the demagoguery ends and real debate on issues begins Congress cannot be held in high esteem. Far too many have brought discredit to the House and Senate. To be honest, I don’t have much use for career politicians.
300 years? I don’t think Congress has sat that long, considering we’re only coming up on 250 years in 2026. Given what’s gone on the last few, I wonder if we’ll even celebrate then.
Duh. That was supposed to be three centuries, the 19th, 20th, and 21st. Fixed.
I’ve always been suspect of that way of counting. For example, someone will say, “So and so spent three decades in the Majors.” You read that and think, “Wow! Thirty years! That’s a long time!” Then you realize the guy was in the Bigs from 1979 to 1991. A big accomplishment, but eighteen years short of three decades, i.e., thirty years.
Yeah, you should be. I wanted to emphasize the centuries to point up how established the passive Congressional attitude toward untrustworthy members is, not changing over vast periods of political culture evolution.
I think the countervailing argument is that his District gets to decide whom to elect. It is not the Congress’s job to overrule the will of the people.
The counter to that is that he was elected under false pretenses and the will of the people was obtained deceitfully.
The counter to that, however, is that the people can decide that at the next election.
Thought experiment: if Congress throws him out, what does Congress do if he gets re-elected next fall (or at the special election)? Keep him? Because the voters decided? If the answer is “yes,” then just let the voters decide.
(By the way, for purposes of this comment, I am ignoring the campaign funds issue, as I am barely familiar with the allegations. However, those may provide a basis for Congress to do something. But, it also could open Congress up to legitimate accusations of hypocrisy.)
-Jut
Yes Jut, you’ve laid out the countervailing arguments, many of which are often made here. “Let the voters decide.” Hey, I’d love to have Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Schultz expelled. I find them both despicable. The question, of course, is where do we draw the line? Santos might as well be a character described in a political science exam hypothetical. Which bad box didn’t he check? Hard cases make bad law.
Throw him out again. Congress should have refused to seat Rep Alcee Hastings, who ran for Congress and was elected after being impeached as a judge for taking bribes. I would have no problem with a strict policy that Congress will not seat elected representatives who have proven themselves objectively untrustworthy.
That may be the solution: impeach him. That would satisfy due process concerns. And, if they can’t impeach him, he should stay.
-Jut
The counter to that is that he was elected under false pretenses and the will of the people was obtained deceitfully. The counter to that, however, is that the people can decide that at the next election.
Not much of a counter-counter, though, is it? Isn’t that like saying, “Hey, you fucked up: You trusted us!” Do better next time? If I’m scammed, I want something more to happen to the scammer than, “Well I won’t be doing business with THAT crook again!”
Yes. Agreed. The guy is a one-man compendium of bad behavior. Frankly, I’m surprised he hasn’t been defended by the gay and Hispanic and cross-dressing and anti-incarceration advocates. He’s clearly a member of any number of protected classes. You’d think the Democrats would be after him to switch parties.
Plus, he’s a grifter in the Hunter Biden class of grifters.
Not to detract from Williams’ award, but do you have Chicago’s mayor, who is trying to blame Republicans for his city’s failures, cued up for next week’s honors?
Hilarious.
Ha! Read my mind! Just posted on it!