I could easily make this an Unethical Quote of the Month post too.
I had fondly hoped that I had written my last sentence about the disgusting blight on the republic that calls himself “George Santos,” but no: I just read the ethics-free, Machiavellian, “the ends justify the mean” protest by The Federalist titled, “George Santos’ Expulsion Is Further Proof The GOP Is A Potemkin Political Party.” One of the supposed media flagships of conservative thought has announced that if the Republican Party really cared about conservative principles, it would happily allow a dishonest, untrustworthy, and stunningly dumb Congressman elected under false pretenses remain in Congress under their banner, because they need him to “tackle” the “aforementioned”crises plaguing the country.”
It is a disgusting, indefensible, unethical position, demonstrating that the Democratic Party’s ethics rot has spread. Consider these excerpts:
- “It’s perfectly rational to believe that Santos is an unethical guy who doesn’t deserve to be reelected.” What despicable equivocation. Santos is an unethical guy, and he shouldn’t have been elected in the first place. There is no doubt about it at all. I liked his explanation when he was caught in his lie that he was Jewish: what he was saying, see, was that he was “Jew-ish,” as in kinda sorta like a jew but not technically a Jew. Oh. Then there are the 26 Federal indictments. Yeah, Federalist, I’d say it’s damn “rational” to conclude this sociopathic compulsive liar is unethical…
- “Here’s what Speaker Mike Johnson had to say before Friday’s vote: ‘We’re going to allow people to vote their conscience.’ “You know who wouldn’t be caught dead saying something that asinine about a vote to expel someone from his or her own party? Hakeem Jeffries, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, or any other Democrat serving in the halls of Congress.” And other scummy, untrustworthy politicians that have made our legislative branch the hyper-partisan, dysfunctional compost heap it is. Who else wouldn’t be caught dead endorsing standing up for the integrity of Congress over narrow political gain? Let’s see…Richard Nixon, John Haldeman, Bill Cinton, Hillary Clinton, Paul Begala, Mitch McConnell, Adam Schiff, Joe McCarthy, Harry Reid, Donald Trump, Maxine Waters, and hundreds more. I could have mentioned Josef Goebbels.That’s a criticism? If the government is ever going to serve the legitimate needs of the the American people and give them the nation they deserve, these are the types of leaders and politicians that must be rejected, not emulated.
- “The GOP is a Potemkin political entity built on the false perception that they actually give a rip about their voters and are willing to fight for conservative principles.” That’s funny, I thought integrity, honesty, respect for the law and trustworthiness were conservative principles…
The inescapable fact is that a sociopath like Gearge Santos cannot be trusted, not by his district, his party, the nation, his best friend or his lover. People who cannot be trusted are dangerous, a quality somewhat diminished in Santos’s case because he is evidently an idiot. Dangerous, untrustworthy people must not be permitted to be in positions of power. This is not a difficult concept, but apparently the editors of The Federalist can not grasp it. It si true that sometimes extraordinary circumstances require a righteous leader to make a deal with the Devil, as Churchill and FDR did with Stalin in World War II. But the stakes were the the existence of civilization itself, and Stalin had a lot more to offer than a paltry vote in a roll call. By voting with Democrats to get rid of a cancer on the Congress, the Republicans who recognized their duty took a much needed, selfless step in the direction of restoring public trust. Many more steps are needed, but the ethically-inert at the Federalist balk at this small one. I wonder: is there any person, no matter how vile, that the Federalist wouldn’t want their party to protect in order to maintain a majority?
Ethics Alarms 
This might brighten your day: https://fr.news.yahoo.com/video/fetterman-demands-sen-menendez-expelled-190930371.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACf9Bq7mhvtSLgLEutf1Va1V7NaXNtcPjI5Qo0j4fPNX7LpR4Yjk-HQlVAoBSm3WljBIHPvZuzY6R4jRtx8jcwBKfWUBU1Ek9FEEnvoClWXBQvdsFPPahHdtWcxrfnkzFPRBednMcHC52yH-UdzFuOV3c-9DjYcfGbvyWSRyD_Fw
Look at the bright side, the Republicans are giving you something to write about other than Trump.
I am reminded of the saying that suggests perfection is the enemy of the good. I suppose this issue is more like striving for perfection when you cannot control what others do.
Would it make a difference ethically if the balance of power in the House was turned over to the Democrats by virtue of the expulsion?
When you consider that the current administration would immediately move to give amnesty to the 12 million illegal aliens or wipe away the entire student debt for votes in the upcoming presidential election if they controlled the House, Senate and Executive branch that could have the potential of starting a second civil war or bankrupting our economy, is it rational to allow him to stay and work to defeat him at the ballot box next year with a more ethical person simply to maintain power? In short, does it make political sense to unilaterally work to cleanse the Congress of miscreants to rebuild trust if any attempt you make is propaganda fodder for the other side?
Because the balance is not going to shift control it was easy to decide that the ethical choice is to expel him. That being said I am a bit more forgiving of Mike Johnson’s statement . Had Santos been a Democrat there is no way Jeffries would had allowed an expulsion vote if he were the Speaker.
Would it make a difference ethically if the balance of power in the House was turned over to the Democrats by virtue of the expulsion? Maybe. Using torture can be ethically excused if it’s a ticking nuclear bomb in NYC and it’s the last hope of finding out where it is. Allying with Stalin was ethically excusable to defeat Hitler
Therein lies the problem. Like censorship who decides when the existential threat exists. We currently have a President who believes we will soon be burning to death due to climate change or is he simply lying to advance the commercial interests of a few donors who are heavily invested in renewable energy? As for being Jew-ish didn’t Biden say he attended temple after going to the Black church on Sunday in his Puerto Rican community.
I do agree with Tom that punishment should not occur prior to conviction. You cited the number of indictments. Does that apply to the current Presidential frontrunner as well? Much of what we learn about candidates comes from the media who seems to have a history of bias. Could they be embellishing the negatives about Santos. Maybe, maybe not. I don’t have enough information to conclude anything. I want to rely on objective courts.
The IG’s also seem to have issues with credibility especially after Horowitz found no political bias in Crossfire Hurricane. We can lodge a hate crime enhancement if a person utters a single racial epithet during another crime, but Horowitz could not determine if emails talking about how trump would never be allowed to become president were politically motivated. I find this a much BS as Adm. Kirby saying yesterday that because the gunning down of nearly 20 Israelis occurred in Jerusalem and not Gaza it was technically not a ceasefire violation.
” The Inspector General stated that the review did not find evidence that “political bias or improper motivation influenced” the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. It was also determined that the opening of the overall investigation “was in compliance” with policies set by the FBI and the Department of Justice.”
This is not what-about-ism it is simply an observation that voters always see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. It is laughable. Maybe the ethics rot originates in the voting public. Cue POGO “We have met the enemy, and it is us”
I do agree with Tom that punishment should not occur prior to conviction. You cited the number of indictments. Does that apply to the current Presidential frontrunner as well?
I wrote that Santos should be kicked out of Congress as soon as his resume fraud was discovered, so his indictments are frosting on the cake for me. There is no analogy with Trump’s situation: I felt that Trump was also disqualified for his office when he first ran, but once elected, there was no way to remove him short of impeachment, and there were no grounds for that. As for the current indictments: it is clear that Democrats are using the justice system as a political weapon…that’s not the case with Santos’s indictments.
Yes, any standard can be abused. That’s not an argument for not having standards.
Jack
I am just trying to be more like Henry Fonda in Twelve Angry Men than Lee J Cobb.
There is no doubt of the rigor of your analysis regarding either candidate. I just believe that the onus for selecting quality candidates should fall on an educated electorate. The idea that a handful of experts who understand why X should not be allowed in Congress bothers me more than someone whose character is questionable. We are seeing what happens when a group of people decide what is best for the rest of us. If we are going to condemn anyone such condemnation should fall on the people who are too lazy to learn the issues or only vote for the candidate who promises them stuff.
But the candidate, his party, the opposing candidate and the opposing party, plus the media, all failed to do their jobs of informing the public of what they needed to know in order to make an informed choice. The voters can’t be blamed for Santos.
In my opinion, Santos is a pathological liar and a genuine piece of shit and I don’t give a damn what happens to him. Expel his goat smelling ass from Congress and let the justice system and his Congressional district pound the living shit out of him.
Good riddance Santos.
As for The Federalist and others that choose to rationalize keeping Santos in Congress, *#@”^+!~ and don’t you ever forget it!
Jack,
I have read your post and the post by The Federalist multiple times and don’t get the same interpretation as you did. I interpret their post to be complaining about the Republicans continually acquiescing to the Democrat’s agenda. They used the Santos proceedings as a pretext to make that complaint.
Regarding Santos’ expulsion, I think it sets a very bad precedent. Santos was the first representative to be expelled from Congress who was not convicted of a crime before expulsion. While I don’t disagree that Santos is not to be trusted in any capacity, I think the voters in his district should decide on his expulsion. I also find it laughable that the politicians and media pundits are complaining about Santos’ lying. Santos’ problem in the falsehood department is that he is a very bad liar whereas Washington politicians and MSM pundits are professional liars.
I also do not disagree with the complaint advanced in The Federalist that the Republicans keep rolling over for the Democrats. My problem with their article is they did a very poor job of clearly making their case.
Santos is irrelevant and immaterial. Keeping him in Congress solely for his vote is both stupid and meaningless; he is just one vote. Nothing of any substance will come before Congress before the 2024 election.
Congresses’ handling of Santos has been a distraction both in the media and the halls of Congress. Instead of tackling the problems outlined in the Federalist article time is wasted on punishing Santos. However, expelling Santos is meaningless and immaterial; it will not change the behavior of any member of Congress or the public’s impression of them. The brain-dead electorate will return self-serving incumbents to their posts. Political pundits and voters will continue to support whatever candidate has their preferred letter associated with them, either a D or R. Sadly, we as a nation will continue to receive the government we deserve.
They used the Santos proceedings as a pretext to make that complaint. According to the headline, it was the foundation of their argument. When the foundation as defined by the advocate is poor and weak, it is impossible to credit the position.
Regarding Santos’ expulsion, I think it sets a very bad precedent. Santos was the first representative to be expelled from Congress who was not convicted of a crime before expulsion. While I don’t disagree that Santos is not to be trusted in any capacity, I think the voters in his district should decide on his expulsion. I dealt with this point in the previous Santos post. I do not see the logic. Many other members of Congress should have been expelled. Santos is almost certainly a crook (26 indictments is a lot) but I wrote that he should have been expelled before all that, based on his fraudulent resume alone. And again, his district fucked up, but the whole nation is harmed by having a fake like Santos in a position of power. It’s not just his district’s problem.
I also find it laughable that the politicians and media pundits are complaining about Santos’ lying. Terrible argument, an everybody does it rationalization It’s like arguing that thieves caught red-handed shouldn’t be punished because better thieves get away with the same crimes.
I also do not disagree with the complaint advanced in The Federalist that the Republicans keep rolling over for the Democrats. The motion that ejected Santos came from Republicans. The fact that Democrats had some partisan reason to vote for it is irrelevant, a case of doing the right thing for the wrongs reasons.
Santos was the distraction, Now hes’ gone. A bi-partisan vote is a good sign, however it occurs. The writer wants hyper-partisan total warfare, and doesn’t care if the Congress looks like a den of crooks with someone like Santos there. It’s a warped set of priorities.
Jack,
Chris and I seem to look at the Santos expulsion with the same reservation. We are not defending Santos. We are arguing to not through the baby out with the bath water. While it is easy to relinquish freedom, once relinquished it is very difficult to win it back. The repeal of Roe vs. Wade is an excellent example of that premise.
Regarding, my comments on the Federalist Article I just offered an alternate interpretation, I was not defending Santos. Reasonable people can view things differently.
Again, my position on Santos’ expulsion has nothing to do with Santos. As I stated he is irrelevant. His expulsion establishes a new and more restrictive precedent. My reading of the current House of Representatives Code of Conduct
https://ethics.house.gov/publications/code-official-conduct
Points 10 (a) and (b) is that expulsion occurs after conviction “by a court of record for the commission of a crime for which a sentence of two or more years’ imprisonment” not before.
Your position that Santos falsifying his resume was grounds for expulsion is even more restrictive. Again, you are entitled to your opinion. However, that means that members should be expelled for lying. That seems a very broad category. Does that include all lies or just some lies? Where should the lie on lying be drawn? I have no idea.
Regarding was the Santos expulsion a Democrat or Republican objective the votes were 98% of Democrats and 48% of Republicans voted for expulsion. Regardless of who brought the last removal charge the numbers say to me it was a Democrat Party thing with a bunch of Republicans looking to not be associated with Santos in the upcoming elections.
Thanks for raising and linking to the House Ethics Code. Frankly, it makes the expulsion of Santos look like an easy call—there are an enormous number of violations he is already guilty of, and when the Code says he “may not” do various things he has done and is doing beyond the crimes, what should that mean? Unless it is enforced, and it’s not, then naturally the body becomes progressively corrupt, as well as validates Santos’s own excuse, which is “Why not those hypocrites?” Why not indeed. Kicking out the worst of the worst is an excellent start.
You can’t leap to “he’s being kicked out for lying, is all lying enough to expel someone.” He’s being kicked out for violating, egregiously, ” 1. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.
and 2. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall adhere to the spirit and the letter of the Rules of the House and to the rules of duly constituted committees thereof.. Outrageous lying just happened to be the way he’s done it. That “Jew-ish” whopper by itself would qualify, because it makes the whole House look like kindergarten.
Again, the GOP members voted for Santos because they care about the majority more than they care about integrity. They are wrong. The Democrats voted against Santos because he’s a disgrace, AND because they can gain by it, but the first part is enough to justify the decision.
By the way, Ann Althouse agrees with you, missing the crucial point that all states and voters are affected when one district elects someone like Santos:
“I agree. The man was elected by the people of a small geographic area who have a chance every 2 years to pick some human being to represent them. If they picked a big clown, that’s democracy for you. Deal with it. Hope that the other clowns are lesser clowns and can balance things out. Santos wasn’t important, and fussing over him was always, as I see it, distraction. Distraction, too, is democracy. I get that.”
Setting new, higher standards when the current ones don’t work is also democracy.
“Santos’ problem in the falsehood department is that he is a very bad liar”
The inimitable Babylon Bee: Santos Expelled By Congress For Doing Terrible Job Covering Up Ethics Violations
PWS
Here was Byron York’s take?
Can a departure from this established custom, tradition, and precedent be justified? Especially the second precedent listed, which required a recommendation of expulsion by the Ethics Committee, and by corollary, deferred to an Ethics Committee’s recommendation against expulsion.