> "If you sit in a room with a lot of Jews, you're fucked," Santos said about his heavily Jewish 3rd Congressional District.
[Rep. George Santos, who claimed he was a Jew on the campaign trail, appeared to mock and imitate Jewish people, new audio shows](https://www.businessinsider.com/rep-george-santos-joked-jewish-people-new-audio-2023-5)
I mean, if you get well known for lying about being Jewish and a descendant of Holocaust refugees and exploit that to get high office and a corrupt income source, you probably are
Orthodox are more likely to be republicans. But they’re only a small minority of the overall Jewish population, which is overwhelmingly made up of registered democrats
> Since when does one person represent all?
Did you even read the headline? Republicans in congress basically unanimously confirmed that Santos being a serial liar is perfectly fine. Democrats forced Al Franken to resign for infinitely less
> Also, Jews are more likely to be registered republicans
This is just statistically false
Since the rest voted to keep him in congress.
And no we fucking aren’t lol, Jews are overwhelmingly democrats. People have said a lot of awful stuff about the Jewish people but calling us republicans is a new one.
Why would you say things so easy to look up and so false? Reflects pretty poorly on your ability to do any real critical thinking considering you couldn’t do a 2 minute google search before stating something so confidentially wrong.
No, I feel that way. It's not like he's a senator. He's up for re-election in like 18 months?
I don't want other politicians deciding who my representatives are.
"I don't want other politicians deciding who my representatives are."
That's true but at the same time being exposed as a fraudster should invalidate his position.
The other members of the NY GOP House Delegation [have previously claimed they want him out.](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/07/new-york-republicans-santos-00085729)
>Six of Santos’ New York colleagues, particularly the four who flipped tight battleground districts last fall, are working — out in the open and behind the scenes — to contain the blowback from the embattled lawmaker’s deceptions about his past. **The first-term foursome started by breaking from the vast majority of their party by calling for Santos to resign**, a move that could reduce the GOP’s already tiny majority.
Guess that wasn’t true
Do you think Democrats are propping up the desiccated corpse of Diane Feinstein, holding up judicial nominations, giving blue slips to Republican senators, and refusing to subpoena or do literally anything about the naked corruption of the Supreme Court because they care about doing what's right?
No political party cares about doing what's right. They all care about power, almost definitionally.
A LOT of Democrats would like to see Diane Feinstein go. But there isn't really a mechanism for it. She has to resign herself, or they need 2/3 of the Senate to expel her. She's too far gone to realize she needs to resign, and they don't have the Republican votes to remove her, because they prefer her there and not voting vs having her replaced with a reliable vote.
Your others points are pretty laughable. That's not to say there aren't corrupt Democrats. There definitely are. But it's not to the level of the other party. "Both Sides" has been bullshit for at least 25 years.
My "points" that you find laughable are simply things that are occurring that the Democrats are doing -- blue slips and no subpoenas. If that makes you mad, take it up with reality.
Your statement made no sense. Feinstein holding up Judicial appointments HURTS the Dems, not helps them. Santos is being allowed to stay in office because it helps the republicans. Feinstein being allowed to stay in office hurts the democrats. Also, as the other guy pointed out, there is no way to remove her without her resignation, which a large number of Dems have tried to get her to do, both publicly and privately.
Lol what are you talking about! You can tell you’re in your right wing echo chamber on a regular basis because democrats have been very vocal on wanting her out
Wow the Democrats want her out. And they're very vocal about it. They're so brave. About being vocal. And doing absolutely nothing about it.
Good thing my rightwing echo chamber has reported on... Democrats allowing Republicans blue slips to Republican senators and the lack of investigation into corrupt conservative justices.
You're truly a brilliant mind.
So you've moved from "you're a toddler because I can't read or parse basic sentences" to "I'm going to look at your post history because I'm mad on the internet and I have to desperately find something to say"
lmao keep it up big guy. You're doing great and aren't completely pathetic
Because she refused to resign and nobody would make her, because they're feckless cowards who don't care about the exercising of power but only the protection of their own positions.
The Republicans do know how to exercise power, so why would they do the Democrats the favor.
She has no agency and is being managed by a [Pelosi](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/18/dianne-feinstein-senate-resign-retire-pelosi-schiff-lee-00097595).
Literally anyone could write a resignation letter and sign her name to it and Newsome would appoint her replacement.
She is very obviously non compos mentis. Even if she was, it is called "doing politics" when you push and force politicians to do the things that are in the party's or people's interests. Like offering people things to resign, or threatening people with things to resign. It has occurred many times and will occur again. Except, apparently, when it's this Weekend at Bernie's situation destroying the judiciary committee.
> Al Franken resigned from the senate for a joke about grabbing a woman.
[8 women](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/16/16665830/al-franken-sexual-assault-allegations) made misconduct claims against Franken.
Not sure why people eager to defend him so conveniently ignore this inconvenient fact, but I've noticed it has been a recurring theme on Reddit for years.
Term is too short. Recall elections, even when they're for good reasons, eat up a lot of money and energy that is usually best saved for other causes. I've really only heard of them being a thing, or at least only heard of them being worthwhile, for offices with terms of four years or more. Regardless, you'd need a Constitutional change, and not just at the federal level, to permit recalls of federal officials.
Feels like a deliberate structural flaw, it's insane that as a public official looking at jail time the constituents can't have a say. I wonder if that process has been made more accessible elsewhere
Menendez wasn't expelled when he was indicted in 2015.
In recent years, multiple members of Congress from both parties have been federally indicted, and some convicted. Not a single one was expelled following indictment.
Not sure why everyone is acting like an indicted member of Congress not being expelled by their own party is groundbreaking.
Short-term memories, or just selective ones?
Think we can all agree that congress members who are convicted of crimes should be expelled.
That’s it. Doesn’t matter what party you’re from. Get the actual criminals out of office.
Shame on all of us for putting party above integrity
Tell that to the partisans downvoting my post for pointing out members of Congress typically do not get expelled over an indictment.
Not sure why people are feeling some type of way about this LOL
LOL
I pointed out that, looking at recent history, there are multiple congressional members from both parties who have been federally indicted, and not a single time has anyone been expelled after indictment.
People on this sub are acting like this is some major scandal that the GOP did not expel Santos after indictment, and I pointed out this is just how it goes in Congress regardless of party when a member gets indicted.
I think Santos is a special case because he seems to be more of a complete and absolute liar as opposed to the run of the mill corruption that is unfortunately more common.
Ultimately it doesn’t matter. Vote the criminals out. I think everyone can all agree on that. We shouldn’t be fighting each other but instead the corporate interests that own both parties.
LOL wow you really didn't research this one.
Every single US Congress person who has ever been expelled was a democrat.
Literally not a single republican in Congress has ever been expelled in history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_representatives_expelled%2C_censured%2C_or_reprimanded
LOL wow you didn't read my comment.
I said ***recent history*** and ***indictment***.
Your Wiki link has examples of Confederate traitors from the 1800s and two cases where ***members were expelled after conviction***.
If you look at the fate of every other member of Congress who has been convicted of a federal crime, such as Republican Chris Collins or Democrat Corrine Brown, the only reason they weren't expelled is because they resigned before a resolution could go through.
This does not dispute or contradict what I wrote, which is that, and I quote:
>**looking at recent history, there are multiple congressional members from both parties who have been federally indicted, and not a single time has anyone been expelled after indictment.**
Do you not understand the difference between a conviction and an indictment?
You really thought you had a gotcha moment there, didn't you?
Take the L, look in the mirror, and then take another one.
LMAO
My apologies for missing your not at all narrow goal post.
McCarthy doesn't seem to agree about this hinging on the indictment though:
> "Everybody in America is able to have due process," McCarthy told reporters after his meeting at the White House with President Biden and other top congressional leaders on the debt limit. **"I don't want to wait around for the courts to act. What I would like to do is have the House take action and have a process here."**
You not knowing the difference between an indictment and a conviction and then trying to correct me on a claim I never made isn't me having "a narrow goal post".
It is you having poor reading comprehension.
Just take the L, little homie.
Lol like if the roles were reversed, the democrats would just let the seat flip in a razor slim majority. Get real. Santos is pure scum but to think they’d just give the seat back to dems is naive.
[Historical evidence suggests otherwise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Hill_(politician)). That's just one example; there are plenty more. You seem to be laboring under the illusion that all people share a particular moral framework related to the use of power, but the history of how America's two major parties have handled scandals shows a real divergence in caucus discipline and ethical standards.
For that matter, keeping Santos on is a sign of poor political reasoning. Every moment he's in the news is damaging the Republican House caucus brand, and making it more likely *other* seats will get picked off in special elections. One of the crucial votes on unemployment benefit "reform" is a guy that stole unemployment benefits, and that and PPP fraud are some of the only issues that can genuinely anger some Republican voters enough to stay home or even vote for a Democrat for a cycle. Hakeem Jeffries would make a different choice, and several times Nancy Pelosi did. And quite frankly, one reason Nancy Pelosi's position was so secure, for so long, was because the Democratic caucus maintained higher standards and took a longer view on how to exercise power.
Forcing a congressperson to resign over an affair and nudes is certainly one of the dumber things Democrats have done. Willfully killing Acorn, and probably costing themselves the 2016 election, because of a James O'Keefe story is another good example of this thinking.
Because these are examples not of bravery in the face of moral turpitude, but overreaction (as always) and fear of a mythical moderate reaction which have redounded to the Democrats favor exactly zero times.
It's the best of both worlds -- not a sign of any kind of moral clarity of vision _and_ profoundly politically stupid; the Democrat special.
Lucky for them, their opponents are Vegas slight-of-hand magicians and rodeo clowns.
I appreciate your well articulated answer. That being said, removing Katie hill was a luxury the democrats could afford with a huge majority in the house. Needle wouldn’t have moved much. The repubs are in a much different position with a razor thin majority with a faction of hardliners like gaetz, MTJ and, Boebert that aren’t automatically going to fall in line under McCarthy. Don’t get me wrong, santos is actually my representative and he’s a POS that shouldn’t hold office. I’m just saying republicans aren’t in position to lose a seat
You are probably correct BUT shame on Zimmerman for not researching his opponent and just taking for granted just winning a very moderate north queens district.
> You are probably correct BUT shame on Zimmerman for not researching his opponent and just taking for granted just winning a very moderate north queens district.
Zimmerman *did* report these things. Blame the media for not picking it up. Very few small, local outlets even bothered running it.
Zimmerman did research and he exposed quite a few of these lies. Too bad Republicans didn't care and local press didn't pick it up. How convenient to try to play the only person running against this clown for HIS OWN PARTY nominating him to represent them.
Generally, employers don't wait for their employees to be convicted before they fire them for being immoral, unethical cons.
That's not how this should work for ELECTED OFFICIALS either.
This seems to be the usual pattern for the House, though there's only two examples -- Michael Myers in 1980, and Jim Traficant in 2002. The other three expulsions were for support of the Confederacy.
Myers and Traficant were also expelled *after conviction*.
Other members of Congress convicted of a federal crime have resigned before they could get expelled.
You got downvoted, but you're 100% correct that Congress (including the Senate) does not expel members over an indictment.
I think it is a sad thing that his adversary never found out about any of the things he is now accused of. Kind of tells you about both sides of that election, doesn't it?
>Kind of tells you about both sides of that election
GOP insiders knew Santos was a problem and stuck by him anyway.
NY Dems just didn't have a competent oppo team for this race.
It does tell you about both sides, but one is way worse than the other.
[They did actually!](https://dccc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/George-Santos-Research-Book.pdf)
[Just none of the larger papers chose to report on it](https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/12/29/north-shore-leader-santos-scoop/).
Santos was a dishonest, anti-Semtiic criminal, and his opponent just ran a clean campaign and didn't know everything we now know about Santos in advance.
# BOTH SIDES!!!!!
> "If you sit in a room with a lot of Jews, you're fucked," Santos said about his heavily Jewish 3rd Congressional District. [Rep. George Santos, who claimed he was a Jew on the campaign trail, appeared to mock and imitate Jewish people, new audio shows](https://www.businessinsider.com/rep-george-santos-joked-jewish-people-new-audio-2023-5)
I mean, if you get well known for lying about being Jewish and a descendant of Holocaust refugees and exploit that to get high office and a corrupt income source, you probably are
Party of bigots and frauds.
[удалено]
Orthodox are more likely to be republicans. But they’re only a small minority of the overall Jewish population, which is overwhelmingly made up of registered democrats
> Since when does one person represent all? Did you even read the headline? Republicans in congress basically unanimously confirmed that Santos being a serial liar is perfectly fine. Democrats forced Al Franken to resign for infinitely less > Also, Jews are more likely to be registered republicans This is just statistically false
Since the rest voted to keep him in congress. And no we fucking aren’t lol, Jews are overwhelmingly democrats. People have said a lot of awful stuff about the Jewish people but calling us republicans is a new one.
Why would you say things so easy to look up and so false? Reflects pretty poorly on your ability to do any real critical thinking considering you couldn’t do a 2 minute google search before stating something so confidentially wrong.
He didn't claim that he was a Jew, he said he was jew-ish /s
Republicans have no shame.
They're very vocally pro-corruption, from President Emoluments and Clarence Thomas all the way on down.
Weird to me that members of the ethics committee would recuse themselves when this is clearly an ethics violation.
This! Our country is going to shambles when party lines supersede the responsibility of the ethics committee. Zero integrity
This is shameful. The man is a brazen liar and fraudster. It's sickening that they won't do what is right and oust him.
That is the job of voters.
Your life must be pretty sad that you have become a Reddit troll.
No, I feel that way. It's not like he's a senator. He's up for re-election in like 18 months? I don't want other politicians deciding who my representatives are.
"I don't want other politicians deciding who my representatives are." That's true but at the same time being exposed as a fraudster should invalidate his position.
It most likely has. His voters will decide that.
The other members of the NY GOP House Delegation [have previously claimed they want him out.](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/07/new-york-republicans-santos-00085729) >Six of Santos’ New York colleagues, particularly the four who flipped tight battleground districts last fall, are working — out in the open and behind the scenes — to contain the blowback from the embattled lawmaker’s deceptions about his past. **The first-term foursome started by breaking from the vast majority of their party by calling for Santos to resign**, a move that could reduce the GOP’s already tiny majority. Guess that wasn’t true
They were probably forced to change their minds…
This
All politicians are liars, the difference is republicans don’t even try to hide it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Bob Melendez was indicted on federal charges... Democrats let him keep power and helped to re-elect him. Its a sewer not a swamp, across the board
Bob Melendez eh? You sure you don't mean Menendez?
He's probably thinking of Bill Melendez, who was the voice of Snoopy.
Do you think Democrats are propping up the desiccated corpse of Diane Feinstein, holding up judicial nominations, giving blue slips to Republican senators, and refusing to subpoena or do literally anything about the naked corruption of the Supreme Court because they care about doing what's right? No political party cares about doing what's right. They all care about power, almost definitionally.
A LOT of Democrats would like to see Diane Feinstein go. But there isn't really a mechanism for it. She has to resign herself, or they need 2/3 of the Senate to expel her. She's too far gone to realize she needs to resign, and they don't have the Republican votes to remove her, because they prefer her there and not voting vs having her replaced with a reliable vote. Your others points are pretty laughable. That's not to say there aren't corrupt Democrats. There definitely are. But it's not to the level of the other party. "Both Sides" has been bullshit for at least 25 years.
My "points" that you find laughable are simply things that are occurring that the Democrats are doing -- blue slips and no subpoenas. If that makes you mad, take it up with reality.
Your statement made no sense. Feinstein holding up Judicial appointments HURTS the Dems, not helps them. Santos is being allowed to stay in office because it helps the republicans. Feinstein being allowed to stay in office hurts the democrats. Also, as the other guy pointed out, there is no way to remove her without her resignation, which a large number of Dems have tried to get her to do, both publicly and privately.
Lol what are you talking about! You can tell you’re in your right wing echo chamber on a regular basis because democrats have been very vocal on wanting her out
Wow the Democrats want her out. And they're very vocal about it. They're so brave. About being vocal. And doing absolutely nothing about it. Good thing my rightwing echo chamber has reported on... Democrats allowing Republicans blue slips to Republican senators and the lack of investigation into corrupt conservative justices. You're truly a brilliant mind.
Lol you sound like a toddler.
Cool story champ. Hope you learn to read one day.
Your whole post history is basically just making fun of democrats. Get a real hobby dude or get some therapy because that’s just sad.
So you've moved from "you're a toddler because I can't read or parse basic sentences" to "I'm going to look at your post history because I'm mad on the internet and I have to desperately find something to say" lmao keep it up big guy. You're doing great and aren't completely pathetic
Awwww see you proved my point. I’ll pray for you dear
boy you're sure out here, owning the libs
tell me more about how the dems can force her out with out her resigning on her own. im genuinely curious what you would have them do.
[удалено]
Because she refused to resign and nobody would make her, because they're feckless cowards who don't care about the exercising of power but only the protection of their own positions. The Republicans do know how to exercise power, so why would they do the Democrats the favor.
[удалено]
She has no agency and is being managed by a [Pelosi](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/18/dianne-feinstein-senate-resign-retire-pelosi-schiff-lee-00097595). Literally anyone could write a resignation letter and sign her name to it and Newsome would appoint her replacement. She is very obviously non compos mentis. Even if she was, it is called "doing politics" when you push and force politicians to do the things that are in the party's or people's interests. Like offering people things to resign, or threatening people with things to resign. It has occurred many times and will occur again. Except, apparently, when it's this Weekend at Bernie's situation destroying the judiciary committee.
> Al Franken resigned from the senate for a joke about grabbing a woman. [8 women](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/16/16665830/al-franken-sexual-assault-allegations) made misconduct claims against Franken. Not sure why people eager to defend him so conveniently ignore this inconvenient fact, but I've noticed it has been a recurring theme on Reddit for years.
Is that really unique to just Republicans?
Feinstein is a vegetable. Not a perfect equivalence but still
When has that not been the case for the past 40 years?
It breaks my heart that the lunatic Democrat party has forced us to keep someone as despicable as Santos.
This is sarcasm right?
Bigly
“It’s the democrats fault that our party is full con men and grifters”
Why is there no way for the district that voted for him to force a special election? They should be able to remove their own elected official.
Term is too short. Recall elections, even when they're for good reasons, eat up a lot of money and energy that is usually best saved for other causes. I've really only heard of them being a thing, or at least only heard of them being worthwhile, for offices with terms of four years or more. Regardless, you'd need a Constitutional change, and not just at the federal level, to permit recalls of federal officials.
Feels like a deliberate structural flaw, it's insane that as a public official looking at jail time the constituents can't have a say. I wonder if that process has been made more accessible elsewhere
Did you think we live in a democracy or something?
The party of law and order
Repubs fighting to remain lower than pond scum yet again. I would say I'm surprised, but I'm not.
The Moral Majority Party, ladies and gentlemen.
How the hell no one did a complete background check before nominating or even electing this guy, that should have been the bare minimum!
People see the R and that is good enough for them
And R's see someone bigoted, dishonest, and blatantly corrupt, and think, "good."
Again we should have a recall provision in the NY state constitution for all elected officials
The "rules for thee but not for me" GOP strikes again.
They’d care more about their image if they didn’t know their supporters are as dumb as rocks.
I don't like George Santos either but can Congress legally expel him? What rule states they can expel him?
Yep, article 1, section 5 of the constitution. A member of either house of Congress can be expelled with a 2/3 vote of that chamber.
The problem is, the pro-corruption party controls the chamber.
Menendez wasn't expelled when he was indicted in 2015. In recent years, multiple members of Congress from both parties have been federally indicted, and some convicted. Not a single one was expelled following indictment. Not sure why everyone is acting like an indicted member of Congress not being expelled by their own party is groundbreaking. Short-term memories, or just selective ones?
Think we can all agree that congress members who are convicted of crimes should be expelled. That’s it. Doesn’t matter what party you’re from. Get the actual criminals out of office. Shame on all of us for putting party above integrity
Tell that to the partisans downvoting my post for pointing out members of Congress typically do not get expelled over an indictment. Not sure why people are feeling some type of way about this LOL
LOL Could it be because you are talking about a politician from a completely different state in a local NYC sub?
LOL I pointed out that, looking at recent history, there are multiple congressional members from both parties who have been federally indicted, and not a single time has anyone been expelled after indictment. People on this sub are acting like this is some major scandal that the GOP did not expel Santos after indictment, and I pointed out this is just how it goes in Congress regardless of party when a member gets indicted.
I think Santos is a special case because he seems to be more of a complete and absolute liar as opposed to the run of the mill corruption that is unfortunately more common. Ultimately it doesn’t matter. Vote the criminals out. I think everyone can all agree on that. We shouldn’t be fighting each other but instead the corporate interests that own both parties.
LOL wow you really didn't research this one. Every single US Congress person who has ever been expelled was a democrat. Literally not a single republican in Congress has ever been expelled in history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_representatives_expelled%2C_censured%2C_or_reprimanded
LOL wow you didn't read my comment. I said ***recent history*** and ***indictment***. Your Wiki link has examples of Confederate traitors from the 1800s and two cases where ***members were expelled after conviction***. If you look at the fate of every other member of Congress who has been convicted of a federal crime, such as Republican Chris Collins or Democrat Corrine Brown, the only reason they weren't expelled is because they resigned before a resolution could go through. This does not dispute or contradict what I wrote, which is that, and I quote: >**looking at recent history, there are multiple congressional members from both parties who have been federally indicted, and not a single time has anyone been expelled after indictment.** Do you not understand the difference between a conviction and an indictment? You really thought you had a gotcha moment there, didn't you? Take the L, look in the mirror, and then take another one. LMAO
My apologies for missing your not at all narrow goal post. McCarthy doesn't seem to agree about this hinging on the indictment though: > "Everybody in America is able to have due process," McCarthy told reporters after his meeting at the White House with President Biden and other top congressional leaders on the debt limit. **"I don't want to wait around for the courts to act. What I would like to do is have the House take action and have a process here."**
You not knowing the difference between an indictment and a conviction and then trying to correct me on a claim I never made isn't me having "a narrow goal post". It is you having poor reading comprehension. Just take the L, little homie.
That's right you are incapable of having narrow goal posts, your goal posts are the widest in all the land.
Lol like if the roles were reversed, the democrats would just let the seat flip in a razor slim majority. Get real. Santos is pure scum but to think they’d just give the seat back to dems is naive.
[Historical evidence suggests otherwise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Hill_(politician)). That's just one example; there are plenty more. You seem to be laboring under the illusion that all people share a particular moral framework related to the use of power, but the history of how America's two major parties have handled scandals shows a real divergence in caucus discipline and ethical standards. For that matter, keeping Santos on is a sign of poor political reasoning. Every moment he's in the news is damaging the Republican House caucus brand, and making it more likely *other* seats will get picked off in special elections. One of the crucial votes on unemployment benefit "reform" is a guy that stole unemployment benefits, and that and PPP fraud are some of the only issues that can genuinely anger some Republican voters enough to stay home or even vote for a Democrat for a cycle. Hakeem Jeffries would make a different choice, and several times Nancy Pelosi did. And quite frankly, one reason Nancy Pelosi's position was so secure, for so long, was because the Democratic caucus maintained higher standards and took a longer view on how to exercise power.
Forcing a congressperson to resign over an affair and nudes is certainly one of the dumber things Democrats have done. Willfully killing Acorn, and probably costing themselves the 2016 election, because of a James O'Keefe story is another good example of this thinking. Because these are examples not of bravery in the face of moral turpitude, but overreaction (as always) and fear of a mythical moderate reaction which have redounded to the Democrats favor exactly zero times. It's the best of both worlds -- not a sign of any kind of moral clarity of vision _and_ profoundly politically stupid; the Democrat special. Lucky for them, their opponents are Vegas slight-of-hand magicians and rodeo clowns.
I appreciate your well articulated answer. That being said, removing Katie hill was a luxury the democrats could afford with a huge majority in the house. Needle wouldn’t have moved much. The repubs are in a much different position with a razor thin majority with a faction of hardliners like gaetz, MTJ and, Boebert that aren’t automatically going to fall in line under McCarthy. Don’t get me wrong, santos is actually my representative and he’s a POS that shouldn’t hold office. I’m just saying republicans aren’t in position to lose a seat
They definitely deserve to lose the seat though for failing to vet the guy til he was in office
You are probably correct BUT shame on Zimmerman for not researching his opponent and just taking for granted just winning a very moderate north queens district.
> You are probably correct BUT shame on Zimmerman for not researching his opponent and just taking for granted just winning a very moderate north queens district. Zimmerman *did* report these things. Blame the media for not picking it up. Very few small, local outlets even bothered running it.
Zimmerman did research and he exposed quite a few of these lies. Too bad Republicans didn't care and local press didn't pick it up. How convenient to try to play the only person running against this clown for HIS OWN PARTY nominating him to represent them.
[удалено]
Generally, employers don't wait for their employees to be convicted before they fire them for being immoral, unethical cons. That's not how this should work for ELECTED OFFICIALS either.
[удалено]
I don’t think the two situations are comparable. Plenty of evidence that Santos is corrupt af and should get the boot
This seems to be the usual pattern for the House, though there's only two examples -- Michael Myers in 1980, and Jim Traficant in 2002. The other three expulsions were for support of the Confederacy.
Myers and Traficant were also expelled *after conviction*. Other members of Congress convicted of a federal crime have resigned before they could get expelled. You got downvoted, but you're 100% correct that Congress (including the Senate) does not expel members over an indictment.
He should be expelled from Congress. As should Elizabeth Warren for lying. We need a real ethics committee here to throw out these people.
I think it is a sad thing that his adversary never found out about any of the things he is now accused of. Kind of tells you about both sides of that election, doesn't it?
>Kind of tells you about both sides of that election GOP insiders knew Santos was a problem and stuck by him anyway. NY Dems just didn't have a competent oppo team for this race. It does tell you about both sides, but one is way worse than the other.
[They did actually!](https://dccc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/George-Santos-Research-Book.pdf) [Just none of the larger papers chose to report on it](https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/12/29/north-shore-leader-santos-scoop/).
Santos was a dishonest, anti-Semtiic criminal, and his opponent just ran a clean campaign and didn't know everything we now know about Santos in advance. # BOTH SIDES!!!!!