The House Ethics Committee has released its findings about Rep. "George Santos" (R_NY03) and, as you might have guessed, they look pretty bad for Santos.
The House Ethics committee in a scathing report Thursday said it has amassed “overwhelming evidence” of lawbreaking by Republican Rep. George Santos of New York that has been sent to the Justice Department, concluding flatly that he “cannot be trusted” after a monthslong investigation into his conduct.
Shortly after the panel’s report was released, Santos blasted it in a tweet on X as a “politicized smear” but said he would not be seeking reelection to a second term. He gave no indication he would step aside before his term ends next year, vowing to pursue his “conservative values in my remaining time in Congress.”
But a renewed effort to expel him from the House was quickly launched. The House could vote on his expulsion as soon as it returns from the Thanksgiving holiday later this month.
Some of you may recall that Jamie Raskin's (D-MD08) justification for voting against "Santos'" expulsion last time because there was neither a criminal conviction nor a finding by the Ethics Committee against "Santos". That latter impediment now seems to be gone. For those who are interested the Committee's full report can be found here [PDF] and an eight page summary document can be found here [PDF]. The main points from the summary are:
Representative Santos sought to fraudulently exploit every aspect of his House candidacy for his own personal financial profit.
He blatantly stole from his campaign.
He deceived donors into providing what they thought were contributions to his campaign but were in fact payments for his personal benefit.
He reported fictitious loans to his political committees to induce donors and party committees to make further contributions to his campaign – and then diverted more campaign money to himself as purported “repayments” of those fictitious loans.
He used his connections to high value donors and other political campaigns to obtain additional funds for himself through fraudulent or otherwise questionable business dealings.
And he sustained all of this through a constant series of lies to his constituents, donors, and staff about his background and experience.11 ISC Report at 4.
As of November 15, 2023, 34 members of Congress—seven members of the U.S. Senate and 27 members of the U.S. House—announced they would not seek re-election in 2024.
I this does not include Santos.
11 of the House members not running next year will be standing for Senate office.
Not the highest number of rats escaping a sinking ship, yet, probably more to follow.
Common complaint? They feel they are not getting anything done. This year alone, only 41 bills passed the House, I think.
Rep. "George Santos" has been expelled from the House of Representatives.
The House voted overwhelmingly to expel indicted Rep. George Santos on Friday, pulling the curtain down on a tempestuous term in office that was marred by revelations that he’d fabricated parts of his biography, a scathing House ethics investigation and a 23-count federal indictment charging him with crimes like wire fraud and money laundering.
The vote was 311-114, with two voting present. Santos had already put his winter jacket on and left the chamber before the vote total was announced.
I knew the end had come for "Santos" when Speaker Mike Johnson told his caucus to "vote their conscience" on this matter. For those unfamiliar with Congress-speak, this means that party leadership will not be whipping votes or otherwise enforcing party discipline. In other words it's a signal that anyone facing a tough re-election next year can vote for expulsion if they think the attack ads for voting the other way will be damaging enough. On the one hand this deprives the Republicans of one badly needed seat in the current, closely divided Congress. On the other hand Speaker Johnson may have concluded that the alternative was to lose several more seats in the 119th Congress (and probably lose Santos anyway when his federal case goes to trial).
When asked a question about releasing more internal batches of internal January 6th security footage, Johnson emphasized that "we're going through a methodical process of releasing them as quickly as we can."
He then added a caveat about protecting some of the rioters' identities.
"As you know, we have to blur some of the faces of persons who participated in the events of that day because we don't want them to be retaliated against and to be charged by the DOJ," he said.
So here we have the Speaker of the House claiming that he has evidence of crimes but that he's going to alter it prior to public release in order to thwart potential prosecutions of the alleged criminals. It sounds like hyperbole (and possibly obstruction of justice) when I say it like that, and yet I can't think of another way to describe it accurately.
Am I being naive in thinking that DOJ already has all the unaltered internal security footage and has had it since shortly after January 6?
It seems to me that Johnson is just grandstanding to his base (which likes the idea of protecting Our Kind from the consequences of their own actions--how dare those liberals apply laws to us?!?!?!). So he is not obstructing justice because DOJ already has everything (I assume). He is just being a politician currying favor with his base.
And, in other breaking news, the sun rose in the East this morning.
I think the only thing Johnson's editing of the videos does is prevent crowd-sourcing the verification of identities of people who have not yet been brought to justice. It doesn't seem naive to me to think DOJ has the unaltered footage.
The new conspiracy theory on the far right is that Speaker Johnson is part of a conspiracy to conceal the identities of federal agents in the crowd who were the "real rioters".
Given that I think it’s highly doubtful that Johnson believes in reincarnation, what the article says is that Johnson believes God called him to be “a new Moses,” leading the House Republican conference in “a Red Sea moment” out of chaos and confusion.
Not that the implications of that are much better—not least the seeming equating of the Republican Party, or at least the House Republican conference, with God’s Chosen People.
Given that I think it’s highly doubtful that Johnson believes in reincarnation, what the article says is that Johnson believes God called him to be “a new Moses,” leading the House Republican conference in “a Red Sea moment” out of chaos and confusion.
. . . and into forty years wandering in the wilderness?
Given that I think it’s highly doubtful that Johnson believes in reincarnation, what the article says is that Johnson believes God called him to be “a new Moses,” leading the House Republican conference in “a Red Sea moment” out of chaos and confusion.
. . . and into forty years wandering in the wilderness?
Given that I think it’s highly doubtful that Johnson believes in reincarnation, what the article says is that Johnson believes God called him to be “a new Moses,” leading the House Republican conference in “a Red Sea moment” out of chaos and confusion.
. . . and into forty years wandering in the wilderness?
The Republican majority in the House looks like it's going to be getting narrower soon.
House Republicans’ already-slim majority will dwindle even further later this month when Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) resigns earlier than expected.
Johnson’s office on Tuesday confirmed the congressman’s new official resignation date of Jan. 21, after he was expected to resign to take a job as president of Youngstown State University before mid-March.
This will leave the House divided 219-213, with 3 vacancies. Ohio's 6th Congressional District has a PVI of R+16 so Johnson's eventual replacement will most likely be another Republican, but until then the vacancy is a handicap to Republicans. The other two current vacancies are CA-20 (Kevin McCarthy's former district, R+16) and NY-03 (George Santos, D+2).
I think in both Ohio and California, the races could be a tossup if the Democratic candidate would concentrate on a woman's reproductive rights.
A number of years ago, I lived in McCarthy's former district. Admittedly, it is quite conservative. While there is some oil being produced in the district, and there are rich landowners, a large part of its residents are lower middle class, and there is a good segment of fixed income people there. The Democratic candidate will have to emphasize protecting retirement income and pocketbook issues as well.
Weird things happening in the 118th Congress recently.
First, a bipartisan group of Senators worked with the Biden administration to negotiate one of the toughest border security bills ever. It would also fund more aid to Ukraine and Israel. Trump says no. Suddenly Republicans bail out.
Second, the House tries to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas but enough Republicans bale. Impeachment fails. Means a lot of egg on Speaker Johnson's face. Suggest any attempt to impeach Biden will also fail.
Elsewhere, I posted a photoshopped picture of a bunch of clowns sitting on the Republican side of the house. Someone said it was an insult to clowns. I have to agree.
Makes me want to look abroad for the better part of whatever time I have left. The plainly evident choke hold that MAGA has on the GOP is enough now to make me more interested in the devils I don't know than the devils I do.
Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rogers has announced she will not be on the ballot in the November election. McMorris Rogers has represented the district I live in for the past 20 years. Because of her seniority she is considered part of the leadership of the house and has been on the powerful energy committee in the house.
I never voted for her, but her office helped me resolve an issue I had with my military records. I thank her for that.
While my district is quite conservative, there is a very good chance a Democrat might be able to win it this go around.
While my district is quite conservative, there is a very good chance a Democrat might be able to win it this go around.
Ballotpedia says three different analytical outfits rate it as a safely Republican district. Why do you think they're wrong?
What I find interesting is that she doesn't seem to have given a reason, and the Washington state GOP didn't get a heads up. I guess there's time to find a candidate to get behind before the May filing deadline (the primary is in August). She's only 54, but maybe a couple of decades in DC and recent Republican House shenanigans are enough to make her call it quits.
@Ruth at one time my district was rated quite liberal. Speaker Fowley (D) was from Spokane. The Washington Democratic Chair was practically salivating when he was interviewed. He said he knew of three strong candidates on his side might be interested.
On the other hand, the Republican chair was--as you indicated--shocked by the news.
The Republican party, at least on the national level, is so divided right now. It's campaign funds are very low.
While there is a lot of red in the district, there are some liberal islands in the cities.
I think the constant campaigning got to her. A two year cycle is difficult for families, and she has a pretty tight family.
I personally think it is time to discuss going from a two year cycle to a four year term, with the option to continue to run as long as one wants.
Democrat Tom Suozzi has won a special election to New York's Third Congressional District. This was the district formerly held by "George Santos". Once Suozzi is sworn in, the breakdown of the U.S. House will be 219 Republicans, 213 Democrats, and 3 vacancies (CA-20, OH-06, and NY-26).
Yesterday the House voted to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas by a vote of 214 to 213. Too bad Suozzi wasn't seated in time for that. No matter -- it's D.O.A. in the Senate.
Yesterday the House voted to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas by a vote of 214 to 213. Too bad Suozzi wasn't seated in time for that.
Also too bad that Brian Higgins (D-NY06) decided to resign on February 2 to become president of Shea's Performing Arts Center. It seems like political malpractice to bail on your seat in such a closely divided Congress. I'd understand if there was a health issue, or the need to take care of a family member, but to quit because you want a different job shows a massive amount of disrespect to the voters who chose you to represent them.
Some of you may be wondering "What is Lev Parnas 93825-083 up to these days?", while others wonder "Who?". For the latter, here is a quick reminder of the first time he came to the Ship's attention. For the former, the answer seems to be "causing havoc at the Republican's ridiculous Biden impeachment hearings". Apparently Mr. Parnas 93825-083 is willing to spill the beans about his time as Rudy Giuliani's bag man and the attempts to manufacture evidence of Biden corruption, allegedly working in cooperation with Russian intelligence.
This was probably my favorite bit from Parnas 93825-083's testimony.
In his testimony, Parnas noted: “When I was arrested, my original indictment linked me to an individual referred to as unindicted co-conspirator 1. We now know this individual to be Congressman Pete Sessions [R-TX], who sits on this very committee today.” Parnas also called out Trump’s attorney general Bill Barr, who he says knew about the attempt to smear the Bidens from the day he took office, and said that Trump personally encouraged Giuliani to interfere in Ukrainian politics.
It's not every day that a Congressional hearing includes pointed reminders that one of the Congressmen conducting it is a possible Russian asset and neck-deep in the matter of the hearing.
Speaker Mike Johnson is about to drop to a one-vote majority, as retiring Rep. Mike Gallagher has decided he will exit the House as soon as next month, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.
In a statement shortly after this story published, Gallagher said he planned to leave April 19.
<snip>
Wisconsin law dictates that Gallagher’s seat — in a solidly red district — will stay empty for the rest of his term. Departing before April 9 would have triggered a special election.
Contrary to the article, the Republicans will have more than a one member majority in the House when Gallagher departs. The count will be 218 Republicans to 213 Democrats due to other vacancies (assuming no one else resigns in the meantime). Still, being only one vote above a majority of total House seats has got to have some psychological effect. New York's 26th District (D+9) will likely elect a Democrat on April 30 so at that point the count will be 218-214 (again assuming no further member attrition).
Under the headline, Here We Go Again, Marjorie Taylor Greene has made a motion to select a new Speaker of the House. When the House returns from Easter Vacation, it will take up the motion.
Speaking of MTG (and sorry to be rude about a US politician) but is she taken seriously by anyone? I admit the stuff I've been watching is anti- Trump, so doesn't favour the Republicans in general, but she sometimes seems to be in a world of her own.
MTG has described it as a “warning”. I suspect it is a warning to House GOP members not to depart from Trump’s lines. So I spy the hand of Donald behind this.
Mind you, she does seem crazy enough for almost anything. The House has had some weird representatives but she’s outdone weird.
House Democratic leaders announced Tuesday that they’d block a looming effort to boot Speaker Mike Johnson, an unprecedented development they attributed to the GOP leader's help to pass foreign aid.
“We will vote to table Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Motion to Vacate the Chair. If she invokes the motion, it will not succeed,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) and Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) said in a statement.
So essentially Hakeem Jeffries has become Mike Johnson's new landlord.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said Wednesday she will officially trigger the clock to hold a referendum on Speaker Mike Johnson’s leadership next week — an effort that now seems doomed.
Greene and her allies will bring up the motion to vacate resolution as privileged, which would then force a House vote on Johnson remaining speaker within two legislative days. It would be the second attempt to depose a speaker within seven months.
“Next week, I am going to be calling this motion to vacate. Absolutely I’m calling it. I can't wait to see Democrats go out and support a Republican speaker and have to go home to their primaries and have to run for Congress again, having supported a Republican speaker, a Christian conservative. I think that'll play well," Greene said at a press conference Wednesday morning.
She's not even pretending this is about anything other than crass electoral politics.
* Cross-Pond Tranlsation: In American legislative parlance, to "table" a bill or motion is to set it aside and not vote on it. I understand that the British legislative use of the term is the exact opposite of this, meaning to put a bill up for a vote.
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced articles of impeachment against the conservative US supreme court justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito on Wednesday over the justices’ “pattern of refusal to recuse from consequential matters before the court”.
The articles of impeachment are unlikely to gain traction in the US House, which is controlled by Republicans. The effort follows calls from two US senators, Sheldon Whitehouse and Ron Wyden, for the US attorney general to appoint a special counsel to investigate potential criminal violations of federal ethics and tax laws by Thomas.
“Justice Thomas and Alito’s repeated failure over decades to disclose that they received millions of dollars in gifts from individuals with business before the court is explicitly against the law. And their refusal to recuse from the specific matters and cases before the court in which their benefactors and spouses are implicated represents nothing less than a constitutional crisis,” Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from New York, said in a statement.
The articles were supported by seven other Democrats in the House.
For those who are interested here are the full texts of the Thomas and Alito articles of impeachment.
Comments
Apparently the "plan" is to send the House home early for the weekend so the new Speaker can go to a speaking gig in Paris. I guess that's what Republicans call "leadership" these days.
Some of you may recall that Jamie Raskin's (D-MD08) justification for voting against "Santos'" expulsion last time because there was neither a criminal conviction nor a finding by the Ethics Committee against "Santos". That latter impediment now seems to be gone. For those who are interested the Committee's full report can be found here [PDF] and an eight page summary document can be found here [PDF]. The main points from the summary are:
I this does not include Santos.
11 of the House members not running next year will be standing for Senate office.
Not the highest number of rats escaping a sinking ship, yet, probably more to follow.
Common complaint? They feel they are not getting anything done. This year alone, only 41 bills passed the House, I think.
Why are we paying these people?
I try to keep in mind that I got paid on days when I phoned it in at work.
I knew the end had come for "Santos" when Speaker Mike Johnson told his caucus to "vote their conscience" on this matter. For those unfamiliar with Congress-speak, this means that party leadership will not be whipping votes or otherwise enforcing party discipline. In other words it's a signal that anyone facing a tough re-election next year can vote for expulsion if they think the attack ads for voting the other way will be damaging enough. On the one hand this deprives the Republicans of one badly needed seat in the current, closely divided Congress. On the other hand Speaker Johnson may have concluded that the alternative was to lose several more seats in the 119th Congress (and probably lose Santos anyway when his federal case goes to trial).
I expect that's going to be the standard GOP position on "George Santos"; pretend the whole thing never happened and change the subject.
So here we have the Speaker of the House claiming that he has evidence of crimes but that he's going to alter it prior to public release in order to thwart potential prosecutions of the alleged criminals. It sounds like hyperbole (and possibly obstruction of justice) when I say it like that, and yet I can't think of another way to describe it accurately.
It seems to me that Johnson is just grandstanding to his base (which likes the idea of protecting Our Kind from the consequences of their own actions--how dare those liberals apply laws to us?!?!?!). So he is not obstructing justice because DOJ already has everything (I assume). He is just being a politician currying favor with his base.
And, in other breaking news, the sun rose in the East this morning.
Oh, we can kick him around in other ways.
Mike is a good kick ball, though.
This seems like a counter pointe to my thread about John the Baptist in Kerygmania, don't you think?
Not that the implications of that are much better—not least the seeming equating of the Republican Party, or at least the House Republican conference, with God’s Chosen People.
. . . and into forty years wandering in the wilderness?
God, I hope not.
This will leave the House divided 219-213, with 3 vacancies. Ohio's 6th Congressional District has a PVI of R+16 so Johnson's eventual replacement will most likely be another Republican, but until then the vacancy is a handicap to Republicans. The other two current vacancies are CA-20 (Kevin McCarthy's former district, R+16) and NY-03 (George Santos, D+2).
A number of years ago, I lived in McCarthy's former district. Admittedly, it is quite conservative. While there is some oil being produced in the district, and there are rich landowners, a large part of its residents are lower middle class, and there is a good segment of fixed income people there. The Democratic candidate will have to emphasize protecting retirement income and pocketbook issues as well.
First, a bipartisan group of Senators worked with the Biden administration to negotiate one of the toughest border security bills ever. It would also fund more aid to Ukraine and Israel. Trump says no. Suddenly Republicans bail out.
Second, the House tries to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas but enough Republicans bale. Impeachment fails. Means a lot of egg on Speaker Johnson's face. Suggest any attempt to impeach Biden will also fail.
Elsewhere, I posted a photoshopped picture of a bunch of clowns sitting on the Republican side of the house. Someone said it was an insult to clowns. I have to agree.
I never voted for her, but her office helped me resolve an issue I had with my military records. I thank her for that.
While my district is quite conservative, there is a very good chance a Democrat might be able to win it this go around.
Time will tell.
Ballotpedia says three different analytical outfits rate it as a safely Republican district. Why do you think they're wrong?
What I find interesting is that she doesn't seem to have given a reason, and the Washington state GOP didn't get a heads up. I guess there's time to find a candidate to get behind before the May filing deadline (the primary is in August). She's only 54, but maybe a couple of decades in DC and recent Republican House shenanigans are enough to make her call it quits.
On the other hand, the Republican chair was--as you indicated--shocked by the news.
The Republican party, at least on the national level, is so divided right now. It's campaign funds are very low.
While there is a lot of red in the district, there are some liberal islands in the cities.
I think the constant campaigning got to her. A two year cycle is difficult for families, and she has a pretty tight family.
I personally think it is time to discuss going from a two year cycle to a four year term, with the option to continue to run as long as one wants.
Also too bad that Brian Higgins (D-NY06) decided to resign on February 2 to become president of Shea's Performing Arts Center. It seems like political malpractice to bail on your seat in such a closely divided Congress. I'd understand if there was a health issue, or the need to take care of a family member, but to quit because you want a different job shows a massive amount of disrespect to the voters who chose you to represent them.
This was probably my favorite bit from Parnas 93825-083's testimony.
It's not every day that a Congressional hearing includes pointed reminders that one of the Congressmen conducting it is a possible Russian asset and neck-deep in the matter of the hearing.
Here is some interesting video of the hearing, via Xitter.
I tried pronouncing this mentally, and the X came out "sh." Thanks for the laugh.
I'm pretty sure that's how it's pronounced.
I would hope certain people would boycott the joint session.
Contrary to the article, the Republicans will have more than a one member majority in the House when Gallagher departs. The count will be 218 Republicans to 213 Democrats due to other vacancies (assuming no one else resigns in the meantime). Still, being only one vote above a majority of total House seats has got to have some psychological effect. New York's 26th District (D+9) will likely elect a Democrat on April 30 so at that point the count will be 218-214 (again assuming no further member attrition).
Mind you, she does seem crazy enough for almost anything. The House has had some weird representatives but she’s outdone weird.
Will she get re-elected? I hope not.
So essentially Hakeem Jeffries has become Mike Johnson's new landlord.
Marjorie Taylor-Greene has decided not to be deterred by futility (because she can to Congress to make Fox News clips, not accomplish anything) and will move forward with her apparently doomed motion to vacate.
She's not even pretending this is about anything other than crass electoral politics.
* Cross-Pond Tranlsation: In American legislative parlance, to "table" a bill or motion is to set it aside and not vote on it. I understand that the British legislative use of the term is the exact opposite of this, meaning to put a bill up for a vote.
I think Democrats own Johnson now. They will have no problem advancing their cause in the elections compared to what the Republicans have (not) done.
Then, too, there is the abortion question. That will be a landmine for the Republicans this year.
For those who are interested here are the full texts of the Thomas and Alito articles of impeachment.