Seat George Santos and Send Him Packing
Tony Webster from Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States, CC BY-SA 2.0
The use of the words discrepancies, fabrications, misspoke, mistakes, or verbally fumbled are strictly prohibited in the rendering of this column. U.S. Representative-elect George Santos (R-NY) simply lied. He lied to the entire world, and he did so with ease, in a manner befitting a sociopath.
The litany of lies is so far and wide there aren’t enough Pinocchios in The Washington Post to measure the degree of Santos’ dishonesty. Throughout his campaign, in his literature, and on his resume, Santos lied about attending the Bernard M. Baruch College in New York City – he did not. Santos lied about attending New York University – he did not. In fact, there is no record of Santos having attended any institution of higher education.
George Santos lied about working for Citigroup – he did not. Santos lied about working for Goldman Sachs – he did not. Santos said his association with Citigroup and Goldman Sachs was in more of a consulting capacity – “deal building and specialty consulting for high-net-worth individuals.”
But perhaps the most insulting and incredulous of the Santos lies, was claiming his mother was Jewish and that his maternal grandparents managed to flee Nazi-occupied Europe, escaping the Holocaust of World War II. Yet, Santos told the New York Post that he is “clearly Catholic.” Other reports have Santos identifying himself as half-Jewish, a Latino Jew, and “a proud American Jew,” as reported by Forward, a Jewish news site. Upon discovery of the Santos faith-based lies, the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) immediately condemned him, vowing Santos would never be welcome at another RJC event.
Santos, 34, is slated to take the oath of office on Tuesday, January 3, 2023, as a member of the freshman class of the 118th Congress. Santos won the Congressional race against Robert Zimmerman, defeating the Democrat 54.2 percent to 45.8 percent. Retiring incumbent Tom Suozzi (D-NY) opted not to seek reelection this year. Suozzi pasted Santos in the 2020 general election 55.9 percent to 43.5 percent.
That George Santos had run previously begs the question, where was the vetting by the Republican Party? For that matter, where was the opposition research by the Democrat Party? How did so many egregious lies go undetected? With today’s 24-hour news networks and news cycles and today’s technology, the Santos lies should have been unearthed within minutes. But instead, it took The New York Times to open this can of worms because the Gray Lady believed there to be “inconsistencies” to just about everything Santos said.
Demonstrating the depth of his sociopathy, George Santos appeared on the Fox News program Tucker Carlson Tonight on Tuesday December 27 and attempted to explain away his lies by insulting his own constituents to be. Mastering hubris to an art form, Santos had the unmitigated gall to tell Carlson’s guest host former Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, “I think humans are flawed and we all make mistakes, Tulsi. I think we can all look at ourselves in the mirror and admit that once in our life we made a mistake. I’m having to admit that to national television, to the whole country, and I have the courage to do so because I believe that in order to move past this and move forward and be an effective member of Congress, I have to face my mistakes. But I’m facing them.” Gabbard listened to that verbal diarrhea with a look of stunned, utter disbelief across her face. During that interview Gabbard asked Santos rhetorically, “Have you no shame?”
A mistake is forgetting to put the milk back in the refrigerator. Announcing you attended Baruch College when you did not, is not a mistake. It is a lie.
Fox News reported on December 29 that the Republican District Attorney of Nassau County, NY is investigating Santos. “The numerous fabrications and inconsistencies associated with Congressman-elect Santos are nothing short of stunning… No one is above the law and if a crime was committed in this county we will prosecute it,” said Nassau County D.A. Anne Donnelly.
While lying is not against the law, for if it were, the halls of Congress could be emptied alphabetically, Santos could face legal consequences if his federal elections documents are misleading or false. FEC filings are nothing about which to joke.
Politico reported that although George Santos told GOP leadership he would not seek reelection in 2024, he has every intention of being sworn in and seated on January 3rd. Not that Santos should be believed. Once seated, Santos could possibly face expulsion from the House. It would take a two-thirds vote of the House, but perhaps this is one time where a bipartisan effort could be undertaken.
New York’s Third Congressional District encompasses Northeastern Queens and parts of the North Shore of Long Island in Nassau County. The district includes Bethpage, Great Neck, Little Neck, Manhasset, Massapequa Park, among others. New York 3 is the wealthiest congressional district in the state, checking in with a median household income of $123,412. Affluent and educated, 54 percent of the district hold college degrees.
A protest gathering on Long Island showed demonstrators chanting for Santos to resign and carrying signs expressing their displeasure with the fraud, the conman, the man who would be congressman. One particular sign of interest and amusement said, “Fake Jew, Real Gonif.” (Gonif is a Yiddish word for a dishonest, disreputable individual.)
“You lied about your personal work and educational experiences for your own gain. You lied about your wealth and finances for your own personal gain. And perhaps most vile of all, you lied about the Holocaust and a mass shooting for your own personal gain,” said youth activist Greg Long, speaking at the protest.
Seating George Santos then having him expelled by his peers in a bipartisan manner sounds rather satisfying. Santos should be ousted in shame and denied Congressional pension and benefits. Santos should be purged from the House with all due haste and a special election held to provide the citizenry of New York’s Third Congressional District a representative of whom they can be proud. As a conservative, it is vital the Republicans must take the lead on this expulsion. Don’t be hypocrites, do what is right, and don’t defend the indefensible. Seat Santos, castigate him, vilify him, then send him packing. Restore the faith of the American people, even if for just the blink of an eye, and do not permit the dastardly deeds and behavior of George Santos to be rewarded.
Any legitimately-elected representative has to be seated. The House has rules for expulsion, but I think those rules can be modified at the beginning of any Congress. I’m pretty sure he’d have to be seated, and a Speaker elected, before any effort to have him removed.Report
Yeah, there’s some SCOTUS case that held Congress can’t refuse to seat a member unless the election was somehow improperly held. Expulsion is in the Constitution and requires a two-thirds majority. And there has to be a Speaker before anything else can happen.
Next week has the potential to be interesting.Report
Interesting article here on past considerations of whether the expulsion power does or should extend to acts committed prior to the election of the congressperson.Report
I don’t know any reason the House would have to follow precedent in the matter.Report
Strange thing for a conservative to say! Just because the constitution isn’t explicit doesn’t mean it would be wise for them to ignore any history on the topic and any potential impact on future decisions.Report
The only quick way to be rid of him is if he doesn’t meet the constitutional requirements:
* 25 years old
* a resident of New York state
* a US citizen for 7 years
AFAICT, the first two are unquestioned. Regarding his citizenship, I’ve seen nothing beyond speculation.Report
There might be another way to do it:
Personally, I would *LOVE* to see what we could do with such a law if it got passed.Report
Can’t help but notice that lying about ethnicity isn’t included.
Torres must have received a call from a certain Senator from Massachusetts with suggested edits.Report
The GOP wanted to forbid candidates who were alleged Nazi collaborators at age 15 until they realized it was George S*an*tos.Report
This is idiotic. We pay these guys a lot of money and this is just him stealing his paycheck.Report
It’s not “the Democrat Party.”
Otherwise, spot on.Report
Thank you, CJ.
BTW, it actually IS the Democrat Party, not the Democratic Party; the latter simply SOUNDS better than the former when spoken aloud.Report
No. it isn’t. “Democrat Party,” like Bob Dole’s “Democrat Wars,” is a long-running Republican trope. It goes back long before your time.
But to keep things within short-term memory, you might want to think about why actual, living, breathing Democrats don’t use it if it’s the real name of their party.Report
This would work as a remedy, but I don’t think the GOP will go for it. McCarthy needs all 218 votes just to be elected speaker and he’s not going to do anything to add to the trouble he’s having getting those.
It will be interesting to see if there are FEC violations as well.Report
The article argues for Santos to be seated then expelled, and I pointed out specifically that it’d probably have to follow the choosing of the Speaker. So nothing about this would affect his chance at the Speakership.Report
He has reportedly agreed to lower the bar for a motion to vacate to 5 people Ada concession to win votes. If that comes to pass and santos is then up for expulsion I can see 5 hard right members moving to vacate. McCarthy is over a barrel of his own making and santos knows this.Report
Why would they move to vacate his Speakership?Report
Conservatives want the ability to throw him out when he’s not sufficiently compliant.Report
What are they going to throw him out over? He’s basically promised all the committee investigations they want, and to crash the US/global economy over the debt ceiling, and to start a parade of bills for this and that which Schumer will never let see the light of day.
If he allows the rule change, I’d be less surprised if it were invoked by a handful of “moderates” who are unwilling to go along with the crash the economy thing.Report
I have no idea what the grounds would be but I’ve seen it reported across multiple platforms for several weeks as one of his challenges.Report
What I meant was, why would they move to vacate his Speakership over him expelling Santos?Report
The bigger story is the money. As in, where did it come from, who gave it to him, and what do they want in return. There are indications it came from Russian sources which is a huge red flag for anyone who might be exposed to sensitive information or be called upon to vote on matters of national security.Report
We’re doing the Russia thing again?Report
If by “Russia thing” you mean accurately stating facts, sure.
Is that a problem?Report
“There are indications it came from Russian sources ” That’s a “fact”? Sounds more like speculation.Report
Yes.
It is a fact.
Tens of thousands of dollars flowed from a Russian cousin of Putin’s top lieutenant, into Santos’ campaign.
What the money manager for a top Russian oligarch wants in return from an American congressman is not yet known.Report
Then provide a link that states that, seeing as how you apparently quoted something….
Also, “What the money manager for a top Russian oligarch wants in return from an American congressman is not yet known” Probably the same thing an American, or Saudi, or other foreign CEO wants from an a congressman.Report
https://theisland360.com/featured/cousin-of-russian-oligarch-donates-nearly-30k-to-devolder-santos-campaign/amp/Report
https://mobile.twitter.com/Tim__Goldsmith/status/1607578892088344576Report
Santos has got to go, and he will. And I imagine when he sells the movie rights to his story he will insist on playing himself.
Acting is clearly something he has experience in.Report
You just know that if he gets seated and expelled an hour later he’ll always refer to himself as Congressman.Report
I want to just pull my hair and scream “How the fish did Democratic Party running against him miss all this during the run up to the election?!?!” and then I remember that we’re talking about the New York State Democratic Party and I sigh in resigned understanding.Report
This screams a bit of Murc’s law (aka only Democrats have agency.) There was an 87-page opposition paper on the guy that covered a lot of this stuff and the Democratic candidate tried to bring it up but he got no traction with Newsday (the major Long Island paper), The New York Times (their provincialism against the suburbs probably paid apart of this). The only paper that really paid attention was a small local one called the North Shore Ledger which stated that they wanted to endorse a Republican but could not endorse Santos. FWIW, the North Shore Ledger is published out of Locust Valley I believe. This is an NY suburb where the public school superintendent makes 336K a year. Also FWIW, my hometown is in this district and the public school superintendent makes 400K a year according to Google.
As someone who grew up here, let me try to explain some things:
1. Long Island was a Republican stronghold from 1946 to the 2000s and significant parts of Long Island remained Republican strongholds. My district always had Democratic representation but plenty of other spots of the Island remained Republican strongholds. After all, Peter King and Lee Zeldin were from Long Island.
2. The New York Democratic Party and New York Democrats remain a very different beasts and people than Democrats on say the west coast or Massachusetts. Tammany Hall is dead but there are still remnants of the old machine alive and many people get positions largely through a system of loyalty from an early age, connections, and patronage. The progressive era reforms and recoil against such practices were always stronger in the upper Midwest and west of the Rockies. Another example seems to be Hochul’s attempt to appoint an anti-abortion, anti-union person to the New York Court of Appeals just because he his hispanic. This seems to have backfired but it was her instinct to go for awarding a constituency.
3. New York suburbanites have more of an antagonistic relationship with NYC than suburbanites on the West Coast do with their cities. Many west coast suburbs are often small cities/economies onto themselves. NYC’s suburbs are more traditional bedroom communities.
4. New York’s suburbs might be one of the few areas where “socially liberal, economically conservative” is actually a majority position. You can’t be a holly roller kind of firebrand around NYC. The white evangelical/megachurch community was never that strong. You won’t get far with anti-abortion politics or out and out gaybashing. However, discussion of systematic racism will not go very far either and there is still a strain of Catholic parochialism. There is also a large Jewish population which acts a bit too reflexively on any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic.
In terms of economics, see the note on school district superintendent policies. These are Democrats but they want to maintain advantages as upper-middle class professionals and are very competitive about getting their children into top colleges and universities. Remember, in and around New York, the large state universities are seen as second-rate at best. They do not have the reputation of other landgrants like Cal, UCLA, Michigan, Oregon, or Washington. Just going to the large state university is seen as a bit of a failure. NY-3 parents take pride in punching above weight for college admission.
Basically, for various reasons, real and imagined, the “red wave” that failed to materialize nearly everywhere else worked in New York more than it did not. There was enough of a Democratic push to keep the state government in Democratic hands. However, fears about “crime” played well in the suburbs of NYC and the press thought there was not a chance Santos would win even given all the talk of a red wave.
Hope this helps.Report
Regarding 2, people from outside the North East in general and New York in particular really don’t understand that the politics is very transactional and there is a big let’s make a deal culture. Even in areas where let’s make a deal shouldn’t technically apply, you have it because of New York political culture. When I did immigration law in New York, the New York Immigration Court definitely had a lets make a deal culture of giving lesser status to sympathetic but legally hard cases as an opening compromise position. Many times the Immigration Judges would suggest this to both DHS and the Immigrant’s lawyer. This doesn’t really happen in San Francisco Immigration Court despite that also being a very pro-immigration court. Outside the NE, I’d never been with an immigration judge who suggested something as a course of action from the start even if they were very pro-immigrant.Report
That transactional thing explains a lot – including Trump. Wonder if they will want their next transaction to be a recall since he got egg all over their collective faces.Report
This guy just gets worse by the day. One hopes there’s work being done to recall him.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/04/politics/george-santos-stolen-checks-brazil/index.htmlReport