OK So the New York Rep. George Santos was just expelled from the House Today Friday Dec 1st 2023 in a historic vote following a House Ethics Committee investigation into alleged fraud perpetrated by his campaign after months of scandals around the freshman Republican lawmaker. Following the release of the ethics report last month, Santos, 35, said he would not seek reelection to the Long Island-area seat he won in 2022. The congressman, however, said he would not resign because if he did, the “bullies” would win. “I will not stand by quietly,” Santos said on the House floor Thursday. “The people of the Third District of New York sent me here. If they want me out, they’re going to have to go silence those people and take the hard vote.”
There were 311 votes to remove Santos, with 114 voting against and two voting present. Santos grabbed his coat and left the floor before the vote had concluded. One hundred and five Republicans voted to boot Santos, and 112 voted for him to remain. Reps. Bobby Scott of Virginia and Nikema Williams of Georgia were the only two Democrats to vote against expelling Santos. When asked for his reaction following the result, Santos said, “It’s over. What reaction?” Asked if he would use his privileges as a former congressman to visit the House floor in the future, he replied, “To hell with this place.” There were reports Friday morning that Santos might survive, but in a letter to his colleagues, Ohio Republican Rep. Max Miller claimed that Santos had defrauded both Miller and his mother by charging campaign contributions to their personal credit cards. Rep. David Joyce told CNN that Miller’s message resulted in some GOP members voting against Santos.
Santos survived one expulsion attempt last month, as an effort pushed forth by other New York RINO Republicans fell short, with some legislators expressing concern about setting a precedent of removing a colleague from office before they’ve been formally convicted of a crime. Sound familiar? Seems like these NY losers in charge love to hurt people who have not been convicted of any crime but don't go after real criminals anymore. Remember when the Asians in NY were getting punched, and they blamed "White people" and it turned out it was all done by crazy mostly homeless BLACK people in NY. The NY people in charge don't care about facts, trials, and innocent til proven guilty in a court of law.
So while he's not even been on trial or convicted a number of votes were expected to flip against him after the congressional report found he had spent campaign money on things like Botox, luxury shopping and the adult content website OnlyFans. Which begs the question why isn't there a trial first before you say he's guilty? Funny how the gay loving left is against him because he's a gay republican! I thought the left loved all gay people the same? lol Guess not... Just like they do to Black and Latino minorities they don't care about anyone but claim they do just to get votes and stay in power.
Following the vote, Santos’s seat will be immediately vacated and the already slim Republican majority under House Speaker Mike Johnson will narrow further. A special election to fill his seat in the competitive district will likely happen within three months. Johnson and other members of GOP leadership, including Steve Scalise and Elise Stefanik, voted against the expulsion. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul posted to social media that she was "prepared to undertake the solemn responsibility of filling the vacancy in New York’s 3rd District. Yeah cause that crazy freak is sane, and cares about NY. (I'm being sarcastic here...)
The people of Long Island deserve nothing less,” presumably a reference to formally scheduling the special election. Marcus Dunn, Santos's chief of staff, told reporters that there will be staff in the office to handle constituent services like passports and immigration. That personnel will report to the House clerk. Dunn added that someone will come by to take down Santos’s name outside his former office.
Before Santos was even sworn in, a steady stream of media reports began last December revealing that he had misled voters about nearly every aspect of his life during the campaign. Included in the lies put forth by Santos are his religion (he said he was Jewish and his grandparents had escaped the Holocaust before saying he was Catholic but “Jew-ish”), his educational background (he lied about attending both New York University and Baruch College, saying he was a star volleyball player at the latter), his employment history (he said he worked at Goldman Sachs when he had not) and the death of his mother (Santos said she had died in the Sept. 11 attacks, but she died in 2016 and was not in the United States on 9/11). The North Shore Leader, a Long Island outlet, reported during the campaign that Santos had filed his disclosure 20 months late and with an “inexplicable” rise in his net worth to $11 million.
Santos has also been alleged to have stolen money from a GoFundMe that was meant to help the dying dog of a military service member and was accused of writing bad checks to dog breeders in Pennsylvania, charges that were eventually dropped. One job he actually did have was with Harbor City Capital, which has been accused by the Securities and Exchange Commission of operating a Ponzi scheme. Santos also said that Sen. Kyrsten Sinema told him to hang in there during the 2022 State of the Union address, which the Arizona senator’s office told Yahoo News was a lie. In May, Santos was charged with 13 counts that included wire fraud, money laundering, theft of public funds and lying to the House of Representatives. Santos pleaded not guilty and called it a “witch hunt.”
In October, the Justice Department charged him with 23 counts tied to campaign fraud, putting forth allegations of “stealing people’s identities and making charges on his own donors’ credit cards without their authorization, lying to the FEC and, by extension, the public about the financial state of his campaign. Santos falsely inflated the campaign’s reported receipts with nonexistent loans and contributions that were either fabricated or stolen.” That trial is set for next year. Again sound familiar?
POTUS 45 Donald J Trump was charged in August under a four-count, 45-page (45 Pages 45 President! Coincidance?) Indictment that accuses him of conspiring to defraud the U.S. by preventing Congress from certifying Democrat President Joe Biden's so called victory and to deprive voters of their right to a fair election. Which is actually what Biden did in actuality as well rational people know by now. So the Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith is leading the prosecution team. "The core conduct alleged in the indictment relating to the presentation of alternate electors had a historical basis that dates back to 1800 and spans at least seven other elections," now Trump is seeking to have his Washington, D.C. election interference case quashed, calling it a "vindictive prosecution." Much of his submission, filed early on Tuesday, hangs on whether alternative electors are a criminal conspiracy or a symbolic act of defiance that is rooted in American history. Trump arrives to Trump Tower on October 23, 2023 in New York City. He is now seeking to have his federal indictment quashed, based on historical precedent. Much of his submission, filed again Tuesday.
"There are no other prosecutions in American history relating to these types of activities. The allegations in the indictment involve constitutionally authorized activities by President Trump as Commander in Chief, as well as speech and expressive conduct by the First Amendment." and it gies ib tge say that "Given this context, it is no surprise that in the months following the 2020 election, senior government officials rejected an investigation of President Trump as unfounded and potentially unconstitutional," the filing stated.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump arrives to Trump Tower on October 23, 2023 in New York City. He is now seeking to have his federal indictment quashed, based on historical precedent. Donald Trump is seeking to have his Washington, D.C. election interference case quashed, calling it a "vindictive prosecution." Much of his submission, filed early on Tuesday, hangs on whether alternative electors are a criminal conspiracy or a symbolic act of defiance that is rooted in American history.
Trump was charged in August under a four-count, 45-page indictment that accuses him of conspiring to defraud the U.S. by preventing Congress from certifying Democrat President Joe Biden's victory and to deprive voters of their right to a fair election. Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith is leading the prosecution team.
"The core conduct alleged in the indictment relating to the presentation of alternate electors had a historical basis that dates back to 1800 and spans at least seven other elections," Trump's application to quash the charges stated. "There are no other prosecutions in American history relating to these types of activities. The allegations in the indictment involve constitutionally authorized activities by President Trump as Commander in Chief, as well as speech and expressive conduct by the First Amendment."
"Given this context, it is no surprise that in the months following the 2020 election, senior government officials rejected an investigation of President Trump as unfounded and potentially unconstitutional," the filing stated. "Expressive conduct" in First Amendment law has long been used to protect non-verbal free speech, such as an anti-war student wearing a black armband to school or Jehovah Witness children refusing to salute the American flag in class.
Trump is now saying that the alternate electors who signed off a Trump victory across the U.S. were engaged in symbolic free speech to show their disapproval of Biden and the way that the election was run. Edward B. Foley, a constitutional law professor at Ohio State University, said that there is a long history of alternate electors in American politics that stretches back hundreds of years. Writing for the policy think tank, Just Security, Foley said that Trump supporters signing off on his supposed victory in seven battleground states was "a fool's errand, since there never was a chance that Congress was going to recognize Trump as the winner." Former U.S. President Donald Trump arrives to Trump Tower on October 23, 2023 in New York City. He is now seeking to have his federal indictment quashed, based on historical precedent.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump arrives to Trump Tower on October 23, 2023 in New York City. He is now seeking to have his federal indictment quashed, based on historical precedent. Trump is seeking to have his Washington, D.C. election interference case quashed, calling it a "vindictive prosecution." Much of his submission, filed early on Tuesday, hangs on whether alternative electors are a criminal conspiracy or a symbolic act of defiance that is rooted in American history. Trump was charged in August under a four-count, 45-page indictment that accuses him of conspiring to defraud the U.S. by preventing Congress from certifying Democrat President Joe Biden's victory and to deprive voters of their right to a fair election. Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith is leading the prosecution team.
"The core conduct alleged in the indictment relating to the presentation of alternate electors had a historical basis that dates back to 1800 and spans at least seven other elections," Trump's application to quash the charges stated. "There are no other prosecutions in American history relating to these types of activities. The allegations in the indictment involve constitutionally authorized activities by President Trump as Commander in Chief, as well as speech and expressive conduct by the First Amendment."
"Given this context, it is no surprise that in the months following the 2020 election, senior government officials rejected an investigation of President Trump as unfounded and potentially unconstitutional," the filing stated. "Expressive conduct" in First Amendment law has long been used to protect non-verbal free speech, such as an anti-war student wearing a black armband to school or Jehovah Witness children refusing to salute the American flag in class.
Trump is now saying that the alternate electors who signed off a Trump victory across the U.S. were engaged in symbolic free speech to show their disapproval of Biden and the way that the election was run. Edward B. Foley, a constitutional law professor at Ohio State University, said that there is a long history of alternate electors in American politics that stretches back hundreds of years. Writing for the policy think tank, Just Security, Foley said that Trump supporters signing off on his supposed victory in seven battleground states was "a fool's errand, since there never was a chance that Congress was going to recognize Trump as the winner."
As Foley points out, Trump's Vice President, Mike Pence, acting as Senate president, would not even open the envelope that contained the confirmation from the alternative electors. "Mike Pence, as Senate president, would not even let these pro-Trump submissions be opened in the joint session of Congress because, without any claim of any backing from any part of their state's government, they could not be acknowledged as even asserting to be official electoral votes entitled to be considered by Congress," Foley wrote.
So was the action of Trump's supporters merely symbolic free speech and is there, as his lawyers claimed in their submissions, a long historic precedent? Foley notes that Florida was hotly contested in the 1876 election between Republican candidate, Rutherford Hayes, and Democrat, Samuel Tilden. Florida's attorney general, a Democrat, purported to certify Tilden the winner of the state. On the same day, however, Republican electors in Florida voted for Hayes, backed by a certification from the state's canvassing board.
Later, Florida's judiciary and legislature would act to undo the canvassing board's certification. There were no indictments of any of those involved as it was considered a legal dispute. "In South Carolina, by contrast, there was no one with any colorable claim of official authority in a position to certify Tilden the winner. Still, Democrats there were claiming that he had won" and still "submitted their spurious electoral votes to the Senate president". "None of these South Carolina individuals (as far as I know from my research) were criminally investigated or prosecuted for making this assertion," Foley wrote, noting that a similar dispute occurred in Vermont in 1876.
Other disputes occurred throughout American history, such as both sides claiming to sign off on the winning candidate in Hawaii in the 1960 election between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Foley said that such acts, done by both Democrats and Republicans, are distinct from cases of forgery, which have occurred in elections in the past. "Openly asserting that one is the duly appointed elector of state, even when that claim is utterly without merit[...]is to make an argument about one's status under the law. It is not an attempt to dupe recipients with counterfeit papers," he writes. Judging from Tuesday's court submissions, that is the logic that will get Trump and his co-accused released from the election interference charges.
