Vote on George Santos expulsion

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

This guy is way up there too.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by eyecu2

There are WAY more than those 2.... Actually I think one of the best things that's come out of this discussion is perhaps, politicians will pay attention, when they are being reviewed by the house ethics committee. I think once you've reached their attention, unless there's an absolute absurd setup, it should be your two weeks notice before you're getting handed your hat and shown the door. These people need to be above reproach and working ethically as they represent us.

3 were expelled for treason during the 1860's civil war.

3 were convicted by the court of various crimes.

Santos is the first one to be expelled based on someone's accusation without any formal conviction.

that said. he should not be expelled since he was not convicted of a crime.

if he was, then he should be expelled according to precedent.

this is a dangerous precedent to base it on someone's accusation (court of public opinion).

ethics committee is not the court of law, but a court of political public opinion.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

3 were expelled for treason during the 1860's civil war.

3 were convicted by the court of various crimes.

Santos is the first one to be expelled based on someone's accusation without any formal conviction.

that said. he should not be expelled since he was not convicted of a crime.

if he was, then he should be expelled according to precedent.

this is a dangerous precedent to base it on someone's accusation (court of public opinion).

ethics committee is not the court of law, but a court of political public opinion.

that said....

Schiff, Swawell and Menendez should be expelled according to the new standard precedent.

also, that includes Pelosi too.

[eyecu2]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

this is a dangerous precedent to base it on someone's accusation (court of public opinion).

ethics committee is not the court of law, but a court of political public opinion.

Last I checked, the ethics committee is a self governing body of equal representation of both parties. Additionally, they are holding their representatives to an "Ethical standard". If they are the final say-so on what is ethical or a breach of the same, there is no court required to tell them what they can or cannot do. Kinda of like the terms of service for how you conduct yourself in the House.

Santos violated those terms of service as defined by the committee. The courts have zero to do with the definition of what is ethical standards vs. criminal standards.

Additionally, Santos will face criminal courts for any of his deemed inappropriate actions should they merit a view from the court.

These are two very distinctly separate actions and should be viewed as such. I'm just surprised that the ethics committee finally woke up after sleeping through the entirety of 2016-2020.

But that's just my opinion on the latter statement. They hold their members accountable, not the president. Of course, politicians will do anything or say anything to stay in power, and this committee would be busier than a one legged man in an ass kicking contest if they were to really hold ppl accountable.

If getting felt up in a theater or smoking a vape in a non smoking area was ethical, wouldn't they have a say?

What about pulling a fire alarm?

What about race baiting and slander?

...they protect who they want, and leave the others alone when they feel it's in their political interest. In general it's a political system to weed out the bad actors (kabuki theater style). IMHO.

Bad precedent? If abused, yes, but that is why it's bi-partisan and equal representation. They make a conclusive statement and the rest of the house votes. Since it takes 2/3 of any house to get the boot, it's really more matter of fact, vs. innuendo or political.

Fuck around - find out. Its the houses only cancel culture mechanism that is as final as "your fired". to quote another dipshit.

[eyecu2]

This just in and related to ethics expulsion investigations.

The Republican-led House Ethics Committee has reached out to at least one witness as part of its investigation into GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz to schedule an interview in the coming weeks, the latest sign that the once dormant probe remains open.

One formal request went out last week, the day before the House voted to expel former Rep. George Santos over ethics violations, according to a source familiar with the investigation.

Looks like ethics committee is tired of fucking people taking advantage of shit. Would not surprise me at all if something additional happened to more House members such as what's posted above.

Who's our next contestant on: "Expulsion or Censure"

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

that said....

Schiff, Swawell and Menendez should be expelled according to the new standard precedent.

also, that includes Pelosi too.

Good thing for them you’re not on the committee!

I do think Menendez should be out

[Precious_b]

Too bad lauren boebert was too old for him.
Could have had this angle of bad press shut down tight if he'd bird dogged her.