Rep. George Santos, facing likely expulsion from Congress, launched a expletive-ridden tirade in a livestream Friday night, accusing his House colleagues of casting votes hungover, cheating on their spouses, and being “hypocrites.”
The three-hour-long rant came after House Ethics Committee Chairman Michael Guest introduced a resolution to expel Santos that many of his former allies have promised to support.
Guest introduced the resolution following the committee’s monthslong investigation into the congressman, which found he used campaign funds to pay for Botox, personal travel, and even porn.
Santos singled out Guest in the livestream, saying the chairman should “be a man and stop being a pussy and call the damn motion.” But he had harsh words for all of his colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, whom he accused of “act[ing] like they’re in ivory towers with white pointy hats and they’re untouchable.”
“Within the ranks of United States Congress there’s felons galore, there’s people with all sorts of shystie backgrounds,” he said.
I think it’s more about not setting a ‘look before you leap’ precedent which could be applied against them in the future.
I’d much rather they set a precedent of not letting obvious conmen swindle taxpayers for almost $160k in congressional wages before taking any action.
Handling Santos with kid gloves like this only encourages others to try and emulate his scam.
What’s stopping Republicans for having routine expulsion votes for Democrats without waiting for an official report? Precedent. Things are chaotic enough.
You’re very naive if you truly think that today’s GOP would let precedent get in the way of abusing their powers OR that that’s the real reason why conservative Dems are siding with them.
The current GOP house leadership has already broken more precedent than the last 3 combined and those 31 Democrats share a lot of owner donors with Republicans, which is a much more likely reason for them dragging their feet in spite of clear and rampant fraud.
Oooh conspiracy. Yes, become the thing you hate; report back on how that works out on you.
Wtf are you on about?
You know that you don’t have to ignore Dem dereliction of duty or lie about their likely motivations in order to prefer them over the fascist GOP, right?
Because it’s sounding like you don’t.
“Likely motivations” is doing a lot of lifting there.
I prefer “the words you shoved into their mouths.”
I never said that they SAID that was their reason, just that it likely is, based on clues in past and present behaviour. You’re really not good at reading comprehension and pattern recognition, are you?
“Likely” is now doing its share of work. It’s pure conjecture from you and stupifying to see someone defend this level of ignorance as virtuous.
Mere sentences ago I was “likely” siding with fascism. Are we supposed to think this is serious political analysis??