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.

  • Hominine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Oooh conspiracy. Yes, become the thing you hate; report back on how that works out on you.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Hominine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Likely motivations” is doing a lot of lifting there.

        I prefer “the words you shoved into their mouths.”

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          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?

          • Hominine@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            “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??

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Mere sentences ago I was “likely” siding with fascism

              I said that you seemed to be accusing ME of that because I don’t automatically assume that Dems are honest about their reasons for letting the conman continue fleecing the public coffers.

              If you’re not even going to TRY to understand what I’m saying, I see no point in continuing this charade of assuming that you’re neither an imbecile nor arguing in bad faith. Have the day you deserve, wilfully blind party soldier.

              • Hominine@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                If all you got left is ad-hominem then by all means lay it bare.

                And if it “seems” like you are the victim of accusations that I didn’t at all make then that behavior would slot in nicely with the assignation you’ve reflexively displayed throughout this thread.