Santos soap opera comes to an end – maybe

The House of Representatives voted today to expel George Santos from the body by a vote of 311-114, well above the 290 votes needed, making him only the sixth person to be so treated. It did not help his case that two of the people he is alleged to have ripped off in his fraudulent credit card scheme were a fellow Republican congressperson and his mother. That is not how you win friends and influence people.

10 members either voted present or did not vote. 112 out of 222 Republicans and 2 out of 213 Democrats voted not to expel him. All four members of the Republican leadership team also voted not to expel him. After the vote, he refused to answer any questions and left in the style to which he has become accustomed, in a Jaguar SUV. There will now be a special election within 90 days to fill his seat.

Yesterday at a news conference Santos had leveled all manner of accusations against his fellow members and promised a scorched-Earth response if he were expelled. But that did not seem to sway enough of his colleagues to support him. He also said that he planned to continue in politics. It may have been bluster on his part, like so many of his other claims, or he may be saving it all for a tell-all book or a made-for-TV film. You can be certain that he will seek to monetize his 15 minutes of fame to help pay for his legal expenses to avoid prison time for all the frauds that he has been accused of committing.


  1. Alan G. Humphrey says

    There are some saying that Santos should not have been expelled because was not found guilty of any crimes in a court of law. I see the past few weeks as being similar to an impeachment. The ethics report was the showing of evidence of criminal behavior and the expulsion was the jury of his peers finding the evidence persuasive and invoking the only meaningful punishment. Justice, what little of it remains in these United States of America, may be somewhat easier to attain because he will not have a congressional position to try to influence the criminal proceedings.

  2. John Morales says

    He’s probably already acquired sufficient notoriety to leverage it for income for the foreseeable future.

  3. says

    @1 AGH
    What you’re describing, though, would be akin to going to court where the prosecution laid out their arguments but the defendant had no lawyer or proper way of pleading their case.

    I admit to having mixed feelings about this. Imagine that you have video of someone committing a theft, witnesses to the crime, and the accused had the stolen items in their possession. Would we still dispense with the trial because the evidence was so complete and damning? A process exists.

  4. Alan G. Humphrey says

    jimf @ 3
    Another set of processes also exist and were used in expelling George Santos. If there is no requirement that a criminal conviction be the basis of House expulsion, then what is the problem? More than 2/3 of the House deemed him unworthy of being a current member and they have the right to express their freedom of association by expelling him. There is no permanent ban, so he still has the option of running again, even possibly in the special election, or for another governmental office.

  5. Holms says

    #3 jimf
    Convictions are only required if you seek criminal punishment -- imprisonment, fines and the like.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *