A growing number of lawmakers are publicly saying they will vote to expel Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.), following the release of a scathing House Ethics Committee report.

Santos has survived two expulsion attempts, with some lawmakers who voted against ousting him earlier this month saying they were awaiting the panel’s determination.

Now, several of them say the New York Republican has had due process and they’ll vote differently next time around.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) told The Hill in a text message that he would vote to expel Santos.

“The report’s findings are extremely damning and I would vote to expel,” he wrote in a text message.

    • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly. The fact that it’s not a no-brainer should be front page news and they should be rooting out every Republican who won’t expel the corrupt son of a bitch and pressing them to explain why

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          We should have to root out those 31 Democrats. Party loyalty is bullshit. If Democrats do something bad, they deserved to be called out for it.

          • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Thos 31 democrats didn’t vote like that without the consent of their party. They just chose mostly safe seats to vote that way to block the motion. People like Raskin wouldn’t do this without party consent and strategy, so sure only 31 voted but this was more than likely a calculated decision supported by the whole party. At the time the article came out people speculated it was to continue to make the house republicans look as dysfunctional as they are. My issue is with the whole of the party, those 31 are in essence willing scapegoats by my understanding. When I said we should be rooting everyone out, I really think it needs to be everyone.

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

              “All Democrats”? Vilifying Bernie or AOC, for example, is gonna be a tough sell for anyone cogent.

              • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The Democrats themselves are already primarying those members. Bernie seems to be exempt because I guarantee primarying him is near impossible and would cause disastrous publicity. His heritage may aslo be a factor. Its also not as if no progressives voted to keep Santos. Tlaib voted to keep him, It’s hard to interpret this as something ANY democrat has issue with unless they’ve came out and said so. Just about every wing of the democratic party was represented in those 31 votes.

                So sure some of them are the exceptions, they’re also not decision makers (which is part of why they’re the exceptions) and because they’re not decision makers more than most of progressives victories happen completely outside the legislature. The only democrats the people want to keep are the ones the other democrats are trying to get rid of. Id rather remove everyone and let them earn their seats back then fail to remove enough of the establishment thats pushing out the representatives most in line with common public opinion. Because if that corporate dem establishment is gone, those progressives will almost certainly be back.

                https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/11/squad-primary-battle-israel-gaza-pacs.html

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

                  I appreciate your thought-out response, truly. You make a number of valid points, and have inspired me to look a bit further into the details of our government’s current state of wholly fucked.

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

                    It can be depressing if you do. It almost feels like whack a mole where you cant keep all the facets of the dysfunction down at the same time. It’s a complex web and for the laymen like us, sometimes it feels like the more knowledgeable we get about these things the more cynical and alienated we feel from and about the system. These are feelings we need to overcome personally because they stand in our way of effecting change. Do the best you can afford to do on a local level, and you’re likely already doing the best thing you can do. Accepting that some of these problems exist completely outside of your reach, like other states legislators for example can be tough, but necessary to inform your choices of effective options.

            • vxx@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Republicans brought that trash in, they have to carry it out.

              Democrats going after a Republican against republicans majority’s will, is a win for reps as they can use it for propaganda that Democrats are the true fascists and trying to overthrow the elected majority.

              Edit: I also think he harms the GOP more than anyone else.

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

                Oh he absolutely harms the GOP more than anyone else, my main concern is the risk reward ratio of this move. Im wondering if the democrats helping show how dysfunctional the republicans are with this particular votes is going to reach people who didn’t already see that from the rest of the Santos situation. This is a personal opinion I know but I feel like if a prospective voter hasnt already known this, it’s gonna take a lot to see it.

                Like I said elsewhere I am glad the Dems are using nonstandard strategies though, so sick of sticking to decorum that gives the benefit of the doubt to people who use the benefit of the doubt to undo progress and legislation.

        • shalafi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think they made the right call as the report was still in the works. Now that it’s out I’ll be pitchforking anyone not voting Santos out.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            made the right call as the report was still in the works

            The “is the Pacific Ocean rather large?” report is coming out any day now… 🙄

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

            I want to hear from Schumer because he seemd to be the guy speaking out for his and the other stay votes, and his quote on the matter was that it was an easy decision since there was no conviction. So unless his perspective has changed the ethics report may not be enough, since there’s still no conviction it’s follows it’s still an easy decision for him.

    • Political Incorruption@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This timeline is the worst.

      It’s hard to believe that raising a voice the wrong way or using curse words could put a politician in hot water on the less fucked up timeline.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s probably still true if you’re a Democrat. Remember the fit they threw because Fetterman wore a hoodie?

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

            I mean, Aunt Jemima® had it coming for a lonnng while. Even back in the 80s, I knew in my much smaller bones that something was off about that syrup brand and that poor lady wasn’t actually having a good time.