this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
810 points (98.2% liked)

News

22595 readers
4113 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 26 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Which two Democrats voted against expulsion and which two voted Present?

[–] [email protected] 25 points 8 months ago (2 children)

According to NYT, Robert Scott of VA and Nikema Williams of GA voted No.

Al Green of TX and Jonathan Jackson of IL votes Present

Sheila Jackson Lee (TX), AOC (NY) and Dean Phillips (MN) have no vote recorded

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/01/us/politics/santos-expulsion-vote.html

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Overall vote tally:

98% (206) of Democrats voted yes (to expell)

1% (2) voted No

1% (2) voted present

49% (105) of Republicans voted to expel

51% (112) of Republicans voted No

[–] [email protected] -5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I'm betting AOC is because they're both from NY and they're very close geographically. Definitely seems like a conflict of interest

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

She voted to expel him last time. I'm assuming she just wasn't there today.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Probably. They can't all be there for every session

[–] merc 3 points 8 months ago

That's a weak excuse.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

Their no votes were because they wanted due process and judicial conviction before kicking him out.

Nikema Williams' statement:

“Unfortunately, George Santos won a free and fair election and elections have consequences. He also has not yet been convicted of a crime and the ethics investigation is ongoing. It would be dangerous to set the precedent of expelling a Member of Congress who has not been convicted of a crime. When and if Santos is convicted of these serious offenses an expulsion resolution would be more appropriate. Let’s be clear – we have current members who have been accused of even more egregious crimes while the Republican majority continues to look the other way.”

Robert Scott's statement:

“The Ethics Committee is charged with investigating alleged wrongdoing by members of the U.S. House of Representatives. In the past, I have been appointed to serve on multiple investigative subcommittees, and I can personally attest to the nonpartisan, rigorous and deliberative process conducted by the committee. In fact, the committee is expected to soon release findings and recommendations on the Santos matter. These resolutions were rushed to the floor outside of that deliberative process. In 2002, I voted to expel Rep. James Traficant but that was after he was found guilty in a court of law. Absent any report or recommendation from the committee, or a criminal conviction, these resolutions are premature. For the sake of the institution, we must stop the cheapening of the censure and expulsion processes for political expediency and get back to the process that we already have in place to appropriately deal with these matters.”

[–] ImFresh3x 17 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Congressional expulsion is not a “innocent ‘til proven guilty” situation and has never intended to be. Expulsion and conviction are unrelated, and these people struggle with basic elementary school level civic concepts for their reasonings.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago (2 children)

"We want to drag things out when people are blatantly lying because there is a sliver of a chance that it might set a precedent that clearly does not apply to the things we are worried about, like false accusations."

If any of those processes took less time than the two year term of a Representative I might agree with them.

[–] merc 5 points 8 months ago

The two year term is key here. Let's say that instead of just being a conman and liar, he was accused of being put into office by Chinese or Russian spies. Should he be allowed to spend 2 years voting on things, attending confidential meetings, serving on committees, etc. while there's an investigation about whether or not he's an agent of a foreign government?

If he's found innocent of everything, all that happens is that he lost his job. He could run again, and being kicked out over lies and rumours would be a good grievance to campaign on. But, the potential damage he could do during the time it takes to investigate, try and convict him is enough to say that he should be removed now.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Which is bullshit, because his open, verified non-criminal lies should have been enough to have him expelled from Congress.

I guess we know which side of the truth these particular so called politicians are on.

[–] thecrotch 1 points 8 months ago

guess we know which side of the truth these particular so called politicians are on.

Lying is the default position for politicians. Save the "so called" label for the rare honest one