Get Rid of George Santos

 

Following the discussions and analyses about the newly elected Congressman George Santos, we see another tragic revelation of how far our culture has fallen. Santos appears to be a compulsive liar with little to no redeeming attributes. And yet he was elected to Congress in New York. How could this happen?

If you are curious about the innumerable lies that Santos perpetrated, you can go here and here. I was especially disgusted by this claim:

He maintained he was Jewish, the grandchild of Jewish refugees who escaped the Holocaust. But it turns out he has no Jewish ancestors or any connection to the Holocaust. (He later said he “never claimed to be Jewish” but jokingly said he’s “Jew-ish”).

His joking about the claim makes him even more despicable.

Due to his outrageous claims, his fundraising activities have also been questioned:

Santos hasn’t offered many clear explanations. He has refused to directly answer questions on the matter and said last week that he would hold a press conference “soon” to “address everything.” In the meantime, his campaign treasurer resigned, and the man Santos initially said had taken the job said he had done no such thing.

The red flags, the opacity of it all, should shine a light on the dangerous swamp that is US election funding. Hiding a contribution by one person under another’s name is prohibited, but what is permitted is even more troubling.

The campaign watchdog Open Secrets has raised the alarm over so-called straw donors and shell companies that conceal real donors. They not only cover the tracks of people who may want their identity hidden but also conceal some who may be contributing illegally, injecting “dark money” to manipulate US democracy and lawmaking.

In response to this disgrace, Kevin McCarthy’s response has been less than satisfactory. He named Santos to the House Science, Space and Technology Committee and the Small Business Committee. Fortunately, Santos removed himself from those committees shortly thereafter. Given the shameful lies that Adam Schiff told, which were at least part of the reason for his removal from the Congressional House Intelligence Committee, how does McCarthy explain his accommodation of Santos?

At least Santos’ constituents are not standing down in light of his deceptions:

He said during an appearance on Steve Bannon’s’s War Room podcast this week that he would only resign if 142,000 asked him to do so—a reference to the more than 142,000 people who elected him in November.

Online petitions demanding his resignation continued to receive support only one week after he was sworn into office. Various petitions are nearing the threshold the GOP lawmaker mentioned, though his remarks were not binding and he could still stay in office regardless of how many signatures these petitions receive.

Is there any way to get rid of Santos? There are steps, but they aren’t easy ones to take. The Ethics Committee would need the support of the Republican majority in order to take action:

Should the Ethics Committee recommend expulsion, Mr Santos would only be removed if two-thirds of the House voted to support such an action. It’s theoretically possible, but much more likely that the embattled congressman would take the road more traveled: resignation.

Expulsion from Congress has only been carried out a handful of times by the lower chamber, the lion’s share of which stemmed from cases that arose during the Civil War or shortly thereafter.

In more recent years members have chosen to resign when it became clear that the House or law enforcement authorities were preparing to take action.

*     *     *     *

But the most disheartening response came from Tara Isabella Burton, author of Self-Made: Curating our Identities from Da Vinci to the Kardashians. The interview was on NPR, where they decided not to discuss the truth or falsity of Santos’ claims, but to focus on the aspect of his success due to his being a “self-made man.” I was baffled by Burton’s willingness to laud those actions she claims to have been self-made attributes, where in an era of social media and disinformation, there is no longer nobility to be credited to those who become famous by any means available. Integrity, honesty, and dignity have no place among the modern aspirants labeled self-made. Although in the NPR discussion, they admitted that Santos had gained success through his lies and deception, they believed that he had earned the title of “self-made.” I disagree.

Frederick Douglass, a self-made man himself, described such a person this way:

Self-made men are the men who, under peculiar difficulties and without the ordinary helps of favoring circumstances, have attained knowledge, usefulness, power and position and have learned from themselves the best uses to which life can be put in this world, and in the exercises of these uses to build up worthy character. They are the men who owe little or nothing to birth, relationship, or friendly surroundings; to wealth inherited or to early approved means of education; who are what they are, without the aid of any favoring conditions by which other men usually rise in the world and achieve great results. . . They are in a peculiar sense indebted to themselves for themselves. If they have traveled far, they have made the road on which they have travelled. If they have ascended high, they have built their own ladder . . . Such men as these, whether found in one position or another, whether in the college or in the factory; whether professors or plowmen; whether Caucasian or Indian; whether Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-African, are self-made men and are entitled to a certain measure of respect for their success and for proving to the world the grandest possibilities of human nature, of whatever variety of race or color.

Plain and simple, Santos’ actions were despicable, making him unworthy to serve in Congress. He’s not a self-made man.

He’s a con man of the highest order.

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 114 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Kevin Schulte Member
    Kevin Schulte
    @KevinSchulte

    A con man among con men. Meh !

    He either redeems himself to his constituents or he is short lived in his position .  I would celebrate SMOD erasing all of DC so we could start over . However, If Santos survived the event it wouldn’t bother me cause so many other deserving got it .  

    • #1
  2. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    Once Democrats remove Dick Blumenthal, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, et al. Santos can go. Until then, he’s fitting right in. 

    • #2
  3. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    George Santos isn’t a patch on the Clintons – either one of them.

    • #3
  4. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    I’m constantly being reminded that our “democracy” is under attack.

    I don’t plan on doing anything about Santos – he’s not my problem. And with so many problems that this country is suffering under, I consider Santos to be barely a blip on the radar. 

    Let Democracy do its thing. It’s up to his constituents. If he is removed in any other way, look forward to sketchy elections not being the final arbiter. 

    • #4
  5. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    If any man can claim he is a woman – simply because he believes it to be so – who is anyone to call another a liar?

    If a woman can be lauded for accusing a man of rape – simply because she believes it to be so – who is anyone to call another a liar?

    If any reporter can claim a Pulitzer Prize for writing complete falsehoods – simply because they believe it to be so – who is anyone to call another a liar?

    Welcome to the world of “his truth,” “her truth” and “their truth.” It has nothing to do with “the truth.”

    • #5
  6. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Annefy (View Comment):

    I’m constantly being reminded that our “democracy” is under attack.

    I don’t plan on doing anything about Santos – he’s not my problem. And with so many problems that this country is suffering under, I consider Santos to be barely a blip on the radar.

    Let Democracy do its thing. It’s up to his constituents. If he is removed in any other way, look forward to sketchy elections not being the final arbiter.

    I have to disagree. Sometimes standing for principle is important. If we were actually dealing with our difficulties, which unfortunately are under Biden’s administration, I’d say let’s focus on those; most of those things can’t be changed by the Repubs. But we can make a statement that matters.

    • #6
  7. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    EJHill (View Comment):
    If any man can claim he is a woman – simply because he believes it to be so – who is anyone to call another a liar?

    If a woman can be lauded for accusing a man of rape – simply because she believes it to be so – who is anyone to call another a liar?

    If any reporter can claim a Pulitzer Prize for writing complete falsehoods – simply because they believe it to be so – who is anyone to call another a liar?

    Welcome to the world of “his truth,” “her truth” and “their truth.” It has nothing to do with “the truth.”

     

    I haven’t heard anyone say he’s not lying. Not on either side. His angry constituents are from all sides, but they can’t get rid of him until the next election. But Congress can. I think they should step up.

    Are we going to make an effort to re-establish the meaning of truth or not?

    • #7
  8. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    If any man can claim he is a woman – simply because he believes it to be so – who is anyone to call another a liar?

    If a woman can be lauded for accusing a man of rape – simply because she believes it to be so – who is anyone to call another a liar?

    If any reporter can claim a Pulitzer Prize for writing complete falsehoods – simply because they believes it to be so – who is anyone to call another a liar?

    Welcome to the world of “his truth,” “her truth” and “their truth.” It has nothing to do with “the truth.”

     

    I haven’t heard anyone say he’s not lying. Not on either side. His angry constituents are from all sides, but they can’t get rid of him until the next election. But Congress can. I think they should step up.

    Are we going to make an effort to re-establish the meaning of truth or not?

    He goes if and only if Ilhan Omar goes.

    • #8
  9. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Percival (View Comment):
    He goes if and only if Ilhan Omar goes.

    Believe it or not, I’d disagree, in spite of Omar’s anti-Semitic statements. Her statements are disgusting, but IMHO they don’t come close to the action and betrayals of Santos. 

    • #9
  10. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    I’m wondering if people are going to understand my principal points: we have already betrayed our principles and standards; acted more like Democrats than Democrats; lost opportunities (under Trump) that we should have taken; spent too much time worrying about the feelings of our opponents than taking them on.

    I’m asking the Ethics Committee to take this up, plain and simple.  Of course, they’ll need to see if the leadership will support them–why would they, when they could hurt feelings? But assuming they do support actions by the Ethics Committee, there will need to be a 2/3 vote; will enough Republicans do the right thing? Gee, maybe not. Someone might get upset. Or maybe if they threaten to put Santos eviction to a vote, he might resign. 

    Works for me.

    • #10
  11. Douglas Pratt Coolidge
    Douglas Pratt
    @DouglasPratt

    I agree with you. As long as we do Elizabeth Warren next, and then that California congresswoman that looks like a frog.

    • #11
  12. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    I suggest the Roy Moore treatment.  We had a two seat majority in the Senate, but when Roy Moore was nominated the Republican Senate Campaign Committee gave him no money, and they got by with a one vote majority.  

    We have a four seat majority right now.  If he resigns, it is likely but not automatic that a Democrat would win his district.  (I would love to see. Lee Zeldin of Long Island run.  It is not required that a House Candidate actually live in the district.)  We would be better off with a three vote majority without Santos than a four vote majority with Santos.

    Bob Packwood is another example.  He lied about sexual harassment allegations that would have sunk his re-election.  After the election, the Senate Ethics Committee recommended his expulsion.  Who was the Republican Co-Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee?  Mitch McConnell.

    Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., Democrat of Harlem, was expelled by Congress.  Powell ran in the Special Election to replace him and won. But he was stripped of his seniority.  He lost the next Democratic Primary.

    • #12
  13. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Susan Quinn:. But Congress can. I think they should step up. Are we going to make an effort to re-establish the meaning of truth or not?

    There have been five members of the House expelled in history. Three of those fought for the Confederacy. The other two, Michael Myers (1980) and James Traficant were convicted of felonies in the courts.

    As the House historian notes, “One measure of that restraint is that the House has never expelled any Member for conduct that took place before his or her House service.”

    It takes 2/3 of the House to expel a member. Do you seriously believe lies told on the campaign trail qualifies to be treated the same as a felony? The real sin here is on the voters, the news media and the opposition party. It will correct itself in short order. 

    • #13
  14. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I suggest the Roy Moore treatment. We had a two seat majority in the Senate, but when Roy Moore was nominated the Republican Senate Campaign Committee gave him no money, and they got by with a one vote majority.

    We have a four seat majority right now. If he resigns, it is likely but not automatic that a Democrat would win his district. (I would love to see. Lee Zeldin of Long Island run. It is not required that a House Candidate actually live in the district.) We would be better off with a three vote majority without Santos than a four vote majority with Santos.

    Bob Packwood is another example. He lied about sexual harassment allegations that would have sunk his re-election. After the election, the Senate Ethics Committee recommended his expulsion. Who was the Republican Co-Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee? Mitch McConnell.

    Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., Democrat of Harlem, was expelled by Congress. Powell ran in the Special Election to replace him and won. But he was stripped of his seniority. He lost the next Democratic Primary.

    I would love to see Lee Zeldin replace him! He certainly has earned it.

    • #14
  15. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    EJHill (View Comment):
    As the House historian notes, “One measure of that restraint is that the House has never expelled any Member for conduct that took place before his or her House service.”

    Okay. So what? Where does it say that it has to be a felony? In fact, some of his “fundraising” is seriously in question–will they investigate? What if they rise to the level of felony? Do they really believe he’s going to stop lying when he’s seated?

    EJHill (View Comment):
    It takes 2/3 of the House to expel a member. Do you seriously believe lies told on the campaign trail qualifies to be treated the same as a felony? The real sin here is on the voters, the news media and the opposition party. It will correct itself in short order. 

    The media I’ll go along with. But his constiuents? Without a legitimate media investigating, how would they have known?

    • #15
  16. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):
    He goes if and only if Ilhan Omar goes.

    Believe it or not, I’d disagree, in spite of Omar’s anti-Semitic statements. Her statements are disgusting, but IMHO they don’t come close to the action and betrayals of Santos.

    Lying about being the descendant of Holocaust survivors is distasteful. Marrying one’s own brother to get him into the country is immigration fraud – a felony.

    • #16
  17. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Percival (View Comment):
    Marrying one’s own brother to get him into the country is immigration fraud – a felony.

    The only problem is that you’d have to get the Dems to prove it. Not going to happen. My goodness, they’d be called Islamaphobic!

    • #17
  18. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    A lot of whattaboutism in the comments but that doesn’t make Santos acceptable. The challenge would be to ask yourself if Santos was a Republican senator in a state with a Democrat governor who could appoint his replacement and the Senate would flip to Democrat control with a Democrat President and a Democrat House, would you insist Santos resign? Fortunately the Constitution provides that Representatives must be replaced through special elections so the New York governor can’t appoint a replacement, and even if she could the Republicans keep control of the House. So it’s an easy lay up. Santos should go. But I admit that if it were the hypothetical I described above, I would be tempted with whattaboutism myself. 

    • #18
  19. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Rodin (View Comment):
    But I admit that if it were the hypothetical I described above, I would be tempted with whattaboutism myself. 

    I might, too. But except for time (which Republicans waste a lot of, anyway), what would we have to lose. Meanwhile, I think we lose more credibility (if that’s possible) if we don’t act.

    • #19
  20. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    I’m constantly being reminded that our “democracy” is under attack.

    I don’t plan on doing anything about Santos – he’s not my problem. And with so many problems that this country is suffering under, I consider Santos to be barely a blip on the radar.

    Let Democracy do its thing. It’s up to his constituents. If he is removed in any other way, look forward to sketchy elections not being the final arbiter.

    I have to disagree. Sometimes standing for principle is important. If we were actually dealing with our difficulties, which unfortunately are under Biden’s administration, I’d say let’s focus on those; most of those things can’t be changed by the Repubs. But we can make a statement that matters.

    Important to who? Make a statement that matters to who? Do you think that anyone on the other side of the aisle will sit back and say, wow, those Rs really stand for principle and have made a helluva statement.

    Of course, there will be a few Rs that will say: ain’t we grand? As they continue to lose with dignity and class.

    And “democracy” is a principle, as well. He was elected by his constituents. It’s up to them to give him the boot.

    If the pathway to removal from Congress is opened (or widened), post every election there will be deep dives done into ever single R congressperson and congresspeople will be removed.

    Welcome to hell.

    • #20
  21. DonG (CAGW is a Scam) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Scam)
    @DonG

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):
    He goes if and only if Ilhan Omar goes.

    Believe it or not, I’d disagree, in spite of Omar’s anti-Semitic statements. Her statements are disgusting, but IMHO they don’t come close to the action and betrayals of Santos.

    She married her brother to commit immigration and tax fraud.   Where does rank on the scale of offenses?  “Lunchbox” George will move on in time.

    • #21
  22. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Susan Quinn: In response to this disgrace, Kevin McCarthy’s response has been less than satisfactory. He named Santos to the House Science, Space and Technology Committee and the Small Business Committee. Fortunately Santos removed himself from those committees shortly thereafter. Given the shameful lies that Adam Schiff told, which were at least part of the reason for his removal from the Congressional House Intelligence Committee, how does McCarthy explain his accommodation of Santos?

    Intel committees are obviously different.  Indeed, Schiff, Swalwell, and Omar can still be on other committees.  So why not Santos?  Just don’t let him be on any intel committees either, for the same reasons.

    • #22
  23. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    EJHill (View Comment):

    If any man can claim he is a woman – simply because he believes it to be so – who is anyone to call another a liar?

    If a woman can be lauded for accusing a man of rape – simply because she believes it to be so – who is anyone to call another a liar?

    If any reporter can claim a Pulitzer Prize for writing complete falsehoods – simply because they believe it to be so – who is anyone to call another a liar?

    Welcome to the world of “his truth,” “her truth” and “their truth.” It has nothing to do with “the truth.”

    Comment of the week!!

    • #23
  24. Fritz Coolidge
    Fritz
    @Fritz

    I blame whoever handled the campaign oppo research against Santos’ campaign. Yes, he’s a liar, but we’re talking Congress here.

    These kinds of claims (his background, past employment, and the like) are not that difficult to look into in this Age of the Internet. His false claims should have been blasted out to the voters for them to judge.

    If they start ejecting all the proven liars, that’s gonna be one great, big, mostly empty, chamber.

    • #24
  25. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Percival (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    If any man can claim he is a woman – simply because he believes it to be so – who is anyone to call another a liar?

    If a woman can be lauded for accusing a man of rape – simply because she believes it to be so – who is anyone to call another a liar?

    If any reporter can claim a Pulitzer Prize for writing complete falsehoods – simply because they believes it to be so – who is anyone to call another a liar?

    Welcome to the world of “his truth,” “her truth” and “their truth.” It has nothing to do with “the truth.”

     

    I haven’t heard anyone say he’s not lying. Not on either side. His angry constituents are from all sides, but they can’t get rid of him until the next election. But Congress can. I think they should step up.

    Are we going to make an effort to re-establish the meaning of truth or not?

    He goes if and only if Ilhan Omar goes.

    I urge you to re-think your position.

    Why?

    Because working to keep people in power who have behaved as Ilhan Omar and George Santos have is as morally despicable as their own actions, if not more so.

    I think you will see this if you think critically about the moral reasoning behind your statement of support. I believe you are reacting emotionally rather than thinking.

    • #25
  26. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    If any man can claim he is a woman – simply because he believes it to be so – who is anyone to call another a liar?

    If a woman can be lauded for accusing a man of rape – simply because she believes it to be so – who is anyone to call another a liar?

    If any reporter can claim a Pulitzer Prize for writing complete falsehoods – simply because they believes it to be so – who is anyone to call another a liar?

    Welcome to the world of “his truth,” “her truth” and “their truth.” It has nothing to do with “the truth.”

     

    I haven’t heard anyone say he’s not lying. Not on either side. His angry constituents are from all sides, but they can’t get rid of him until the next election. But Congress can. I think they should step up.

    Are we going to make an effort to re-establish the meaning of truth or not?

    He goes if and only if Ilhan Omar goes.

    I urge you to re-think your position.

    Why?

    Because working to keep people in power who have behaved as Ilhan Omar and George Santos have is as morally despicable as their own actions, if not more so.

    I think you will see this if you think critically about the moral reasoning behind your statement of support. I believe you are reacting emotionally rather than thinking.

    Who is working to keep him in power? If there is going to effort expelled, wouldn’t that effort be made by those who want him booted?

    • #26
  27. E. Kent Golding Moderator
    E. Kent Golding
    @EKentGolding

    Biggest defense of George Santos – We have bigger problems.

    Biggest attack against George Santos — Nothing wrong with solving some small problems while you figure out to do about the bigger problems.

     

     

     

    • #27
  28. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    I understand your principled points, I just disagree with them.

    • #28
  29. Postmodern Hoplite Coolidge
    Postmodern Hoplite
    @PostmodernHoplite

    I don’t dispute the facts as @susanquinn has presented them, and I think the post is worthy of the Main Feed. (Hence the “like”)

    However, I am not able to see any substantive difference between George Santos’ lies and those of numerous other elected Federal officials. His blatant mistruths are no more egregious than Joe Biden’s and many others. Demanding that the GOP enforce a higher level of party discipline on itself than the Democratic Party is willing to accept is unilateral disarmament. It is EXACTLY what the Dems and their enablers want. (“Let the GOP tear itself apart…pass the popcorn.”)

    When ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, etc. call for Biden’s removal for decades of outrageous and well-documented lies, I’ll support driving George Santos out. Until then, Santos is the problem of his constituents and no one else.

    • #29
  30. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    If any man can claim he is a woman – simply because he believes it to be so – who is anyone to call another a liar?

    If a woman can be lauded for accusing a man of rape – simply because she believes it to be so – who is anyone to call another a liar?

    If any reporter can claim a Pulitzer Prize for writing complete falsehoods – simply because they believes it to be so – who is anyone to call another a liar?

    Welcome to the world of “his truth,” “her truth” and “their truth.” It has nothing to do with “the truth.”

     

    I haven’t heard anyone say he’s not lying. Not on either side. His angry constituents are from all sides, but they can’t get rid of him until the next election. But Congress can. I think they should step up.

    Are we going to make an effort to re-establish the meaning of truth or not?

    He goes if and only if Ilhan Omar goes.

    I urge you to re-think your position.

    Why?

    Because working to keep people in power who have behaved as Ilhan Omar and George Santos have is as morally despicable as their own actions, if not more so.

    I think you will see this if you think critically about the moral reasoning behind your statement of support. I believe you are reacting emotionally rather than thinking.

    No. Santos is a liar. Omar is a liar and a fraud. Bounce them both, but not just Santos and not Omar.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.