So what happens to his seat when santos is gone?

[mobeau69]

I don’t think he’ll be around long now.

[mopinko]

1. special election.

w/in 120 days iirc.

[FBaggins]

2. You assume that shame will cause him to resign?

Or that the House will muster 2/3 vote to expel him?

Neither seems all that likely. Republicans only seem willing to expel their members when it isn’t a competitive seat.

[mobeau69]

4. There's arrest and/or extradition in the calculus.

[Autumn]

9. All Republicans lie and they get reelected. To their voters it's not a crime, and he lied about

everything, that makes him the perfect Republican. He won't get arrested for lying, that might get him a good committee seat and he will advance in ranking.

[brooklynite]

13. FWIW - This is NOT a "Safe R" seat (its D+3)

Santos was swept in because of the weak overall performance of Democrats in NYS.

[Autumn]

21. Well then you better whisper in the Democrats ears to get busy now. He lies so

well by the next election the group will have him running for speaker. He suits the Republicans well.

[brooklynite]

22. We have broader issues to deal with...

Primarily that fact that there is no State Democratic Party (a legacy of the Cuomo days). There is basically just a confederation of County Party Committees with no support staff or leadership.

[Autumn]

26. Keeping Pukes like Santos out of our government is not a priority?

[brooklynite]

31. Having a Party structure that can focus on the goal would be a good start.

[Autumn]

44. How long has the Democratic party been aware of the issues there?

[brooklynite]

55. I and some fundraising friends have been aware of the problem for more than a Decade...

The Party members and Governor Cuomo never considered it an "issue".

[PatSeg]

25. I think it is campaign finance

issues that will bring him down. There could also be other financial fraud as well. I don't think he was clever enough to cover his tracks.

[Autumn]

27. Someone here said he was backed by Russian money. I don't see the Pukes letting

him go willingly if that's the case.

[PatSeg]

42. I don't know

It is possible that Santos is too much even for them. It sure looked like pretty much everyone was avoiding him during the vote for Speaker.

It could be Russian money, but wherever it came from, it certainly didn't come from Santos. It shouldn't be that hard to prove.

[Mr.Bill]

48. And they swore him in, didn't they? n/t

[PatSeg]

53. Yes, I assume so

We'll see how long he lasts.

[Bettie]

63. Marge was sitting right next to him and laughing it up

he's perfect for them, because he crossed another line, utterly erasing it. They don't have to even be truthful about their names anymore. There is no line they can't cross now.

[PatSeg]

71. Yeah, it took awhile,

but eventually a few of them talked to him.

And we all know what a bleeding heart Marjorie is for the underdog. Look at how supportive she is of the 1/06 "political prisoners". Such a loving soul!

[Hortensis]

37. That'd be my best guess too. :) Also, the big problem liars

have with keeping them all straight certainly applies to all kinds of financial dealings and the legalities involved with them.

[PatSeg]

43. Oh yes, he certainly is

an extremely careless liar. He has probably left breadcrumbs everywhere. Meanwhile, he is such a prolific liar, I'm sure there is far more yet to come.

[FBaggins]

24. Arrest does not remove someone from Congress

You’re still relying on his own shame or Republicans’ willingness to put the seat at risk.

[JT45242]

3. If he is extradited, incarcerated, etc. What does NY law say?

Can the governor, SOS, etc. Remove him if he cannot serve because he is in jail?

[brooklynite]

14. NOBODY can "remove a Member of Congress" other than Congress.

[Jerry2144]

16. correct

and the Republiklans have gotten rid of proxy votes. It will be very hard for him to vote from prison, either in the US or in Brazil. His seat would be effectively void if he's incarcerated. This, combined with the normal attrition of a small handful of seats per year (medical reasons, resigning to take better jobs, jail time, etc.) means the house could flip before the next election.

Since the Repugnant Party is much more corrupt and anti-Vax than ours, it is more likely they will lose this slim majority than the last two years.

[FBaggins]

29. Wasn't the Brazil issue a bad/stolen check?

We aren’t going to extradite a congressman for petty theft. Nor would another country likely ask.

He just won’t be able to travel to that continent.

Also… “Resigning to take better jobs” is still a greater risk for the party in the White House.

[Jerry2144]

30. i think it was a series of bad checks

not totally sure. We'll have to see what the Brazilian government does.

As far as better jobs go, for the D side, it's often promotions to political appointment offices. For the Repugnant side, it's for more money to think tanks or to lobbying firms or to Fux "News" or to other places where corruption is a key.

[Genki Hikari]

57. It was more tham stolen checks.

He stole money from senior citizens, and that adds a charge of elder abuse in Brazil.

[FBaggins]

69. They must have different banking laws than we do

When you write a check on someone else's account, you're stealing from the store that you write the check to and/or the bank if they mistakenly honor the check.

[Mr.Bill]

49. Kevin McCarthy got to be Speaker of the House

by having people "not vote".

[yellowdogintexas]

40. Voters can remove him nt

[BlueGreenLady]

5. Is there a residency requirement?

Can a US Representative serve while living in a Brazilian correctional facility?

[Polybius]

46. That's up to the new House majority

They can expel him with a 2/3rds majority. No one else can.

[Genki Hikari]

58. Techncally, yes

We've already had a rep serve a prison term for violating the Alien and Sedition Acts while in office. He even ran for re-election from prison--and won.

Matthew Lyon of Kentucky, 1798.

So there's nothing stopping an incarcerated convict from holding a congressional seat.

[rso]

6. Santos

NY Gov. Hochul will set a date for a special election, and the democrat will almost certainly win, giving us another seat in the House.

[Lovie777]

7. And there you have it .......

ya think the GQP cult will to their best for that NOT to happen.

[rso]

10. Santos

There is nothing the GQP can do, the Governor has the authority to call special elections.

[brooklynite]

15. What they can do is have him not step down.

[bluestarone]

19. But, even tho he's still a member ( if he's in Brazil)

Being a non voting member is just as good as not being there.

[rso]

32. Santos

Sure, but keeping someone like Santos in place will be a gift that keeps giving for democrats. The GQP is screwed either way.

[Bettie]

68. Are they though?

As long as he stays in office, he's an example of another "line" that has been erased for them. Lying about literally everything about yourself? Cool, as long as you are a right wing tool and a member of the Republican party.

[rso]

33. Santos

Sure, but keeping someone like Santos in place will be a gift that keeps giving for democrats. The GQP is screwed either way.

[msfiddlestix]

8. Has he been arrested? n/t

[keithbvadu2]

11. He 'done his duty'.

Voted for McCarthy.

That's all the integrity that republicans require from him.

[Chainfire]

12. The Party will circle the wagons to protect him. They can not allow one of their own to go down for

lying, it would set an unacceptable precedent.

[dalton99a]

17. McCarthy will protect him because Republicans need his vote.

[dembotoz]

18. he is useful to the speaker of the house for his majority...he is safe as can be

re election might be a bridge too far but until then i suspect his paychecks and benefits are his

[48656c6c6f20]

20. Are you kidding me?

George is the prototypical repug. He's a trump wet dream.

My guess he'll be una leadership roll soon.

[Meadowoak]

36. Maybe a run for POTUS in 2024.

[Paladin]

38. I share your grim outlook. (nt)

[NJCher]

23. The most important factor has not even been mentioned

On this thread and that is that the citizens of the third district have organized and are demanding a special election.

What happens when citizens are organized? Ask frelinghuysen of nj. Two words: Mikie Sherrill.

The cynicism on this thread is revolting.

If you feel that way you might as well let the republicans run things and shut up already. It’s masochistic how you let these dummies torture you and warp your outlook.

So glad I’m not you. Must be a hellish world, yet you seem to revel in it.

[Autumn]

28. You might have missed the fact that the republicans, the same ones who attempted to overthrow

our government are running things already. Yeah I know, I for one am cynical. Here they are shooting off their traitorous mouths that they are going to destroy the safety net and take away more of our rights. And so far even when they were not in control they have managed to end women's rights. Yeah, I'm fucking cynical.

[NJCher]

35. You might have missed the fact that

The House does not decide issues alone. There was a thread here the other day, I think by Atticus, that explained that quite realistically.

I looked for the thread for you but didn't turn it up. You need to find it, read it, and get a grip on the hysteria.

[Autumn]

45. I'm not hysterical, I've seen this movie before. You might have missed the republicans knocking out

women's rights. They didn't have the house for that.

[NJCher]

47. You might have missed the fact that

Democracy and citizen involvement evolves to accommodate those who believe in it and who refuse to wallow in cynicism.

Here's a no-paywall link for you:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/07/opinion/abortion-rights.html?smid=url-share

A Promising New Path to Protect Abortion Access

snip

The perfect record of success for these initiatives in the midterm elections provides a clear political road map toward ​rescuing reproductive rights in ​states. Buoyed by the results, abortion rights supporters are working toward replicating these victories elsewhere. This is where attention and support should be focused. ​

snip

[Autumn]

50. That's not even worth a look AFAIAC. You go have a nice day.

[NJCher]

52. thanks for being a great citizen

and believing in democratic ideals.



You have a nice day, too.

[Hortensis]

34. Unfortunately, that could only happen if Santos himself first RESIGNED.

The only requirements for holding office are age, initial residence requirement, citizenship, and he apparently met them all.

This has been discussed before, NJCher. A special election to fill that seat would only be possible after HE vacated it. If he doesn't resign, NY-3 is stuck with the representative those who voted elected until his term ends. And after, if he ran for reelection and won -- RW voters will vote for anything to spite Democrats.

Itm, if he can't get more where that $700K came from, he may need to hold onto his $174K annual salary to pay for legal representation. Perhaps someone will offer him a deal he finds preferable, but if not...

[NJCher]

39. I didn't say it was the only factor

I said it was the most important factor, and it is.

Unlike many people here, my view is based on actual experience working with the system--as opposed to people who just want to spout their negative feelings on a discussion board.

I've actually organized grassroots efforts. I've written laws both local and state, and gotten them passed. As a member of my union's executive committee,I actually go into the offices of legislators and talk with them. I've testified before Congressional committees. I've organized marches that required 30 buses to transport all the protestors. This has been going on for three decades and I have yet to find something that tells me I'm wrong.

Here's what legislators say to you when you tell them you want a change. They say "give us a show." What they mean by that is demonstrations, public outcry, coverage of the issue on social media, and getting the media on your side.

I have actually had a state representative call me at home at night and ask me what it would take to shut me up. That was back in the days of LTTE, and I had so many of them that I got this call and subsequently, we got what we wanted.

It's a very bad look to the system when citizens call for something and it's ignored.

Your rule is only technically relevant. There are many ways of applying pressure, these people know how to do it, and it can happen. What has to happen on our end is pressure, and that's what that demonstration is.There needs to be more of them and continued effort.

Oh and one more comment: it's real easy to be cynical and make these kinds of comments that are seen upthread. Rule One is to convince the enemy they're beat already so they don't even try. That's what I see here.

[Hortensis]

41. Your involvement is admirable, really.

And I understand frustration with facile, uninformed cynicism. Its destructive effects have to be among the top factors leading to elections of people like Santos. After all, why else do malignant powers put such intense effort into developing it in whole populations? But DUers discussing this are not disengaged and looking for excuses not to vote or for votes they know are wrong.

Right now a special election is not possible, and media discussion is mostly on other aspects. DUers will be on the side of a special election if and when it becomes possible.

Of course you're right about the ways power blocs can apply pressure to resign, and discussion of that would be informative.

Is citizen demand for a special election necessary? If Santos' seat were vacated, wouldn't election be required by law? Or could some NY technicality allow it to be filled by appointment instead? Discussing this, filling voids in understanding , would be helpful.

[NJCher]

51. one answer

Is citizen demand for a special election necessary?

It makes it more likely.

The rest of the questions are a research job.

[tritsofme]

54. All House vacancies are filled by special election, there can be no appointments.

[Zeitghost]

59. They can demand all they want

Unless he resigns or enough members of his own party decide to expel him, their demands mean nothing.

There is only one way to remove a sitting member of Congress against their will.

[NJCher]

61. funny

There is only one way to remove a sitting member of Congress against their will.

We won't go there. We might get thrown off the board.

I hope people understand what I'm saying. But in case not, here's an example.

I had a friend who had a new person take over her department. Unfortunately this person made her life a living hell.

My friend resigned. They had to find two people to replace her because she was so efficient and effective at her job.

Her life was miserable. She couldn't take the endless insults, being ignored, her work being devalued, people making fun of her, etc. I know her life was miserable because I had to listen to endless phone calls about it. It really was very, very bad.

And this is a prominent person with a stellar career background. She had won every award offered in her field (magazine editor, healthcare industry).

So to explain it simply:

a) it makes government look bad when citizens are demonstrating about something as obviously wrong as this and the PTB doesn't do anything.

b) there are numerous points of pressure that are being applied. Examples are the Brazilian investigation into his crime there as well as other possibilities that he broke the law here.

c) Santos' life in Congress isn't starting off too friendly. Poor slob was sitting alone playing with his cell phone. He is being ignored. By both sides.

d) We all understand the law. That doesn't have to be repeated. The point is there are numerous actions in the works that might force Santos to resign.

Visual, verbal, high-profile protests by citizens are the best way to keep the pressure applied.

I don't need any posts telling me the law. My post is about how the law is applied. It is not black & white. There are complexities, which I think you will understand if you take the time and trouble to understand what I'm really saying.

-----

on edit:

see this, on front page of DU at the moment:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143016627

and see post 1. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

[Zeitghost]

65. Political pressure to resign

And the law regarding expelling a sitting member of Congress are two very different things.

The law is quite clear and can only be applied one way, it takes 2/3rds of the House to expels him.

Political pressure is of course much more complex. It is also much more effective when politicians have something to lose, especially the next election.

I don't think George Santos has much a shot at reelection in a swing district at this point, so he may not be as easy to pressure.

[NJCher]

70. Santos

Santos is going down over campaign law violations. I am not worried about it, but the pressure on the part of the citizens needs to continue.

Are they very different? People who don't have experience with the law think this is so black and white.

It's not. I could sit here all day and write stories about how political pressure influences the law but it's time to make dinner and that's more important to me.

[Zeitghost]

72. Political pressure certainly influences the law

and politicians.

What it doesn't do is influence clear constitutional requirements to expel a member of congress.

If Santos decides to resign due to pressure (and I hope he does), that pressure was on him personally, not on the clause that would allow him to be removed should he choose not to resign.

The only point I have been trying to make is that if he decides to stay no matter what, it will require a good number of Republicans to kick him out I don't see that happening short of (maybe) a criminal conviction and his single two year term would likely be over at that point.

[JerseyCurmudgeon]

56. Workaround for Article 1, Section 5 - removing George Santos by constituent petition

That George Santos was sworn in and allowed to be seated despite his obvious fraudulence and the disgust of his voters has pissed me off at House Republicans even more than I’m usually pissed off at House Republicans . I've just sent the following email to my Congressman, Andy Kim (D-NJ). If you think it's a good idea, please follow suit. If you REALLY think it's a good idea, share it with others, including Democrats in other districts with Democratic House Representatives.

Dear Rep. Kim:

I am writing to ask your support for a change in House Rules to address the inability of constituents to recall their House Representatives. Call this the "George Santos Reform."

Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution says "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member." Article 1 does not provide any other way to remove a Member for misconduct, fraud, even criminal convictions.

The "George Santos Reform" would require the House to accept and act on recall petitions from a member's constituents. If 2/3 of all registered voters in a member's district sign a recall petition, under House Rules, the petition would be treated as the same as a 2/3 House vote to expel the member

The rationale for this is very simple. The partisanship of House members effectively protects members from disciplinary action by members of the same party who need their votes. EVEN as we see in the case of George Santos, the most egregious acts and evidence of fraud against the voters. Requiring 2/3 of all registered voters in a member's district to sign a recall petition would mirror the Constitutional provision while at the same time ensuring that the will of the member's entire district is honored.

Thank you and best regards,

[Zeitghost]

60. House Rules can't over ride the Constitution

Or legally compel a member to vote for an expulsion.

The only way to pass a recall rule would be through a constitutional amendment.

[NJCher]

62. if you would, please

explain how this particular action overrides the Constitution.

[Zeitghost]

64. Sure

The House can not pass rules that expels a member or compels Congressmen to vote to expel a member based on a petition of that members constituency.

The Constitution is clear on what it takes to remove a member of the House. House rules can not change that.

[JerseyCurmudgeon]

66. The Constitution is silent about this

All Article 1, Section 5 says is that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member." It says nothing about situations in which expulsion would be mandatory rather than up to the discretion of a 2/3 majority.

Unless it directly contradicts the explicit language of the Constitution, there is nothing in the language of Article 1, Section 5 to prevent the House from enacting such a rule. For example, if the House enacted a rule requiring all members to affirm their belief in Christianity as a condition of being seated, that would directly contradict the explicit language in the Establishment Clause. This rule would not contradict the very limited, non-prescriptive language in Article 1, Section 5. It would only elaborate on it.

[gopiscrap]

73. welcome to DU

[Bettie]

67. Given who Republicans are

I don't think he'll be gone at all. He's what they all aspire to.