Why did so many Dems vote to save George Santos?

[Dave Gray]

George Santos is a crazy person, who is a literal compulsive liar.  He lied about his entire history to get elected.  He has a bunch of strange lies that continue (not little small, politician lies, but full on fabricated "my mom died in 9/11" type of stories).  Also, he's a crook and is going to end up in jail for fraud because he was also lying about his stealing of campaign money by putting it into his own bank account.

So, understandably, the GOP treats him like poison, won't be seen with him, and especially the GOPers near him in NY know that they're going down in the next election cycle because of his stink, so they brought up a motion to oust him from the House.

Now, this was never going to pass.  You need 2/3rds of the votes and the majority is too thin, so the GOP was always going to save him -- they'd let the vulnerable people vote against him and then their true red-safe people would vote for him.  It was easy politics.

And the GOP pretty much did what everyone would expect.  They all but a handful of vulnerables voted to save him.

Yet, so did 22 Democrats and a bunch more voted "present" to not be on the record for a saving vote, but certainly paved the path for him to stay.

My question is: Why?

I suppose that they could think that Santos is more dangerous to the GOP being in office.  They know they'll win the seat next time, but if the GOP gets to put a moderate replacement in, maybe that person wins next time around??  But since he was going to be saved anyway, why would they want to be on the record as being part of the save?  I don't understand the politics of it.

What's weird, too, is that Jamie Raskin, who is a very sensible legislator, was part of the save, calling it "a dangerous precedent".  It seems like a pretty safe precedent, to kick out lying criminals who frauded their way to get elected in the first place.

While they're at it, they need to kick out Bob Menendez, too.

[Fau Teixeira]

Santos hasn't been convicted of anything. It's fine that we assume he's a lying criminal who frauded his way to get elected. But kicking someone out based on accusations is a bad precedent.

[Dave Gray]

Santos hasn't been convicted of anything. It's fine that we assume he's a lying criminal who frauded his way to get elected. But kicking someone out based on accusations is a bad precedent.

It's not accusations.  He admitted to lying.

For the criminal thing, he's been indicted, which is accusatory, but the evidence is overwhelming.  As for the other stuff, these are lies that he admitted to and he duped the electorate.

Besides, this isn't court -- these are elected officials and if their colleagues know they did the shit, they can oust them to be replaced.

[Phishfan]

Look at the history of expelled congressmen. Recently it was done after a criminal conviction. Historically most were expelled for supporting the Confederacy. Kicking out members isn't something they do frequently or lightly.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

In completely unrelated news 23 Republicans to vote kill the censure of Tlaib. 

Or not unrelated news.  I suspect their was a backroom deal. 

[Spider-Dan]

Here is Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-NY) explaining his logic for voting no:

[Dave Gray]

OK.  At least that's a coherent take by Raskin.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

So why did so many Republicans vote against censuring Tlaib?

[AQNOR]

OK.  At least that's a coherent take by Raskin.

I try to stay out of politics online as they only make people's blood pressure skyrocket (including mine), but I will say this.   Not only is this a very good take by Raskin, but it's also something Roger Goodell should follow when implementing the personal conduct policy in the NFL.  

[masterfins]

Santos hasn't been convicted of anything. It's fine that we assume he's a lying criminal who frauded his way to get elected. But kicking someone out based on accusations is a bad precedent.

Insert the name Trump for Santos and would you be saying the same thing?

[Spider-Dan]

Depends.  If you're talking about a President Trump, unfortunately our Justice Department has decided that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, which makes it impossible to "wait for a conviction" before removing him from office.

[Pappy13]

OK.  At least that's a coherent take by Raskin.

I think that's more than a coherent take, I'd say that's the proper take.

[Dave Gray]

I think that's more than a coherent take, I'd say that's the proper take.

Yeah, I was definitely pissed off when I first looked at this issue, but after seeing the rationale, I think it's the right call.  Santos will be found guilty in ethics committees and then should be removed.  I'd be fine with that.

I originally thought the Dems were keeping him for political strategy and that burnt my ass.

[AQNOR]

Yeah, I was definitely pissed off when I first looked at this issue, but after seeing the rationale, I think it's the right call.  Santos will be found guilty in ethics committees and then should be removed.  I'd be fine with that.

I originally thought the Dems were keeping him for political strategy and that burnt my ass.

It's a take anyone should have.   A buddy of mine was involved in a fight with a 7 Eleven employee.   Long story short, he bought $35 worth of gas and a pack of cigarettes.  He went to fill his tumbler with water (not soda) from the soda fountain.  The 7 Eleven employee chased him outside the store yelling at him to pay for the water and grabbed him by the shoulder.   My buddy proceeded to turn around and clock the guy.   Both were given a "cite and release" by the police for misdemeanor assault meaning they were arrested but not booked in jail.  

My buddy, who had worked as a waiter and bartender at Cheesecake Factory for five years, was fired the next day.  Somehow, corporate HR had gotten wind of his arrest (he didn't say anything to anyone).   After looking at the camera footage, the State Attorney declined to charge my buddy but Cheesecake Factory refused to hire him back.

[Spider-Dan]

That's not really the same.  Most states have at-will employment, meaning you can be let go for any* reason or no reason.  Elected members of Congress have more job protection than that.

When your buddy chose to use the fountain without asking - regardless of what else he bought, or if he was only getting water - he was in the wrong.  The store owner could have called the cops and reported theft without taking a step outside.

*There are a limited number of federal protections even in at-will states; you can't fire someone for organizing a union, etc.