In a historic move, George Santos, a New York Republican congressman, faced expulsion from the House on Friday following a resounding bipartisan vote prompted by a string of falsehoods and a federal indictment comprising 23 counts. The House voted 311 to 114 to expel him, this surpasses the two-thirds majority which is required under the Constitution. Santos had survived two previous attempts to expel him from Congress with the first two efforts happening after he was indicted by the Justice Department in May, and then charged again with a superseding indictment in October. Santos now becomes the first person to ever be expelled from the House without bring convicted of a federal crime or supporting the Confederacy.
Santos has been surrounded by controversy for a while now, going back to 2008 where he allegedly forged two stolen checks and in May of this year he signed an agreement with public prosecutors in Brazil to avoid persecution. Santos also was present at the "rally" on January 6th, 2021, where he gave a speech and then backed Donald Trump after his supporters infiltrated one of the most prestiges and important buildings in the country. On top of those events Santos is most known for his lies. I don't have the time to list all but here are some:
- Lied about where his campaign money (This article goes into detail on where that money went but some highlighted are: his own rent, Hermès, Sephora, OnlyFans, Spa days, Botox, and more)
- Claimed that his mother passed away due to the attacks on 9/11 and that she was in downtown Manhattan, (immigration records proved that his mom wasn't even in the US at that time)
- Lied about where he went to high school
- Lied about where he went to college and claimed to have degrees from that college, that college did not have a record of Santos earning a degree
- Claimed that he saved 2,500 dogs through founding an animal charity (there were no social-media accounts for the organization, no IRS records, and no evidence of the charity being registered in New York or New Jersey, where Santos claimed to have operated)
- Claimed his grandma survived the Holocaust (later would get proven as false through genealogy records)
Sources:
11 comments:
The House being able to pull through with a supermajority vote to expel Santos does give me faith in the American political system in exposing and serving accountability to corrupt individuals, albeit Santos is a profoundly corrupt individual with his lies being frequent and obvious. Reading these lies in the post are just ludicrous, like his Grandma being in the Holocaust despite contradicting genealogy is just really insane to me and reinforces my belief that there should be more requirements and stricter background checks before someone can even run for public office like Santos. Strategies I believe that could be used to reduce individuals using deception to get elected into office are thorough background checks. This would establish the candidate's integrity and their willingness to do backgrounds and maybe even support for more of them could increase their honesty grade with the people they are representing. Another form could be independent election commissions. These commissions can oversee and report suspicious findings on candidates, basically keeping an eye on their campaign at all times so that they can check for shady activity. I believe more establishing of a candidate's integrity as part of campaign requirements is integral into developing a more honest system with more integrity.
Yes, I agree with Nolan that supermajority is a good sign, personally I feel discouraged by the fact that Santos was even allowed a seat to begin with. Some of these lies are just ludicrous, I'm sorry how did he even get elected by lying about his college, you would think someone (like maybe the college?) would have fact checked that ahead of time. Moreover, you would think Santos would be ashamed of being expelled, but nope instead he is proudly flaunting that fact on social media. He's profiting off his "fall from grace" charging up to $350 for a single cameo video. But, as outlined in the following article, other disgraced notable figures have also turned to Cameo for money, one former governor of Alaska even made more money from Cameo than from office. It really goes to show just how much America is increasing its focus upon social media in society.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/05/us/politics/george-santos-cameo.html
I feel this issue was long overdue, since questions about his integrity and background have been brought up for a long time. It's nice to see a supermajority can finally agree and place morals before party membership for this vote, but it also makes me question the 114 who voted to still keep in congress.
Another question I would have is how he was able to get a seat in Congress standing on top of so many lies....Did nobody verify him before he took office?
Similar to Chris' comment, George Santos' expulsion was long overdue. It honestly makes a mockery of our political system for a person who has lied repeatedly to assume their position- and get indicted- to still hold their position after an extended period. However, I don't think that George Santos' continued time in Congress speaks as much to him as it does to the House itself; he is just a singular person who weaseled his way into a position, but those who have repeatedly voted in favor of his continued time as a Representative, despite going against every quality a Representative needs, is ridiculous. The only beneficial result of Santos' time in office was the comedy he provided. I thoroughly enjoyed watching video after video of him lying on camera and then getting outed by yet another news source. (For instance, him denying claims that he performed as a drag queen, then the video of him being published). In addition, it was definetly entertaining to watch the videos of him bake and provide food for the media that would follow him. At times, he was so unserious that people would call him Congress' "jester".
While I do find his time in office entertaining, there is still the realistic problem of our century- that politicians refuse to break party lines for a blatantly obvious issue.
How did Santos get away with this for so long and the fact that 114 vote were in support to keep him in congress just highlights how many corrupt people there are. There should be a deeper background check on those that are lected for congress because some lies could have been caught very early on by just checking records. I also still can't comprehend how he was able to lie without regret although Santos backing up Trump after his supporters destoryed a very important building explains a lot.
Even though Santos got expelled from Congress, I feel as though these events reflect poorly for the United States in the rest of the world. How was Santos able to get elected when he lacked such integrity?
To answer your question Aurin, I think more thorough investigation of candidates before election is absolutely critical. When electing a member for Congress, the American people need to be informed about their past and whether or not they are telling lies in their campaigns. It is an embarrassment for American politics to have elected someone who so overtly lied about their family, education, campaign, and behavior.
To add on to Enya's point that he was viewed as unserious and some people called him Congress' "jester," I strongly dislike the occurrence that liars like him are only referred to as "jesters" by the public. We need to stop humoring people like him who behave outrageously. It is a disgrace. The Congress needs to start focusing on real issues at hand for the future of America, like climate change, healthcare, gun violence, and wealth inequality.
Getting expelled by a supermajority is the bare minimum in this sort of situation. This only reinforces the idea that politicians are corrupt and power-hungry. These politicians represent us. We need candidates for office that are genuinely interested in public service and serving the people.
George Santos's use of outright lies to garner sympathy and support to get elected into his government position reveals the bleak reality that it has become almost impossible for the electorate to be consistently correctly informed. George Santos was willing to tell blatant lies as a government official, the job known to be under the most public scrutiny, and his brazenness in doing this suggests that there are likely lies that other government officials have told that either wasn't trendy enough to captivate the public attention as much as "George Santos spent campaign funds on OnlyFans" is or that those lies simply haven't been discovered yet. If we, the voters, can't even trust the websites of the candidates we are voting for to contain legitimate and truthful information about the motivations and intentions of candidates, the barrier to voting as a well-informed citizen is widened even further.
On a more positive note, at least this situation does suggest that to some degree, both parties can at least agree on ousting members who have committed flagrantly wrong actions.
I think there should definitely be some sort of reform or substantial change. One thing that we could do is enforce legal consequences for providing demonstrably false information as a candidate. Santos was able to lie extensively without facing penalties. More accountability measures could deter deception. Or even increase transparency around campaign finances and donations. The source and uses of political donations should be clearly traceable. This could reveal irregularities and conflicts of interest. It comes down to vigilance and values (which Santos clearly doesn't have) - being alert to dishonest tactics and prioritizing honesty in our representatives.
I think Santos is definitely a unique and extreme case, but his lies might offer insight into how strong the incentive is for politicians to attach themselves to electable personas. The lies that Aurin mentioned revolve mostly around Santos' character and aim to illuminate him in a more sympathetic or noble light. Aurin mentioned that Santos essentially lied his way into Congress as well, and given that despite all of the press he's received, I've never once come across an article that referenced any political accomplishments of his... indicates how powerful building a strong persona/backstory is to successfully campaigning.
Then again, he's now profiting off of Cameo ($500 per video today when it was literally $400 the day before and $350 the day before that...) with "Former congressional 'Icon'!💅🏼" in his bio, which might undercut how representative his case is of American politicians, as he seems to appreciate the celebrity-like attention he's receiving.
Still, the fact that he still held office illuminates the need for transparency within politics. Other students have mentioned the need for honesty, and I'm thinking that perhaps a mandate for politicians to publicize their campaign donors and expenditures would be beneficial. Additionally, perhaps the media can play a bigger role in fact-checking politicians' claims, though it's understandable that most politicians may not get adequate press coverage.
As embarrassing as it probably is for Republicans to oust their own, I think this incident shows how, in certain cases, people can cross a partisan divide even when the issue is clearly partisan. Sure, many Democrats would be eager to take the opportunity to cast out a strong, conservative Trump-aligned Republican, but the fact that the vote was 311 to 114 demonstrates that a more than just a few Republicans put professional qualities above politics in expelling someone shown to have lied.
That said, I would be wary of some of the solutions people here are proposing, such as some sort of background check or consequence for providing false information as a candidate. These are good measures in theory, but I wouldn’t be surprised if bias on the part of whoever would assess this could end up making some qualified or honest people’s path to Congress even more difficult. If the media instead were to be more effective at checking accuracy and identifying false information—again, difficult, because the media can overemphasize nearly everything if given reason to do so—it would help voters be able to identify less reliable candidates before they gain a strong public following.
I do agree with Kaushal’s point about having there be more transparency about the uses of campaign funds: nobody is harmed knowing their money went to some campaign aspect or other decent endeavor, but spa visits fall fairly decently into the personal expenditures category that campaign funds aren’t meant to go to. Seeing as how we’ve been able to get some campaign donation legislation across with support from both parties (i.e. McCain-Feingold Act) it doesn’t seem unreasonable there would be potential for compromise and agreement on legislation that more closely monitors the use of campaign funds.
George Santos's time in congress feels both inspiring and frightful. It exemplifies the American Dream, it shows how anyone can climb the ranks, and how anything is possible. On a darker tone, his is time serving proves how even unqualified, undeserving and sometimes how awful people can assume positions of power in America if they work hard enough. Although most of the harm Santos has caused has been only to his own career, his unfit presence coincides with other political examples of corruption. Our system is beautifully democratic, yet despite how public may often seem overly critical of candidates, people like Santos and others still make their way through politics. People have been saying the super-majority is hopeful, and reflected on congress's good judgement, however I agree with Enya that his removal was long overdue; It seems so obvious that someone like him shouldn't be in a position of power. Although, (coming back to the American dream), I believe everyone should have equal opportunity to achieve their goals, and if they want, garner positions of influence in politics, I still think there should be more parameters for candidacy. We entrust people in politics with great power, and more investigation should go into their intentions, rationality and morality among their qualifications. Santos' existence in politics, among the many other figures we have had in the past, reflect poorly on America's judgement and the reputation and efficacy of the political system.
Post a Comment