He hasn’t been convicted”
The House has expelled George Santos. To most people, his conduct was so obviously egregious it was the only reasonable course the House could take — 311 Representatives agreed. However, 114 Representatives disagreed and voted to keep him. While another two sat on their hands.
Like everything involving politics, there was partisanship. All but two of the pro-Santos votes were cast by Republicans. It is safe to assume that if Santos were a Democrat, almost all, if not all, of those GOPers would have voted for expulsion. But they can not admit that party trumps propriety. So they have to come up with a palatable reason. They chose to claim expulsion was premature without a criminal conviction.
So what?
This expedient rationale is an exercise in making stuff up.
The grounds for punitive measures vary — even within the justice system. On the criminal side, prosecutors must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil action, a jury or judge decides whether a preponderance of the evidence favors the plaintiff or the defendant. Under constitutional rules, expulsion (and impeachment) is decided by a vote. It is up to each Senator and Representative to decide what evidence they need to vote how they choose.
Nowhere does the Constitution demand a criminal conviction as a condition for expulsion (or impeachment).
The slippery slope
Defenders of a conviction-first mandate argued that without some arbitrary non-congressional, extra-constitutional standard, Congress was setting a precedent that opened the door to mass expulsions based on a whim. It is the classic slippery slope argument.
Previous examples of this sophistry include, “If gays are allowed to marry, people will demand to marry children, pets, or their lawnmower.” It has been over eight years since gay marriage became a civil right in the US. And there has been no corresponding lobbying for other forms of marriage.
It takes a supermajority
Neither does Santos’ expulsion open the door for mass culling of Representatives. Or even the arbitrary removal of one. The framers of the Constitution were not stupid. They were aware of human nature and the dangers of factionalism. They required a ⅔ majority for a member's ousting.
The last time one party had this supermajority in the House was during the 95th Congress in 1977 (it was gone by the end of the same Congress in 1979). In this age of extreme gerrymandering, which has seen competitive House districts evaporate, it is unlikely to happen again. And if you are the party with less than ⅓ of the seats, you have bigger problems than the possibility one of your members may be thrown out. Especially as it is most likely the expelled member would be replaced by another of the same party.
Note: A significant part of the current GOP angst is that NY 3 is a swing seat, and the voters may elect a Democrat.
What the Committee found
In addition, George Santos’s expulsion was hardly capricious. It took three bites of the apple. The House voted down the previous attempt on November 1, 179-213. So what changed? On November 16, the House Ethics Committee released its report. On page 1, they summarized their findings. To wit:
Representative Santos sought to fraudulently exploit every aspect of his House candidacy for his own personal financial profit.
He blatantly stole from his campaign.
He deceived donors into providing what they thought were contributions to his campaign but were in fact payments for his personal benefit.
He reported fictitious loans to his political committees to induce donors and party committees to make further contributions to his campaign – and then diverted more campaign money to himself as purported “repayments” of those fictitious loans.
He used his connections to high value donors and other political campaigns to obtain additional funds for himself through fraudulent or otherwise questionable business dealings.
And he sustained all of this through a constant series of lies to his constituents, donors, and staff about his background and experience.
Their report was well-researched, supported by facts, and bipartisan. No one could honestly accuse them of a hatchet job. Fortunately for good governance, 81 Republicans saw the report and changed their vote to expulsion.
Coda
As Santos has not yet been criminally convicted, he still enjoys some congressional perks. He can go on the House floor, use the members-only gym and dining room, buy his desk for $1,000, auction it off, and keep the proceeds. However, he had better act soon as, based on the evidence, his conviction is all but guaranteed in most/all of the 23 counts he faces.
Clearly this jackass should never had been there in the first place 😏 thank you Pitt