George Santos, a thin-skinned liar, shouldn’t have been expelled from the House

George Santos Seems to be a Thin-Skinned Liar — That⁣ Doesn’t Mean He Should’ve​ Been Expelled from the ⁤House

If you pay any modicum of ‌attention to⁣ politics, you’ve no doubt heard about the‍ historic⁣ ouster of now-former ⁣GOP New York Rep. George Santos from ⁣the House of Representatives.

In a ​ shocking Friday development, Santos‌ was voted out of his role as the representative of New York’s 3rd congressional district by a floor vote of his peers.

The embattled 35-year-old stands accused of a number of crimes after a‌ scathing‌ report from the House Ethics Committee.

That blistering report accused him of a “complex web of unlawful activity involving Representative Santos’ campaign, personal, and⁢ business finances.”

Those allegations include some genuinely damning ​accusations, like the claim that Santos used campaign funds⁢ for vacations, botox treatment, ‌and, perhaps most alarmingly, at the OnlyFans website. He stands accused of a number ⁤of ‌other similar crimes,⁤ where he is alleged to have been misappropriating and/or stealing funds.

It doesn’t help Santos’ ‌case that he seems like a genuine malcontent ⁤ who is factually ​challenged, given his past debunked claims about connections ⁣to the Holocaust and the 2016 Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Florida.

Given all that, it was ⁣still a seismic‌ moment in U.S. politics when Santos became the sixth⁤ individual and⁣ the first Republican removed from‍ his position, The ⁤vote was 311-114 on the House floor.

In related news, that means 311 members​ of the House apparently have no clue⁣ how the U.S. justice system works ‍— a somewhat alarming development for American lawmakers.

Because Santos’ ouster was also historic in the sense that he is the first ​member of Congress to be⁤ voted out by his peers despite not actually⁣ being convicted of a single thing.

As damning as that ethics report is, as it stands, it’s full of ⁣nothing but allegations and⁢ accusations.

Look, this is not a defense of Santos’ purported ‍actions in any way, shape, or form. Using campaign funds on OnlyFans accounts⁣ is unacceptable. Period.

It’s also not meant to be a defense of Santos’ character — by every indication, the man genuinely‍ seems like‌ a ‍ thin-skinned punk more prone to having ⁣a temper tantrum than passing legislation.

“As one ​member said to me: He is a disgusting human being, and he ‌shouldn’t be here,” an unnamed House Republican told Axios.

Even given all of that: ⁣What laws has this man actually been convicted of breaking? None.

Allegations of impropriety and being “a disgusting human being” are not illegal. If it were, there‌ wouldn’t be a single un-jailed politician.

And in⁣ this country, you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

Obviously, if Santos is found guilty on ​any number of these charges,​ sure. Let⁣ the door hit him on his way out.

But he has ​not been found guilty‌ of a thing yet.

American politics have hit this genuinely ‌terrifying slippery ‌slope thanks to what the House has introduced.

In essence, it is now established precedent in the House of Representatives that you can be removed from your post based‌ on nothing more than accusations.

(Related: How awkward will it be if Santos is ultimately found⁢ innocent of these charges?​ Whoops…)

And again, this decision was‌ made by ⁢greater​ than two-thirds ‍of the House of Representatives,‌ which was the threshold needed to oust Santos.

If the​ House ⁤of Representatives is actually full⁣ of this sort of emotional bloodlust (all across both political parties),​ America may be in more dire straits than even ​the most pessimistic⁣ patriots may have thought.

The​ post George Santos Seems to ‌be a Thin-Skinned Liar –⁣ That Doesn’t Mean He Should’ve Been Expelled from the House ‍appeared first on The Western Journal.

What are the ‌potential implications of expelling George Santos from the House⁣ of Representatives without​ concrete⁢ convictions?

George⁢ Santos, the former GOP New York representative, recently made headlines as he was voted out ‌of his role in the House of Representatives. This unprecedented move has sparked a series of discussions regarding the role‍ of expulsion in politics. While Santos is embroiled in numerous allegations of unlawful activities, it is essential to consider the implications‌ of his removal from ⁣office without any concrete convictions.

The House Ethics Committee released a scathing⁣ report⁢ accusing Santos of a “complex web‌ of unlawful activity” involving his campaign, personal, and ⁢business finances. These allegations include the ‌misuse of campaign funds for personal purposes such as vacations, botox treatments, and even expenses at the ⁤OnlyFans website. These accusations, if proven true, reflect a severe breach of ‍trust and an abuse of public office.

Furthermore, Santos’ credibility has been undermined by his previous debunked claims about his connections to significant historical​ events such as the Holocaust and the 2016 Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Florida. These erroneous statements contribute to a pattern‍ of factual inaccuracies and raise concerns about his competence as a representative.

However, it is crucial to examine the implications of the decision to⁢ expel Santos from the House of Representatives. This move signifies a historic moment in U.S.⁢ politics, as ⁣Santos became the first Republican and the sixth individual overall to be voted out by ‍their peers. The fact that 311‍ members of the House supported this decision raises⁢ questions about their understanding of the U.S. justice system.​ Expelling a member of Congress without a formal conviction sets a concerning precedent and raises concerns about fair due process ​within the political sphere.

While the ethics report against Santos contains serious allegations, it is ⁣essential to remember that they remain unproven at ‍this stage.⁢ The report serves as a collection of accusations rather than concrete evidence. It is ⁣paramount to differentiate between allegations and convictions, as the latter carries the weight of incontrovertible proof.

This ⁣article is by no​ means a defense of Santos’⁢ alleged actions⁢ or an endorsement of his character. The misuse of campaign funds is unequivocally unacceptable, and such actions undermine the public’s trust in elected officials. Furthermore, Santos’ behavior displayed traits of a thin-skinned individual who seemed prone to‌ confrontations and inaccurate statements.

Nevertheless, it is crucial to acknowledge the necessity of due process and fair treatment within the political system. Expelling a member of Congress without concrete convictions challenges the principles of justice and⁤ sets a potentially dangerous precedent. Suspension, investigation, and a​ thorough legal process would have provided Santos with an opportunity ⁢to present his defense and for the allegations ⁣to be scrutinized objectively.

In ⁤conclusion, while⁣ George Santos’ expulsion from the​ House of⁤ Representatives showcases the ‌gravity of the ​allegations against him, it ⁤also highlights the need for a fair and just political system. Striking⁣ a balance between accountability and due process​ is crucial to maintaining the integrity‌ of democratic institutions. It is imperative for⁣ American lawmakers to uphold these principles as​ they move forward in navigating cases of ethical misconduct among their ranks.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases