My understanding (and I could be wrong) is that the Ethics Committee can only send a recommendation to the full House that he be censured (basically, a slap on the wrist). Majority party leadership could certainly deny him committee assignments, but the damage is already done. Unless he chooses to resign, even if he his arrested and charged with criminal activity, not seating him or ejecting him would require a 2/3 vote of the House.
He could be Satan incarnate, but once he's elected and the results are certified, he's elected. For good or bad, that's the way our government works
This is why voters need to know who they're voting for, by asking questions and doing research, and also why the local parties should vet their nominees more carefully.The only one responsible for this fiasco is George Santos (or whatever his name really is). Should the local GOP have checked him out more closely? Absolutely. Should the Dems have done more oppo research?. Absolutely; they thought the seat was safe, and took their eye off the ball. Should the media have been paying more attention? Yes. but there are fewer and fewer local media outlets, so how far do you stretch your resources? |
