comment: >
  
  
  House of Representatives Speaker Kevin McCarthy has said he will leave Santos' fate to the Ethics Committee and voters
  
  But they just gutted the Ethics committee, which Georgie said was “fantastic”. Way to take the easy one out
context: Is hiring an impersonator of McCarthy’s Chief of Staff to call people and bilk them out of donations, not “breaking campaign, finance laws?” >
  
  We don’t even know if his name really is George santos >
  
  I think it's fair and legit to ask for his birth certificate. >
  
  House of Representatives actually have a Constitutional requirement to be a US citizen for at least seven years. This should literally have to be verified for all US Reps, not just Santos. As much as the Republicans scream about respecting the Constitution, you would think enforcement of this would have been enacted by now. >
  
  I mean Trump's currently the most likely Republican candidate for 2024 and he outright called for the Constitution to be got rid of. >
  
  If they take the 2nd amendment with it, I could maybe get behind it. /s >
  
  Yeah, it’s not a particularly good constitution by modern standards. I’d move a lot of “state” power (and Senate stuff) to something more natural. Like watershed legislatures might be a good one. Some sort of fundamental shared interest that isn’t “We drew these lines in the 1800’s and now we’re stuck with them.” And move most “state level” power to local governments. 
  States can still exist for college football purposes but there’s really no modern reason states west of like Connecticut have the lines they do. (And Delaware doesn’t get to be a state. They wanted to register every corporation and use toll bridges to mooch off other states so that’s what they’re gonna get. It’s an offshore banking island now even if we have to dredge a new canal to make it fully offshore. They’ll be happy because they’ll have a whole new waterway to make toll bridges over to make people driving between DC to NYC fund their government.)
  EDIT: I originally said east of Connecticut but I meant west. My point was just that states make increasingly less sense in a modern context the more west you get from New England, basically. >
  
  
  east of like Connecticut
  
  So… Rhode Island and Maine? >
  
  I meant west. >
  
  I was teasing. <3 >
  
  Comer is referring to a criminal conviction.  Like we've seen from Jeff Fortenberry, Bob Menendez, Chris Collins, Chaka Fattah, etc. recently, when you get indicted, you get kicked off committees. And if you get convicted, you're expected to resign.  And if you don't, which we haven't seen since Jim Traficant, you're expelled. >
  
  Ahh, Traficant. My local rep from back in the day. Paid by all the mobs. Fuckin Legend in Youngstown >
  
  I expected like the 1950's or something but damn that was recent. >
  
  Investigated by the house ethics committee you say?
  "We have looked into the matter involving ourselves and found nothing illegal was committed." >
  
  What House Ethics Committee? The GOP is gutting it. >
  
  So what would happen to his seat if he was removed? >
  
  New election in his district >
  
  Probably followed by Santos changing his name yet again and trying to run under a different name to scam the voters in that district yet again >
  
  I live in Majorie Taylor Greene’s district and have thought of changing my name to Margery Tailor Green and running against her >
  
  Please do. I would love to see someone knock her off her seat even if it is using a fake name close to hers to confuse her idiot voter base that keeps putting her in power. >
  
  To be fair, she ran unopposed the first time because she intimidated her opponent and his family until he quit and moved out of GA. The man who ran against her this time, Marcus Flowers, did a good job but that district will never elect a black man. They need a white male opponent to beat her. Or she can go to prison and not be able to run. >
  
  A white guy isn't gonna help in that district.  Jesus Himself could run against her, and her voters would still reelect her. >
  
  tbf he got within 500 votes of toppling her >
  
  I will certainly not believe this until I see it happen. >
  
  
  I will certainly not believe this until I see it happen
  
  Here's what fellow Republican and House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer will say:
  They'll remove Santos once he's convicted of criminal campaign finance laws. 
  Because Comer knows it will take more than 2 years for authorities to investigate the infractions, then to file charges, and then take him to trial and get a conviction. 
  It will be way past Nov 2024 before there's any resolution and there's no way Santos gets reëlected.  
  They're playing the old GQP Rope-a-Dope and running out the clock to keep their majority until the next election. >
  
  If they Justice system can't provide justice in a timely manner, that's a dangerous thing for those being accused of crimes, especially those in power.  That's the sort of thing that leads to revolution, not that I'm cheering that on.  The Justice system needs a major reform in this country especially when it comes to how those in power are investigated, prosecuted, and penalized. >
  
  
  If they Justice system can’t provide justice in a timely manner, that’s a dangerous thing for those being accused of crimes, especially those in power.
  
  Almost as though it’s been designed this way.
  
  The Justice system needs a major reform in this country especially when it comes to how those in power are investigated, prosecuted, and penalized.
  
  Absolutely.
  
  That’s the sort of thing that leads to revolution, not that I’m cheering that on.
  
  The process will be painful but, without it, I doubt we’ll ever recover from this slow death we’re caught in. >
  
  I am all for a good ol' fashioned revolution! However, it needs to have a factual basis and not rooted in the lies of one or two people.
  But yeah. Restoring order to the corruption of a government is hard. Simply pushing the ruling parties out tends to leave a nasty power vacuum that can quickly get filled by the even more corrupt. (You can't break any laws if there are no laws to break! ) >
  
  Seems like you actually aren't for a good old fashioned revolution. >
  
  “George Santos couldn’t have broken any laws” said Santos to reporters today “Because….” Santos said as he removed the mask from his face “I’m old man O’cleary from the Sawmill!” O’cleary then attempted to dramatically vanish in a cloud of smoke but accidentally set himself on fire. He is in jail awaiting trial. >
  
  I would accept this outcome >
  
  Me too, but Republicans would still back the guy for "playing the game the way it was meant to be played" and "liberals are trying to defund all sawmills". >
  
  Defund all sawmills... gave me a laugh. Sad it’s not far off the truth >
  
  If any of us apply for a job they want birth certificates, diplomas, GEDs, transcripts, background checks, the works. 
  But being in congress does not need any of that? >
  
  What jobs are you applying for? >
  
  What? Have you ever been employed in the United States? >
  
  It's been a long time, but I don't remember ever being asked for a birth certificate. Apparently it's common, though, based on my replies.
  The original comment read to me like Trump claiming you need ID to buy groceries, but perhaps I'm the out -of-touch one. >
  
  You don’t need a birth certificate you need multiple forms of ID. SS card, DL, passport, utility bill etc. Birth cert is just one of the options that meet the one requirement. >
  
  Not necessarily—you need to prove your identity and that you can legally work in the US. A passport proves both. A birth certificate or Social Security card proves that you can legally work in the US, while a Driver’s License or State ID proves your identity. >
  
  If?
  ^(Lol, dude is a walking bag of lies.) >
  
  If Trumps presidency taught us anything, it’s that we have very few official ways to punish politicians for blatantly lying. So many of our rules are based off “well, if they lie, the voters won’t stand for it” turns out thats super shitty protection from lying politicians. >
  
  Neither party? Bullshit. Democrats have forced politicians resign in the past... Republicans, not so much. >
  
  In support may I offer Al Franken as evidence. >
  
  
  "It's not up to me or any other member of Congress to determine whether he can be kicked out for lying."
  
  It's too bad they didn't get around to reading the Constitution on the first day like they said they would. If they had, he would have heard this part fairly early, in Article 1, Section 5
  
  Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member. >
  
  It’s more nefarious than that.  They know what it says and then CHOOSE not to punish him and let him continue to defraud the American people.  It’s a choice and it’s intentional by the GOP.
  Edit: Spelling sucks on mobile >
  
  It's because they are all in serious trouble if they say you need to resign from Congress if you are caught in a lie.