>

Everyone predicting his demise is overreacting. There are enough GOP voters who would rather see the seat held by a craven liar than any Democrat, because they all believe the Democrats are worse.
GOP efforts to protect him will be seen ss justified to protect against Democrats, and in two years the only thing people will remember is that he has an (R) next to his name.
Sadly the House GOP will do nothing with such a slim majority.  And the voters will have to wait until 2024 to vote him out, if he doesn't resign. >

The NYT just reported the Republican Nassau County District Attorney is investigating Santos. The Republicans desperately want him out in any attempt to retain the seat. They can appoint a replacement with a prayer of winning next time. >

There will be a special election more than likely.  The GOP isn't going to risk their slim majority on the hope of winning a special election.  Especially after this shit storm. >

The majority is slim, but not that slim. They can afford to lose one seat. And McCarthy surely can’t expel him until after he wins leadership. I think if he just keeps his cards close to his chest he will have the option. >

You've seen how the Democrat senate struggled against Manchin and Sinema right? The House Republicans are treating Sinema as their role model, all of them want a pound of flesh from the Speaker. Personal concessions on everything. 
Their majority isn't that slim, but their party unity is over. >

“Their party unity is over.”
I have heard that prediction so many times before. It never works out that way.
This is less contentious than the battle for House GOP leadership was in 2017. And just like 2017, the Republicans will fall into line and support their leadership. >

How at all is it less contentious than 2017? As of right now, 5 days before the new congress is sworn in: Kevin McCarthy doesn’t even have the votes to be speaker of the house >

The newest black eye for George is questions about accuracy of mandatory campaign financing, both for 2020 and 2022. Lying on these statements are a crime. 
Prosecutors in New York are looking if any crimes have been committed. >

I’d argue they are the district court with the most power >

In the country yea, definitely. >

As far as the voters, there’s two fallouts from this. The obvious one is, what kind of electoral backlash there will be against Santos; I suspect that if he doesn’t resign he’ll be successfully primaried in two years. The second fallout is, how no one else did the due diligence to uncover this earlier. Not just the GOP, but the press (one local paper did a little bit of coverage before the elections on the fiscal irregularities, but newsday and the NYC dailies didn’t pick up on it), as well as the democrats for lousy oppo research. Institutions all around failing to do the basics, so even less trust in those institutions. >

If it comes out the company he had for only a year and brought in millions in business was somehow used to funnel campaign contributions, that will likely result in criminal charges in which case he'll be pressured to resign by his own party (the GOP won't want to expel him themselves, although they might if he gets convicted). If it wasn't and he just lied about everything, he'll probably keep digging his heels in like he is now and get primaried/beaten in 2 years. >

I'm curious about money laundering potential.. from Bolsinero (perhaps)  which would be multiple crimes. >

Republicans in the House do not want him ousted, he himself has no shame so he will stay just like many other disgraced Republican until his constituency gives him the boot. Some, including, one Republican requested an ethics investigation; many Democrats have requested the same and DOJ may investigate whether he broke any laws with respect to his fund-raising.    If he had any shame, he would have resigned on his own. >

I terminate people I’ve hired if they lied on their resume why should our government be different. 
If they lied and cheated I don’t want them working for me. >


I terminate people I’ve hired if they lied on their resume why should our government be different.

because this particular government position is an elected one; the people in his district hired him. 
he's accountable to his constituency, if they care, they'll do something about it.. >

True, but there's no mechanism for his constituency to do anything about it until the next election. >

What about a recall election.  Enough signatures on a petition should get that done. >

Members of Congress cannot be recalled. >

Thanks.  I wonder what McCarthy or whoever is chosen to herd the cats in the Republican led House will do with this Liar. >

If I were in the house I'd be inclined to vote for him to be expelled.  I'd want to do some investigating first, and triplecheck everything, as well as giving him a chance to make counter-arguments.
But I have high standards; it's harder to say what 'should' an institution do.  Generally speaking, I think accountability and consequences make things better. >

It's a weird sort of in between problem, in my opinion, because he hasn't actually taken office yet.  So no one can do anything right now because he has met the Constitutional minimal to be seated.  The question then is, should the House expel him for actions taken before he was a Congressman?  This is a bit less obvious than if he committed financial fraud while in office or whatnot, I think.
(The parallel I'm sort of thinking of is Alcee Hastings, who was a federal judge, was impeached and removed from office, and then subsequently elected to Congress.  I think the belief at the time was that the voters knew about all that and elected him anyway, although the obvious rejoinder is that the whole point of this scandal is that people didn't know until after the election.) >

Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion. >

Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion. >

If nothing else, this probably just skyrocketed his chances for re-election in his district among his Republican voters because so much attention is being drawn to it; they probably feel as though it's the "libs being owned" and are 100% on board with it.
But that's just my speculation based on six years of spite. >

It is a Biden+10 district in New York, it’s not some random trump+35 seat in Kansas or Utah… >

It really is a testament to how badly Democrats in NY fumbled the bag that this dude won in a Biden +10 seat by nearly double digits. 
Outperformed Biden by nearly 20 points. In a national environment that was basically even. >

Exactly, and Kathy Hochul has proven exactly why she’s the worst possible person to lead the party in that state. >

Democrats in general have been losing steam in NY after Cuomo. His gun rights law was especially bad for upstate.  
I have a feeling it's going to flip if the Republicans nominate a moderate Republican to office. The kind of people New England likes to elect. >

He raised money based on lies- thats fraud. He should be prosecuted and forced out of office. A new special election can be held. >

Are we going to do this for every elected official who lies?  How easy is it to throw a Presidential election? >

There are major differences here. This guy completely made up who he was, who his family was, etc. to appeal specifically to voters in his district. While not illegal, completely unethical. You have to ask those voters, knowing what they do about him now, would they still vote to elect him? My guess is the majority would not. 
This doesn't take into account where he suddenly got all this money from that he didn't have 3 years ago. >

Who gets to decide which lies are worth ignoring vs which lies are enough to get removed from his office? >

The house ethics office >

As a die hard Republican, I feel he should be removed from office if it is egregious as they say.  There are a lot of scumbags in congress on the right and left who should be removed. >

Joe Biden has repeatedly lied about his past on numerous occasions. 


He never grew up in a ghetto.


He was not raised by Puerto Ricans.


He supported Strom Thurmond and proposed a number of racist laws in the 1970s.


The laptop held by the FBI that he claimed was Russian disinformation has been verified to belong to his son Hunter.


Hunter Biden's emails from the laptop verify, on a number of occasions, that the reason he was appointed to the position was to funnel money to Joe Biden who was the sitting VP at the time.


The former point is also true of Hunter Biden's actions in China.


Joe Biden never participated in Black Panthers, and his association with Strom Thurmond definitely indicates the fact that it would be extremely unlikely that such a thing would have ever occurred.


Once someone takes action on those issues with our sitting POTUS and they get resolved, then we can certainly start talking about other politicians. >

He should be treated the same as any other prospective employee who lied on their CV to obtain a position or promotion. >

Sounds nice, but the Constitution makes no provisions for that. >

pedantically it does imho:
there's a reason for catchall provisions that can handle any sort of misconduct without enumerating all the different kinds.
Art 1 Section 5:
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
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. >

Yes but the house is republican and can't afford to lose a single member so they will do nothing >

Correct. The GOP no longer has any integrity as a party. They will sit this guy and likely not even bother with an ethics investigation, which is just bullshit anyway. >

Nothing unless he has committed financial crimes as well (which is likely).  But this should be his only term in Congress. >

Greg Gianforte was convicted of assault and still kept his seat. By comparison, Santos didn't do anything illegal nor as blatantly nefarious - he's not going anywhere. >

McCarthy won't do anything to upset the slim majority that the Republicans have over the democrats.  McCarthy is too political. >

I’m in his district and the best I can do is make sure that I call or email his office and hold his fear to the fire with every lie and decision.  When it comes time for him to be re-elected I am going to be volunteering and screaming at the Democratic Party to out more money and energy into this district. I am so pissed off that a POS like him is representing me. >

Be angry but keep in mind it's the voters that fucked up more than anyone else. Santos was openly a Trump-Taylor Greene type. He didn't lie about what he really was. >

i know. sadly i live in a maga area of NY. they would vote for satan if he had an R by his name >

Can’t wait for the car parades to start up again. Sigh. >

i’m going to the gym to make sure my middle finger has maximum endurance. >

He has zero chance of re-election.  Every Jew in New York will be spitting on his campaign posters.  If the Republican party is smart, they'll replace him somehow.  But they'd rather keep him for the short-term benefits of having one more vote. >

That has been their MO for quite some time now, short term gain for long term pain.  He destroyed his political career before it took off.  This is also going to damage the republican party in that location as well. >

I vote mostly Republican (except for Jimmy Carter) and I say remove him from office.
If I lie on my job resume, I get fired.
If I lie on my citizenship application, I get deported. If I lie on my firearm application, I don’t get the gun. If I lie on my mortgage application, I don’t get the house. If I lie to the insurance company, they decline coverage.
And so on. Liars and embellishers can’t be trusted. There should be zero tolerance. >

Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion. >

It’s New York. Honest people who go into politics get crushed like grapes, while thieves in suits get first dibs on the tastiest parts of the budget and whatever legislative interns of whom they demand jus primae noctis privileges. 
We’re not upset he lied. We’re upset he’s not serious about the craft. >

Not a Santos fan, but if lying while running for office disqualified you from serving in the House, then nobody would serve in the House.  Santos is an especially egregious example, but I don't think the lying makes the House do anything, especially with a Republican majority.  My guess is that he serves two years and the voters give him the boot, unless he gets indicted and convicted for a crime before then. >

Hey perjured himself in FeC filings. It might land him in real trouble >

It might.  Or it might not.  Like I said, if he gets indicted and convicted, he's getting kicked out of the House.  Unless and until that happens, he'll be in office.  The Republican majority is too thin for them to take a chance on the seat flipping for anything less. >

And it’ll probably take a while anyhow. >

The voters of New York are stuck with him.  There is no provision for recall of a Congressman.

"Under Article I, Section 5, clause 2, of the Constitution, a Member of Congress may be removed from office before the normal expiration of his or her constitutional term by an “expulsion” from the Senate (if a Senator) or from the House of Representatives (if a Representative) upon a formal vote on a resolution agreed to by two-thirds of the Members of that body present and voting. ... "  Source

The House should expel him as a first order of business.  We should all want to see the Resolution to Expel offered, debated and brought to a vote.  
Because expulsion can occur based on a two-thirds majority of those members of the House present and voting, I predict that Republicans will simply choose not to be present or voting and will allow him to be expelled by Democrats rather than go on the record either "against the party" of "in favor of sleaze." >

Politicians lie and fabricate constantly. Any investigation regarding lies should include all Politicians. >

You will most likely get fired if you lie on an employment application. People voted for him based on the qualifications he provided, which were false. The real question is the $700,000 he used to fund his campaign, which he claimed was his money. Apparently cannot back that up either, which is a campaign finance violation. >

It’s not against the law to lie.  
Stupid voters should learn their lesson and stop voting in conmen/women Republicans.   The whole party is campaigning on “alternative facts” because the voters don’t care. 
It’s not the party, it’s the voters.  Honest republicans who believe in reasonable government run, and they’re blasted by both the Republican base and the crazy left who have decided that sensationalizing like Republicans was a winning strategy.  
The party is the voters.  The majority gets what they want.  This only ends when people stop wanting bald faced lying conmen to represent them.
And how many of you would vote for an honest Republican over a conman Democrat?  Sure, you’ll say you would but you wouldn’t.  
This polarization is going to be the death of democracy. >

I was briefly a district chair for a political party and I can attest that it is nearly impossible to know everything about everyone. In some cases it was a miracle just to get someone to commit to running for office; it's hard work and people are always ready to tear you down. 
Having said that, I think you open up a pandora's box by throwing someone out that committed no crime and was duly elected. After all, our current chief executive was caught plagiarizing years ago, but he's still in the business. >


Like Malania

When was she ever an elected official? Literally nothing comparable with what the person you responded to said. Grow up. >

Spouses and children should be off limits. If I have to hear about how Hunters laptop would’ve lost Joe the election one more time. >


Spouses and children should be off limits.

I mostly agree, especially young children, but there could be circumstances. If the spouse or child gets special favors ie. government contracts, special jobs because of political favors, etc. you don’t think that should be fair game? >

So you mean like Ivanka and Jared getting positions they weren’t qualified for? >

That’s exactly what I mean. >

I hope NY had a mechanism for recall elections, but I doubt it. Most states lack such a feature for representatives and senators. 
Just one more example of our system's undemocratic nature coming back to bite us. >

All states lack that ability for federal offices. >

WHERE WAS DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION RESEARCH?  I think he checked enough “protected class” boxes, Gay, minority, immigrant, etc..  that they backed off. >

They sent it to the media, who sat on it because they're were too busy blaming Democrats for the COVID jobloss induced crime bump >

Is this a case where a deliberate smear campaign is the ethically correct thing to do?
I mean if he stays in office, that means ipso facto that the political system is broken.
In which case, our collective personal sovereignty would have a valid ethical case for unofficial disciplinary action.
Remember Santorum? Let's do that with this guy. >


How should the US house handle these revelations?

the house cant fire an elected representative for lying to their voters about their qualifications..if thats what you're asking. 
this really is kind of a non-issue. >

They can still investigate or expel him if he committed any serious crimes. Not sure why you think it’s a non-issue. >


Not sure why you think it’s a non-issue.

Because it's a scandal. Lying on your resume isn't a crime, he was still elected to office.
It's just like MTG or Boebert (no clue how to spell her name, don't care), deplorable people, but their constituency elected them to serve, unless you live in either district, there's nothing anyone else can do about who they picked to represent them.
Lying to your constituency isn't a crime.
If he's found guilty of a crime, absolutely there should and would be consequences, but all anyone has right now is 'he lied'...so? Politicians constantly lie. >

But he wasn’t caught on any of these lies until shortly after the election. If his constituents decided they no longer want him to represent them that should count for something.
“All politicians lie” is a dishonest obfuscation of the issue. Find me someone who fabricated their entire work history and lied about obtaining their degree. >


But he wasn’t caught on any of these lies until shortly after the election.

There is a constitutional remediation for this, and it's the following election. I'm not sure why people are having trouble understanding a very very basic tenet of democracy...your own rep is the only rep you have influence over and that influence is either voting or lobbying.

“All politicians lie” is a dishonest obfuscation of the issue.

It's not really an 'issue' for anyone but his constituency and law enforcement. >

Well I am his constituency. >

Neat, then don't vote for him again. >

I never voted for him in the first place. But I have every damn right to be upset he conned his way into being my representative. >

Being upset isn't the same as elected officeholders removing another elected officeholder... >

I am aware there is no mechanism to remove him short of expulsion. What I take issue with is you claiming this to be a "non-issue" under the guise of "all politicians lie" and trying to sweep it under the rug. This is not a typical politician spinning or exaggerating his resume, this is a guy who invented his entire background. Why do we continue to excuse this kind of behavior? >

Can someone explain to me how this isn’t fraud? Presumably he raised money online, so isn’t this federal wire fraud, to say nothing of the state law aspects. Like, if this isn’t illegal, our laws are even more broken than I could have imagined. >

Oh absolutely it’s fraud, but not illegal unfortunately unless he broke campaign finance laws. >

Do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. >

I think they should blacklist him for committee assignments, at least any coveted ones. Then Republicans need to back a Republican challenger in 2024, I'm sure democrats will try to take the district back as well. If he wins in 2024, so be it, at least the voters were informed on his true background. 
​
How did this guy win? Pro Trump, anti abortion.  Biden won the district by + 10. The incumbent democrat won in 2020 +16.4, won in 2018 +18, 2016 +5.6(first elected to office). Only thing I see is that he ran for New York governor, so maybe that soured a lot of people on him? Exposed him as a corporate democrat? IDK, seems really weird, democrats need to take a hard look in the mirror here. >


How did this guy win? Pro Trump, anti abortion. Biden won the district by + 10. The incumbent democrat won in 2020 +16.4, won in 2018 +18, 2016 +5.6(first elected to office). Only thing I see is that he ran for New York governor, so maybe that soured a lot of people on him? Exposed him as a corporate democrat? IDK, seems really weird, democrats need to take a hard look in the mirror here.

I live in this district, so I will try to provide some insight.
Yes, democrats outnumber republicans in this district. After redistricting, however, it became slightly less blue (went from a Biden +10 to a Biden +8 district, FiveThirtyEight has it from D+6 to D+4 so it's more "lean blue" than "solid blue"). The district also now encompasses a lot more of southern Nassau County which is very pro-Trump (I can attest to personally seeing many Trump 2024 flags on houses in this area).
The previous democratic incumbent you are referring to, Tom Suozzi, did run for governor and thus was not eligible to run for re-election in his house seat, so this was a race between two newcomers (Zimmerman (D) and Santos (R)). On top of that, the top line ticket was for the governor race between Kathy Hochul and Lee Zeldin. Lee Zeldin is very popular on Long Island and won Nassau County by 10 points despite Nassau going strongly for Biden in 2020. Santos' victory was likely the down ballot effect of having Zeldin on the ballot.
In addition, the republicans had much better ground game in this district. There were yard signs for Zeldin and Santos just about everywhere while signs for Hochul and Zimmerman were non-existent. I also received multiple mailers from the NYRCC  just about every day in the month leading up to the election and the anti-crime messaging that the republicans stuck with resonated much more strongly with voters than what the democrats were putting out.
TLDR: republican turnout was much stronger than expected in this district.
Either that or there were election shenanigans we don't know about. >

Thank you. Hopefully, the local democrats get there shit together for 2024. >

Very easy solution.
He should be treated the exact way of his fellow lawmakers.... Sen Blumenthal (who lied about serving in Vietnam) Sen Warren (who lied about being Indian) Ilyan Omar (brother-husband) and Joe Biden (top of his class, grew up poor, Corn Pop,...).  Strange how selective MSM is about “LIES”. >

I’m pretty sure no politician literally fabricates their entire life story (which he literally did, including his sexual orientation), and then goes from a net worth of $54,000 to over a million in one calendar year… >

To me, a lie is a lie. My only point is that they all lie and I have no faith or trust in any politician. That’s why I never vote for the same politician twice. Almost all get rich(er) after elected. Should he be gone, absolutely, just like most of them. >

Ok, but most politicans aren’t getting russian banks to make them rich in a single year. 
What he did went beyond criminal >


How should the US house handle these revelations?  

Better question should be “why” should the House handle it at all.  Many politicians embellish their resumes. Voters picked him. Done. >

He lied about literally everything though. At what point do you draw the line? How much lying is too much,  is there no limit? >

Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion. >

They should pretty much censure him from holding any significant roles in the House >

Can the voters recall him? Can they call a special election within the county? Can Dems sue for a recall? Citizens petition for a recall? >

Congressional representatives cannot be recalled. There is no mechanism to remove him short of expulsion (unlikely) or pressuring him to resign (also unlikely). 
We can only hope serious reforms are made in the future to prevent people like this from even running for office. >

I did a little digging after my comment. There are some states (not NY) that have citizens petition recall written into law - for the state level only. There definitely needs to be a mechanism at all state and national level. 
Baring that, there are attorneys general efforts at finding criminal culpability in the elected official. Does that end up disqualifying the elected official? I wonder if there is a path. >

Technically no, but it would put immense pressure on him to resign or the GOP to expel him. You can have a criminal in jail serving as a congressional representative. >

All long Island ny congressional districts are close races. The gop can't just ignore this or it will spill over into neighboring districts >

They’re gonna have to ignore it. They don’t have a governing majority (if they even want to). If trumps on the ballot in 24, those seats are already doomed anyway, New York has a special kind of bad relationship with Trump, and that’ll hurt them downballot (at least in the areas that are close to NYC like Long Island) >

If he had ANY ethics he would resign. But since he fails to admit the moral and ethical bankruptcy of bald face lying to the electorate, the house republicans will continue to support him, because they are as morally and ethically corrupt as he is. His voters should sue him for fraud. >

I think it's up to the voters to make good decisions. Most of what has come up about this clown had already been publicly discovered way before the election. He was legally elected. The public has spoken.
As far as what the House does, certainly he will be penalized by the Republican leadership in terms of committee assignments. But then, in retaliation, Republicans will spend tens of $millions researching every little detail on the background of every single Democratic member of the House and anyone who has fudged the least little detail of their resume is going to be raked over the coals by Fox et al for the next two years and some Democrats will also be denied committee assignments and will suffer other Republican-assessed penalties.
Some of this stuff about Democrats (and other Republicans BTW) is already public but so minor nobody made a big deal about it. Expect that to change. Expect a bloodletting. >


How should the US house handle these revelations? 

"Should" and "will" are two different things. 
They should expel him. They will do nothing. 

How will this affects McCarthy’s speakership bid...

Not even one single iota.

Should voters in his district request investigations or their punitive measures?

No, they shouldn't waste their time. >

They have a four seat majority, and four other members were highlighted by name in the Jan6 report. That’s pretty damn slim. >

He will become the poster boy for all members of the GOP in Congress and what they stand for because like all  the others in the GOP he's got absolutely no integrity and he got caught with his pants down so to speak. >

A good and decent political party would force the man’s resignation. Republicans ate neither good nor decent so the newest liar will be welcomed with open arms. >

When he gets voted out in 2024 will he still get a pension? That's fucked up if he does. I'd say the people should petition for a recall and special election. >

It seems to me every sitting politician has sociopathic tendencies and I don’t know why this revelation will affect any outcomes
He’s a opportunistic liar like every Republican and a vast majority of Democratic politicians >

Well, I’d say he’ll probably get an ethics investigation, but most likely his tenure will end due to him losing his re-election bid, either in the primary or the general. He reminds me a lot of Cawthorn who got primaried after who-knows-how-many scandals. The only way I see Republicans having a chance at holding this seat is if Santos is successfully primaried by a strong, more moderate candidate or he doesn’t seek re-election. A special election would heavily favor Democrats as scandal-plagued incumbents place a liability on the incumbent’s party in specials regardless of how normal the new nominee is (examples include 2020 CA-25 special and 2022 NE-2 special) and obviously Santos will now have shit candidate quality. Furthermore, this district is Biden+8. Any Republican will have a hard time winning it in 2024. 
Tl;dr George Santos is doomed in 2024. >

He should not be allowed to take the oath because he’s a known liar and we know how that story ends. >

The voters should vote him out next election and he should not be given significant committee assignments in an effort to make people forget about him.  That said, I do not think he should be removed or that the House should refuse to seat him as I do not think there is a legally definable line where a falsehood told by a candidate is so egregious that it should effectively void their win. >

The House should refuse to seat him. But of course, they won't do that. McCarthy needs him to become Speaker, so just another case of the end justifies the means. Truth and honor mean nothing to modern day Republicans. Nothing at all. >

Personally, I don't think for a second that the GOP will do anything about this and for a much different reason than others have offered. I'm of the firm belief that, at the very least, the local/state GOP party is complicit in his fabrications and quite possibly the RNC as well since it is a national position. 
Traditionally, when a person considers campaigning, the GOP does a really deep vetting of that candidate's background which, most certainly, would have revealed these lies. The GOP wants to uncover all the skeletons so they can properly prepare a defense. IMO, what you are now witnessing is the defensive plan in action and it will go all the way up to the national level to protect him. Santos' part in this protection racket is to just fall in line. He'll be okay for at least 2 years. >

The House should deny him his seat and a New York Court should invalidate his election and order another one. >


Prosecute him.
Recall him (if that is an option in the state) or ask congress to expel him\not accept him.
Have a special election to get someone in there who better represents the people.

Not necessarily in that order. >

If we still had standards for politicians, he would resign. But we don't, that sailed decades ago. He won't win re-election with the baggage, but Rs aren't gonna force him out with the majority being so small. Nothing revealed so far reaches the Ethics level to justify expulsion. >

If I lied on a job application and my resume, I would assume I would be fired. >

He wasn't hired.  He was elected.   Far from the same thing. >

This is not on the House.  He was elected.  He is the choice of the people in his district.  Absent evidence of a crime he should go on without harassment.  Lying on the campaign trail is not a crime.
Politicians lie.   This is no recent discovery.   This is on the people of his district and their local media for not doing their part to vet the candidate during the campaign.
The candidates he faced in this race must have been among the worst.  Not finding these things in opposition research is a huge fail. >

There are lies, and there are LIES. This guy did the latter. I'm sure plenty of elected officials, both parties, have embellished. It's wrong to do, but people do it anyway. 
But this guy lied about everything that he was. This is way, way past embellishment or minor lies (stuff like "I had a friend in college..."). This is into the old "lying that you served in the military" territory for a monetary gain - which is actually illegal now thanks to the Stolen Valor Act of 2013. 
He should resign and slink away - but Republicans have eliminated any sense of shame when it comes to politics. They would keep one of their own in office if he was convicted and sentenced to prison. The Republican Party needs to take some more moral dings if they let this one go. >

I'd first appreciate anyone who actually voted for him to be the one's to voice a desire to remove him. Everyone else is meaningless. There may be some grounds of district citizens that may have been motivated otherwise, but literally everyone outside of the district has no reason to be involved in this matter.
The House should do nothing. If they could determine who voted for him and an amount equal or greater to the difference of who lost to him want him removed, then they may have grounds. But seeing as how obtaining such information is impossible in any verifiable manner, they should not remove a duly elected candidate. The only credentials that truly matter to the House are US citizenship, state residency, and age. 
I hate how obviously partisan the objection is on this matter. >

Do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. >

None of those are even in the same league here. But sadly this the right’s boilerplate response to Santos that the mindless drones will parrot until the issue goes away. >

Do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. >

All politicians on both sides of the aisle do this and nothing ever seems to happen to them. >

The voters can issue a recall. Happens in CA everytime the governor upsets someone >

No they cannot. Congressional representatives cannot be recalled. >

NY state could create a new process for doing so. >

I think congresspeople will turn against him.  Simply because now. every freelance reporter is going to go over every little thing a candidate claims.   Why would people running for office want that? >

Republicans aren’t gonna turn against him in a way to force him out this term. Their majority is too small, and they’re already in chaos before they even take over 
If they were a smart party (they’re not) they’d at least try and look like a serious governing party, because they’re already at very serious risk of losing in 2024, but they’d need total unity and a shift in strategy to do that, but they’re not going to. They’re going to grandstand and have very serious Division, due to the fact that they have like 15-20 members who represent Biden districts, who aren’t gonna vote for the crazy shit they want passed >

Refusal to seat an elected person, or expulsion once seated, should be reserved for an extremely high bar of wrongdoing, and I don't think we are there yet with simple resume falsehoods.  But there is a lot of smoke around his financials, and there could be a fire there.  If there are financial crimes, that's a different story.  At the very least there is a check fraud case still pending against him in Brazil. >

he should resign.
but if his constituents don't raise a huge fuss, his paymasters will still keep him on . >

Remove from office and new election. We can’t let this stand in America we look like we have no laws or morals. We are a sham >

The mere fact that  the GOP hasn't said much about the fabrications of Santos,  confirms that the party  has officially  bottomed out >

If there’s anything the GOP has learned from Trump it’s that the best way to deal with a scandal is to ignore it until the media moves on to something else. Even a conviction on federal crimes doesn’t automatically disqualify you from holding your seat until the end of your term, so with such a slim majority there’s really no way he’s leaving Congress, especially considering he won such a solidly blue seat that would flip back. One can only hope that the Democrats who voted red bEcAuSe cRiMe or whatever manufactured issue it was that caused the GOP to overperform in NY would come to their senses in the special election should one occur.