>

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