>

Because 95% of congress is unethical.
ALL politicians, both democrat and republican lie to get elected. Obviously not to his extent. 
It’s honestly the failures of the democratic party, the dnc, and the dccc. The opposition research is supposed to happen DURING a campaign, not a month and a half after the election is over. The only thing his democratic opponent attacked him on were a few pro trump statements. It’s a shame because it was a very winnable district for democrats. They definitely dropped the ball on this one. 
As far as having a way to remove someone for lying to get elected? There is a way, which is for his constituents to vote him out. His constituents voted him in an removing him any other way is unconstitutional and overturns the will of the people in his district. >

The information was literally published by the North Shore Leader weeks before the election. Democrats did nothing with it, and Republicans didn't care.
"His constituents voted him in an removing him any other way is unconstitutional and overturns the will of the people in his district."
It's not unconstitutional- he can be expelled from Congress. >

And it’s 100% democrats fault for choosing to do nothing with the information. Again, democrats blew it. No denying that. >

It's not 100% their fault. Yes, they deserve plenty of blame, but so does every single Republican who supported the guy and voted for him. >

Your average voter had no way to know that literally every part of this guy's history was literally spun from whole cloth.  They voted based on what they believed would be best for them with the information provided.  
The Republicans that deserve blame for supporting the guy and voting for him are the ones that did so while fully knowing this guy was completely full of shit, and the ones who continue to either support him or stay silent even after he has been exposed. >

"Your average voter had no way to know that literally every part of this guy's history was literally spun from whole cloth."
Yes, they did. It was published in the Leader which people do, in fact, read, and was available on Google searches.
"They voted based on what they believed would be best for them with the information provided."
Everyone I know in the 3rd District who voted for Santos calls Democrats "communists" and literally the only thing they care about is lower taxes (despite choosing to live in areas with some of the highest property taxes in the state) so if that's their definition of "best for them" then sure. >

Ah, the Ethics Committee...where ethics investigations go to die.