comment: >
  
  Thank you. Hopefully, the local democrats get there shit together for 2024.
context: 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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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." >
  
  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 >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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.