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