comment: >
  
  Yes but the house is republican and can't afford to lose a single member so they will do nothing
context: 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. >
  
  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. >
  
  Along with hiding income.. which I read as possible money laundering. >
  
  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. >
  
  I would at this point literally vote for a corndog if I were certain it weren't controlling the flow of information on the internet and had no plans to do so.
  I'm certain that he is a terrible candidate, but again, we have bigger problems and literally anything is better than what we are doing.
  I'm not sure if you noticed how SBF stole billions from ppl, gave it to the dems, is a clear flight risk, and is out on bail...
  Imagine if YOU did that?
  There are far bigger fish. >
  
  His partner gave millions to the Republicans, so what? >
  
  Ok so firstly there is a vast diff between millions and billions.
  It is a fact that the federal acronyms are using our tax dollars to sway public opinion.
  It is a fact that he a huge flight risk and is out on bail, a tiny bail.
  It is a fact that had it been you, me, trump, or anyone that didnt give billions to the democratic party we would be in forever prison.
  It is a fact that the only person/social media platform is suddenly being destroyed by the news for granting us this knowledge bc conss4ervative wisdom dictates that the news is a reliable source of info and twitter is biased.
  The man gave reporters access to the twitter database and they wrote stories about it that cant be published on the news which is controlled by the acronyms.
  Literally all the signs point to we have a huge problem and this is not that problem.
  In fact I'd say that cheating and to some extent the jan 6 thing may have been justified.
  This country is fucked up in a way that people with very tiny views of the world will never understand. >
  
  He didn't give billions, use your f'ing brain.  It was $40M
  Second I get it, your all about the whatism.  
  So when you actually have a non FOX talking point, I am sure everyone would love to hear it. >
  
  Serious question, did you read the twitter files? Or did you read what your news said about it out of context?
  I bet I can guess.
  No rational/sane person could have these views if they had read it.
  Thats why there is so much coverage.
  So you dont feel like you need to actually read what was said in context. >
  
  Seriously that is your source of facts, Twitter?  GTFO. >
  
  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. >
  
  Yeah it's an easy vote in 2 years, but until then, unless there are major criminal charges, kinda hard to expel him for being a phony. That's half of Washington. >
  
  He raised money based on lies- thats fraud. He should be prosecuted and forced out of office. A new special election can be held. >
  
  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. >
  
  Nothing unless he has committed financial crimes as well (which is likely).  But this should be his only term in Congress. >
  
  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. >
  
  Yes, you are correct that deep down (and many times not so deep) "owning the libs" is the primary motivator for a vast majority of people who vote Republican (I have listened to relatives who take great enjoyment to their stupid and dangerous stunts)                                                                                        What a sickening group of manipulated people we have here voting Republican in elections. >
  
  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.