comment: >
  
  Bet you a double cheese hamberder he votes for McCarthy since he was told to vote that way.
context: It is my understanding, from the news this morning, that yes they knew. The Democrats knew, and tried to tell the media, including the New York Times. The media didn't care, instead focussing on 'crime'. >
  
  Was there anything Democrats could have done themselves to get the word out? >
  
  Contrary to popular belief,  democrats don't own media sources.  If a paper won't take it up,  they are SOL. >
  
  No independent left-leaning media outlet you could go to? ProPublica, Mother Jones? No running ads about it? What's opposition research for if you can't do anything with it? >
  
  Yea, or perhaps his opponent could have mentioned it during the campaign? >
  
  Zimmerman apparently DID in a debate… and got it turned around on him. Santos called HIM the liar. NY3 believed the lies. This is all on the voters, and they should be soundly ridiculed for their stupidity. >
  
  Well, I gotta say, he sure knew how to present himself to get elected. Seems it truly is all about the optics. I agree it's pitiful. >
  
  What’s amazing to me is that usually fraud in any other arena would warrant a lawsuit etc. We know nothing will happen here until the next election. >
  
  If his districts were so inclined, they could recall him. >
  
  If his party had ethics, they'd refuse to seat him. >
  
  Did the democrat party know that Elizabeth Warren lied about being of American Indian heritage. Do you want to kick her out of the senate. Probably not, hypocrisy much >
  
  How is this even a question? Of course they fucking knew. See Lauren Bobert or MTG for other examples. >
  
  They, gop, had a 500 page dossier on all the crap Walker did; it'd be stupid to think they don't have something similar on all candidates. >
  
  They knew… NY GOP didn’t care. >
  
  for the GOP (and R voters), being a lying, hypocritical sack of shit is a feature, not a bug.  His opponent wants him to resign and for the state to have a do-over election; if that happened, I bet Santos would be elected again. >
  
  Candidates for Congress should have to obtain a security clearance or be disqualified >
  
  I hear what you're saying but that's a terrible idea. The executive branch is intentionally not able to control the legislative, this would circumvent that entirely.  
  Imagine a Trump controlled DoD/State Dept/DoJ being in charge of deciding who was a valid congressional candidate. >
  
  
  If Republicans did know about the inconsistencies in Santos’s biography, Zimmerman’s former campaign manager wonders why they didn’t — and still won’t — come out and disavow him.
  
  It's simple, really. It's because the GQP doesn't care.
  This is why I disagree with the question posited by the article. It presumes everyone to be acting in good faith (or at leas the possibility of it). I disagree with the question because both answers are functionally the same:
  
  
  if they did know (and for the record, they did), it demonstrates that they are OK with  Santos' lies and that behavior in general (which we already knew, but that's besides the point)
  
  
  if they didn't know (and again, they absolutely did know, but I'm covering my bases here) then it demonstrates that they didn't do their due diligence; now there can theoretically be any number of reasons for that but ultimately they would boil down to "because he is from our party and that is all that matters."
  
  
  No, there is a different question that needs to be asked. One that admittedly has been asked but keeps bearing on asking and answering: why did Democratic leadership not do any opposition research to expose Santos' bullshit during the campaign? >
  
  Because $$$
  They cant blow the wad doing deep dive opposition research on everybody downballot. 
  Fact is, the whole protected-class thing is what kept it from being news. You cant accuse somebody of faking their inclusion in a protected class, unless you have a huge pile of easy to understand evidence that can be seen from orbit. >
  
  It's a workable explanation for not looking into some of his lies, but things like his past employment and the such (as far as I know) don't fall into membership in a protected class. >
  
  I do not disagree. >
  
  
  Since Santos’s resume crumbled, Republicans have been relatively quiet. On Thursday, Nassau County Republican Committee Chair Joseph Cairo said that while Santos deserves a “reasonable amount of time” to respond to recent reporting, “voters deserve a sincere accounting from Mr. Santos.” >
  
  He did, he said he lied and doesn’t care what people think.  He won, he will show up on the 3rd to get sworn in, he will take his place amongst the rest of the GQP.   The fact that he’s pretty stupid means people at the top can tell him what to do and when to do it. 
  Bet you a cheese sandwich he votes for McCarthy since he was told to vote that way.