257
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] radix@lemmy.world 35 points 2 years ago

some leading members of GOP leadership voicing concerns about setting a precedent of ousting a lawmaker who had not been convicted of a crime.

The thing about ethics rules is that they are more expansive than legal rules. If you are just going to defer to the legal system, why have any ethical rules at all?

There are all sorts of things that are awful, but still legal. If a Representative marched down 5th Avenue in a literal swastika-and-iron-cross nazi parade, I would hope they would be expelled, despite being a legal (though reprehensible) exercise in free speech.

[-] RattlerSix@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago

The same GOP tried to impeach Biden based on conspiracy theories they made up themselves

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

And because that's how they did it, they find it perfectly normal and natural to say that ANY action against trump whatsoever must be based on made up lies.

[-] Goronmon@lemmy.world 29 points 2 years ago

Can't believe this actually happened.

[-] sylver_dragon@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago

Wow, this guy must have pissed off too many of his fellow GOP House members. I would have expected them to close ranks and support him, at minimum until he was actually convicted. But, this speaks to him being pretty unpopular within his own party.

[-] the_frumious_bandersnatch@programming.dev 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Just before the vote was about to begin, Rep. Max Miller of Ohio, one of Santos' Republican colleagues, sent an email to the full Republican conference, writing that he and his mother were victims of credit card fraud tied to Santos' campaign and that he would be voting to remove Santos.

"Neither my Mother nor I approved these charges or were aware of them," Miller wrote in the email obtained by NPR. "We have spent tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees in the resulting follow up."

It's literally because it was starting to affect them personally.

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/01/1215899764/george-santos-expulsion-house

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago

Because he's embarrassing them. It's the one thing most people are unable to tolerate.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 years ago

Because he’s embarrassing them.

I mean... Have you seen the remaining members?

[-] NABDad@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

They don't want the focused gaze to slip off him and see them.

[-] expatriado@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

114 voted no, so bipartisanish

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

I don’t think bipartisan ever meant “every single Republican and Democrat agreed.” A handful of Dems voted no too

[-] raynethackery@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Trump is going to tap him as his running mate.

[-] Rusticus@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

With half the indictments of Trump it’s obvious he’s weak sauce. If he had 94 indictments maybe he’d be the Republican nominee for president.

this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
257 points (98.5% liked)

News

36412 readers
499 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS