Sleazy Santos

Generally an unmoderated forum for discussion of pretty much any topic. The focus however, is usually politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 50173
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonville, NC

Re: Sleazy Santos

Unread post by Vrede too »

GoCubsGo wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2023 3:25 pm
Hopefully about to be a footnote.

Have you learned nothing about our sleazy House GQP? :(

US House vote fails to expel Republican George Santos after 23 federal charges
The lying representative from New York retained his seat with fewer than two-thirds of the chamber supporting the resolution
Roll Call 564 | Bill Number: H. Res. 773
Nov 01, 2023, 07:46 PM | 118th Congress, 1st Session

Vote Question: On Agreeing to the Resolution
Providing for the expulsion of Representative George Santos from the House of Representatives
Sponsor: Rep. D'Esposito, Anthony [R-NY-4]. 4 cosponsors, all NY Repubs ( :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: Probably decency and concern about 2024 in NY)
Vote Type: 2/3 Yea-And-Nay
Status: Failed

VOTES
yea: 179
* nay: 213
present: 19
not voting: 22

Republican: 24 Yeas, 182 Nays, 4 Present, 11 Not Voting
Democratic: 155 Yeas, 31 Nays, 15 Present, 11 Not Voting

NC11, Edwards (R): Nay
FL1, Gaetz (R): Nay
CA49 Levin (D): Yea
IL10, Schneider (D): Nay
SC4, Timmons (R): Nay
I would want to hear from the 57 Dems like GoCubsCo's Schneider before passing judgement. I have mixed feelings. A decent and patriotic House would dump Sleazy Santos, but having him as a posterchild for the GQP is good for the Dems, just like Bozobert and EmptyG are.

3-way deal? 39 minutes earlier:
House blocks effort to censure Rashida Tlaib

Two of the House's most polarizing members were spared potential punishment on Wednesday after lawmakers voted against moving forward on censuring Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib for her controversial comments on Israel.

The House voted to table the Tlaib resolution, effectively killing the effort to publicly reprimand her. Democrats appeared to pull a reciprocal effort to censure GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene from consideration after the Tlaib vote.

A simple majority was needed to block the measure against Tlaib from advancing to a final vote, meaning Democrats needed GOP support. Twenty-three Republicans joined all Democrats in voting to kill the measure against Tlaib.
Roll Call 559 | Bill Number: H. Res. 829
Nov 01, 2023, 07:07 PM | 118th Congress, 1st Session

Vote Question: On Motion to Table
Censuring Representative Rashida Tlaib for antisemitic activity, sympathizing with terrorist organizations, and leading an insurrection at the United States Capitol Complex
Sponsor: Rep. Greene, Marjorie Taylor [R-GA-14] (Introduced 11/01/2023, no cosponsors)
Vote Type: Yea-And-Nay
Status: Passed

VOTES
yea: 222
nay: 186
present: 0
not voting: 24

Republican: 23 Yeas, 186 Nays, 0 Present, 11 Not Voting
Democratic: 199 Yeas, 0 Nays, 0 Present, 13 Not Voting

NC11, Edwards (R): Yea :headscratch: :clap:
FL1, Gaetz (R): Nay
CA49 Levin (D): Yea
IL10, Schneider (D): Yea
SC4, Timmons (R): Nay
Back to the article:
The House was expected to then vote on a motion to table the measure against Greene, but that was removed from the vote schedule after the Tlaib resolution was blocked.
Gay Sleazy Santos had a 3-way with 2 women?
Dueling censure resolutions

Last week, Greene introduced a resolution to censure Tlaib over her criticism of Israel, accusing the Michigan Democrat of "antisemitic activity, sympathizing with terrorist organizations and leading an insurrection" at a House office building.

After the deadly terror attacks by Hamas in Israel earlier this month and the subsequent Israeli airstrikes on Gaza, hundreds of protesters demonstrated at the Cannon House Office Building on Oct. 18 calling for a cease-fire in the Hamas-controlled territory. U.S. Capitol Police estimated 300 protesters were arrested and said three people were charged with assaulting officers.

Capitol Police said protesters entered the building legally through visitor security checkpoints and were permitted to gather, but protests aren't allowed inside. The demonstration was far from an "insurrection," as Greene's resolution portrays it.

Greene also cited several statements Tlaib has made in support of Palestinians and that were critical of the Israeli government.

"Tlaib must be censured for her radical support of Hamas terrorists and hatred of our ally Israel," the Georgia Republican wrote Wednesday on X.

Tlaib, the House's only Palestinian American, said in a statement that Greene's "unhinged resolution is deeply Islamophobic and attacks peaceful Jewish anti-war advocates."
Crybaby EmptyG just lies and lies and lies.
In retaliation for the resolution against Tlaib, Democratic Rep. Becca Balint of Vermont filed a resolution of her own to censure Greene. Balint's measure accuses Greene of making repeated racist, antisemitic and xenophobic statements and stoking conspiracy theories.

In a statement Thursday, Balint said Greene's resolution "is an overt Islamophobic attack" on Tlaib.

"Her resolution is riddled with lies," the statement said. "It's bigoted. It's dangerous. This kind of rhetoric fans the flames of hate and fear at a time when Muslim Americans are already facing increased threats and violence."

Balint's measure said Greene has "repeatedly fanned the flames of racism, antisemitism, LGBTQ hate speech, Islamophobia, anti-Asian hate, xenophobia, and other forms of hatred." ...
GoBeccaGo, Vermont's only US Rep.

So, a lot of effort into accomplishing absolutely nothing. Nice start, SINO Johnson the johnson.
Always be yourself! Unless you can be a goat, then always be a goat.
-- the interweb, paraphrased
1312. ETTD.

User avatar
GoCubsGo
Admiral
Posts: 16878
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 2:22 am

Re: Sleazy Santos

Unread post by GoCubsGo »

Vrede too wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2023 9:58 am


So, a lot of effort into accomplishing absolutely nothing. Nice start, SINO Johnson the johnson.
I was thinking a lot like you, but there is a very valid point here.

"I’m a Constitution guy. The House has expelled five people in our history, three for joining the Confederacy as traitors to the Union and two after they were convicted of criminal offenses. Santos has not been criminally convicted yet of the offenses cited in the Resolution nor has he been found guilty of ethics offenses in the House internal process. This would be a terrible precedent to set, expelling people who have not been convicted of a crime and without internal due process...

It’s a very risky road to go down and we have to stick by due process and the rule of law, as obvious as the eventual result seems."
Eamus Catuli~AC 000000 000101 010202 020303 010304 020405....Ahhhh, forget it, it's gonna be a while.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 50173
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonville, NC

Re: Sleazy Santos

Unread post by Vrede too »

GoCubsGo wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2023 10:12 am
Vrede too wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2023 9:58 am

I would want to hear from the 57 Dems like GoCubsCo's Schneider before passing judgement. I have mixed feelings. A decent and patriotic House would dump Sleazy Santos, but having him as a posterchild for the GQP is good for the Dems, just like Bozobert and EmptyG are....

So, a lot of effort into accomplishing absolutely nothing. Nice start, SINO Johnson the johnson.
I was thinking a lot like you, but there is a very valid point here.
https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1720056989760250298

Your Brad Schneider (D-IL10) doesn't mention his Santos vote on his website. Maybe he agrees with Raskin, understandable, and maybe he's explained the vote to your local media.

I don't think anyone is trying to expel corrupt, indicted, but not yet convicted Sen Bob Menendez (D-NJ) yet.
Always be yourself! Unless you can be a goat, then always be a goat.
-- the interweb, paraphrased
1312. ETTD.

User avatar
GoCubsGo
Admiral
Posts: 16878
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 2:22 am

Re: Sleazy Santos

Unread post by GoCubsGo »

Vrede too wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2023 10:32 am
GoCubsGo wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2023 10:12 am
Vrede too wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2023 9:58 am

I would want to hear from the 57 Dems like GoCubsCo's Schneider before passing judgement. I have mixed feelings. A decent and patriotic House would dump Sleazy Santos, but having him as a posterchild for the GQP is good for the Dems, just like Bozobert and EmptyG are....

So, a lot of effort into accomplishing absolutely nothing. Nice start, SINO Johnson the johnson.
I was thinking a lot like you, but there is a very valid point here.
https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1720056989760250298

Your Brad Schneider (D-IL10) doesn't mention his Santos vote on his website. Maybe he agrees with Raskin, understandable, and maybe he's explained the vote to your local media.

I don't think anyone is trying to expel corrupt, indicted, but not yet convicted Sen Bob Menendez (D-NJ) yet.
Not sure what the process is in the Senate, but there have been calls for resignation but afaik not expulsion.
Eamus Catuli~AC 000000 000101 010202 020303 010304 020405....Ahhhh, forget it, it's gonna be a while.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 50173
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonville, NC

Re: Sleazy Santos

Unread post by Vrede too »

GoCubsGo wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2023 10:50 am
Not sure what the process is in the Senate, but there have been calls for resignation but afaik not expulsion.
Same process as the House:
About Expulsion

Article I, section 5 of the United States Constitution provides that "Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member."

Since 1789 the Senate has expelled only 15 members. Of that number, 14 were expelled during the Civil War for supporting the Confederacy. In several other cases, the Senate considered expulsion but either dropped those proceedings or failed to act before the member left office. In those cases, corruption was the primary cause of complaint.
Why did the traitors need to be expelled? If they were rebels shouldn't they have just quit the US govt?
Always be yourself! Unless you can be a goat, then always be a goat.
-- the interweb, paraphrased
1312. ETTD.

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 21207
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Sleazy Santos

Unread post by O Really »

Raskin has a logical point, but that point is also why we have so many cops running loose after beating old ladies and shooting unarmed Black people. Criminal convictions are a matter of legal technicality that have little to do with actual actions taken. Why can't you fire a cop because he's a crappy driver and wrecked two $50K cruisers even if he didn't get a ticket? Why can't you expel Santos for what you know he's done and what he's admitted to even if he's not convicted? He created a completely fictional person and got that person elected to Congress. WTF isn't that in itself enough to get him booted. I'd say he and what he did is a precedent that should be answered with precedent-setting and harsh response.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 50173
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonville, NC

Re: Sleazy Santos

Unread post by Vrede too »

O Really wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2023 11:16 am
Raskin has a logical point, but that point is also why we have so many cops running loose after beating old ladies and shooting unarmed Black people. Criminal convictions are a matter of legal technicality that have little to do with actual actions taken. Why can't you fire a cop because he's a crappy driver and wrecked two $50K cruisers even if he didn't get a ticket? Why can't you expel Santos for what you know he's done and what he's admitted to even if he's not convicted? He created a completely fictional person and got that person elected to Congress. WTF isn't that in itself enough to get him booted. I'd say he and what he did is a precedent that should be answered with precedent-setting and harsh response.
Menendez, too? I'd be fine with that.
Always be yourself! Unless you can be a goat, then always be a goat.
-- the interweb, paraphrased
1312. ETTD.

User avatar
billy.pilgrim
Admiral
Posts: 15531
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:44 pm

Re: Sleazy Santos

Unread post by billy.pilgrim »

There’s precedent

trump and nbc (?) created a totally fictitious person and got it elected President
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 21207
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Sleazy Santos

Unread post by O Really »

Vrede too wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2023 11:26 am

Menendez, too? I'd be fine with that.
Menendez seems to be a sleazebag who deserves to be booted, but his issues generally fall more into the category of legal interpretation than Santos'. Like Clarence Thomas - did he really get a gift motorhome? And if he did was it really illegal? And did he really help his friends in court? Sure, I think so. And I think he ought to be booted, but not simply based on the allegations.

In Santos' case, my opinion isn't so much based on actual illegality as on unacceptable behaviour for a congresscritter.

User avatar
billy.pilgrim
Admiral
Posts: 15531
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:44 pm

Re: Sleazy Santos

Unread post by billy.pilgrim »

O Really wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2023 2:07 pm
Vrede too wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2023 11:26 am

Menendez, too? I'd be fine with that.
Menendez seems to be a sleazebag who deserves to be booted, but his issues generally fall more into the category of legal interpretation than Santos'. Like Clarence Thomas - did he really get a gift motorhome? And if he did was it really illegal? And did he really help his friends in court? Sure, I think so. And I think he ought to be booted, but not simply based on the allegations.

In Santos' case, my opinion isn't so much based on actual illegality as on unacceptable behaviour for a congresscritter.
I kinda like, and have from day one, this santos guy. After all he’s done to splinter and split and degrade his party - what’s not to like?
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”

User avatar
GoCubsGo
Admiral
Posts: 16878
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 2:22 am

Re: Sleazy Santos

Unread post by GoCubsGo »

To be honest, if candidates could use campaign funds for Only Fans there'd probably be a lot more candidates.

Eamus Catuli~AC 000000 000101 010202 020303 010304 020405....Ahhhh, forget it, it's gonna be a while.

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 21207
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Sleazy Santos

Unread post by O Really »

Al Franken: "Somebody took a picture of me pretending to grab a fellow actor's boobs. Members of my own party insisted I resign, and I did"

Santos: "Despite criminal indictments and an Ethics Committee report that said I was basically the sorriest scummiest congresscritter to ever hold a seat, I intend to continue representing my constituents until the end of my term."

Not that I agree that Franken should have resigned, but still.

If they don't toss out Santos now, I can't imagine what anybody would have to do in the future to get tossed.

User avatar
billy.pilgrim
Admiral
Posts: 15531
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:44 pm

Re: Sleazy Santos

Unread post by billy.pilgrim »

GoCubsGo wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2023 7:25 pm
To be honest, if candidates could use campaign funds for Only Fans there'd probably be a lot more candidates.

trump’s been pocketing funds since day 1 with complete impunity.
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”

User avatar
GoCubsGo
Admiral
Posts: 16878
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 2:22 am

Re: Sleazy Santos

Unread post by GoCubsGo »

Bye bye Georgie.

Time to go write your book that nobody will read.

Then go to prison.
Eamus Catuli~AC 000000 000101 010202 020303 010304 020405....Ahhhh, forget it, it's gonna be a while.

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 21207
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Sleazy Santos

Unread post by O Really »

GoCubsGo wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2023 10:59 am
Bye bye Georgie.

Time to go write your book that nobody will read.

Then go to prison.
Yeah, they finally got him.

I have wondered if they didn't boot him, then who in hell would they ever boot. But it bothers me that some of the congresscritters support a totally made up standard of "criminal conviction" to warrant expulsion.
Highlighting those internal divisions, 112 Republicans backed Santos on Friday despite the growing controversy swirling around him. Those voices warned that removing an elected lawmaker from office — without a criminal conviction — sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to unwarranted, politically motivated expulsions in the future.
There are numerous reasons why a person can do something awful and never get a criminal conviction for it - either because of lack of prosecution, plea bargain, mis- or over-charged, yada. Violating ethical standards often doesn't involve actual crime.

User avatar
GoCubsGo
Admiral
Posts: 16878
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 2:22 am

Re: Sleazy Santos

Unread post by GoCubsGo »

O Really wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2023 1:02 pm
GoCubsGo wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2023 10:59 am
Bye bye Georgie.

Time to go write your book that nobody will read.

Then go to prison.
Yeah, they finally got him.

I have wondered if they didn't boot him, then who in hell would they ever boot. But it bothers me that some of the congresscritters support a totally made up standard of "criminal conviction" to warrant expulsion.
Highlighting those internal divisions, 112 Republicans backed Santos on Friday despite the growing controversy swirling around him. Those voices warned that removing an elected lawmaker from office — without a criminal conviction — sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to unwarranted, politically motivated expulsions in the future.
There are numerous reasons why a person can do something awful and never get a criminal conviction for it - either because of lack of prosecution, plea bargain, mis- or over-charged, yada. Violating ethical standards often doesn't involve actual crime.
Especially as the House has the complete ability to police itself. They set their own standards.
Eamus Catuli~AC 000000 000101 010202 020303 010304 020405....Ahhhh, forget it, it's gonna be a while.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 50173
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonville, NC

Re: Sleazy Santos

Unread post by Vrede too »

O Really wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2023 1:02 pm
Yeah, they finally got him.

I have wondered if they didn't boot him, then who in hell would they ever boot. But it bothers me that some of the congresscritters support a totally made up standard of "criminal conviction" to warrant expulsion.
Highlighting those internal divisions, 112 Republicans backed Santos on Friday despite the growing controversy swirling around him. Those voices warned that removing an elected lawmaker from office — without a criminal conviction — sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to unwarranted, politically motivated expulsions in the future.
There are numerous reasons why a person can do something awful and never get a criminal conviction for it - either because of lack of prosecution, plea bargain, mis- or over-charged, yada. Violating ethical standards often doesn't involve actual crime.
You are correct that there is no "criminal conviction" standard in the Constitution, law or congressional rules. However, it has been the de facto standard for more than 230 years of very shady pols. Only 2 convicts and 3 CSA fighters have been removed before today. For better or worse there will now be future expulsion efforts. Rep Ilhan Omar?
Rep. George Santos expelled from Congress in historic vote
The scandal-plagued New York Republican became the sixth-ever House member to be removed.


... Following the release of the ethics report last month, Santos, 35, said he would not seek reelection to the Long Island-area seat he won in 2022. The congressman, however, said he would not resign because if he did, the “bullies” would win.
:violin: He brought this on himself.
“I will not stand by quietly,” Santos said on the House floor Thursday. “The people of the Third District of New York sent me here. If they want me out, they’re going to have to go silence those people and take the hard vote.”
The people of the Third District of New York sent someone completely different from the real George Santos. Those voters were already silenced by all the lies.
There were 311 votes to remove Santos, with 114 voting against and two voting present. Santos grabbed his coat and left the floor before the vote had concluded. One hundred and five Republicans voted to boot Santos, and 112 voted for him to remain. Reps. Bobby Scott of Virginia and Nikema Williams of Georgia were the only two Democrats to vote against expelling Santos.

When asked for his reaction following the result, Santos said, “It’s over. What reaction?” Asked if he would use his privileges as a former congressman to visit the House floor in the future, he replied, “To hell with this place.”
:wave: :wave: :wave: x 311
There were reports Friday morning that Santos might survive, but in a letter to his colleagues, Ohio Republican Rep. Max Miller claimed that Santos had defrauded both Miller and his mother by charging campaign contributions to their personal credit cards. Rep. David Joyce told CNN that Miller’s message resulted in some GOP members voting against Santos.
Article on this juicy tangent below.
... Following the vote, Santos’s seat will be immediately vacated and the already slim Republican majority under House Speaker Mike Johnson will narrow further.
:clap: Otoh, I liked having Santos as a GQP posterboy and his retention could have translated into seats in 2024.
A special election to fill his seat in the competitive district will likely happen within three months. Johnson and other members of GOP leadership, including Steve Scalise and Elise Stefanik, voted against the expulsion.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul posted to social media that she was "prepared to undertake the solemn responsibility of filling the vacancy in New York’s 3rd District. The people of Long Island deserve nothing less,” presumably a reference to formally scheduling the special election....
Dem for sure.
Santos’s short and scandalous history ...

(listing of lies and crimes)
Vote Question: On Agreeing to the Resolution

Providing for the expulsion of Representative George Santos from the United States House of Representatives
Vote Type: 2/3 Yea-And-Nay
Status: Passed

Republican: Yeas 105, Nays 112, Present 0, Not Voting 5
Democratic: Yeas 206, Nays 2, Present 2, Not Voting 3
Total: Yeas 311, Nays 114, Present 2, Not Voting 8
banni and my Rep Edwards (R) Yea
billy.pilgrim's Rep Gaetz (R) Nay
Whack9's Rep Timmons (R) Nay
O Really and GoCubsGo's D Reps Yea

Promised tangent:
Republican congressman says George Santos defrauded him and his mother
Rep. Max Miller argued for expelling Santos from office in a letter to colleagues, saying that the New Yorker's campaign charged his and his mother's credit cards without approval.


... In a letter sent to colleagues, which was obtained by NBC News, Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, said he learned earlier this year that Santos' campaign "had charged my personal credit card — and the personal card of my Mother — for contribution amounts that exceeded FEC limits. Neither my Mother nor I approved these charges or were aware of them."

... Miller said that as a result, he has spent "tens of thousands of dollars" in legal fees dealing with the situation. He went on to say that he has seen a list of 400 people, including other Republican House members, he believes were also overcharged by Santos.
Why haven't others stepped up? Partisan cowardice?
... The two men traded barbs Thursday afternoon. "You, sir, are a crook," Miller said to Santos in remarks on the House floor. Santos responded by referring to a 2020 accusation against Miller by his former girlfriend, Stephanie Grisham, who served as White House press secretary under then-President Donald Trump.
:lol: A new tangent.
... Santos has been charged with multiple federal counts, including identity theft, theft of public funds and money laundering related to campaign donations. His case is scheduled to go to trial in September.

Two former Santos campaign staffers have entered guilty pleas and are cooperating with prosecutors....
:---P :---P
Max Miller: Stephanie Grisham

Miller dated Trump White House aide Stephanie Grisham from 2019 to 2020. In October 2021 Stephanie Grisham said he had "been physically abusive" to her, "cheated" on her, and "lied" to her. Miller filed a defamation lawsuit against her. He voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice in August 2023.
He had no case because it's all true? Expel him from the House! :D
Always be yourself! Unless you can be a goat, then always be a goat.
-- the interweb, paraphrased
1312. ETTD.

User avatar
GoCubsGo
Admiral
Posts: 16878
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 2:22 am

Re: Sleazy Santos

Unread post by GoCubsGo »

A little satisfaction.

Eamus Catuli~AC 000000 000101 010202 020303 010304 020405....Ahhhh, forget it, it's gonna be a while.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 50173
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonville, NC

Re: Sleazy Santos

Unread post by Vrede too »

GoCubsGo wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2023 6:55 pm
A little satisfaction.

https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/stat ... 8509328407
:thumbup:

Always be yourself! Unless you can be a goat, then always be a goat.
-- the interweb, paraphrased
1312. ETTD.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 50173
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonville, NC

Re: Sleazy Santos

Unread post by Vrede too »

Unscientific The Hill poll:
Following the recent ejection of Rep. George Santos (R-NY) from the House, do you think Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) should or should not be expelled from the Senate as he faces a criminal investigation of his own?

Probably should be 22%, including me
Definitely should be 54%
Probably should not be 4%
Definitely should not be 4%
Other / No opinion 15%

Based on 163 responses
:shock: That's decisive.
Always be yourself! Unless you can be a goat, then always be a goat.
-- the interweb, paraphrased
1312. ETTD.

Post Reply