Rep. George Santos, facing likely expulsion from Congress, launched a expletive-ridden tirade in a livestream Friday night, accusing his House colleagues of casting votes hungover, cheating on their spouses, and being “hypocrites.”

The three-hour-long rant came after House Ethics Committee Chairman Michael Guest introduced a resolution to expel Santos that many of his former allies have promised to support.

Guest introduced the resolution following the committee’s monthslong investigation into the congressman, which found he used campaign funds to pay for Botox, personal travel, and even porn.

Santos singled out Guest in the livestream, saying the chairman should “be a man and stop being a pussy and call the damn motion.” But he had harsh words for all of his colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, whom he accused of “act[ing] like they’re in ivory towers with white pointy hats and they’re untouchable.”

“Within the ranks of United States Congress there’s felons galore, there’s people with all sorts of shystie backgrounds,” he said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Maybe they can try persuading the 31 Dems that voted against his expulsion the last time.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You mean the individuals waiting for the report referenced? I don't think they're going to need convincing nearly as much as you need to pay attention.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Yeah, I too always wait for a report before agreeing that a cloudless sky is blue, mountains are tall and the Pacific Ocean is large 🙄

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I think it's more about not setting a 'look before you leap' precedent which could be applied against them in the future.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'd much rather they set a precedent of not letting obvious conmen swindle taxpayers for almost $160k in congressional wages before taking any action.

    Handling Santos with kid gloves like this only encourages others to try and emulate his scam.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What's stopping Republicans for having routine expulsion votes for Democrats without waiting for an official report? Precedent. Things are chaotic enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You're very naive if you truly think that today's GOP would let precedent get in the way of abusing their powers OR that that's the real reason why conservative Dems are siding with them.

    The current GOP house leadership has already broken more precedent than the last 3 combined and those 31 Democrats share a lot of owner donors with Republicans, which is a much more likely reason for them dragging their feet in spite of clear and rampant fraud.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Oooh conspiracy. Yes, become the thing you hate; report back on how that works out on you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Wtf are you on about?

    You know that you don't have to ignore Dem dereliction of duty or lie about their likely motivations in order to prefer them over the fascist GOP, right?

    Because it's sounding like you don't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    "Likely motivations" is doing a lot of lifting there.

    I prefer "the words you shoved into their mouths."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I never said that they SAID that was their reason, just that it likely is, based on clues in past and present behaviour. You're really not good at reading comprehension and pattern recognition, are you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    "Likely" is now doing its share of work. It's pure conjecture from you and stupifying to see someone defend this level of ignorance as virtuous.

    Mere sentences ago I was "likely" siding with fascism. Are we supposed to think this is serious political analysis??

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Mere sentences ago I was "likely" siding with fascism

    I said that you seemed to be accusing ME of that because I don't automatically assume that Dems are honest about their reasons for letting the conman continue fleecing the public coffers.

    If you're not even going to TRY to understand what I'm saying, I see no point in continuing this charade of assuming that you're neither an imbecile nor arguing in bad faith. Have the day you deserve, wilfully blind party soldier.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    If all you got left is ad-hominem then by all means lay it bare.

    And if it "seems" like you are the victim of accusations that I didn't at all make then that behavior would slot in nicely with the assignation you've reflexively displayed throughout this thread.

  • source
  • parent