Stefanik knew that George Santos was a fraudster, yet she endorsed him as the "next generation of Republican leadership."
Crooks, fraudsters, liars, and cheats — the future leaders of the MAGApublican Party?
Who's leading the race for the GOP nomination for the presidency?
23 comments:
Over 100 GOP members of Congress chose not to expel Santos. Because, as they said, a member who had not been convicted in a court of law, has never been expelled before.
So that's the standard? No guilt in a court of law?
Some have claimed, incorrectly of course, that Santos had never been given due process.
It's. All. Poppycock.
Whether it's coming from the crazy GOP or their enablers.
Rep Santos chose not to participate in the process, mount a defense to the ethics committee or offer, as he was allowed to do, any dispositive defense, or refutation of the charges.
In fact, in some cases, he has admitted to the various lies. So the ethics committee, with a majority of GOP members, found him guilty of the various charges.
If the GOP holdouts are to be believed, nothing can be done in the house without precedent. Does anyone think that the fact a sitting president has never been impeached for supposed actions before he or she was president, will stop them from impeaching Biden?
Of course not.
Those GOP members who chose not to expel Santos simply made a political calculation. In a House with razor thin margins for error within the GOP majority, even losing one vote can doom their precious MAGA agenda.
I saw part of a show "The Trump Dynasty" last night. I looked it up and it's a 10 part series on A&E. They have done 3 parts which were on Story Television. I found them here...
https://play.aetv.com/shows/the-trump-dynasty#episodes
I saw part of episode 2 which told how Trump Sr. was a jerk who made his money with government backing and how Donny followed in his steps.
Proof Stefanik knew, and when she knew it? Didn't think so.
George Santos was elected before the entirety of his lies, fables and fraud had been made public. So the argument that the people knowingly elected him is a sham.
But regardless of how you view his expulsion, what Adam Kinzinger say is pretty accurate. Speaking of Santos he says this...
"[Santos]... A liar, fraud, money launderer, indicted, hanger on-er is expelled from Congress, while a liar, fraud, money launderer, indicted, hanger on-er is leading the GOP race for President. This conundrum is not a conundrum at all. In fact, it’s a feature of today’s GOP..."
Perhaps the questions for those who chose to expel Santos should be this...
Why did you choose to expel Santos for his purported crimes, while at the same time supporting former President Trump for his?
What is the objective standard you/they are following?
Both of the North Country's Representatives, Republicans Elise Stefanik and Claudia Tenney, voted to keep Santos in Congress.
Stefanik was an early supporter of the first-term congressman. She endorsed him in August 2021, calling him "my friend and fellow America First conservative."
"Multiple Republican operatives in Washington and New York told CNN that they found it implausible that Stefanik had not been aware of Santos’ falsehoods, given rumors about Santos had been passed around in GOP circles since at least the summer of 2021.
“Stefanik’s team was laser focused on electing Santos to Congress – more than just about any other race in the country,” a senior Republican strategist involved in campaigns before the midterms said."
[skip]
"One source in Republican politics familiar with the dynamics of the situation told CNN that Stefanik “was an advocate throughout the process specific to (Santos) even when others had questions. No two ways about it she was a significant supporter of his.”
It easy to believe that Stefanik knew what a fraudster/liar/cheat/criminal Santos is. After all, the MAGApublican ethos is "Party Over Country and Ethics!"
And that's consistent with Republicans who support Trump, knowing that he's a Liar, Cheat, Fraud, and Rapist. They have no shame, no character, no family values.
Thanks for the tip, Mike. Unfortunately, I cut the cable years ago, and don't have access to A&E.
The old GOP, now the new POG... which stands for Party of Obscurations.
Mush is cheap and the POG loves mush for brains politicians!
Dave M. "George Santos was elected before the entirety of his lies, fables and fraud had been made public."
"Entirety" is the operative words, I think. Stefanik had to have known some or even many of Santos's deceptions. As the report in my comment states, there was a lot of talk about him in Republican circles.
January 2023 -- From PBS: "Small, local paper uncovered and reported George Santos scandal before November election
It's difficult to believe Stefanik would not have been notified about this potential scandal in this crucial election.
Rev, Has he been convicted of breaking the law? With the vote Friday, Santos became the first member of the House to be expelled without being convicted of a crime or committing treason.
In your opinion we need dictators who will make all our decisions. Now we know how you feel about representative form of government. I still believe it should be up to the voters even when they make a mistake and elect a scum bag like santos.
You do make it sound like santos is the worst politician ever. We have had presidents who have had multiple affairs while in office and one senator who was responsible for murder. They never served prison time and never went to trial. No outrage and both continued till their death.
"George Santos, who on Friday became the sixth person in history to be expelled from the House of Representatives, more than seven months after he was first charged with crimes including fraud and money laundering. (He’s pleaded not guilty.) A clout-chasing con man obsessed with celebrity, driven into politics not by ideology but by vanity and the promise of proximity to rich marks, Santos is a pure product of Trump’s Republican Party. “At nearly every opportunity, he placed his desire for private gain above his duty to uphold the Constitution, federal law and ethical principles,” said a House Ethics Committee report about Santos released last month. He’s a true child of the MAGA movement."
[skip]
"That movement is multifaceted, and different politicians represent different strains: There’s the dour, conspiracy-poisoned suburban grievance of Marjorie Taylor Greene, the gun-loving rural evangelicalism of Lauren Boebert, the overt white nationalism of Paul Gosar and the frat boy sleaze of Matt Gaetz. But no one embodies Trump’s fame-obsessed sociopathic emptiness like Santos. He’s heir to Trump’s sybaritic nihilism, high-kitsch absurdity and impregnable brazenness."
[skip]
"Perhaps the reason a critical mass of Republicans finally jettisoned Santos is that he was too embarrassing a reflection of the values of the party’s de facto leader. That’s certainly why I, for one, am going to miss him. A gay man and, reportedly, a former drag queen in a party consumed by homophobia and a pseudopopulist accused of bilking his campaign donors to pay for Botox, Hermès shopping trips and the adult entertainment website OnlyFans, Santos distilled the Trump movement’s lurid hypocrisy to great comic effect. In a world overflowing with tragedy, he’s a farce." -- Michelle Goldberg, NYTimes
Skud, which politician was “responsible for murder?” Was that politician convicted of murder? If he/she had been, he/she would certainly been sent to prison.
You seem to gloss over the fact that Santos scammed a member of his own party, a fellow House Rep., AND THE MEMBER’S MOTHER OUT OF MONEY. It is his own party that helped the fraudster get thrown out of the House.
Ms. Shaw, I didn't say anyone was convicted of murder but he did admit he killed a women by wrongful neglect. In your own words "he/she would certainly been sent to prison." You did not say if convicted and no santos has not been convicted. Is he a good guy, certainly not but he was thrown out because he was scum not because he was found guilty. Had this have been a democrat, like swalwell, I believe you would have had a different opinion. Somewhere it is published that a person is innocent until proven guilty but that seems to be a forgotten idea. Now we have congress throwing out someone who is disgusting just because they decide to.
Skud, once again you've misrepresented me. Why do I bother? You don't care to take precision with language. Where did I ever say, or even say anything that by using your stupid "poetic liberty."
In a game of "Never have I ever" you said this...
"In your opinion we need dictators who will make all our decisions."
Seriously, that's as lame as saying I'm in favor of 'open borders".
Look, I don't know why you can't accurately quote me. I don't know why you cannot read my words for what they say, rather than take "poetic liberty", which is described by vocabulary.com as a derivative of poetic license, and defined as such...
[it is] the freedom an artist or writer has to change details, distort facts, or ignore the usual rules....
I'm asking you, to do better. To read more carefully and when you quote me, to use my actual words.
You're the only one here who seems to struggle with this, as it relates to me and my words. All the other commenters, even -FJ, are not as egregious as you. Why? I have no idea. I'd just like it to stop.
Skud... as it relates to Santos, you don't believe a person should be expelled, absent a criminal conviction.
It's a reasonable view. I get it. I don't agree, especially if the House rules say otherwise.
I did go back over my comments on this subject. I don't think I said anywhere "I think he should have been expelled."
I commented on what has happened, how what has happened should be interpreted and potentially what his expulsion might mean for others in the same boat. And I've explained the House rules, as I understand them.
I think the House has the right to expel him.
Again, I could be wrong. Honestly, I'd rather have him there everyday reminding people of how bad the GOP is. But it's their party, their rules.
Your statement about our two presidents and a senator causing no "No outrage and both continued till their death" is both factually wrong and IMHO, as it relates to JFK, offensive.
There was plenty of outrage towards Sen Kennedy. He was charged with leaving the scene of an accident and pled guilty. We will never know all the facts of that case, but to say there was no outrage, which from rabid right wingers, continues to this day, is ridiculous.
As it relates to President Clinton, he was impeached, and I posted then I felt he should have resigned, as did others. But I guess that is not enough outrage for you.
Finally, as it relates to President Kennedy, times were different then. Even Ike, as did others, had a mistress, but you left them out for some reason. JFK was assassinated while in office, he didn't just die. Like a lot of former presidents, his affairs have come out over time. History will judge him, but we did not know publicly in real time of his excesses.
There is a theme I see in your comments that I see echoed elsewhere from MAGA people and disaffected conservatives.
Folks from those crowds frequently post these examples as proof that Dems, or liberals get off "scot free" while Republicans go to jail, or in the case of Santos, face real punishment.
And then use that as de facto proof that the rules are different for libs, or Dems.
Just an observation. There's plenty of that on display regularly at the Mothership.
Dave Miller - I join your call for skud to do better.
skud, you said this "Had this have been a democrat, like swalwell, I believe you would have had a different opinion"
Sigh. You just never let go a good lie. Here's an exercise for you skud. Imagine you are a single you. A very attractive someone starts a conversation with you or you meet at a social function where you feel comfortable. However you meet there is an attraction.
Fast forward a month or so and you and your companion are discovering feelings for each other. You, amazingly, are happy for the first time in a long while. Cut to the ominous presence of FBI at your residence. They tell you the companion you were thinking about getting serious is not who you think they are; they only got to know you because you know stuff and your potential special someone wanted that stuff even though it's secret and none of their business.
Now imagine you've been cleared by the FBI (and many other alphabet organizations in charge of such events) but mush for brains citizens won't let it go because the narrative (false it may be) is has been spread by humans who don't like you. Liars are going to lie. It is who they are and their followers eat the lies as if it's the last food they will see for weeks.
Yeah, that's what I think of whenever you bring up Rep Swalwell skud. You embarrass yourself on the regular. That's not us doing it to you, that's you doing it to you. Oh, and before you bring up Sen. Robert Menendez, he's being investigated by the FBI. As you so famously have stated, a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law so why are you calling for the Democratic party to expel him? You give your double standard away all the time, hence my call for you to do better.
Foods for thought
Grey, I will admit that you gave a lot of thought to your post and for the most part I agree with you. If you will read my post you may notice I said if santos can be expelled without a conviction why not expel menendez because after all he has been accused and is being investigated. Innocent until Proven guilty is the law of the land and should be followed no matter which party.
The democrats have a much better PR department that the republicans and have control of the media, think kavanaugh, bork, thomas. Neither party works for the American people because it gets in the way of fulfilling their agenda, increase their wealth, spend your money and keep their job. Our big difference is you believe our democrat representatives work for us and I believe neither side does.
Rev, You are correct in saying times were different then.
Doing better requires understanding and a desire to do better. I wish you success on both counts skud.
If anyone visits WYD you'll see why Trump has the power over certain ignorant Americans. A false quote by JFK is at the top of the blog. I posted proof that showed JFK never said whats in the meme. But people like Lisa and the Trump cultists don't care about facts. They find somthing on the net that matches their conspiracy brains and BOOM! without checking if it's true, they post lies and stupid false memes.
As I said, this is why so many Americans worship Trump. He tells them lies they want to hear and believe in. They're like children who believe in Santa Claus!
https://whosyourdaddy-lisa1.blogspot.com/2023/12/will-real-racists-please-stand.html
Ms. Shaw, He made a conscious decision to leave he at the bottom of the water knowing full well she was going to die. That may not be the legal definition of murder but is is just the same. after all that he was reelected several times which shows the voters true colors of as long as he takes care of me he can do what he wants.
Skud agreed when I said "time were different then."
YES!
Then he follows it with this...
"He [Ted Kennedy] made a conscious decision to leave he at the bottom of the water knowing full well she was going to die."
And you Skud, know this how?
At best in a criminal case, we might get, today, negligent homicide.
But again, times were different then. Even with the Breathalyzer, heavy penalties, even with a resultant death, were not common for a DUI. We didn't start seeing that until the mid 1970's and 1980's with the advent of MADD.
Today, someone would get hard jail time for what happened at Chappaquidick. But take a random guy, not named Kennedy, who did the same, left the scene probably drunk off his ass, and I doubt he'd get a lot of time, if any.
Did Kennedy get a light sentence? Maybe so. It looks like it. Did he kill her? She died as a result of actions he took. So I say no. But if I were her father, I admit I'd probably say he did.
But once again, times were different then. We can't just the "thens" by today's standards. But we can be honest about what happened and leave it to history.
Ray
I saw that meme a few days ago, but didn't bother to check it. Most of the stuff posted on WYD is fact-free. I'm not surprised to learn that meme is too.
IMO, Lisa doesn't really care about what she posts on her blog, who posts there, or if anything is truthful. Also, just look at her sidebar: 7 of the 8 blogs she links to either are suspended or no longer exist. It's obvious she has very little interest in that WYD. It's really a playground for Trump cultists who call anyone who disagrees with them, "poopyheads" and not much else.
Times were different back then, much different, as others pointed out.
Kennedy is dead.
This amounts to the typical right wing irrelevant distraction.
MAGA's only game. Oh, did i mention lying? Cause that's the other thing they do exceptionally well.
Post a Comment