Below is my column in the Hill on the calls for Rep.-Elect George Santos to be denied his seat in Congress this week. Members such as Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., have declared that Santos should be “banned from taking the oath for Congress.” (Santos has reportedly decided not to run for a second term). Such demands have been heard on various cable networks for weeks without addressing the constitutional barriers to denying a duly elected member from taking a seat. In my view, Santos could prevail in a court fight over being seated if he is barred due to lying about his credentials or background. That does not excuse his conduct. However, once again, members and pundits are calling for an action that is entirely untethered to constitutional realities.
Here is the column:
In a city that virtually floats on the uplift from inflated resumes, Representative-elect George Santos (R-N.Y.) is a standout. The incoming freshman is accused of a dizzying array of false claims, ranging from being Jewish to being a graduate of leading colleges. A host of congressional, state and federal investigations are in the works.
The problem is that, for the most part, he is accused of something that is no crime in Congress: lying.
Indeed, if lying were criminal, the House would be hard pressed to assemble a quorum outside of a federal penitentiary.
More practically, Santos has constitutional defenses to any effort to bar him from taking his seat to represent New York’s 3rd Congressional District.
Santos, 34, appears to have been a virtual false-claims machine.
He claimed he was Jewish and that his maternal grandparents were European “Holocaust refugees.” (They actually were from Brazil, and he actually is Catholic.) He claimed to have graduated from Baruch College in 2010 and to have attended New York University. He claimed to have lost four employees in the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Fla., in 2016. He claimed he worked for Citigroup and for Goldman Sachs on Wall Street.
None of that appears true — and that is only a partial list.
Now Santos is the subject of possible investigation in Congress as well as state and federal investigations. While the federal investigation is reportedly looking at his finances, the other investigations appear to be premised on the notion that a member of Congress can be denied a seat due to running on false claims.
For example, Nassau County District Attorney Anne Donnelly, a Republican, announced an investigation into “the numerous fabrications and inconsistencies associated with Congressman-elect Santos.” She added that “the residents of Nassau County and other parts of the third district must have an honest and accountable representative in Congress. No one is above the law and if a crime was committed in this county, we will prosecute it.”
The fact, however, is that no congressional district anywhere in the country is guaranteed “an honest and accountable representative.” In fact, it often seems like getting an entirely honest politician borders on the random, if not the miraculous.
What many people do not want to admit is that honesty is not a requirement for taking office, as has been proven time and time again. Other current members who ran for office on false claims range from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who claimed to have served in Vietnam, to Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who claimed to have Native American heritage. On the Republican side, former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) was found to have misrepresented his military service, and Georgia Republican senatorial candidate Herschel Walker was accused of misrepresenting law enforcement and educational credentials.
President Joe Biden’s false claims have become the virtual basis of a drinking game in Washington, after he claimed everything from being arrested with Nelson Mandela to graduating at the top of his class. Those lies, however, have been treated by the media as “spinning a yarn.”
Even in such company as this, Santos appears to be the Aesop of American political fables. Nevertheless, he must be seated if he is guilty only of lying about his credentials and background.
Many Santos critics cite the fact that the Constitution expressly mandates in Section 5, Article I, that “Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own Members.” Those decisions on the outcome of elections have been treated as largely final and non-justiciable. However, this case is not a question over the counting or certification of votes but, rather, over the claims used to gain votes.
In 1969, the House voted to prevent Rep. Adam Clayton Powell Jr., (D-N.Y.) from taking his seat after he was charged with misappropriation of public funds. An almost unanimous Supreme Court rejected his exclusion, in Powell v. McCormack, and held that the question of seating a member is limited to the qualifications stated in the Constitution. While a member can be expelled for misconduct as a member, the court held that the seating of a member is governed by the voters and the fundamental principle, stated by Hamilton, “that the people should choose whom they please to govern them.”
The Supreme Court also has rejected past efforts to criminalize lying. In United States v. Alvarez, the court struck down the Stolen Valor Act criminalizing false claims of military decorations or medals. Some of us argued at the time that such lies, while reprehensible, are still protected under the First Amendment. The court agreed.
While the Alvarez case involved protecting the integrity of the military and its system of honors, the current investigations of Santos seek to protect the integrity of the electoral process from liars. Yet what should be the limiting principle? Is a lie about being arrested with Nelson Mandela or being a police officer enough? What would stop a majority held by the opposing party from isolating any falsehood as a way to retain or increase power?
Moreover, calls for a referral of Santos to the House Ethics Committee are likely unavailing. The House’s “Code of Official Conduct” is designed to address misconduct by members, not to impose threshold qualifications to take the oath of office beyond those contained in the Constitution.
The investigation by the Justice Department does potentially involve established crimes, if there were unlawful campaign finance violations. However, that will take time to establish and, in the interim, Santos must be seated under the Constitution.
He will be in not-so-good company, of course. There is a strange taxonomy of lies. When members lie about laws, policies or actions, we call it “spin.” Even a lie about your qualifications can be treated as a “yarn” if your vote is needed.
Santos has the advantage of holding a seat in a House that Republicans hold by a razor-thin margin and a House Speaker candidate who needs every possible vote — and this is the only type of truth that prevails in Washington. At the end of the day, whether a sinner or a saint, Santos still holds one of those 435 votes.
That is why, in the end, Santos is likely to prove Will Rogers correct when he said, “You can’t fool all of the people all of the time. But it isn’t necessary.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.
Excellent article reminding us of the many whoppers that Joe Biden has successfully passed off over many years. I’m still looking for “Corn Pop” myself but no luck so far. Maybe in 2023 ?
“What would stop a majority held by the opposing party from isolating any falsehood as a way to retain or increase power?”
Aye, there’s the rub
seems a bit like Biden election. He was going to be seated because he had the votes, period, even if they were fraudlent… he had the votes.
The dims always said, you have to count all the votes.
Constitution? We don’t need no stinkin’ constitution!
Swalwell seems to be the least self aware member of congress. Phrases like “Have you no shame, Sir” come to mind. Maybe we should have intelligence tests, criminal records, income tax statements and other records published on line for prospective voters, then we can truly say “Let the buyer be beware”.
As far as Swalwell is concerned. Well, if he was alone on a planet, we could legitimately say that the planet had no evidence of intelligent life. Of course that might also apply to a large number of other members of congress but Swalwell deserves a special place.
That a politician lied is, unfortunately, not news. (And, yes, Santos is scummy.) But this is:
“Members such as Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., have declared that Santos should be ‘banned from taking the oath for Congress.’” (JT)
Such a demand reveals a complete lack of self-awareness and of introspection.
If you had been busted sleeping with a Chinese spy, then tried to cover it up, wouldn’t you say to yourself: “Better to stay away from this one.”
Al Capone thinks Santos should go through a tax audit. Al would know.
Why stay out of the fray? Once the invisible shields are raise these targets are indestructible. For Congress to do otherwise would establish an undesirable precedent. Swalwell, and Schiff as well, currently serve as prime examples of ethical and moral turpitude.
Is Santos an American citizen OR a citizen of Brazil, since this might be his country of birth? Or does he have dual citizenship? If so, does being 50% American cause him to be seated? I wonder why such a sketchy candidate was not better checked out. Apparently he got zero scrutiny.
There is no bar to a dual citizen serving in any office, including the presidency. That’s why all the speculation about Obama possibly having Indonesian citizenship was stupid and irrelevant; supposing it were true, it would be completely irrelevant, so why even bother talking about it?
“In a city that virtually floats on the uplift from inflated resumes” is a great turn of phrase and so represents the true character of the political class with few exceptions, “The residents of Nassau County and other parts of the third district must have an honest and accountable representative in Congress. No one is above the law and if a crime was committed in this county, we will prosecute it” is a true exercise in fantasy by the Nassau District Attorney.
Another example Julian Bond was elected to the Georgia House of Representatives in 1966 but he was denied his seat in a vote of 184-12 because he and SNCC opposed the Vietnam War (he was one of the first African Americans elected to the Georgia legislature since Reconstruction). A 3 judge Federal Panel upheld the legislature 2-1 but this rapidly went to the Supreme Court which ruled 9-0 he had to be seated. While the circumstances were different it established that he had to be seated even though, technically the house could deny him. I graduated from high school in Atlanta in 1966 and it was constantly in the news. Certainly got to the Supreme Court in near record time.
This was the same Julian Bond who lost the 5th congressional seat democratic primary in 1986 to John C. Lewis. Bond was the heavy favorite to win but was smeared for cocaine use by Lewis and Bond’s ex-wife and narrowly lost the primary (despite 20 years in the Georgia House and Senate). Winning the primary was basically to win the general election). Bond’s wife recanted after the election. Lewis went on to fame. So maybe the wrong man won that election and his future was built on a never proven smear.
If I had a nickel for every wrong man who won an election…
As has already been stated, only voters can judge if the lies are apply.
As always, follow the money. It has been mentioned as an afterthought in some of the reporting. The campaign finances raise enough questions to warrant an investigation.
That is the only concern that cannot be addressed by voters.
SANTOS should be seated and should not back down. Investigations are a Joke, the courts will throw any charges out. Just look at the DEM’s lies, Joe Biden, a career of lies, AOC, Omar, Sen Blumenthal – lies about Vietnam service. Every politican lies?
If dishonesty was a reason to not seat or to unseat members of Congress, then the place would be a Ghost Town. But, how did he get on the ticket in the first place and who was doing the background check? This has been a fundamental issue with candidate selection for the last several elections.
But, how did he get on the ticket in the first place and who was doing the background check?
The media are stenographers for the Democrat Party. Which means, for the last 30 years, 90% of them have gotten a journalism degree, because thats where stupid students that want to graduate end up.
We have a media that is below average ability, that have been conditioned to be stenographers for the leftist cabal. The few that actually have the smarts and desire to do investigative reporting, get fired. If you can find that NBC reporter that reported the fact that Paul Pelosi answered his door when the cops showed up, and then walked back to his eventual attacker, to take his beating. Telling the truth, will and the very least get you banished to the darkness, and then eventually fired.
So long term, reporting facts is counter the media goals.
Iowan2,
“If you can find that NBC reporter that reported the fact that Paul Pelosi answered his door when the cops showed up, and then walked back to his eventual attacker, to take his beating. Telling the truth, will and the very least get you banished to the darkness, and then eventually fired.”
Right!
That reported did some real journalism and reporting and gets punished for it?
He “got on the ticket” by being the only candidate to sign up for the Republican primary. So who was supposed to vet him?
Somebody else who needs to go is Senator Blumenthal (D, Conn), who claimed in 2008 to have served in Vietnam. According to an unimpeachable source: “In 1970, with his last deferment in jeopardy, he landed a coveted spot in the Marine Reserve, which virtually guaranteed that he would not be sent to Vietnam. He joined a unit in Washington that conducted drills and other exercises and focused on local projects, like fixing a campground and organizing a Toys for Tots drive.” https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/nyregion/18blumenthal.html
Being lied to is a betrayal, and no one likes being betrayed. But this is not about lying. This is about chipping away at the small Republican majority in Congress. While there are some Republicans who want Santos out, the lion’s share are Democrats. I will agree that Santos should not be seated when the same Democrats tell us that Biden should have been booted for not telling us he would make our southern border disappear.
Kabuki Theater.
Lying Biden. Liar in Chief.
The National Socialist Democrat WOKE Party now has a problem with lying? After J6? Seriously! Hypocrisy!
We have Congress of Clowns.
Turley left out Trump in his list of lying politicians. He’s the biggest one.
Anonymous, what office does Trump currently hold? Now tell us about Biden, Blumenthal, Warren, Schiff and Swalwell.
What office does Herschel Walker hold? Turley included Walker in his list, so he clearly wasn’t limiting his list to peoplein office, yet he’s silent about Trump, the biggest political liar there is.
Anonymous, I am critical of Santos, he is a nut job, but you never seem to be able to be critical of Biden, Blumenthal, Warren, Schiff and his many lies and Swalwell??? That is the definition of either a partisan hack, a paid operative for the party or another FBI plant. Or it could just be that you are a contrarian weirdo who has a strange need to be the opposite of everyone, even when the majority is using objective analysis to see an issue. You are either a stooge or an oddball.
TDS oozes from this mental midget.
That you or anyone can claim Trump is some great liar – When YOU and YOUR ILK have lied cheated, and rigged elections, Suppressed the truth, done whatever it took to destroy Trump – and still failed.
Trump is not even close to the biggest political liar their is.
You seem to confuse political disagreement with lying.
I do not support some of Trump’s platform. But I have to acknowledge that he either did what he promised or tried mightily.
That can not be said of any democrat, nor most republicans.
By the standards of politics Trump is the most truthful person who has run for office.
Did he lie in the promises he made to voters ?
I can understand that you disagree with many of Trump’s policies.
But calling something a lie has meaning.
It does not mean – I disagree. It does not mean your wrong.
A lie is a knowingly false statement, or a promise never intended to be kept.
When Joe Biden said he was not involved in his son’s business – that was a lie.
When he said Hunter’s laptop was “russian disinformation” – that was a lie.
When he said he was not opposed to fracking that was both a lie and a broken promise.
When you say you are saving democracy while pissing on and burning the first amendment – that is a lie.
TDS makes another appearance. Trump-haters can’t seem to let him go. I think deep down they idolize and want to be Donald Trump.
Poor anon.
Biden has been lying for years.
Yeah I know its not nice to pick on the handicapped.
So well leave demented pedo brandon go.
Its kind of sad that we give a mental defect like anonymous this much attention.
Apparently you lack self-control.
It looks like Turley was only listing people who ran for or served in Congress, which eliminates Trump.
No, he clearly mentions Biden as well. If he can mention Walker and Biden, he can mention Trump. He’s just choosing not to, even though Trump is a pathological liar.
TDS on steroids.
Chronic and terminal TDS, doesn’t realize Trump isn’t President anymore.
Santos is a scumbag and the party should be ashamed to have him as a member…however, is his series of moronic lies more egregious than Eric Swalwell sleeping with a Chinese spy AND REMAINING ON THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE after it was discovered or Omar breaking immigration law by marrying her brother to get him into the country?
I tell you what Democrats, I will dump Santos if you dump Swalwell and Omar.
Swalwell is a member of the intelligence committee because he needs to gain some.
There’s more here than meets the eye. The idea that the past of a Republican congressional candidate could be completely unquestioned in a race of this moment is preposterous. The idea that some intrepid sleuth uncovered all of this only after the election is equally absurd. It will be interesting to find out where his funding came from. Anyone who thinks we have the whole story is a fool.
He was just following his fearless leader. #tophalfofclass biden, who wasn’t even censured for plagarism, or flat out lying about his scholarships. swallowell sleeping with the enemy, but never played hide the sausage, is the dumbest liar of the bunch, to be pointing at others, lies. #defundCONgress
Between defending Mr. “I like Hitler” (Kanye West), and Mr. “Everything I said was a pack of lies” Santos, conservatives are cutting their own throats – doing the work of the Democrats. That sort of behavior resulted in their HUGE midterms fail.
Very well stated. At first I was upset when this came out. But then it started to make me chuckle at the fact that he beat the Deep State at their own game. If we actually had “journalists” any more, someone would have discovered this early and that may have been all it took, but when you are using “virtue signaling” to hit all the buttons that “social justice warriors” love, they don’t want the truth. They want what sounds good. It’s worked for the Left, and RINOS for a very long time. It’s only a problem when someone from the Right, played their game and succeeded. And this is how you win! Lie, cheat, steal. Some government we have. Voting seems to be a distraction to let the public believe they had some influence.