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.
Jonathan: George Santos was the perfect GOP candidate. The gay Rep.-elect is a big Trump supporter, believes the 2020 election was “stolen” from Trump, is against abortion rights and supports Florida’s terrible ‘Don’t Say Gay’ law. Kind of counter-intuitive for an openly gay person. Newsweek calls Santos “Donald Trump Taken to its Logical End Point”. Like Trump, Santos thought he could lie himself into office–and it appears he has been successful.
What is remarkable is that all of Santos lies did not come to the attention of Long Island voters before the election. Sarah Ellison has an interesting article (12/29/2022) in the Washington Post about why the voters were clueless. A very small Long Island newspaper, the North Shore Leader, tried to expose Santos back in September after an extensive investigation raised red flags about Santos’ resume and bio. They even reluctantly endorsed the Dem. candidate Robert Zimmerman to get their readers attention. Zimmerman also tried to alert the larger mainstream media but they told the Dem. candidate they did not have the personnel, time or money to do their own investigations. Ellison attributes this to the fact that there are fewer papers to cover the news these days. The number of journalists has declined by 60%. On average 2 newspapers are disappearing in the US every week! That’s not healthy for our Democracy. It’s also a disservice to voters.
As Mark Twain observed: “All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity”. So, yes, Santos will be seated and another symbol of what’s wrong with the GOP. Kevin McCarthy will welcome Santos with open arms because he needs every vote he can get if he wants to become Speaker. And as you observe: “In fact, it often seems like getting an entirely honest politician borders on the random, if not miraculous”. Twain would not be surprised by the state of politics in this country today.
“What is remarkable is that all of Santos lies did not come to the attention of Long Island voters *before the election*.” (Emphasis added)
Can you say 2020, Biden’s lies, and the suppressed laptop story?
Yet, again, the Left’s utter lack of self-awareness (and selective indignation).
And how about the lie that Biden did not rape Tara Reade, or the earlier lie that Bill Clinton did not rape Juanita Broderick? Santos is an oddity because he is a Republican. Deceit is SOP for almost all leftists.
Congress: The best politicians money can buy
“Congress: The best politicians money can buy”
and an inspiration for award-nominated Broadway musical “I Can Get it For You Wholesale”.
Statements of facts by others without actual proof to the statement should always be suspect, and there-in lay the dilemma. How willing are you to accept a statement as factual without proof? Most are probably agnostics, not trusting anything said by candidates for political office. There are so many examples of outlandish statements both present and past, to mention any particular individual or political party using fabrications (lies) would be like a never-ending Volleyball game, they played the game without conclusion or remedy.
When do lies become detrimental too good governance when those that rule the roost are [factually] known liars? Should we not question and hold accountable the bureaucracies of our government who have usurped the laws first, before holding a freshman representative accountable for his fabrications of facts?
A larger can of worms other than a politician’s concoctions was the January 6 House Committee’s unveiling tax returns of political office holders. This should lead to disclosures of current/former/future politician’s source of income and their actual net worth, not the current shallow account forms, including of course the House Select Committee members. It reminds me of the Senate Majority Leader removing the filibuster for Judgeships. Karma can come around and bite you in the ar’ce.
This piece actually made me laugh. If Santos were a Democrat, Turley would sing a different tune. If Santos is removed and there’s another election, Republicans very likely would lose one seat of their extremely thin majority in the House, so Republicans have to trot out their purchased law professor to defend Santos lying about his education, religion, work experience, accomplishments and other key items known to matter to constituents when deciding which candidate is the best to vote for their interests. Turley proclaims Santos “must be seated”–why, when he cheated to get elected? Turley actually used this piece as an opportunity to attack Joe Biden and other Democrats as liars, all the while ignoring Trump. Turley actually wrote: “….he is accused of something that is no crime in Congress: lying” By defending this lying creep, Turley has officially become pathetic.
NUTCHACHACHA,
May we finally dispense with wholly unconstitutional affirmative action and the inordinate balance of your generous social entitlements package or do you still need them to function?
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” right?
Are you still “needy?”
May we impute taxpayer reparations sufficient to cover the costs of the last century and an half?
Merriam-Webster
EQUITY
noun
eq·ui·ty ˈe-kwə-tē
plural equities
1 a : justice according to natural law or [natural] right
specifically :
freedom from bias or favoritism
GiGi is trolling. As far as I can tell (and who knows what GiGi perceives, since all he/she did was hurl invective without any explaining of his/her objections to Professor Turley’s comments), everything Turley wrote is 100% in line with all public information available, most of it from such “main stream’ publications as the New York Times and the Washington Post.
GiGi demands to know why Santos must be seated “when he cheated to get elected”. Well, GiGi, here’s a bulletin for you: that’s the law!
And the Supreme Court affirmed that, in a 7-1 decision written by ultra-liberal Chief Justice Earl Warren! If you don’t like the law, then work to get it changed. In the interim, spare us the trolls.
And exactly how did Turley “attack Joe Biden and other Democrats as liars”, when all he did was report what, again, the “main stream’ publications as the New York Times and the Washington Post have reported? He didn’t embellish the prevarications of Biden. Nor were his comments inappropriate, as the entire thrust of his column was that you cannot deny a politician to hold his elected seat on the grounds that he lied. After all, Biden is still in the White House, is he not?
Why must he be seated? Because the constitution does not give Congress the authority not to seat him. It’s as simple as that, and it makes no difference at all whether he’s a Republican, a Democrat, or from the Monster Raving Loony Party.
NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE
If propagating false information in an election is sufficient for the removal of George Santos, its inverse, suppressing true information in an election, is sufficient for the removal of Joe Biden.
If there is justice in America, Santos and Biden must be removed for cause.
If there is justice in America, the offices of Santos and Biden must be awarded to their election opponents.
____________________________________________________________________________________
“Trump pollster John McLaughlin found that 4.6% of Biden voters [in 2020] would have changed their minds if they had known about it, easily enough to flip results in key states. Another survey by The Polling Company showed that even more Biden voters in seven swing states — 17% — would have switched their votes if they had been aware of the laptop and other stories.”
– Tim Murtaugh
To all the hateful remarks. Should the same standard be applied to our President about his “claimed” education? I do agree with Turley’s Opinion. When a mob (51%) takes over nobody wins in the long term. That is Democracy, we are a Republic, honor the difference.
We are a representative democracy as well as a republic.
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/01/19/the-u-s-is-both-a-republic-and-a-democracy/
Democracy was created in Greece and perpetuated in Rome and the United States to be restricted-vote republics.
Voters must be concordant, mature, accomplished and vested.
Early U.S. vote criteria were male, European, 21, 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres.
In the case of America, immigration was initially restricted to “…free white person(s)…,” which also restricted the vote.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Merriam-Webster
republic
noun
re·pub·lic ri-ˈpə-blik
1 b(1)
: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
To my way of thinking, the fault of this farce lies (or lays — I’m not sure which) with the two big political parties, neither of which appears to have done even rudimentary due diligence concerning what or whom the political process that they dominate was presenting to the public as a prospective member of our government.
Why would the republican party foist this chrome-plated Nigerian Prince upon its constituency, and why would democrats allow it?
Those are the questions that SHOULD be asked, particularly while the parties are in the process of choosing their leadership.
Ronna McRomney — Chairperson of the RNC — wherefore art thou.
If there were even a handful of genuine journalists covering political candidates, this would not have happened. Now they are just cheerleaders for one or the other wing of the Uniparty.
What shouldn’t go unnoticed is the way that the establishment “republican” party has been blaming Trump for the “Red Wave” fizzling out, claiming that Trump’s support of allegedly inferior candidates was to blame. And now we find that this imposter — or perhaps “genuine fake” is a better way to describe him — snuck past the entire RNC that is pretending to be so focused on the quality of their candidates.
It’s like an entire stadium full of people and all of the broadcasters not noticing that one of the teams snuck a mule onto the field to kick a field goal. Pay no attention to the mule kicking the field goal — it’s Trump’s fault:
Oh, yes. I’ve noted. And I just have to say, anyone who caused and still causes that much pearl-clutching on both sides of the aisle had to have been doing something right. As I said of then-Senator Fred Dalton Thompson, when his party (Rs) got annoyed when he refused to curtail an investigation into possible campaign finance violations to Ds alone.
But the fix seems to be in for DeSantis. Whom I don’t loathe, but still, when he’s being pushed that hard at me, my natural response is recoil.
Ralph, it’s “lies.” What makes the lie/lay dichotomy particularly confusing is that the past tense of lie is lay . . . other than the type of lie which means not telling the truth – very appropriate to this thread – in which case the past tense is lied. So, “Santos lied,” whereas “ten minutes ago he lay down for a nap.” Probably more than you wanted to know, but just in case not, here is the full-blown explanation:
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/lay-lie/
Thanks. It’s actually exactly what I wanted to know but was too lazy to look up.
It’s also a joke and a reference to a line about Pepperland near the beginning of Yellow Submarine (the movie): “Once upon a time there was an unearthly paradise called Pepperland. Twenty Thousand leagues beneath the sea it lay, or lied, I’m not too sure.” — something like that, if not exactly that. Not guaranteeing a 55-year-old memory from 1968 is entirely accurate, for reasons including the probability that I may not have been entirely sober while watching the film at a drive-in.
Thanks Ralph that gave me a laugh. I looked it up and found you were very close — you only missed the or maybe twice after once upon a time. Not too shabby for a 55-year-old memory!
Thanks — once, or maybe twice — again.
If Pepperland was 20,000 leagues beneath the sea, it would be out the other side and 1/5 of the way to the moon. Jules Verne’s novel is about a submarine that makes a 20,000 league undersea journey, but it’s never more than a fraction of a league deep.
It is not the RNC’s job to vet candidates, and the party did not “foist” him on anyone. There was an open primary, and only one person signed up. That person therefore automatically became the nominee, and there was nothing the party could have done about it. Had the party known before the deadline that there was only one candidate, and that he was so defective, it could have found someone, anyone, to sign up as well, and then supported that person in the primary. But it didn’t know, and once the deadline passed it would have been too late anyway.
Santos may even be serving in Congress from jail. It is clear that the “personal loan” of $700,000 he made to his poilitical campaign is phony. That is, it did not come from his personal funds but from some donor or donors. This is a serious violation of the federal election campaign law and could land Santos in jail for up to 2 to 5 years (on each criminal count). I don’t know of any other congressman who was a jailmate, but I believe this one is coming. Of course, he may strike a plea bargain – to resign if criminal charges are dropped. But I believe that the DOJ will not agree to that bargain.
He wouldn’t be the first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes
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
One commentator is arguing that having Santos seated in Congress is a short-term positive for the GOP, but a long-term negative. His analysis is here:
https://contra.substack.com/p/an-empty-suit-and-a-rainbow-flag
If any member of Congress should resign due to being a liar, it should be Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who, as we all know, campaigned falsely as a Viet Nam veteran. Despicable!
Removed for lieing. There possibly could be 535 openings on capital hill.
It is called Stolen Valor. Just like John Fraud Kerry put in for and received a Purple Heart for a wound that could have been treated with a band aid.
What’s hilarious is everything dems propose for Santos applies to them much more.
Way to go you guys.
Speakup……….And I propose that any accusation directed at a Republican by Democrats be met by the sharp, loud cry: “Fang Fang!”, with the rhythmic accompaniment of a big bass drum. You’d have yourself one helluva chant/cheer.
Also, the accoustics in the hallways and stairwells of the Capitol are over-the-top.
(OT)
The Jan. 6 Comm. has now posted a huge collection of transcripts & related emails, texts & docs:
https://www.govinfo.gov/collection/january-6th-committee-final-report?path=/gpo/January%206th%20Committee%20Final%20Report%20and%20Supporting%20Materials%20Collection/Supporting%20Materials%20-%20Documents%20on%20File%20with%20the%20Select%20Committee
Anonymous, the subject here is liars in congress not the nothing burger Jan 6 witch hunt. Incase you haven’t noticed the Jan 6 committee has withdrawn its subpoena of Trump. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/29/us/politics/jan-6-committee-trump-subpoena.html. Can you for once ask yourself? Why would the committee do such a thing? You can tell when inflation is out of control when a nothing burger costs 40 million taxpayer dollars.
I’m surprised that you choose to ask such a stupid / ignorant question. The subpoena was withdrawn because a new Congress is being sworn in and Congressional referrals do not determine DOJ indictments.
You confuse the excuse with a reason. That is why you are known as ATS. They knew well in advance the Republicans might take Congress. They could have subpoenaed Trump earlier just like they did with others.
“I’m surprised that you choose to ask such a stupid / ignorant question. “
Your answers are the ignorant ones.
Over the past 6 years the dims have chased Donald Trump. What has Trump done that was illegal.
He’s done a variety of illegal things, including fraud (Trump U.), campaign finance violations (hush money to Stormy Daniels), and participating the fake electors conspiracy (currently being investigated, and the new interview transcripts that were released include RNC Chair McDaniels saying that Trump knew and thought it was “great”).
Broken record, Broken record, Broken record – or for the update, Skipping CD, Skipping CD, Skipping CD –
As for Ronna, that’s called hearsay.
You misunderstand what hearsay is (and is not). There are exceptions, including statements made in furtherance of a conspiracy: https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-viii/rule-801/
ATS, you are very loose with the term illegal. Perhaps you need to study more. Trump did nothing illegal at Trump U. You make incomplete allegations which are intended to smear not prove. That is the name of your game. That is how you got the name Anonymous the Stupid.
Start proving what you say. We proved you to be ATS.
Trump U was a civil case that settled relatively cheeply for Trump at a time he needed it to go away.
No prosecutor filed fraud charges.
Further it is the perfect example of TDS.
rump promised the secret to success – not classes by college professors.
If College professors actually knew the secret to success – they would not be college professors.
Trump hired motivational speakers – because the secret to success is being motivated enough to work hard.
Elon Musk works 120 hours a week. If you work 120 hours a week you will not likely be the wealthiest man in the world, but you will be better off than you are. Most of us want to succeed without working. really never happens.
NDA’s are legal.
There is no “fake electors conspiracy”. According to the constitution electors are selected by state legislatures.
The whole left wing nut – Trump refused to accept the results of a rigged election and therefore is a criminal nonsense is perfectly representative of the left. Of Course Trump KNEW and thought it was great – Everyone KNEW, it was all done in public.
Not that it would have been illegal in secret.
Something is not a crime because you do not like it. Because you hope it fails. or even because it will likely fail.
Democrats actually proved Trump’s actions were legal – by changing the electoral count act. If you must change the law to prevent something – then it was not illegal in the first place.
I would note that Hillary and many democrats tried to persuade electors to change their votes and some did.
I understand that you do not like Trump’s actions. But just because you do not like something does not make it a crime, or a lie or even wrong.
I do not like you – that does not make you a criminal.
Learn the difference between “illegal” and “criminal.”
I am well aware. Trump’s actions were neither.
Regardless, the case was a civil case claiming a breach of contract.
That Trump failed to deliver in his promise.
The fact is that he did.
“The Jan. 6 Comm. has now posted . . .”
Just in case you need more “circus” to distract you from: distressed stock and housing markets, budget-killing inflation, criminals and drug addicts and bums infesting your cities, FBI/DHS/HHS censorship, and the planned destruction of America’s energy industry.
He can and should be seated. After that congress can expel him. Once seated the constitution doesn’t prevent congress from expelling him.
Not so fast.
First of all, it requires a 2/3 vote, which means it would require substantial Republican support, and why would they do that?
More importantly, it’s not clear that the House can expel him for this. While there’s no mention in the constitution itself of any limit, for more than a century both houses have held the opinion that they cannot expel a member for an offense that took place before the last election. The Supreme Court, while carefully declining to endorse this opinion, has taken official note that it is Congress’s very long-standing opinion, and that Congress is unlikely ever to change its mind. So it would be beyond extraordinary for it to change its mind now, over such a relatively picayune offense. If it believes it can’t expel a member even for a felony committed before the last election, then it certainly won’t try to expel one for mere lying. And if it does, his obvious next move would be to go to court and force them to finally take a position on whether that long-standing Congressional opinion was valid.
The only thing he lied about was his name that is why nothing checks out
It seems to me that not seating a democratically elected representative is a threat to democracy
But dare we mention the conduct of others? This brings up “whataboutism,” that catch-all excuse for deflecting the fault in one’s own conduct. Of course, when thinking of Santos’ reprehensible indiscretions, I -along with others here and elsewhere- cannot help but think of Biden’s academic and law school lies (among so many other falsehoods meant to bolster his c.v. and qualifications). And of course, Elizabeth Warren and others.
“Accusations of ‘whataboutism’ amount to a cynical, sleazy attempt to stifle debate without actually engaging in argument.”
Michael Krieger, https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2018/03/20/whataboutism-is-a-nonsensical-propaganda-term-used-to-defend-the-failed-status-quo/
“Indeed, if lying were criminal, the House would be hard pressed to assemble a quorum outside of a federal penitentiary.”
That right there.
Same for the Senate.
You left out the questions about where he got the $700,000 he loaned his campaign, that he’s wanted in Brazil on check fraud, that he just reregistered Devolder in FL, which can only be done if he’s a resident of FL rather than NY, …
He can be seated. The questions are: will the House vote to expel him and will he end up charged in any of the ongoing legal investigations?
Churchill said: “Enemy submarines are to be called U-Boats. The term submarine is to be reserved for Allied under water vessels. U-Boats are those dastardly villains who sink our ships, while submarines are those gallant and noble craft which sink theirs.”
But he had a sense of humor and was fully aware.
The Dems have no self awareness about their double standards.
Or they are bold faced liars.
any recommendation a politician makes against any liar should take the first step and follow that recommendation him/her self
Where were the newspapers such as the New York Times, the New York Post prior to the election; the primary opponents; and the general election opponent.
There were no primary opponents. The local newspaper did ring an alarm but nobody heard it. The general election opponent tried to raise it with the major newspapers, but they weren’t interested.