Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law, Politics

Sinner or Saint, George Santos Must be Seated
U.S. House of Representatives

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.

167 thoughts on “Sinner or Saint, George Santos Must be Seated”

  2. What would happen if one day a candidate springs up running as a Republican, wins and then claims to be actually a Democrat? And all they declared to appease the Republicans for their votes were lies?

  3. If we refused to seat every politician who lied either to get into office or once he/she had already served at least one term, there would be no seated electeds.

  4. Turley is right that Santos should be seated. He was duly elected. However once seated congress CAN expel him depending on what comes out of the coming investigations on the matter.
    It’s hilarious how many bring up president Joe Biden lying when it’s apparent that republicans, conservatives, and even libertarians don’t really care about lying. Hershel Walker was lying a LOT and republicans made it very clear that they didn’t care. What mattered was that he get elected so that they could have a majority. Even the fact that he paid for multiple abortions was not an issue for the party that steadfastly holds the belief that abortion is murder.

    Trump., Biden, and any other politician past and present has lied and it only matters when it’s politically expedient. Republicans only have a problem with lying when it involves a member of the opposing party. Trump lied incessantly and continuously. More than any other so far and it was accepted by republicans as part of is “character”. It was just Trump being Trump and it was perfectly ok and still is. Lying is not a crime or illegal except when law enforcement is involved. However as it has been pointed out many times be some on this blog and is strangely absent on this issue with Santos is that it is highly immoral. Just as it is immoral being complicit about it with individuals like Trump.

    Let Santos be seated. Get past the constitutional requirement and THEN you can call for his resignation, expel him, or even sanction him. Expelling him will give voters in his district another chance to pick some one who is more honest than he is or at least more transparent about his qualifications.

    1. It’s not clear that the House can expel him for offenses that took place before the last election, or even for ones that took place before today, which is the start of the current term. Congress has for more than a century taken the view that it cannot do so. The Supreme Court has taken official note of this, and expressed the view that it would be extraordinary for Congress to abandon it now, all while carefully refraining from expressing any opinion of its own on the matter.

      It may be that one day the House or Senate will change its mind, but it’s unlikely to be this time.

      1. Professor Turley fails to recognize that the Powell case expressly limits its holding in Footnote 27: “Powell was “excluded” from the 90th Congress, i.e., he was not administered the oath of office, and was prevented from taking his seat. If he had been allowed to take the oath and subsequently had been required to surrender his seat, the House’s action would have constituted an “expulsion.” Since we conclude that Powell was excluded from the 90th Congress, we express no view on what limitations may exist on Congress’ power to expel or otherwise punish a member once he has been seated.” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/486/#F27

        The truth is that it is not clear whether the House can expel him for offenses that take place before the last election once he has been seated:

        See pages 14 – 17: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45078.pdf

        In 1872, House Members Oakes Ames and James Brooks were involved in the Credit Mobilier scandal, which occurred before election to Congress. A special committee at that time found that the House had authority to expel a Member for conduct occurring before an election and recommended that the House exercise that power. The report concluded that the Constitution placed “no qualification [on] the [expulsion] power” and assigned no restriction as to when an offense that warranted expulsion had to occur.

        The House Judiciary Committee at that time disagreed with the special committee, arguing that the House has no right or legal constitutional jurisdiction or power to expel the member if the Member does nothing which is disorderly or renders him unfit to be in the House while a member thereof.

        At the end of the day, however, even if Santos murdered someone, the GOP probably wouldn’t vote to expel him, but rather hope they can delay the decision until his term ends. (2/3 vote would be needed).

        If the new liberal government in Brazil detains Santos for fraud and poses him a flight risk (which would be reasonable since he previously fled), the Democratic argument could be that he is presently unfit for office because he is unable to perform his role as a prisoner in a foreign country.

    2. One suggestion I’ve seen that makes sense is to require all Congressional candidates to sign an Affidavit attesting to their place of birth. education, work experience, marital status, criminal history, family members and their connections, investments, anything else constituting possible conflicts, etc. under oath, subject to the penalties for perjury or, possibly, some other mandatory sanction. Such a law should also include a provision that if the candidate is caught lying, s/he is automatically expelled from Congress and the opposing candidate takes the seat. If that were a requirement, Santos COULD be prosecuted criminally for perjury. What a sad state of affairs it is that something like this should even be necessary. But, it is.

      1. “Require” by what authority? What if someone refuses? Neither Congress nor anyone else can impose qualifications for office beyond the ones mentioned in the constitution.

        And WTF is up with automatically seating the LOSING candidate, the one the voters rejected?! Even if Congress had the authority to do that, which it doesn’t, why on earth would anyone want such a thing to happen?

      2. There can never be agreement in politics on what “lying” means. Did Hillary Clinton “lie” about having permission to send emails on a private server?

      3. Such a law would be unconstitutonal.

        The constitution specifies the ONLY criteria that must be met for federal elected office.

        Laws trying to extend that have repeatedly been struck down.

        Separately the constitution provides that each house of congress through its own rules can discipline or expel members.

        The house can seat an then discipline or expel Santos. Just as the Senate can Expel Warren for her lies.
        And Congress can impeach and remove Biden for His.
        Those are the tools that exist to deal with politicians that lie.

        Without amending the constitution – there can be no others.

        I would personally love to see politicians prosecuted for lying to get elected.

        I would happily trade Santos for the long list of Democrats caught lying.

      4. Guest Host of the Tucker Carlson show – Tulsi Gabbard interviewed and harshly confronted Rep. Santos.
        You can find the clip on Youtube.

        Can you find me a clip of anyone in the media doing the same to Sen. Warren ? President Biden ?
        Rep. Schiff ? Swallwell ?

        Or myriads of other democrats who have lied to us to get elected ?

        Gabbard was the perfect person to take down Santos. A former Representative. A person of unmatched personal integrity. A person who has honorably served this country for 2 decades.

    3. Svelaz – Biden has the power to destroy much of humanity. Santos will be the 300th vote on most legislation. BTW – have you ever submitted a post without mentioning Trump?

  5. Totally agreed on what the practical political climate is on the ground, Jon. Santos comes into Washington not just existentially, but with a bit of power due to the R’s having such a slim majority.

    What really interests me with your statement “In a city that virtually floats on the uplift from inflated resumes, Representative-elect George Santos (R-N.Y.) is a standout. ” I’m really curious how you think he stacks up against trump, the single biggest lying president in American history? Not only that, I’m curious why you didn’t introduce trump to compare and contrast mode here? Ostensibly you might claim that you’re just comparing House members against House members. But you jumped to poor examples in the Senate. Why not take it to the executive? Handing a con man as much power as was afforded trump was a staggering moment of self destruction, constitutionally, in this country’s journey, no? He certainly abused every shred of power given to him…

    Of course, you’ve tried to prep the ground against looking at trump in your op ed here by maintaining there are drinking games around Biden’s lies. Thing is, outside the Fox world that you’re employed in no one really cares. It’s common knowledge how much of a liar trump is. Those of us who’ve lived in NY have known it since the ’80’s. So it’s through that lens where we see how the sentiment of your op ed is targeted…, toward the pie slice of the R base that just doesn’t care about lying at all because trump stokes a positive emotional response in them. They get off on lying, and they’ll love Santos teaming up with Marge Taylor. Just another obnoxious butt for them to tongue hole.

  6. Speaking of sinners and saints:

    Ostensibly secular universities are actually deeply religious–their lives as punctuated and regulated by liturgies and rituals as any monastery. There’s the land acknowledgment liturgy, the diversity statement ritual, the pronouns ritual. We have saints, demons, even holy months.

    -Robert George, Princeton University

    1. Robert George is a role model par excellence. A scholar’s scholar he earned 3 doctorates all from Oxford (D.Phil., D.C.L., D.Litt), a JD and a Masters in Theological Studies both from Harvard, is a practicing Catholic who demonstrates his faith with his actions (he is close friends with Leftist Cornell West), a talented musician and very, very funny. Watching Robert George lecture about anything is a treat beyond compare. He was also vehement in his rejection of Donald Trump which proves his smartness.

      He was recently interviewed in a video recording by Bishop Robert Barron where he discussed Natural law, the “woke” phenomena, and how we can engrain virtue in our society today. Must viewing

      Here is Cornell Wallace and Robert George discussing what they consider are classical books important to our civilization.

      1. Estovir, you have been a distinguished critic of Donald Trump and presently grab and push Robert George into your type of panic. I decided to listen to what he and a few others said since I like to know the Catholic opinion, especially since I have a considerable agreement with them.

        In a quick search of the Catholic Register and a few articles, I learned some interesting things about the feelings of George and others. Many attitudes seemed to change significantly over time, becoming more positive, leaving me to doubt your portrayal of Robert George is sufficient. I do note his voice regarding Trump seemed to change.

        In 2015-2016 there was a split of opinions, and Robert George wrote:

        “And there is nothing in his campaign or his previous record that gives us grounds for confidence that he genuinely shares our commitments to the 1 ) right to life, to 2)religious freedom and the 3) rights of conscience, 4)to rebuilding the marriage culture, or 5) to subsidiarity and the principle of limited constitutional government. ”

        The confidence lacked was mostly proven to be wrong. Today, I believe Robert George recognizes that at least from the little I read.

        What overpowered George’s ability to see the potential positive aspects of Trump in 2015 is seen in his statement, ” His campaign has already driven our politics down to new levels of vulgarity.” I did not see his comments about Clinton and Biden’s theft, incompetence, lying, and selling America down the drain, along with dirty politics that even Trump stayed clear of.

        The following comment sums up what may be Trump’s most prominent
        obstacle for the more prudish element that cares more about personality rather than effective leadership.

        “There are still so many concerns about Donald Trump,” Mercer said. “Not only is this a man who has owned strip clubs and casinos, but he also bragged in his book about having affairs with married women.”

        Then there is this, “I think Donald Trump is more leftist than he is conservative,” Krason said. “Maybe he’ll say some of the right things to get support on some of these issues, but I don’t see this man having a well-developed political philosophy.”

        This comment reflects some of my initial fears. It turns out, Krason and I were wrong.

        Rooney wrote, “In this sense, Catholic thought is in sync with what Trump has brought forward. Perhaps less nuanced than some would like, he has tangibly and succinctly brought forth the urgent need to bring more good jobs back to America and to get wages rising again.”

        I read some more, and the mood of many changed. The vulgarity of Trump is not accepted, but many recognize his positive contributions. George goes out of his way to separate morality from Trump as a leader and sees Trump as a positive force.

      2. “There isn’t a single uniquely correct way of structuring the relationship between church and state.” (Robert George)

        That is the theocrat’s nose under the tent of liberty.

        And that creature is explicit about demanding that the government legislate a religious morality. (See his demand that government criminalize the use of stem cells in scientific research, and that government ban anything he considers “pornography.”)

  7. I find it all humorous actually. Santos is obviously a skilled politician who sure can ‘spin a yarn’. The demographics of Nassau County are changing, and a young person is whom the majority of voters want, not that old Zimmerman – they probably don’t care he lied about stuff, and no one ever challenged him on it. Let the Democratic Party sue for defrauding the voters; which they can’t due to their Prisoner’s Delimma.

  8. He lies less than Biden so he’s got that going for him! Seriously, I’d seat him, office him, committee him on the ethics committee (seems a natural) and forget him if I ran that swamp.

  9. Your free speech and freedom to elect who the heck we please arguments are important and decisive. But what’s unsolved is this post-news, especially post-local-news, reality we now live in. Santos would not have gotten away with his serial lying 30 years ago, when there were still prosperous local newspapers and multiple real reporters in every congressional district.

    1. ???
      Biden got away with it 30 years ago…He was confronted by the press with his lies/inflated resume, became verbally combative, lied again, and that was the end of it…Now he is our president. What say you?
      (I in no way espouse, endorse, or approve of what Santos did. Or John Kerry, Elizabeth Warren, Richard Blumenthal, etc.)
      (I also do not know what motivated ANY of them, –was it a tactic to improve their chances with voters, -or was it some pesky ego dysfunction and an internal feeling/belief that they were not good/worthy enough standing on their own (true) credentials? I dunno.)

      1. (Oh, I forgot Biden getting caught plagiarizing….has Santos been accused of that also?)

        1. There is nothing that Santos has been accused of that Biden has not been blatantly caught doing multiple times.

          Most of Biden’s claims are ludicrously stupid and often just plain impossible. Sometimes requiring the dead to come back to life.

          1. Where was Biden accused of check fraud in a foreign country? I didn’t see that report. Please send me that new story.

            1. The House GOP has over 100 suspicious foreign financial transaction reports involving the biden family that they subpeonaed from Treasury.

              There is plenty of financial self dealing.

      2. Biden didn’t get away w his b.s. 30+ years ago. It was revealed, well publicised, and punished or not by voters as they saw fit. The Santos issue I raise is different, that we don’t any more have the investigative _local_ media we need, that would’ve revealed a complete fake like Santos long before the congressional primary much less general election.

        1. There is an industry of smear merchants whose job is to vet and smear candidates. Some are 501 (C) (3)s and 501 (C) (4)s. Donors fund them to destroy candidates in the party not preferred by the donor. In other words, rich Democrats fund 501s to destroy Republicans and rich Republicans fund 501s to destroy Democrats. If 501s find something, they feed it to their media apparatchiks to push it out to the broader public.

          Then there’s the for-profit groups like Fusion GPS who do the same thing. Initially, Republican donors hired Fusion GPS to try to find dirt to destroy Trump to prevent him from getting the GOP nomination during the primaries in 2016. After that failed and Trump became the nominee, the Republica donors who hired Fusion GPS severed their relationship with it. Democrats then hired Fusion GPS for the purpose of destroying Trump in the general election to prevent him from becoming President. When they could not find anything salacious enough, they hired a British spy to make up a bunch of stuff, fed it to the media (who initially ignored it), but they also fed it to John McCain’s network and to the FBI who used it to open investigations to weaken Trump’s presidency and hopefully take him down.

          If you want to place blame for failing to vet Santos, I think the blame lies with the Democrats. I assume they were so confident they’d hold the seat that they chose to allocate their “smear resources” elsewhere rather than on Santos. If they had assessed the seat was in jeopardy, I suspect they would have found the resources to vet and smear him properly.

            1. Funny, how I, a conservative, knew all about the Stormy Daniels affair, but you didn’t know about the Russia Hoax, the Steele Dossier, Hunter’s laptop.

              You are uninformed. Whatever you are reading isn’t helping you to become better informed. Keep trying to spin and remain ignorant.

  10. While the entire corporate media and its various subsidiaries are calling attention to the ridiulous lies of George Santos that NOBODY bothered to investigate until AFTER the election — not the RNC, the DNC, or their minions in the media — it’s important to note something far more serious that almost the entire media is ignoring:

    ” ‘Died Suddenly’? More Than 1-in-4 Think Someone They Know Died From COVID-19 Vaccines”
    https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/died_suddenly_more_than_1_in_4_think_someone_they_know_died_from_covid_19_vaccines

    This survey goes a LONG way toward explaining why the media prefers to focus on George Santos and his imaginative résumé — because it seems they have ALL been in bed with Big Pharma by (1) promoting the pfake COVID “vaccines” and “boosters” that have been killing and injuring so many people, (2) suppressing the data revealing just how dangerous and deadly the pfake “vaccines” and “boosters” are, and (3) ostracizing the real experts who were TRYING to warn everyone about what was actually happening.

    Given the seriousness of this issue and almost unimaginable scope of death, injury, and misconduct involved, it’s not surprising that the corporate media would want to ignore this survey (just as it ignores surveys concerning the number of people who believe our elections are corrupted) and instead deflect attention to the almost-comic adventures of George Santos and his Magical Résumé.

    Whatever one thinks of George Santos, compared with the suppressed deaths and data concerning the pfake “vaccines,” Santos’ lies are essentially harmless, and may even be beneficial in that they show how broken our “two-party” politics are along with the media frauds that promote them. At some point, a reasonable person must wonder what kind of media and political system would focus on Santos while ignoring the fact that people are dropping dead in bulk quantities and having their deaths “diagnosed” as “died suddenly,” as if the cause is a complete mystery to medical science?

  11. Liars are bad, but DemocRAT liars are especially bad. Even at his worst, Santos isn’t as bad as a lying DemocRAT.

    1. Santos should resign as soon as Biden, Blumenthal, and the army of others who have been caught lying about themselves resign.

  12. The Rio de Janeiro prosecutor’s office is dusting off its 15 year old fraud case against Santos, now that they know where he is.

  13. From Alvarez:
    “Where false claims are made to effect a fraud or secure moneys or other valuable considerations, say offers of employment,it is well established that the Government may restrict speech without affronting the First Amendment. See, e.g., Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy, 425 U. S., at 771 (noting that fraudulent speech generally falls outside the protections of the First Amendment). But the Stolen Valor Act is not so limited in its reach. Were the Court to hold that the interest in truthful discourse alone is sufficient to sustain a ban on speech, absent any evidence that the speech was used to gain a material advantage, it would give government a broad censorial power unprecedented in thisCourt’s cases or in our constitutional tradition.”
    So Alvarez is distinguishable: here, Santos did indeed use his lies to gain a material advantage: a seat in the U.S. House.

    1. OK. Now apply that reasoning to Harry Reid, who falsely claimed POTUS candidate Mitt Romney didn’t pay income taxes. The “material advantage” Reid gained was that he got to keep his powerful Senate Majority leader by suppressing GOP votes.. When challenged after the election for making that false claim, he bragged: “We won, didn’t we?”

      1. There is a world of difference between a politician lying in public to win an election.
        And a campaign, the media, and social media, a party conspiring with government to suppress the truth to rig an election.

        Not that lying to win is acceptable. What is surprising is that so many are so gullible as to believe these lies.
        But they need not even be gullable when the truth is silenced.

        What too many on the left do not understand is that what occurred in 2020, and what certainly was worse in 2022,
        is sufficintly immoral, that there is no reason to beleive they did not do worse – such as ballot fraud.

        The now known conduct in 2020, is sufficient that Trump’s claim the election was stolen is justified and correct, even if there was no ballot fraud.

        Finally, while J6 was not an insurrection, what Democrats SAY occured on J6 is justified by their own revealed bad conduct.

        People are entitled to be righteously angry when our institutions including government conspire to rig an election.

  14. I’m no fan of the guy, but he won the election. Elections are almost always won based on deception or dirty tricks.

    Democrats want him out so a Democratic governor can choose his replacement. Dirty tricks.

    As with Trump, who won in 2016, we have to wait and beat him at the ballot box. The good news is he only had to work a few month and then has to run for office as all House members do. Next election is in two years.

    1. According to article I, section 2, U. S. representatives are always elected by the people. And Prof. Turley cited a report that Santos won’t run for re-election.

  15. Professor Turley, While I understand you think Santos has to be seated and that campaign lies are not crimes, do you think he should resign for his actions as some have called for?

    2. I think he should resign as soon as Joe Biden (serial liar throughout his life), Richard Blumenthal (“I was in Vietnam.”) and Elizabeth (“Fauxcahontas”) Warren do. You could argue that Blumenthal was just trying to get a little unearned respect. Warren got preferential treatment by lying about her heritage. And Biden – even when he could speak coherently – told the most outlandish self-aggrandizing lies since forever. It’s been so bad that the left created an expression (“That’s just Joe being Joe.”) to respond when someone pointed out that Joe had been caught lying again. It was shorthand for “yeah, we all know that Joe is a liar and we don’t care. There’s no point in bringing it up again.”

      1. The other day I parked next to a Jeep Cherokee…that makes me more Native American than Liawatha Warren will ever be.

    3. If Santos should resign, then certainly senile, little girl fondling Joe Biden (Mega Liar), ignorant Commie-la Harris, Nasty Pelosi, Chuck U. Schmer, lying schitthead Schiff and most of the rest of the DemocRATs.

  16. Elizabeth Warren has DNA identified with the American indigenes. She is not, however, a member of any tribe, recognized or not. She never claimed to be.

    3. Yeah, those “high cheekbones” entitled her to minority preference and to be identified as a “person of color.” According to EEOC guidelines, the definition of Native American requires both actual Native American ancestry and cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition. Regardless of her DNA, if she’s not a member of a tribe, she should never have checked the Native American box on all those applications.

      1. I ran into your brother, LGBTQ, the other day.

        Let’s Get Biden To Quit.

        He’s pretty cool but not as succinct and apropos as yourself.

      2. On her registration card to the Texas Bar Association, dated 4-18-1986, she listed her race as Native American.

    5. Warren has DNA fragments that mean that she is atleast 8 generations removed from the pre-1492 inhabitants of the americas. Those fragments do not even explicitly tie here to north american pre-colonials – she is as likely 8 generations away from the inca as the cherokee.

      George Santos is several orders of magnitude more jewish than Warren is “native american”

      No she did not claim to be a member of a tribe. She did however claim to be descended from cherokee.
      And unlike Santos she did more than do so in the heat of an election. She did so on documents submitted to UofP and Harvard, that not only got here jobs, but got those schools government benefits.

  17. About two weeks ago,
    Zelensky Tells Congress ‘You Can Speed Up Our Victory’
    President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine capped his visit to Washington by asking Congress to approve nearly $50 billion in additional aid to his country.
    https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/12/21/world/volodymyr-zelensky-russia-ukraine-news

    And now (Jan 2nd 2023),
    Then Zelensky just signed a new law that could allow the Ukrainian government to block news websites
    https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraines-zelenskyy-signs-law-allowing-government-to-block-news-sites-2023-1

    So you don’t know what he’s doing with it [$50B] when he gets it.

    Fleece, Fleece, Fleece … Sounds like the Ukrainian Mafia to Me.

    They are all Lying. The World needs to re-set the Economics (Clean-the-Slate, Erase-the-Debts).
    and these Fools think that WE need a WAR as an excuse to do that.

    WTF – It’s complete Stupidity.

  19. “What would stop a majority held by the opposing party from isolating any falsehood as a way to retain or increase power?”

    Bingo. The Democrats and the media want to use hypocrisy as a trial balloon for tyranny.

  20. Maybe the solution is to add # of proven lies to their official title ie:

    Joe Blow R California 8 Lies – I would like to see that

Comments are closed.