>

Good to know that lying isn't against the law for someone that is a public servant.
The ethics panel that lost its funding? Or am I thinking of a different part of the House? >

Woah.  The game of Internet telephone is strong on this one.  The Ethics Committee actually hasn't changed at all and nothing was defunded.  The changes were made to the Office of Congressional Ethics, which is an independent office established in 2008.  Remember: EC and OCE.  EC and OCE.  What the OCE does is provide an additional, more public resource for ethics investigations.  The OCE will take referrals from the public, do its own investigations, release them to the public, and make referrals to the House Ethics Committee.
And the change made was that Republicans put term limits on the members of the and instituted a rule that new staff can only be appointed in the first 30 days of a congressional term.  This will have a significant impact on the membership of the OCE and probably limit their activity.  Republicans also changed the rules to allow the public to submit complaints to the Ethics Committee.
But as far as George Santos goes, this will have a minimal effect because that's already been referred to the Ethics Committee, which is evenly staffed by Democrats and Republicans.  So, we've already reached the end goal of an OCE investigation. >


Republicans put term limits on the members of the and 

I think you accidentally a [pretty crucial] word there >

The word is just "OCE" and the whole comment is about the OCE, so it's not crucial >

I’d disagree, it isn’t clear from the missing word if it was the CE or OCE that was the target if the new rules/term limits. 
Appreciate the clarification! >

Maybe it's confusing if you only pick one sentence to read at random.  But if you read the whole comment,

The changes were made to the Office of Congressional Ethics...

-

This will have a significant impact on the membership of the OCE

And I don't think you did since you referred to the Ethics Committee as "CE", which might be the source of your confusion, as you're naturally mixing up with the OCE acronym >

Ok. I was just expressing that I experienced the same confusion. Really not something to get defensive about. 
Thanks again for sharing that information. >

Right and I'm just pointing out what got you confused >


“If for some way when we go through Ethics that he has broken the law, then we will remove him,” McCarthy told reporters during a press conference just outside his office.

He already sounds doubtful in his wording, so I doubt he actually sticks to his word or does his usual spineless routine and shift the goalposts. >

If Santos were a Democrat McCarthy would be on the warpath yesterday, personally seeing to it that the process of a full ethics investigation is initiated — hell, he wouldn’t even bother with an ethics investigation at all, just straight to removal.
But because Santos is a vote in the GOP conference: Ah, yeah, we might get around to an ethics investigation. The bar will be high, the funding pool will be drained and look, if he stabbed someone with glass I will personally see to it that a removal from office is possibly, maybe considered sometime before the end of the Congressional term, should he be criminally charged first — we’re all innocent until proven guilty after all! >

I am going to sound like an old fart, but I remember the days when a politician did something unethical, they resigned. 
It is sad that we have devolved so much that one party is willing to keep a pathological liar as part of their party, and whatever George Santos is. >

Al Franken is the perfect example. The days you refer to still exist, but only for those with integrity. >

what a magnificent shift of the goalposts. what the hell is the point of an ethics committee if the bar for punishment is being guilty of  crime? >

Didn't McCarthy murder the ethics committee? >

No, he just crippled the Office that makes the Committee function. >

Lol “if?” >

anything he says is worth about as much as the shit i took last week and we all know it >

Your shit would still be considered useful as fertilizer in many 3rd world countries.   "George Santos's" word has no value or worth whatsoever.  
Therefore, by definition, your shit is worth more than his word. >

Yeah, that ethics probe should take about 2 years to finish. >

Right.  And if he gets re-elected that’s a complication that should take another 24 months or so to come to terms with. >

But he won't if he didn't. Lying about literally everything else to get elected, 100% A-OK in the GOP's book. >

Didn’t they get rid of the ethics panel? And even if they did, I suppose it won’t have a lot to say until they actually finish appointing people to it…
What a goddamn joke Congress is… >

They torched the Office of Congressional Ethics, not the House Ethics Committee (very similar but different groups) >

He broke laws in multiple countries. The ethics panel was gutted by the GOP, to boot. >


“If for some way when we go through Ethics and he has broken the law, then we will remove him,” McCarthy told reporters during a press conference just outside his office.

That means that they will ignore unethical actions found by the Ethics Committee as long as they aren't illegal.

“The American public in his district voted for him. He has a responsibility to uphold what they voted for

The American public in his district voted for a person who does not exist. They voted for the fictional George Santos and now they're stuck with the real George Santos. >

If that's even his real name? >


He already voted to gut the Ethics Office.
And no he won't. That seat would auto swing to a D in a special election just because of how burnt NY 03 voters are. >

Funny, most jobs will fire you if you lie on your resume. >

Have you heard about politics before? >

Lol, Ethics committee bound by law... That doesn't sound... Ethical. >

What ethics panel? Didn't they kill it? >

They torched the Office of Congressional Ethics, not the House Ethics Committee (very similar but different groups) >

American democracy is so weird. You'd expect an ethics panel to discuss ethical matters, not legal ones. That's what you have a judiciary for. Separation of power and all that >

The ethics panel will stall until the next election  cycle.
Fuck Mccarthy and his lying, cowardly, performative bullshit. >

In other words: we really don't care about his ethics unless he left a trail for a conviction. >

Let’s see, hmm why do we’re have liars in govt positions where they make laws? McCarthy is a donkey too >

He says that then the day comes and he will say something like well I meant a serious law like murder. Republicans always like to move the goal posts. >

The day will never come.  
Even if he were to be arrested now, it's very likely that any trial and resulting conviction wouldn't come until well into 2024 anyway, and by then he'll either be voted out of office when he tries to get re-elected, or his sentence will force him to drop out of the race for re-election and McCarthy will just say further action is moot. >

Well that is a hot take coming from a Republikkan.  Would be nice to see them enforce that view consistently. >

Republicans first act was to gut the ethics panel, which means that it won’t be able to make a full decision for months >

Lying is not breaking the law. Being unethical is doing the wrong thing even if there’s no jaw against it. 
McCarthy should just dissolve the Ethics panel if he doesn’t know the difference. >

I thought the purpose of the ethics committee wasn’t to be based on whether something was legal or not. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it is ethical. >

But i thought they removed the ethics panel... >

But not if he was unethical. >

Being a pathological liar won't be a determining factor.  lol >

What happens to his position if he’s removed? New election? Interim? >

As opposed to what? That’s something that needed to be said out loud? >

The ethics panel he agreed to disembowel as a condition of becoming speaker? >

But lying about literally everything is just fine! >

Someone doesn't understand the idea of ethics and how the law is not the only thing that governs what is ethical.  Unethical behavior is not always criminal.  It can be criminal but often is not. Don't have to "break" a law to be unethical. >

Kevin McCarthy wants to back Santos into a corner so that he has to vote McCarthy’s way every single time. Kevin McCarthy cares exclusively about Kevin McCarthy. >

i mean he did but whatever >

Because the ethics panel has been instructed to find that he did nothing wrong. >

Oh! Law breakers will be removed from office.. interesting… that could change things >

Cool thing to say while going out of your way to make sure the ethics panel will not find anything about anything. >

The Ethics panel that Republicans shut down to protect themselves. >

The ethics panel he stacked with unethical people? >

What ethics panel? >

They can't even agree that Trump broke the law so I guess Santos is staying lol >

Removed how?  He was elected, so what’s the process? >

He could be expelled with a two-thirds vote. >

Thanks, I don’t know how these things work. >

Who runs the ethics panel? >

Thanks, my civics classes were…not the best, and I didn’t pay enough attention. >

That appears to have been quite common. >

When it comes to the ethics panel shouldn't they be referring McCarthy & others in high office to it before delusional idiots like Santos?? >

So what you’re saying is he isn’t going anywhere. >

More of this please >

No he won't. McCarthy is too beholden to the Reeeedom Caucus to move against a lying racist with an R next to the name he's going by this week.
And that's ignoring the fact that one of the GOP's first moves was to gut the Ethics Office, precisely to protect people like Anthony "George Santos" Devolder. >

Honestly, the GOP should keep him. He’s already a massive punching bag and seems to a glutton for punishment. Seems like the kinda guy you can use, essentially if you can force them to live in your pocket. >

Call to Ethics: 🎶doo Doo DOO🎵“We’re sorry. You have reached a number that has been disconnected, or is no longer in service. If you feel you have reached this recording in error, please check the number and try your call again.“ >

That's a bit of a change from "We don't have the right to remove him if the people of New York elected him to sit here."
Guessing that finger in the wind that Kevin uses on all of his "decisions" is turning brown from all of the shit coming up about Santos. >

He should just included the ethic committee found no violations. >

Santos will only be removed if the GQP think an election benefits them. >

No he won't.  The ethics panel will squirm and twist their way to saying he really didn't break the law.  Repubs desperately need his vote.  They are willing to break much larger laws to keep him in the fold. >

Ethics violations aren’t necessarily legal violations. If they are concerned about the laws being broken why not refer to the proper legal body? Ethics issues I think can be largely centered around very bad even immoral behavior that isn’t criminal but needs addressing. I think they know this. >

McCarthy will do nothing, he needs Santos, and is willing to be a stooge. One good thing, the GOP is showing it's true colors. >

But only because McCarthy  knows the investigations will take over a year. He's flipping off the citizens of the United States. And inviting disaster for Republicans in 2024 >

The ethics panel he just gutted? >

…so…being a pathological liar doesn’t disqualify you? Good to know. >

Squeaker McCarthy's timid roar. >

An "ethics panel" has lost all meaning if its purpose is to determine whether someone broke the law. Ethics have a much higher standard than legality. 
Plus, its never a good look when people have to defend their actions by saying "Well I didn't technically break any laws!"
Our elected officials should be held to HIGHER standards than the rest of us. If they are beholden to lower standards, those positions will attract those who wish to abuse the power afforded by these positions via the lowered standards instead of those who aim to use their position for the good of others. Ya know. Republicans. >

‘When’ they find he broke the law, hopefully. >

oh weird, the ethics panel doesn't think he broke the law. who could have guessed this outcome.