>

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.
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!