George Santos on his way to having a lot more boyfriends.
Mr. Santos was charged with seven counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, one count of theft of public funds, and two counts of making materially false statements to the House of Representatives.
Even a Republican from TX is saying he should be thrown out of Congress. That's how you know how messed up this whole situation is.
Not really. That's just how you know how politically embarassing it is, not necesssarily how truly messed up it is. I mean, Santos is a whack job. That's pretty apparent. But this is par for the course in politics. All the Clinton campaigns got charged with wire fraud and money laundering. I believe the W campaigns got hit with it. The Trump campaign. I'd have to check on the Obama campaigns.
If you're running a campaign, and contributions comes across state lines via the Internet, and some volunteer with more access than brains spends some of it in the wrong place - bingo, that's wire fraud, and may very easily be slapped with a money-laundering charge. Hell, in certain cases, just receiving the money from certain sources you didn't even solicit can be wire fraud. Most such charges against political campaigns are technically valid, but mostly bullshit and the lawyers make it go away double-quick for the price of some fines.
I don't think that's it, a couple of wire fraud and money laundering charges aren't enough to move the politically embarrassing needle these days. Santos himself is an embarrassment and it seems like a lot of people from both sides want him out. This just gives them a justifiable (and not politically damaging in front of their base) reason to finally say the quiet part out loud. They're not exactly going out on a limb by saying it, but it's still surprising to see, especially from a fellow R from TX.
Because Santos is such a trainwreck on other fronts, these charges are getting greater coverage and response. People want him to go away. On the other hand it gives Republicans safe opportunities to try and convince people they aren't hyperpartisan. For his part, Santos isn't backing down, and why should he? Both Trump and Biden have done the same things that got him into hot water, and they've survived with a lot of political clout.
Your assertion is that Republicans from Red states opposing Santos is a metric of how fucked up the situation really is. It isn't a reliable metric of anything. It's just another political slimefest, and all involved are trying to turn it to their advantage. Same shit, different day.
My assertion is based on how many of them are either silent or openly backing Drumpf, despite the things he's been recorded saying or admitted himself just because he thinks no one can touch him. So no, I don't believe this is a "same shit, different day" situation. Either because they don't like him, or want him out, or want to appear non-partisan, someone on his side of the aisle saying he should get booted (not sanctioned, not taken off a committee, actually kicked out on Congress) IS a big deal.
But we can certainly agree to disagree on this one and I'll leave it at that. I'm already breaking my "no politics" rule. (See, politicians breaking rules, they're just like us!)
We aren't really violating your "no politics" rule, because we really aren't discussing political positions. This is a debate more about political science and legal principles than policies.
There's the old adage, "Where there's smoke, there's fire." It's true if we're talking about wildfires or internal combustion engines. But in most of the cases where we use the adage, it really ain't so. When we're talking about politicians, it's obviously not smoke, it's bloviation. And it is not remotely true on any front to say, "Where there are indictments, there's a crime." There MAY be a crime, but until a defendant pleads to it or is convicted of it, there's no crime. Just an accusation, or maybe LOTS of accusations. But every newly-minted attorney fresh out of law school knows that the number of accusations doesn't amount to a bucket of warm spit.
Where you and I are disagreeing here, and it's not really much of a disagreement, is whether this is somehow worse than it's ever been. The only thing about the current political environment that distinguishes it from the US election cycle of 1800, and every one subsequent, is the immediacy of the coverage. The bombast, the absurdity, the false accusations, the TRUE accusations, the congressional hearings and machinations, the polarization of public opinion, the nefarious backgrounds of candidates and incumbents...all of it is really no different than when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr were duking it out in 1800.
That's what I meant by, "same shit, different day."
Peace.
