The bar hasn't moved, Rep. Smith

When the first resolution to expel former-Rep. George Santos failed, I wondered who on earth still wanted this guy around. His Oct. 10 indictment listed 23 counts of identity theft, money laundering, theft of public funds, various frauds and lying to both the House of Representatives and the FEC. He is almost comically corrupt, though the family members whose identities he stole and the campaign donor robbed of $45,000 probably don’t see any humor.

According to the House of Representatives website, clerk.house.gov, the initial difference between the yeas to expel Santos and the nays to keep him was only 34 votes, and 19 more House members simply voted present. The lines were fairly Republican vs. Democrat. The second vote passed with 311 yeas, 114 nays, two present. Only two nays were Democrat and 112 were Republican, meaning 70 Republicans changed their minds.

Rep. Jason Smith voted nay both times.

Smith went on the record this week criticizing Santos’ removal, saying the “very high bar” for expulsion was lowered without waiting on a court conviction. Concern for due process is valid. Here’s the thing, though: the bar hasn’t budged.

This isn’t the first time expulsion was recommended by the House Ethics Committee before a conviction. Five representatives and senators have resigned after being called out: Sen. James F. Simmons (1862), Rep. Raymond F. Lederer (1981), Rep. Harrison A. Williams (1982), Sen. Bob Packwood (1995) and Rep. Bob Ney (2006). Had they remained, they likely would’ve been expelled like Santos. Senate.gov has all the details on its “Powers and Procedures” page.

Smith wrapped up his statement with, “I will certainly consider this new lower bar the next time a motion to expel a member is brought to the floor.” With all due respect him, the tone is passive-aggressive and reads as a promise to leverage this supposedly new standard.

I’m not making a partisan point. I’m focusing on Santos and his Republican backing because it’s egregious. There were no unanswered questions about his behavior and he would’ve victimized people as long as he had a platform to do so. However, the Republican majority is slim and the courts aren’t renowned for their speed. Did 114 people all vote nay with pure motivations?

I doubt it, and I’m sick of seeing leaders put party over principles.

Samantha Tucker is the assistant editor of the Daily American Republic. She can be reached at stucker@darnews.com.