Rep. George Santos, facing likely expulsion from Congress, launched a expletive-ridden tirade in a livestream Friday night, accusing his House colleagues of casting votes hungover, cheating on their spouses, and being “hypocrites.”

The three-hour-long rant came after House Ethics Committee Chairman Michael Guest introduced a resolution to expel Santos that many of his former allies have promised to support.

Guest introduced the resolution following the committee’s monthslong investigation into the congressman, which found he used campaign funds to pay for Botox, personal travel, and even porn.

Santos singled out Guest in the livestream, saying the chairman should “be a man and stop being a pussy and call the damn motion.” But he had harsh words for all of his colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, whom he accused of “act[ing] like they’re in ivory towers with white pointy hats and they’re untouchable.”

“Within the ranks of United States Congress there’s felons galore, there’s people with all sorts of shystie backgrounds,” he said.

  • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’re very naive if you truly think that today’s GOP would let precedent get in the way of abusing their powers OR that that’s the real reason why conservative Dems are siding with them.

    The current GOP house leadership has already broken more precedent than the last 3 combined and those 31 Democrats share a lot of owner donors with Republicans, which is a much more likely reason for them dragging their feet in spite of clear and rampant fraud.

    • Hominine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Oooh conspiracy. Yes, become the thing you hate; report back on how that works out on you.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wtf are you on about?

        You know that you don’t have to ignore Dem dereliction of duty or lie about their likely motivations in order to prefer them over the fascist GOP, right?

        Because it’s sounding like you don’t.

        • Hominine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          “Likely motivations” is doing a lot of lifting there.

          I prefer “the words you shoved into their mouths.”

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            I never said that they SAID that was their reason, just that it likely is, based on clues in past and present behaviour. You’re really not good at reading comprehension and pattern recognition, are you?

            • Hominine@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              “Likely” is now doing its share of work. It’s pure conjecture from you and stupifying to see someone defend this level of ignorance as virtuous.

              Mere sentences ago I was “likely” siding with fascism. Are we supposed to think this is serious political analysis??

              • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                Mere sentences ago I was “likely” siding with fascism

                I said that you seemed to be accusing ME of that because I don’t automatically assume that Dems are honest about their reasons for letting the conman continue fleecing the public coffers.

                If you’re not even going to TRY to understand what I’m saying, I see no point in continuing this charade of assuming that you’re neither an imbecile nor arguing in bad faith. Have the day you deserve, wilfully blind party soldier.

                • Hominine@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If all you got left is ad-hominem then by all means lay it bare.

                  And if it “seems” like you are the victim of accusations that I didn’t at all make then that behavior would slot in nicely with the assignation you’ve reflexively displayed throughout this thread.