Hello, George!

Rep. George Santos, the cartoonish New York Republican, compulsive liar, alleged fraudster and Ferragamo-esque Botox fanatic, reiterated Monday that he will not resign. So two-thirds of the House of Representatives will likely cast a historically rare but well-deserved vote to expel him from parliament this week.

The fabulist, also known as George Anthony Devolder, won’t be quietly surprised by that, given his recent tirade about his colleagues being a bunch of drunken, philandering thugs unfit to judge.

it

. (Because the irony was dead, he said this while protesting

Hi

should be considered innocent until proven guilty.)

Next it’s the Senate’s turn: Senator Bob Menendez, the New Jersey Democrat who reportedly loved gold bars and pooled cash for his abuse of office

,

should also be sanctioned.

Still, Menendez deserves a lesser punishment for the time being: censorship. The difference between his

deserts

and Santos underlines both Congress’s broad discretion under the Constitution to police itself and its need, in practice, to balance institutional integrity with the will of the voters.

Not that Menendez is the lesser sinner who has operated under a cloud for the third-term soon-to-be 70 for much longer than Santos, a freshman half his age. Menendez defeated federal bribery charges in 2018, thanks to a hung jury, and was subsequently sternly admonished by the Senate Ethics Committee. Apparently brazen, he was soon alleged to have been involved in corrupt schemes involving New Jersey businessmen and the Egyptian government, schemes that saw him re-indicted in September. A conspiracy charge was added in October.

Menendez, like Santos, emphasizes his innocence. Their alleged crimes are similarly egregious, though Menendez

S

are demonstrably worse. Neither man has gone to trial; Menendezs is tentatively scheduled for May, Santos for September 9. Both must be considered innocent for the time being.

But that is a legal distinction that is central to the rule of law. Congress’s constitutional right to punish its members for disorderly conduct, and, with the competition of two-thirds, to expel a member, is a political issue. It does not depend on legality; ethical misconduct and disorderly conduct may suffice. Over the centuries, the Supreme Court has said as much if little else about Congress’ disciplinary prerogatives, out of respect for the separation of powers.

It would be a big deal if the House expelled Santos. In US history, only twenty members of the House of Representatives and Senate have been voted out of office, seventeen of them for disloyalty to the union during the Civil War. The House itself has expelled only five members, including only two since the civil war. Both were expelled from the country in 1980 and 2002 after criminal convictions.

Santos is not the only one suggesting that he too should have his day in court first. But again, that doesn’t require Congress to act.

And Santos has had a fair trial of sorts: The House of Representatives Ethics Committee, according to its recent 56-page report and investigative findings, reviewed more than 170,000 documents and interviewed dozens of witnesses, while simultaneously consulting with the Justice Department to ensure to ensure that the research was actually carried out. not to interfere with the FBI’s prosecution. Santos, contrary to his public claims, did not cooperate with the House of Representatives committee.

The Ethics members, evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, unanimously concluded that Santos had defrauded campaign donors and blatantly stolen for his personal gain and pleasure (Ferragamo! Hermes! Botox! OnlyFans! Las Vegas and the Hamptons!), and had created fictitious channels to raise cash and filed false federal fundraising reports.

The committee sent evidence to the Justice Department of possible crimes beyond those in the government’s 23 indictments of bank and credit card fraud, money laundering, theft of public funds and lying on federal disclosure forms.

The scale of the violations at issue here is highly unusual and devastating, the Ethics Committee said. Amen to that. Santos called his work a disgusting, politicized smear and promised to fight for my rights and defend my name. (Which?)

The committee could have held a public hearing, but instead urged the House of Representatives to take immediate action. The Republican chairman called for deportation.

Twice before, the House rejected resolutions to expel Santos because members of both parties were concerned that he had not yet received a fair trial. But when the ethics committees submitted their final reports, the numbers started to shift.

If Santos is evicted as expected, it will indeed go against the will of the Long Island voters who elected him a year ago. But she

had

cast their votes for a fictional candidate of Santos’ creation. They didn’t learn until after the election that he had sung a song about where he went to college, about working on Wall Street, about his wealth, about being the Jewish grandson of Holocaust survivors and the son of a Holocaust survivor 9/11. Early this year, a poll in his New York district showed that nearly 80% of voters wanted Santos gone.

Nearly as many New Jersey voters want Menendez to resign, along with most Senate Democrats, New Jersey’s Democratic governor and a slew of local and state officials. Like Santos, Menendez refuses to resign. Unlike Santos, he cannot be kicked out

because

he has had nothing resembling a fair trial; no investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee took place.

Yet Menendez, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and for his own benefit, is alleged to have pressed Egypt’s interests on Congress and presidents, despite widespread objections to its dismal human rights record, and Egyptians have provided sensitive government information.

The weight of the FBI’s evidence against Menendez, associates convened by the New York Times and not even an ally proposed by Menendez’s office could defend him, suggesting the senator should be censured as he awaits his day in office courtroom.

That will come in the spring. And if he is convicted, the blow will come next. Straight into the history of sorry pages with Santos-Devolder.

@jackiekcalmes