George Santos, the infamous fabulist, got the boot from Congress last week. Santos was the first member expelled in over twenty years and one of only three expelled for anything other than fighting for the Confederacy. Santos was the only representative since the Civil War to be impeached without first being convicted of a crime (orphan bribery specifically).

There is not enough space here to repeat all the allegations against Santos, which include 23 federal charges, including fraud and identity theft. What seems clear is that Santos was a bit like Max Bialystock, the protagonist of The Producers, who thought he could charge investors, or in Santos’ case, donors, on the assumption that no one would ask what he did with their money did when that happened. Santo’s show bombed. But Santos won his congressional race on Long Island, prompting scrutiny that should have been applied when he announced his election.

There are still some in the Santo department

S

S

defense shouting Stop! or at least think about it carefully and make good points

.

Dan McLaughlin in the National Review and Byron York in the Washington Examiner both argue that expelling members of the House of Representatives without a criminal conviction will have unintended consequences. And it’s not just conservatives. Adam Serwer, a liberal writer for

T

The Atlantic agrees that Congress deciding for itself whether voters made a mistake could lead to more members being expelled for things they are alleged to have done on their own.

It’s important to note that not a single serious person I can find defends Santos on his merits. As York determines, Santos had no business serving in the House of Representatives, and it was a shame that he was elected at all.

Although their points are well taken, I still disagree.

In almost every other institution (company, university, newspaper, law firm, etc.), whether or not someone should be fired normally does not depend on a criminal conviction. Suppose you’re the boss of an employee accused of countless misdeeds, from fabricating his resume to criminal fraud. You wouldn’t fire the employee based on mere hearsay. You would conduct some kind of investigation. If that investigation revealed evidence to your satisfaction, you would fire that employee. You wouldn’t wait, possibly for years, for a criminal conviction.

Of course, Congress is different. Members don’t work for the House of Representatives, they work for their constituents. One advantage of delaying deportations is that a conviction provides a clear, neutral limiting principle, the editors of the Wall Street Journal rightly note. What is the rule now? they ask.

How about enough facts to satisfy two-thirds of the population? That was necessary to oust Santos.

The ouster of Santos was an act of political restoration, not destruction. Yes, it has been violated for a long time

–

enduring and defensible norm, but the decision was forced by the breakdown of other norms. To begin with, Santos is a shameless fraudster who was disloyal to standards of conduct in word and deed. He also benefited from the collapse of basic concepts of journalistic and partisan due diligence. If the political ecosystem’s natural biofilters aren’t working, Congress can and should change its norms when toxic sludge enters the chamber.

After all, Congress is the highest branch of government (the idea that the three branches are equal is a Nixon-era invention). Congress writes the law

S

, establishes most courts and all executive agencies and sets their salaries. Congress can fire members of the other two branches, while those branches cannot touch Congress. And it can also fire its own members.

One of the biggest causes of dysfunction in American politics is Congress’s refusal to take itself seriously. Removing the dubious Santos is a small first step.

One of my biggest pet peeves about the impeachment debates of the past quarter century has centered on the same argument used to oppose Santos’ removal: that the only just standard for removing a president is found in criminal law.

The idea that a president must be found guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt before he can be removed from office is a nonsensical standard. It is also cowardly because it allows members of Congress to abdicate all responsibility to apply their judgment. The standard of presumption of innocence is correct and appropriate in criminal cases because those convicted may be denied life and liberty. But impeachment, like expulsion, merely deprives a politician of the privilege of retaining power. I worry about the unintended consequences of someone who doesn’t deserve it losing that privilege.

@jonahdispatch