• Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why the what aboutism? Everyone says santos must go. I’ve yet to see anyone defend his actions.

    Santos goes beyond politics.

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

      The majority of house republicans wants him to stay. Literally, more house republicans disagree with what you just wrote than agree with it.

      But again, I’m not trying to employ any whataboutisms here. List some of AOCs ethical issues, and I’ll disavow her here and now.

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

              Is that the punishment applied in similar cases? Can you show me a couple examples of house representatives being removed after ethics issues of roughly this magnitude?

              • Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                Most resign. Very few people are removed. It’s not a minor violation. It’s fairly severe.

                • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Really? Then it should be easy for you to find a couple examples, right?

                  For the record, I understand the ethics violation to be the acceptance of gifts in the 4-digit range. I wouldn’t count that as “fairly severe”, but if you have examples of similar ethics violations being classified as such, I’ll happily change my mind.

                  To keep the comparison going, Santos’ fraud seems to have been in the 6 digits:

                  In addition, understanding that the national party committee relied on FEC fundraising data to evaluate candidates’ qualification for the program, Santos and Marks agreed to falsely report to the FEC that Santos had loaned the campaign significant sums of money, when, in fact, Santos had not made the reported loans and, at the time the loans were reported, did not have the funds necessary to make such loans.  These false reported loans included a $500,000 loan, when Santos had less than $8,000 in his personal and business bank accounts. 

                  If AOC ethics violation with 4 digits was “fairly severe”, Santos must be at least majorly severe, right? Why do the majority of house republicans not want him expelled for major ethics violations, much bigger than AOCs?

            • chingadera@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              “Even after OCE’s exhaustive review of the congresswoman’s personal communications, there is no record of the congresswoman refusing to pay for these expenses,” said Hitt. “To the contrary, there are several explicit, documented communications, from prior to OCE’s review, that show the congresswoman understood that she had to pay for these expenses from her own personal funds—as she ultimately did. We are confident the Ethics Committee will dismiss this matter."

              Are we all reading the same shit?

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          For anyone who doesn’t want to read the article, AOC stands accused of failing to pay for hairstyling and possibly a dress.

          Eventually she did pay, as far as I can tell.