Democrats spar over Santos strategy as GOP punts on bid to expel him

House Democrats wrangled internally on Wednesday over whether to try to stop Speaker Kevin McCarthy from punting on a bid to expel George Santos from Congress.

The tensions surfaced during a closed-door Democratic caucus meeting, hours before Republicans prevailed in a vote to quash Rep. Robert Garcia’s (D-Calif.) privileged resolution ejecting the indicted Santos from his seat. Some Democrats argued in favor of of blocking McCarthy’s push to refer the Garcia plan to the House Ethics panel — which, had it succeeded, would have forced a full House vote on booting the scandal-plagued New York Republican — according to two people familiar with the situation.

After all, those Democrats reasoned, the whole point of Garcia’s push is squeezing the House GOP to go on the record protecting Santos, their fabrication-happy first-term member who faces 13 counts of federal charges.

“I think we should find out where members stand on this indicted member of Congress,” said Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), among those who pushed the caucus to pursue a full House vote to expel Santos. “I think we need to definitely make sure that our concerns are registered through a vote.”

But other House Democrats took a different view, according to both people who addressed the closed-door meeting on condition of anonymity. Some more senior Democrats, whom both people interviewed declined to name, argued that forcing an expulsion vote could set a bad precedent — echoing McCarthy’s position.

The Democratic split over how to handle the Santos vote illustrates the enduring generational divide within a caucus that’s growing younger and more progressive after decades of leadership by an octogenarian trio. Just because House Democrats have new leaders this Congress, however, doesn’t mean their senior members’ counsel doesn’t hold weight.

The caucus didn’t formally whip the vote on Garcia’s proposal.

Ultimately, House Republicans stayed unified as they voted to refer the Garcia measure to Ethics. The final tally was 220-202, with seven Democrats voting present. While five of the Democratic present votes came from members of the Ethics panel, two others joined them: swing-seat Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez (D-Wash.) and Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.).

Santos told reporters after the vote that he approved of the referral to the Ethics panel.

“This is the appropriate way to do this. I think that this was the right decision for all of us and I look forward to continuing to defend myself,” he said. Shortly after, he cut off his remarks when progressive Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) started to heckle him, shouting “resign!”

The spectacle continued, with Bowman getting into an argument with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) before Ocasio-Cortez intervened and pulled Bowman away.

Republicans who serve on the ethics panel did not join their Democratic counterparts in voting present, with some arguing their vote was a referral and not a judgment.

Some of Santos’ fiercest GOP critics publicly endorsed McCarthy’s plan to move the matter to the famously slow-moving ethics committee, which is already conducting an investigation into Santos’ campaign-trail fabrications and finances.

“Moving this expulsion resolution to the ethics committee, in an expedited fashion, will get George Santos out of Congress as quickly as possible. And I think that that is necessary,” Rep. Marc Molinaro (R-N.Y.) said in an interview. “I expect that the Ethics Committee will expedite the hearing.”

First-term Rep. Brandon Williams (R-N.Y.), who has called on Santos to resign, sounded a similar note in a statement Wednesday.

To many Democrats, though, sending the matter to the Ethics panel was the effective equivalent of tabling the issue altogether. And they would only need a simple majority of the House to vote down McCarthy’s efforts to refer the bill to committee — a much more plausible ask — while ousting Santos would require a two-thirds majority.

Democratic Caucus Chair Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) made the case to his California colleagues in a closed-door meeting Wednesday for voting against sending the measure to the ethics panel. It would be the “easy way out” for the speaker, he said in an interview after the meeting.

“He doesn’t have the votes to table,” Aguilar said of McCarthy. “And so he’s trying to send this to Ethics to give his members who have called for George Santos to resign … an opportunity to vote with the team.”

McCarthy and GOP leaders acted quickly to help dissuade their handful of anti-Santos New York Republicans from any temptation to vote for Garcia’s expulsion plan. During a private Tuesday meeting first reported by POLITICO, McCarthy laid out the process to the Empire State’s GOP delegation, arguing that the ethics panel referral makes more sense than tabling the expulsion measure or allowing it to come to the floor for a vote.

Yet, even after McCarthy defeated House Democrats’ push to expel Santos, his conference’s problematic prevaricator is poised to cause more headaches soon.

The speaker told reporters Wednesday that the ethics panel could “come back faster than a court case could” with recommended Santos sanctions.

“I would like to refer this to Ethics. I’ll have a conversation with Hakeem. I would like the ethics committee to move rapidly on this,” McCarthy said.

Sarah Ferris and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Related articles

Erie County warns of seasonal rise in bat encounters; urges rabies precautions

Erie County Health warns of a seasonal uptick in bat encounters, reports a July record of 150 people approved for rabies PEP, and urges residents to report possible exposures and keep pets vaccinated.

Kash Patel faces deadline to swat down ‘inherently plausible’ drinking allegations



FBI Director Kash Patel has five days to respond to a motion arguing his own public record proves The Atlantic's drinking allegations are 'inherently plausible.'

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan set the Aug. 17 deadline after granting a joint extension request, according to the court docket. The Atlantic filed its motion to dismiss on July 27.

The Atlantic's April story, "The FBI Director is MIA," reported that Patel drank to excess, missed work, and posed a national-security risk. Patel called it false and sued for $250 million.

"Print it, all false, I'll see you in court—bring your checkbook," Patel told the magazine through his spokesman before it published.

The Atlantic's lawyers argue Patel cannot meet the legal standard required of public officials in defamation cases. That standard — called actual malice — requires proof that a publisher knew a story was false or strongly suspected it was, according to the filing.

"The Complaint does not come close to satisfying this demanding constitutional standard," the filing said. "It does not allege a single fact showing that any statement in the Article is false, much less that Defendants had 'serious doubts' or 'actual knowledge of falsity' for any of these statements."

The filing goes further, arguing Patel's own public behavior undercuts his suit, according to the motion.

"The Article itself shows that the Allegedly Defamatory Statements are not implausible," the filing said, "but rather inherently plausible."

The filing said reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick spoke to more than two dozen sources, according to the motion. They included current and former FBI officials, members of Congress, and hospitality workers.

Six sources confirmed that briefings had to be rescheduled because of Patel's alcohol-fueled nights, the motion said.

Nine sources confirmed he panicked when a computer malfunction led him to believe he had been fired, according to the filing.

The story described officials telling Fitzpatrick that Patel's security detail had difficulty waking him on multiple occasions, and that a request was made for specialized breaching equipment — tools normally used by SWAT teams — because he was unreachable behind locked doors, according to the filing.

The filing noted that Patel's drinking was already a matter of public record before the story ran.

In February, Patel was filmed chugging beer in the U.S. men's Olympic hockey team's locker room in Milan. FBI headquarters was simultaneously managing a cartel violence outbreak in Mexico, CNN reported.

Days after The Atlantic published, a 2005 letter from Patel's Florida Bar application — obtained by The Intercept — disclosed he had been arrested twice on alcohol-related charges, once for public intoxication in 2001 and once for public urination after leaving a bar in 2005.

The story's fallout reached Capitol Hill the following month, according to Senate records.

At a May budget hearing, Patel agreed to take an alcohol use disorders test after Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) demanded it. Patel called the allegations "a total farce."

The Atlantic suit is the latest in a long line, according to the motion.

A federal judge in Texas dismissed Patel's defamation suit against MS NOW analyst Frank Figliuzzi the day after Patel filed against The Atlantic. The judge called Figliuzzi's comment about Patel's nightclub visibility "rhetorical hyperbole."

None of Patel's five defamation suits has succeeded, according to the filing.

Patel's response is due Aug. 17. The Atlantic's reply is due Aug. 31.

Texas deputy used 83K Flock cameras to find woman who had abortion. Was it a welfare check?

In a post-Roe v. Wade era, law enforcement agencies in states like Texas have unprecedented access to nationwide surveillance tech.

Progressives are on the cusp of a huge win. Their biggest stars are staying away.

Francesca Hong hasn’t drawn big name backers like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to her gubernatorial campaign, unlike other candidates this cycle.