Matt Gaetz said he will be voting against the resolution to expel Congressman George Santos from the House of Representatives. Here’s why.
Matt Gaetz: I do not believe that the Long Island crew is acting in bad faith, just exceedingly bad judgment, and here’s why. Since the beginning of this Congress, there’s only two ways you get expelled, you get convicted of a crime, or you participated in the Civil War. Neither apply to George Santos. And so I rise, not to defend George Santos, whoever he is, but to defend the very precedent that my colleagues are willing to shatter. Let’s speak to due process.
Mr. Santos hasn’t been convicted of anything, but we haven’t even moved to expel the people who have. Mr. Bowman pled guilty to a misdemeanor for his little fire alarm stunt weeks ago. So like while the Ethics Committee is marching to throw George Santos out of Congress they take no action as to someone who actually pled guilty to a crime. What’s that all about?
And then there’s all this talk about well he could have come and testified to the Ethics Committee and he didn’t, so he had his due process, but that belies the fact that he faces a trial, and had Mr. Santos testified before the Ethics Committee an argument could have been made that he waved any of his rights that he would have had at trial that any American would enjoy, so it was a, it was a procedural double-bind that shouldn’t be held against Mr. Santos as some sort of adverse inference.
Let’s also talk about this precedent, the fact pattern as to Mr. Santos is remarkably similar to the fact pattern of former representative Duncan Hunter. Duncan Hunter used campaign money on girlfriends and trips and home improvements and all sorts of personal lavishes. He was indicted for those crimes and continued to serve in Congress. He pled guilty to a number of those crimes and continued to serve in Congress. He was in Congress for like an additional pay period after having pled guilty to the very same things that were that that Mr. Santos has been indicted for, and so I think it’s it’s persuasive to me that Mr. Higgins and Mr. Nehls, two law enforcement officials with sterling reputation, are here, not necessarily to to defend Mr. Santos, but the defend this precedent and this due process that is being shattered. And I was struck when the author of this resolution said the quiet part out loud, he didn’t try to shoehorn the expulsion of George Santos into some existing construct or precedent, he said, yep we’re making a whole new precedent. We’re making a whole new rules right now. But he defends that by saying that the new rules are better, that it’s a higher standard, so we should just throw away everything that’s happened from the first Congress to the 118th, because the new precedent is more robust. The problem is it’s a lower standard for due process without Merit.
Mr. Speaker. whatever Mr. Santos did with Botox or Only Fans is far less concerning to me than the indictment against Senator Menendez who’s holding gold bars inscribed with Arabic on them from Egypt while he is still getting classified briefings today. But he’s not getting thrown out of the Senate he’s getting classified briefings under indictment for bribery cuz cuz Santa’s was was by Botox and only fans we got to throw them out of the Senate. He’s getting classified briefings under indictment for bribery. But, what what? Because Santos was buying Botox and only Fans we’ve got to throw them out.
If George Santos is convicted he ought to be expelled, but until then it is an incredibly dangerous thing for people in Washington DC to substitute their judgment for the judgment of voters. Winston Churchill said that, you know, in in a democracy people get the government that they deserve. Well, the people of Mr. Santos’s District elected him. And like this is not some district in rural Mississippi with like one newspaper, this is New York City and George Santos rolls in there, wins, and you know what, it’s between him and his voters, him and the justice system. And the fact that the Ethics Committee has done this incredible violation of precedent will do grave damage to this institution for many years to come, because now there’s no requirement of any conviction, there is a departure from the precedent from the Duncan Hunter matter and many others, and I, I fear what that may indicate lies ahead for the future of due process in the House of Representatives.
I yield back gentleman.
