Raskin argues expelling Santos would have set a ‘terrible precedent’

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) defended his vote against expelling Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) on Wednesday, saying that it would have set a “terrible precedent.”

Raskin was one of the 31 Democrats who voted against expelling Santos from the House. The effort — spearheaded by New York Republicans — ultimately fell short of the two-thirds vote needed to advance the resolution, with 179 votes for it, 213 against and 19 members voting present.

Raskin noted that Santos has not been convicted on any criminal offense or found guilty of ethics violations in the House, arguing that expulsion should not be a political vote.

“I’m a Constitution guy. The House has expelled five people in our history, three for joining the Confederacy as traitors to the Union and two after they were convicted of serious criminal offenses,” Raskin said in a statement.

“This would be a terrible precedent to set, expelling people who have not been convicted of a crime and without internal due process. If and when Santos is convicted of these serious criminal offenses or ethics charges, I will certainly vote to expel him,” he said.

He said expulsion below that threshold is a “very risky road” that could encourage House Republicans to expel some House Democrats “because they hate their politics.”

The Maryland Democrat also took aim at the New York Republicans who introduced the resolution to expel Santos.

“Indeed, the same New York Republicans who want to expel Santos now because he is a complete political albatross for them acted to vigorously defend him in the spring because they wanted his vote for their party on the floor,” he said.

A similar resolution to expel Santos was introduced in the spring by a handful of Democrats, but it was ultimately punted to the Ethics Committee. The committee now says it will “announce its next course of action” in its investigation into Santos on or before Nov. 17.

Santos faces 23 federal charges from both an initial and a superseding indictment and has pleaded not guilty to all charges. Reporting has revealed the first-term lawmaker misrepresented his work experience, education and family history while campaigning for the seat.