Chapters
Shownotes Transcript
There's nothing worse than getting home from your trip only to find out you missed a can't-miss travel experience. That's why you need Viator. Book guided tours, excursions, and more in one place to make your trip truly unregrettable. There are over 300,000 travel experiences to choose from so you can find something for everyone. And Viator offers free cancellation and 24-7 customer service. So you always have support around the clock.
Download the Viator app now to use code Viator10 for 10% off your first booking in the app. Regret less. Do more with Viator. Hey, everyone. Ellie here wishing you a happy Friday. Well, another interesting, unpredictable week in the news. I guess it wasn't unpredictable because when Donald Trump took the stand in his civil case, it went almost exactly as one might have predicted, which is to say it was chaos. I
I want to talk about something else, though, this week. A public official, an elected official, said something that actually really made me think it happens sometimes. Look, it's easy to ridicule and criticize our public officials. I do that often. I'll do that here.
But sometimes you do hear something, I hear something that makes me reassess. And that's what I want to talk about in this week's podcast. As always, thanks for listening. I really appreciate it. And I really do enjoy hearing from you. So send me any thoughts, questions, or comments to letters at cafe.com.
Sometimes the head and the heart want different things. And the Honorable Representative George Santos and Senator Robert Menendez are making it awfully tough to stick to reasoned principle.
Now, my initial gut reaction to the indictments of both the prevaricating Republican New York representative and the rapacious Democratic New Jersey senator was simple. Throw them both out. Not the boldest of takes, I concede. The sentiment was nearly universal.
Now, George Santos, infamous for lying about trivial matters like his high school education, his college education, his employment history, his finances, his charitable work, his religion, his family, and of course, his volleyball prowess. Santos stands indicted by the United States Department of Justice for a spate of audacious frauds aimed primarily at his own campaign donors.
Now, Senator Menendez faces his own assortment of federal charges that any Hollywood screenwriter would reject for being too over the top. The backroom deals, the wife's free Mercedes, the wads of cash stuffed into jackets bearing the senator's name. And of course, yes, the gold bars. So what's the dilemma? Get rid of these crooks. Feels good to say it, right?
Of course, it's up to the respective houses of Congress whether to expel their own members. Article 1 of the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the House or the Senate for expulsion. Of course, either Santos or Menendez could resign, which would be wonderful, but both remain obliviously defiant, blaming their indictments on political and ethnic vendettas by DOJ prosecutors and other such nonsense.
Now, despite centuries of congressional malfeasance and corruption, actual expulsion is surprisingly rare, surprisingly to me. The Senate threw out 14 of its members during the Civil War for supporting the Confederate rebellion. But since 1862, nothing. A handful of scandals have raised the realistic prospect of Senate expulsion, but the subjects either resigned, hint, hint, fellas, or they didn't garner the necessary two-thirds vote.
Over in the house, three reps were tossed out during the Civil War.
Since then, the House in 1980 threw out a guy named Michael Ozzie Myers, a legendary Philly congressman. We've talked about him before on this podcast. I find this guy fascinating. Now, he, after his expulsion, was convicted of bribery and other charges in 1981, and he did three years in prison. You'd think that would be the end of the story, but no, because then he was convicted again on a separate bribery case in 2022. That's right. Last year, 2022 happened.
And the now 80-year-old is back in federal lockup. You got to give the guy points for persistence, I guess. Most recently, the House tossed out James Trafican of Ohio in 2002 after he was convicted of bribery and other federal crimes. Now, it seems that neither Santos nor Menendez faces a realistic prospect of getting the boot during the pendency of their indictments.
Of course, neither party holds a two thirds advantage in either the House or the Senate. So expulsion would require significant bipartisan support. And a recent motion to expel Santos brought by his own Republican colleagues in the House who clearly are tired of being asked to defend him. That failed by a 213 to 179 vote.
But how, one might reasonably wonder, how can we allow Santos and Menendez to continue serving in Congress after federal grand juries found that they committed serious crimes? How can we permit two likely soon to be felons to vote on pressing matters of war and taxation of national security and health care policy? Like I said up front, feels better to just kick them out.
But the problem, of course, is that the very same constitution that gives us the expulsion process also created this pesky presumption of innocence precept. And a criminal defendant is, of course, innocent unless and until proven guilty. And once in a while, an indictee does, in fact, beat the rap, including some semi-recent members of Congress.
In 2008, Alaska Senator Ted Stevens was indicted by DOJ and then convicted by a jury. But later investigation uncovered unconscionable prosecutorial misconduct, resulting in dismissal of the case. And as he often reminds us, Bob Menendez, yes, the one and same was charged federally with bribery and extortion offenses in 2015. Totally different case. But a jury found him not guilty of some charges and then DOJ dismissed the rest.
Quick story about Menendez, by the way, and you knew this being New Jersey, I would have run across him at some point. It's a small world here. In 2017, I was waiting for a friend in the vestibule of Topps Diner in East Newark. And for those of you who've listened to my other podcast, Up Against the Mob, yes, this is the same place where I first met Michael Visconti, one of my most important mob cooperators. You really do have to live here in Jersey to understand the cultural and culinary resonance of diners here. Anyway,
As I'm standing there, idly checking my phone, I see my home state senator, Bob Menendez himself, stand up from a booth and pull on his jacket. Now, at the time, Menendez was on trial in that first case in the federal courthouse in Newark, about two miles away from the diner. He'd finished his breakfast and he was heading over to spend the day at the defendant's table. As Menendez walked past, he glanced at me and gave me a little nod.
I started off fine. Morning, Senator. And then I had one of those moments where as your mouth is saying something, your brain starts to realize that it's dumb, but it's kind of too late. Good luck today. I brilliantly followed up. He didn't noticeably react or even break stride. I wasn't trying to be a wise guy by any means, and I remain unsure of what one should say to a guy on his way to face federal criminal charges. But good luck today. That felt a little bit awkward.
Anyway, when the motion to expel George Santos came up last week, I was surprised and impressed by a stand taken by Representative Jamie Raskin, an aggressive, effective and highly partisan Democrat. And there's no shame in that, by the way. While we don't want partisan judges or prosecutors, we typically elect our reps and our senators with a partisan mandate of some sort. Now, Jamie Raskin voted against the Santos expulsion measure. And here's what he said.
I'm a constitution guy. This would be a terrible precedent to set, expelling people who've 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, end quote.
Raskin is spot on here. Like Jamie Raskin, I'm not standing up for Santos or Menendez as individuals or defending what they did. I'm more concerned with the bigger picture. After all, a principle isn't worth anything if you abandon it when it feels icky in its application.
So as much as it galls me on a gut level, I understand that it's the right move to leave Santos and Menendez in place unless and until they're proven guilty. In the meantime, by all means, strip them of any sensitive committee assignments or other work. And again, both gentlemen should feel fully welcome to quit on their own. They won't, but it would be nice.
I have little doubt that both will be convicted or defeated at the ballot box if their next elections precede trial. Both are up for re-election a year from now in November of 2024. I'm no political expert, but I don't like their chances. Until then, it's not worth scrapping a constitutional principle to get rid of them. They'll both be gone soon enough and in due course. Thanks for listening, everyone. Stay safe and stay informed. ♪♪
On September 28th, the Global Citizen Festival will gather thousands of people who took action to end extreme poverty. Watch Post Malone, Doja Cat, Lisa, Jelly Roll, and Raul Alejandro as they take the stage with world leaders and activists to defeat poverty, defend the planet, and demand equity. Download the Global Citizen app to watch live. Learn more at globalcitizen.org.com.
