Resolves YES if George Santos (R-NY) is convicted on felony charges during his first term and then remains a member of the House of Representatives for at least 30 days after the conviction. Resolves NO otherwise (e.g. if he ceases to be a Representative before conviction or less than 30 days after conviction, or if he is not convicted).
Background: https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/09/politics/george-santos-charged-justice-department/index.html
Santos, whose astonishing pattern of lies and fabrications stunned even hardened politicos, has been charged on a 13-count indictment, including seven counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, one count of theft of public funds, and two counts of making materially false statements to the House of Representatives.
Under the formal rules for the US House of Representatives, according to a Congressional Research Service report, “an indicted Member may continue to participate in congressional proceedings and considerations.”
However, if a member is convicted of a crime that could result in a punishment of two or more years in prison, they are instructed under House rules not to participate in votes on the floor or in committee votes.
Resolution details:
A guilty plea is a conviction.
Includes federal or state charges.
Resolves YES if he is still officially a Representative on the date 30 days after the date of his conviction on felony charges, at any time on that date, Eastern time.
The date of sentencing does not matter for this question.
Appeals do not matter for this question - if he is convicted in trial court, that counts as the start of the 30-day countdown even if appeals continue, and even if the conviction is overturned on appeal.
Whether he participates in Congressional proceedings or votes doesn't matter, only whether he is officially a US Representative.
1,000
3.00Good chance he will milk his Congressional paycheck for as long as possible then resign shortly prior to sentencing (or just before the Ethics Committee formally votes to recommend expulsion, cf. disgraced former judge Sam Kent who resigned only after the Senate summoned him for his impeachement trial)
@jack Politically pressured, for sure. But it's not clear what motivation he would have for giving up his nice government salary before he had to (unless he thought retaining it longer would hurt him at sentencing...) He seems much less secure financially than he had led the world to believe. But yeah, I'm only buying this up to 35 percent right now.
@Jason There are lots of valid motivations for resigning under pressure. Refusing to resign might indeed hurt him in sentencing, and it might further damage him politically, etc. It's happened before:
McCarthy, when asked whether he would continue to stand by Santos, told CNN Tuesday his policy is that a member of Congress should resign after being found guilty of charges and referenced former GOP Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, who resigned after being convicted of concealing information and making false statements to federal authorities in connection with a probe into illegal campaign contributions.
“Just like we had before with Jeff Fortenberry, he had the same ability, I removed him from committees, but he was found guilty and then I told him he needed to resign. That is my policies and principles on this,” McCarthy said
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/09/politics/george-santos-charged-justice-department/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/26/politics/jeff-fortenberry-resignation/index.html
@jack Santos seems to be missing most of the usual prerequisites, like a sense of shame or a realistic possibility of having a political future. Fortenberry had over 15 years of service with the resultant connections and wasn't predominately known as a national punchline. I'm guessing he had a future as a lobbyist or something in mind. Milking a check for another month or two is small potatoes compared to protecting your lobbyist cred.