By
The timing couldn’t have been much worse. House Republican leaders were preparing to advance a bill they saw as a political and substantive winner — a measure to recover fraudulent Covid unemployment benefits — when Rep. George Santos was indicted by federal prosecutors.
The GOP congressman stands accused of, among other things, illegally receiving Covid unemployment benefits.
And did I mention that the New Yorker is a co-sponsor of the bill? Because he is.
Asked about these inconvenient details yesterday — at a press conference ostensibly focused on the legislation — the House GOP leadership didn’t appear especially pleased. That was understandable: Santos has been an embarrassment to himself and his party for the last six months, and even his arrest stepped on Republican messaging at an inopportune time.
In the process, party leaders received a timely reminder that they should probably show Santos the door. But as The New York Times reported, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy insisted that, even now, the prolific liar and suspected criminal should remain a federal lawmaker.
“If a person is indicted, they’re not on committees,” Mr. McCarthy told reporters on Tuesday before the charges were unsealed. “They have a right to vote, but they have to go to trial.” It was in line with the position Mr. McCarthy has taken since January, when the speaker made no move to penalize or marginalize Mr. Santos, even in the face of mounting allegations of misconduct and lies by him.
It’s worth emphasizing for context that the House Republican Conference appears relatively divided on how best to deal with Santos and his intensifying scandals. A growing number of GOP lawmakers, especially yesterday, said the New York congressman has effectively disqualified himself from serving in Congress.
Given the severity of the charges, the available evidence, and the number of pending investigations, those pushing for Santos’ resignation — or possible expulsion — are standing on a strong foundation.
But at least for now, party leaders won’t budge. McCarthy suggested he’d wait for a possible conviction, and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise echoed the point. “He’s gonna have to go through the legal process," the Louisianan told reporters, further emphasizing "a presumption of innocence."
Realistically, however, McCarthy and his team aren’t focusing on legal principles, so much as they’re focusing on legislative arithmetic.
Circling back to our coverage from several months ago, it’s tempting to be sympathetic to McCarthy’s and Scalise's point. Our legal system is predicated on core principles, including the presumption of innocence. Santos hasn’t yet been convicted of anything — it’s possible he’ll never be convicted — and it might not seem outlandish to think the party leadership's caution is warranted.
But that’s what makes the evolution in the Republican Party’s standards all the more important. As we’ve discussed, after the GOP reclaimed the House majority in the 2010 midterm elections, party leaders announced a “zero-tolerance policy” for members caught up in embarrassing controversies that reflected poorly on the institution. (McCarthy was a member of the House Republican leadership at the time.)
Those standards were put to the test quickly: Just one month into the new Congress, then-Rep. Chris Lee of New York was caught trying to meet women through the personals section of Craigslist. GOP leaders urged him to resign, and he did.
There were no criminal charges. There were no convictions. There wasn’t even an investigation. House Republican leaders simply concluded that Lee was a distraction and an embarrassment, so his party showed him the door.
A few years later, then-Republican Rep. Vance McAllister of Louisiana was filmed kissing a staffer who was not his wife. It didn’t seem to occur to GOP leaders — who, again, included McCarthy — to wait for some kind of trial.
The congressman got caught in an ugly mess — not a criminal matter, but a personal scandal — and that was enough for Republicans to call for his resignation.
All of which leaves us with a simple question for McCarthy: Why does the GOP leadership have weaker standards now than a decade ago?
It’d be great if Republicans simply came right out and admitted what already appears true: When Lee and McAllister ran into trouble, the GOP majorities were large enough that the party had the luxury of being principled. Republicans could lose Lee and McAllister, and it wouldn’t have made much of a difference to the party’s ability to pass bills.
But in 2023, the House GOP has a tiny majority, and if Santos were gone, moving legislation would become even more difficult.
What else could explain why Republican leaders thought Lee and McAllister had to go, but Santos should remain a member in good standing?