Dusty Johnson: George Santos “a crook,” and “does not belong in Congress.”

In a KELOland interview yesterday, Congressman Dusty Johnson minces no words in his belief that George Santos needs to be removed from office:

The first-term Republican could become the sixth member of the House to be expelled by colleagues. The House Ethics Committee earlier this month said there was “substantial evidence” that Santos repeatedly broke the law.


Johnson calls Santos “a crook.”

“Now that we have that ethics report I am full throatedly behind kicking George Santos out; the guy does not belong in Congress,” Johnson said.

Read the entire story here.

16 thoughts on “Dusty Johnson: George Santos “a crook,” and “does not belong in Congress.””

    1. not really a head scratcher. false equivocation was a major part of the clintons’ “politics of personal destruction.” nice to see it so widely applied nowadays.

    2. Alcee Hastings was a literally impeached former Judge and he was never expelled from congress. Adam Schiff leaking classified information never expelled. Eric Swallwell getting the bang bang on with Fang Fang an actually Chinese spy never expelled

      1. mm, false equivocation. the names you drop are accused of crimes as a tactical response to their engagement in political warfare. santos was exposed early in a series of election lies which embarrassed the media which was supposed to expose him; he lied artfully and clumsily to build the financial scams he needed to operate; from the first day he swore his false oath of office in this house session, he has been constantly in the hot spotlight of the exposure of his lies. the people you name are tossed in for your own political goals, while santos is a walking blight on the whole system.

        1. once you open ted bundy’s car trunk, or jeffrey dahmer’s freezer, the day in court is just a small formality, an afterthought.

          1. God willing you’ll face the reality of your ignorance one day. Just remember what you said in this post when you’re insinuated to be guilty without the due process. You immigrated from where comrade?

  1. Santos was a thief and a crook who scammed his way into a seat in Congress. While there are others who have followed a similar path, it is hard to find a parallel to his compulsive lying and stealing. He won in a historically Democratic district which he figured would make him immune from expulsion. Even Marjorie Taylor Green shunned him as he left the House floor. Enough said.

  2. Expelling him before he’s even convicted of a crime?? Unprecedented in American history. He maybe a liar and fraud but that would describe nearly every member of congress.

    1. Obviously, there are those who care as little for the rule of law or our rights as those who condemned Santos before he was tried. Our house of representatives wouldn’t do anything more to Schiff than censure him after he was caught lying about J6. They don’t seem to understand just how many lives he ruined, and he was slapped on the wrist. I hope those in congress with such little integrity have to face the reality of their less than honorable choices.

    1. Was he tried in a court of law for removal? No? So, what are you talking about? Innocent until proven guilty is relevant to crim law where a defendant’s freedom is at risk. Read a damn book, ffs.

      1. He was removed for alleged crimes. One in part was miss use of campaign funds. So as I say innocent until proven guilty. Maybe it’s you who not only needs to read but maybe brush up on reading comprehension? Unlike you I am not a coward that has to hide behind ‘anonymous’.

  3. from the google: “Article I, section 5 of the United States Constitution provides that “Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.”

    i don’t see anywhere that a court finding him guilty of a crime was required at any time. stop this made up intentional nonsense-posting please.

Comments are closed.