Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) is an oddball… I think we can all agree about that, but sometimes a little truth nugget falls out of his face.
Fetterman was just on “The View” recently to discuss the expulsion of Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) as well as some other topics in Congress.
When he was asked directly about Santos, he used that to segue into the possible expulsion of Senator Robert Menendez (D-N.J.).
I hate to say it, but Fetterman is actually dead on with everything he said here.
He did not disagree with the expulsion of Santos, but he was right in saying that if Santos was expelled for what he did and said, how can you possibly have someone like Menendez remain in office?
Fetterman stated, "We have a colleague in the Senate that actually did much more sinister and serious kinds of things: Senator Menendez. He needs to go.
“And if you are going to expel Santos, how can you allow somebody like Menendez to remain in the Senate? And, you know, Santos's, kind of, lies were almost, you know, funny, and, like, you know, he, you know, landed on the moon and that kind of stuff. Whereas, I think, you know, Menendez, I think, is really a senator for Egypt, not New Jersey."
Fetterman then touched on the issue that I have used to defend my stance on the expulsion of Santos, stating, "He has the right for his day in court, but he doesn't have the right to have those kinds of votes and things.
"That's not a right, and I think we need to make that kind of decision to send him out."
Now, I know what everyone is asking right now… how is this different from Trump?
Well, Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution dictates that each House determines its rules on how to hold members accountable, with two-thirds vote being required to expel a member.
The reason I supported Santos’ expulsion is because he deceived voters with a false resume… it has nothing at all to do with his criminal charges, so the idea of due process does not even come into question there.
It has already been proven that his resume was bogus, and his constituents have been asking him to resign, which he refused.
Article 14, Section 3, which they want to use against Trump, states that one is prohibited from holding office if they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion,” something that Trump has neither been charged with nor convicted of.
Until it is proven that Trump has engaged in these acts, he still remains eligible on the ballot, where the American people can then hold him accountable in terms of whether they believe he was involved in these acts.
I will even admit, this might be considered a fine line in some people’s eyes, but I stand by this wholeheartedly.