Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: House Republicans block Democratic effort to expel George Santos from Congress [View all]BumRushDaShow
(166,572 posts)28. That vote was actually for a motion to send this matter to Committee
and was NOT an actual vote on the privileged resolution to expel or not.
All actions - https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/114/all-actions?overview=closed#tabs
Once that motion was made, seconded, a vote was ordered, and the motion was approved, then that action deep-sixed the original, underlying resolution. If the motion had failed by a majority vote, then they would have gone on to vote on the actual resolution.
This is pretty common procedure where quite a few bills or resolutions have someone complain and request through a motion, that it be referred to Committee, and those requests are often shunted aside by failing, and they go on and do their final votes.
This was the actual resolution -
H.Res.114 - In the matter of George Santos.
By doing what they did with respect to the MOTION, Democrats on that Committee remove what would easily be a GOP talking point that they are "biased".
IOW, it's one of many "tricks" (tools) that Congress has to do their work and if they have good advisors with knowledge of Parliamentary procedure, then they can find ways to do what they want.
All actions - https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/114/all-actions?overview=closed#tabs
Date All Actions
05/17/2023-5:38pm Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
05/17/2023-5:38pm On motion to refer Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 221 - 204, 7 Present ) (Roll No. 217).
05/17/2023-5:04pm The previous question on the motion to refer was ordered without objection. (consideration: CR H2401)
05/17/2023-5:03pm Mr. D'Esposito moved to refer to Ethics.
05/17/2023-5:02pm DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 114.
05/17/2023-5:02pm Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H2401; text: CR H2401)
05/17/2023-5:02pm QUESTION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE - Mr. Robert Garcia (CA) rose to a question of the privileges of the House and offered the resolution. The Chair directed the Clerk to report the resolution. Upon examination of the resolution, the Chair determined that the resolution did constitute a question of the privileges of the House.
05/16/2023-2:18pm NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO OFFER RESOLUTION - Mr. Robert Garcia (CA) notified the House of his intent to offer a privileged resolution pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX. The Chair announced that a determination will be made at the time designated for consideration of the resolution.
02/09/2023 Referred to the House Committee on Ethics.
02/09/2023 Introduced in House
05/17/2023-5:38pm Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
05/17/2023-5:38pm On motion to refer Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 221 - 204, 7 Present ) (Roll No. 217).
05/17/2023-5:04pm The previous question on the motion to refer was ordered without objection. (consideration: CR H2401)
05/17/2023-5:03pm Mr. D'Esposito moved to refer to Ethics.
05/17/2023-5:02pm DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 114.
05/17/2023-5:02pm Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H2401; text: CR H2401)
05/17/2023-5:02pm QUESTION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE - Mr. Robert Garcia (CA) rose to a question of the privileges of the House and offered the resolution. The Chair directed the Clerk to report the resolution. Upon examination of the resolution, the Chair determined that the resolution did constitute a question of the privileges of the House.
05/16/2023-2:18pm NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO OFFER RESOLUTION - Mr. Robert Garcia (CA) notified the House of his intent to offer a privileged resolution pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX. The Chair announced that a determination will be made at the time designated for consideration of the resolution.
02/09/2023 Referred to the House Committee on Ethics.
02/09/2023 Introduced in House
Once that motion was made, seconded, a vote was ordered, and the motion was approved, then that action deep-sixed the original, underlying resolution. If the motion had failed by a majority vote, then they would have gone on to vote on the actual resolution.
This is pretty common procedure where quite a few bills or resolutions have someone complain and request through a motion, that it be referred to Committee, and those requests are often shunted aside by failing, and they go on and do their final votes.
This was the actual resolution -
H.Res.114 - In the matter of George Santos.
By doing what they did with respect to the MOTION, Democrats on that Committee remove what would easily be a GOP talking point that they are "biased".
IOW, it's one of many "tricks" (tools) that Congress has to do their work and if they have good advisors with knowledge of Parliamentary procedure, then they can find ways to do what they want.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
30 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
House Republicans block Democratic effort to expel George Santos from Congress [View all]
BumRushDaShow
May 2023
OP
They will back a lying POS after lying, criminal POS, after lying, criminal CONVICTED POS. Un-Fing B
Evolve Dammit
May 2023
#4
Tie it around their neck. I mean what can we expect when their lyin king is a rapist.
onecaliberal
May 2023
#5
Good Grief! His own constituents came to D.C. to call for another election!
Rhiannon12866
May 2023
#17
I guess we shouldn't be surprised, the Republican contingency still supports a criminal for POTUS
Rhiannon12866
May 2023
#19
I *think* that the 7 were all on the Ethics Committee which is already investigating him
BumRushDaShow
May 2023
#23