Santos charged with 10 new criminal counts in superseding indictment

[Primemuscle]

I am aware of a morality clause.  However, once that starts happening, it is extremely dangerous and subjective, and will lead to more expulsions for political purposes.

I agree morals, morality clauses, or whatever else they are called are very subjective. How could they not be? People’s opinions of what is moral or ethical varies a lot. The employer, regardless of whether they are in the public or private sector, must be very specific regarding which reason(s) are used to terminate the employee or elected official. The list of possible reasons in private sector morality clauses is probably so variable that it would be impossible to list them. Such is not the case with the Senate and the House.

Senate Code of official conduct list:
________________________ _
PUBLIC FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE.............. ........................ ........................ ................1
GIFTS ...3
OUTSIDE EARNED INCOME.................. ........................ ........................ ..................15
CONFLICT OF INTEREST ........................ ........................ ........................ ...............16
PROHIBITION OF UNOFFICIAL OFFICE ACCOUNTS................ ........................ ............22
FOREIGN TRAVEL.................. ........................ ........................ ........................ .......23
FRANKING PRIVILEGE AND RADIO AND TELEVISION STUDIOS................. ..................24
POLITICAL FUND ACTIVITY; DEFINITIONS ........................ ........................ ..............26
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES............... ........................ ........................ .......................2 8
REPRESENTATION BY MEMBERS................. ........................ ........................ ............29
ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT
TITLE I — FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL PERSONNEL.............31

Without reading each one my guess is they are very clearly defined - maybe too much so, such as with Gifts which is 12 pages long, (this is bureaucracy at its greatest or worst.) And people wonder why the U.S. Constitution is difficult for people including the U.S. Supreme Court to interpret.

Link to Senate Code of Conduct: https://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/ethicsrules#:~:text=The%20Senate%20Code%20of%20Official,Mailing%20Frank%20and%20Radio%20and
Link to House Code of Conduct: https://ethics.house.gov/publications/code-official-conduct

As I mentioned, I am on the fence on about Santos' expulsion. On the one hand he makes the Republicans look bad. On the other as has often been mentioned, it set a precedent. No one can know how this will change the way the house operates. One safeguard is that the body has to vote on member expulsions and win by a big margin. If as many of his associates feel the way they voted, I cannot imagine why he'd want to continue as a House Representative. It makes for a hostile work environment... which is a whole other topic.

[deadz]

He's was being charged with two misdemeanor counts for failure to file taxes, a single felony count of tax evasion, and a charge related to a gun purchase....basically the failure to file taxes falls into the count of tax evasion.  The gun charge is based on him taking a picture with a gun being displayed.  Most courts would generally toss that out as it was not found in his possesion or was taken in a search but because he's the president's son, he can't exactly use the loopholes that any other defendent would have used.   

If there is money laundering, there needs to be solid proof.   

Proof? There is plenty of proof. Mr. Trump will correct all this once back in the drivers seat.