Comer, Jordan demand Hunter Biden appear for deposition, say he will not receive ‘special treatment’
FIRST ON FOX: House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan demanded Hunter Biden appear for his deposition later this month as part of their effort to determine whether the House of Representatives will draft articles of impeachment against President Biden. The lawmakers also stressed to Hunter Biden’s attorney that the president’s son will receive no “special treatment.” Comer, R-Ky., subpoenaed Hunter Biden for a deposition earlier this month. The deposition is set for Dec. 13. COMER DEFENDS PRIVATE DEPOSITION OF HUNTER BIDEN, VOWS TO RELEASE TRANSCRIPT AND HOLD PUBLIC HEARING But Hunter Biden’s attorney Abbe Lowell offered the president’s son for a public hearing instead, where he would answer questions and offer his testimony directly before the American people. In a letter to Lowell on Friday, Comer and Jordan said Hunter Biden’s testimony “will occur initially in a deposition setting, as has been the consistent price of Committees of the majorities—as well as these Committees during this inquiry.” “We also appreciate your confirmation that Mr. Biden is willing to testify at a public hearing,” they wrote. “We look forward to his testimony in a hearing at the appropriate time.” Comer and Jordan, who are leading the impeachment inquiry against President Biden along with Ways & Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., explained that the committees require Hunter Biden’s testimony “to inform potential legislative reform relating to federal ethics and financial disclosure laws.” “In addition, the Committees are investigating whether sufficient grounds exist to draft articles of impeachment against President Biden based on evidence received to date showing that President Biden was aware of at least some of his family’s business ventures and sought to influence potential business deals that financially benefited his family,” they wrote. Comer and Jordan also said that Lowell has suggested that there is “no evidence to support a finding” that Hunter Biden’s business dealings “implicate the official actions of his father.” TOP OVERSIGHT DEMOCRAT SLAMS GOP FOR KEEPING HUNTER BIDEN HEARING OUT OF PUBLIC VIEW “This is contrary to the facts already established through the investigation,” they wrote. “As we have detailed in the memorandum explaining the scope of the impeachment inquiry, witnesses have testified not only that Mr. Biden sold the Biden ‘brand.’ But also how Mr. Biden placed his father on speaker phone twenty times with business associates and how he introduced his father in-person during business meetings with foreign business partners.” Comer and Jordan also pointed to the FBI FD-1023 form in which an FBI confidential human source “detailed a bribery scheme in which President Biden allegedly participated with his son.” “Despite your bluster, the evidence remains undisputed,” they wrote, adding that Lowell is just working to “discredit the allegations against Mr. Biden, distort the truth, and attack the integrity of witnesses against Mr. Biden.” They added: “Your attempts to now bully and intimidate the committees will not stand.” Regarding Lowell’s request for Hunter Biden to testify at a public hearing, Comer and Jordan said that is an effort to “avoid sitting for a deposition” and said it “amounts to a demand that he receive special treatment from the committees.” “Mr. Biden will not succeed in attempting to dictate to the Committees how they conduct their investigation,” they wrote. “The subpoenas Mr. Biden has received compel him to appear before the Committees for a deposition; they are not mere suggestions open to Mr. Biden’s interpretation or preference.” Comer and Jordan noted that Justice Department, FBI and IRS officials have all testified in transcribed interview and deposition settings, as well as Hunter Biden’s business associate Devon Archer. DEVON ARCHER: HUNTER BIDEN, BURISMA EXECS ‘CALLED DC’ TO GET UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR FIRED They also noted that other Biden business associates are “also cooperating with our subpoenas and not demanding a public hearing first.” “Mr. Biden seems to believe that he should be treated differently than other witnesses before the committees,” they wrote. “Nonetheless, if it helps to alleviate your stated concerns, you should be aware that, consistent with House and Committee rules and practice, we intend to videotape the deposition and release the deposition transcript soon after its completion.” Comer and Jordan added: “The committees’ investigation will proceed apace without interference or obstruction.” Comer and Jordan gave Lowell until Dec. 4 to confirm Hunter Biden’s attendance at his deposition, scheduled for Dec. 13. Lowell, earlier this week, accused Comer and Republicans of using “closed-door sessions to manipulate, even distort the facts and misinform the public.” “We therefore propose opening the door,” Lowell wrote. “If, as you claim, your efforts are important and involve issues that Americans should know about, then let light shine on the proceedings.” Democrats have blasted Comer and House Republicans amid their impeachment inquiry against President Biden for not taking Lowell up on the offer, saying their denial proves that the case against the first son is weak. MONEY LAUNDERING INVESTIGATOR WARNED OF HUNTER BIDEN’S ‘UNUSUAL,’ ‘ERRATIC’ PAYMENTS FROM CHINA IN 2018 But Comer dismissed those claims in an interview with Fox News Digital on Thursday. “Democrats always create a false narrative ahead of potential peril,” Comer told Fox News Digital, using Hunter Biden’s laptop as an example of Democrats peddling the inaccurate narrative that the laptop was a product of Russian disinformation. “We have always planned on deposing the key witness in this entire investigation — that’s the president’s son,” Comer said. Comer told Fox News Digital that his committee has “accumulated tens of thousands of pages of documents.” “We have hundreds of questions that we have to ask Hunter Biden,” Comer said, noting that a public hearing is not an efficient setting to get answers to all questions. “If you have a public hearing, we may get to 35, 40 questions with five minutes each way. In a deposition, we can easily get 400-plus questions in.” Comer stressed that the deposition of Hunter Biden “will be transparent.” “We will release the transcripts,” he said. “We always do unless they contain classified information.” Comer added:
Sandra Day O’Connor, born in El Paso, remains point of civic pride
O’Connor, the first female U.S. Supreme Court justice, died Friday. She is more commonly known as an Arizonan, but she graduated high school in Texas and multiple schools here now bear her name.
Joe Manchin goes scorched-earth on Biden admin over EV actions boosting China
Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin scorched the Biden administration on Friday after it released federal guidance allowing Chinese companies to exploit taxpayer electric vehicle (EV) tax credits. Manchin, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said the guidance contravenes the intent of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which he authored, and that he would both pursue legislation striking the guidance and support any lawsuit challenging it. The Treasury Department guidance opens the door for Chinese firms to continue providing EV battery parts and materials to EVs eligible for credit. “I remember waiting in line at the gas station in 1974 after the oil embargo, and I can tell you that I do not intend to wait in line for a battery produced in China if I am forced to buy an EV. The United States has never had to rely on foreign adversaries to build our cars and trucks,” Manchin said in his statement Friday. “We’ve always been able to make our own transmissions, our own alternators, and our own engines, and I do not understand why President Biden is allowing his administration to now route our essential supply chains through China,” he continued. “The proposed Treasury rules on Foreign Entities of Concern are another example of the Biden administration clearly breaking the law to try to implement a bill that it could not pass.” BLUE STATE GOVERNOR DEFENDS DEAL WITH CCP-TIED COMPANY, LABELS CRITICISM ‘XENOPHOBIA’ Under the IRA, EVs are prohibited from receiving a $7,500 federal credit if they are assembled with any battery components or critical minerals sourced from a “foreign entity of concern” (FEOC) beginning in 2024 and 2025, respectively. The Treasury’s guidance explains that the federal government interprets an FEOC as an entity “incorporated in, headquartered in and operating within” one of the covered nations: China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. The Treasury’s guidance also states that a covered nation’s government is considered an owner of an entity if 25% or more of the entity’s board seats, voting rights or equity interest are controlled by the government. BEIJING-BACKED GREEN ENERGY FIRM IS EXPANDING IN US, POSING SERIOUS NATIONAL SECURITY RISK: REPORT While the administration touted the guidance as a win in its efforts to bolster the domestic EV industry and onshore EV production, its definition of an FEOC opens the door for Chinese firms linked to China’s government to take advantage of taxpayer subsidies through indirect means, such as entering into joint ventures and investments, partnerships and licensing deals with companies in the U.S. In addition, the Treasury Department created a new multiyear exemption on Friday, saying “non-traceable battery materials (and associated constituent materials) may be excluded from the determination of whether a battery cell is FEOC-compliant.” According to the industry group Alliance for Automotive Innovation, without the exemption, the EV tax credit “may have only existed on paper.” “The Inflation Reduction Act clearly states that consumer vehicles are ineligible for tax credits if ‘any of the applicable critical minerals contained in the battery’ come from China or other foreign adversaries after 2024,” Manchin added. “But this administration is, yet again, trying to find workarounds and delays that leave the door wide open for China to benefit off the backs of American taxpayers.” “The Inflation Reduction Act is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to onshore our supply chains and invest in American workers,” he said. “I will take every avenue and opportunity to reverse this unlawful, shameful proposed rule and protect our energy security, that includes pushing the Treasury Department to make revisions, pursuing a Congressional Review Act resolution and supporting any lawsuit against the rule.” China currently dominates the EV supply chain, a hurdle to President Biden’s goal to quickly transition the U.S. transportation sector to EVs while increasing the number of U.S. auto industry jobs. Biden set a goal shortly after taking office of ensuring 50% of car purchases are electric by 2030, and his administration has since pursued aggressive regulations targeting future gas-powered cars. According to the International Energy Agency, China produces about 75% of all lithium-ion batteries, a key component of EVs, worldwide. The nation also boasts 70% of production capacity for cathodes and 85% for anodes, two key parts of such batteries. In addition, more than 50% of lithium, cobalt and graphite processing and refining capacity is located in China, the data showed. Those three critical minerals, in addition to copper and nickel, are vital for EV batteries and other green energy technologies. Chinese investment firms have also been aggressive in purchasing stakes in African mines in recent years to ensure a firm control over mineral production.
Reagan historian looks back at historic O’Connor appointment: ‘most qualified’
Sandra Day O’Connor, an Arizona rancher’s daughter who went on a distinguished trailblazing legal career, was “the most qualified woman” then-President Ronald Reagan “could possibly find” to appoint to the Supreme Court in 1981, according to a Reagan historian. An accomplished politician turned jurist, O’Connor had been the first female majority leader of the Arizona Senate. Following her legislative work, she turned to the judiciary, serving as a county court judge before being appointed to the Arizona Court of appeals. During his 1980 presidential campaign, President Reagan made a promise to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court bench. In O’Connor, Reagan found something of a kindred spirit, according to one biographer. Craig Shirley, author of the forthcoming book The Search for Reagan, writes, “Like Reagan, Sandra Day (O’Connor later by marriage), came from a hardscrabble background.” SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR, FORMER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, DEAD AT 93 “She was the daughter of the largest and most successful ranch owners in her part of Arizona. Yet the ranch lacked running water or electricity for much of her youth. As she spent her childhood branding cattle and repairing farm equipment, the courts, much less the Supreme Court, were the farthest thing from her mind,” Shirley writes. Her parents insisted on her education, and O’Connor went on to enroll at Standford University at just sixteen years old and was one of only a handful of women to make the cut. WHO ARE THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES? O’Connor continued at Stanford Law School around a time when women made up only 2% of law school students. There she distinguished herself as editor of the Stanford Law Review and graduated third in her class. Shirley writes that “less well known, she also likely set another record by rejecting no fewer than four marriage proposals while in law school, including one by future Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist.” “Despite these high marks, most offices flatly refused to hire a woman, leaving her relegated to low-paying positions where her skills were deeply underutilized,” Shirley says. EXPERTS EXAMINE HOW SUPREME COURT COULD OVERHAUL VOTING RIGHTS LITIGATION IN POSSIBLE GERRYMANDERING CASE In 1981, when the Reagan White House was compiling a short list of candidates to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, Shirley notes that Reagan’s chief of staff leaked to the media that O’Connor was one of only two women being considered—the rest were all men. “By signaling clearly that Reagan was also considering men, he made it explicitly clear that O’Connor was not selected because she was a woman—she was selected because she was the best,” Shirley says. “She is truly a person for all seasons, possessing those unique qualities of temperament, fairness, intellectual capacity, and devotion to the public good which have characterized the 101 brethren who have preceded her,” Reagan said at her nomination. O’Connor was confirmed by the Senate in a 99-0 vote and went on to a 24-year-long tenure on the court, stepping down in early 2006 to take care of her ailing husband, John Jay O’Connor, who suffered from Alzheimer’s disease. He passed away in 2009. In her 2004 Stanford Commencement speech, O’Connor said that Reagan’s decision “was as much a surprise to me as it was to the nation as a whole. But Ronald Reagan knew that his decision wasn’t about Sandra Day O’Connor; it was about women everywhere. It was about a nation that was on its way to bridging a chasm between genders that had divided us for too long.” Eugene Volokh, who clerked for Justice O’Connor and is a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said she “had one of the great careers in American law. Not only as the first woman Supreme Court Justice, but also as a successful political leader . . . a job that requires a deep understanding of people and not just of legal principles.” “Through it all, she always acted not just with resolve and honor, but with grace and kindness. She was a great judge, and a great American,” he told Fox News Digital in a statement.
‘Toughest uphill climb’: Race forecaster reveals shift toward GOP in top 2024 Senate race
The Cook Political Report made a notable rating adjustment in the Montana Senate race, shifting favor to Republicans in the battleground race for the Democratic seat. The “independent, non-partisan” analyzer, which measures the competitiveness of races nationwide, shifted the Democrat-held Montana Senate seat Thursday from “Lean Democrat” to “Toss Up,” a major move in the 2024 election as Democrats cling onto their slim chamber majority. Sen. Jon Tester, a Democrat, is running for a third term in Montana next fall but faces tough opposition from Republican Tim Sheehy, who is running a high-profile race to flip the blue seat to the Republican Party. Jessica Taylor of the Cook Political Report wrote that Tester faces “the toughest uphill climb of any incumbent Democrat.” SENATE CANDIDATE SAYS DEM OPPONENT ‘TWO-FACED’ ON ISSUES DURIN ELECTION YEAR: ‘DYED-IN-THE-WOOL LIBERAL’ “Three-term Sen. Jon Tester may well be Democrats’ strongest incumbent this cycle — he still enjoys an approval rating around 60 percent — but the 67-year-old has the toughest uphill climb of any incumbent Democrat, at least purely by the numbers,” Taylor said in her analysis. VULNERABLE DEM SENATOR ATTENDED HOLLYWOOD FUNDRAISER WITH DONOR LINKED TO DISCRIMINATION SCANDAL Tester’s team said the senator is “no stranger to tough fights,” pointing to their campaign website in a statement to Fox News Digital. “Jon’s no stranger to tough fights, and this election will be no different,” Shelbi Dantic, Montanans for Tester campaign manager, told Fox on the recent rating. Sheehy’s team also released a statement, suggesting that the shift toward the GOP “highlights that Montanans want to elect a political outsider who can bring a new generation of conservative leadership.” “Tim Sheehy’s lead in the potential primary matchup highlights that Montanans want to elect a political outsider who can bring a new generation of conservative leadership and finally defeat Jon Tester next year,” Sheehy’s campaign wrote in a press release after the Cook rating dropped. “It’s clear that Tim’s message on the airwaves showcasing his military leadership as a former Navy SEAL and businessman and aerial firefighter is resonating with Republican primary voters in Montana.” Democrats will be defending 23 of the 34 Senate seats next cycle, and Montana is set to play a key role in determining control of the Senate alongside West Virginia, Ohio and Arizona. Along with Tester, the Cook Political Report also considers seats held by independent Sen. Kirsten Sinema in Arizona and Democrat Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio to be “Toss Ups.” Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who holds one of the Democrats’ most vulnerable seats, recently announced he would not be seeking re-election, throwing even more focus on the Big Sky State’s Senate battle. The Cook Report ranks the blue West Virginia seat as “Solid Republican” going into 2024.
Trump reacts to DeSantis, Newsom at Red State vs Blue State debate: ‘Both worked hard’
EXCLUSIVE: Former President Trump reacted to the debate between Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, telling Fox News Digital he thinks “they both worked hard and they both did well.” Fox News hosted “The Great Red State vs. Blue State Debate,” which was moderated by Sean Hannity Thursday night. DeSantis, who is running for president in 2024, and Newsom, who made clear he was not, faced off in a first-of-its kind showdown, clashing on a number of policies related to abortion, crime, taxes and COVID-19. RED VS BLUE STATE DEBATE HIGHLIGHTS: TOP 5 MOMENTS FROM THE DESANTIS, NEWSOM SLUGFEST Trump, who has a commanding lead over the Republican presidential primary field, watched the debate. “I thought it was a very even debate,” Trump said. “They both worked hard and they both did well.” The former president has had some harsh words for DeSantis along the campaign trail, but did not make any additional comments about the Florida governor. NEWSOM, DESANTIS DEBATE GETS HEATED OVER COVID, TAX POLICES: ‘YOU DID A LOT OF DAMAGE’ The conversation Thursday night quickly shifted from issues facing each state, to 2024, with DeSantis saying Newsom is “joined at the hip with Biden and (Vice President Kamala) Harris.” DeSantis also said Biden is “in decline” and represents “a danger to the country.” However, Newsom stressed his support for Biden and his re-election campaign. “I’m proud of the work Biden and Harris have done,” Newsom said. “I will take Joe Biden at 100 rather than Ron DeSantis any day of the week at any age.” TRUMP CAMPAIGN CALLS DESANTIS ‘THIRSTY ONLYFANS WANNABE’ FOR DEBATING NEWSOM: ‘KISS OF DEATH’ Newsom did take the opportunity, though, to take a swipe at DeSantis and his campaign. “How’s that going for you, Ron? You’re down 41 points in your own home state,” Newsom said. “Neither of us will be the nominee for our party in 2024,” Newsom told DeSantis at one point. The RealClearPolitics polling average has Trump leading Biden, 47% to 45.3% in a general election match-up. As for the Republican primary, the RealClearPolitics polling average places Trump in first place at 62%. DeSantis is in second place with 13.6%.
Tax cuts, teacher pension increases at stake after misinformation-led challenge to 2023 election
Tax cuts were a major legislative priority for Republican leaders, including Gov. Greg Abbott. The governor cannot certify the election results until the challenges are resolved.
Newsom and Biden share weak polling numbers, but not the president’s biggest vulnerability
Democrats are still wondering whether President Biden is the best candidate to lead them into the 2024 election. And whether they win or lose with Biden at the top of the ticket next year, the party will eventually need to find a new leader. Last night, California Governor Gavin Newsom came to Fox News to be that leader. But his polling numbers show that if he wants to be the new face of the left, he has an upward climb ahead of him. DESANTIS-NEWSOM DEBATE LEADS TO ONLINE FIRESTORM AS CONGRESSMAN CALLS CALI ‘A WARNING FOR THE NATION’ In fact, the California governor shares weak levels of support with Biden across the board. There is just one notable difference between the current and would-be commander-in-chief. President Biden’s national approval rating is often lower than Governor Newsom’s approval in California, but that comparison obviously isn’t fair, since the governor’s home state leans more blue than the country does. Instead, we can compare the two leaders’ approval ratings only in California. If Newsom is a more popular political figure, then his rating should be higher than Biden’s. According to recent survey data, Newsom’s approval rating in California is the same as the president’s rating. Biden sits at 45% approval and 51% disapproval in an October Berkeley/IGS survey, while Newsom sits at an all-time low of 43% approval and 49% disapproval. TOP TAKEAWAYS, REAL WINNER OF DESANTIS, NEWSOM DEBATE Newsom also performs about the same as Biden with voting groups that are key to a Democratic win: It is possible that as Newsom introduces himself to the country, he will become more popular outside his home state than within? So far, we are absent data to prove that. In a Fox News survey conducted this November, Biden received 46% to Trump’s 50% among registered voters in a head-to-head matchup, a statistically insignificant four-point margin between the two candidates. In a hypothetical matchup between Newsom and Trump, the California Governor receives 45% support with Trump at 49%, also a 4 point margin. It’s a similar story among the key voting groups versus Trump: These figures suggest that both Biden and Newsom are attracting the base party vote and not much else. In other words, they are receiving support from voters who will always choose the Democratic Party candidate, no matter which name is on the ticket. Newsom would need to make inroads with moderates, independents and/or undecided voters to separate himself from Biden. The clear difference between the two candidates is age. Large majorities say Biden is too old to serve. That includes voters in the battleground states, and key Democratic-leaning voting groups. According to an early November New York Times Times/Siena poll: Pollsters haven’t asked whether Newsom is too old to be an effective president, but with Newsom at 56 years old and Biden at 81, they don’t need to. Televised debates between politicians not running against each other are rare. (According to the Los Angeles Times, the last one took place in 1967, between California’s then-Governor Ronald Reagan and New York’s Senator Robert F. Kennedy.) CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP It is hard to imagine that Newsom would command enough national political attention to warrant a primetime television debate without Biden’s age problem. That vulnerability will not go away as Election Day draws closer.
Trump is not immune from civil lawsuits related to Jan. 6, federal appeals court rules
A federal appeals court has ruled Friday that former President Donald Trump is not immune to facing civil lawsuits relating to the events on Jan. 6, 2021. Sri Srinivasan, the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, wrote in a filing that Capitol Police officers and members of Congress who were at the U.S. Capitol that day have submitted cases seeking civil damages “for harms they allege they suffered arising from the riot,” with the sole defendant in the lawsuits being named as Trump. “According to the plaintiffs, President Trump’s actions, including ultimately his speech on January 7, sparked the ensuing riot at the Capitol,” he said. Srinivasan said Trump has moved in the district court to dismiss the claims against him, “including on grounds of a President’s official-act immunity from damages liability.” “The district court largely rejected his claim of immunity, and President Trump now appeals. The sole issue before us is whether President Trump has demonstrated an entitlement to official-act immunity for his actions leading up to and on January 6 as alleged in the complaints,” Srinivasan wrote. “We answer no, at least at this state of the proceedings.” Srinivasan said “since the Supreme Court’s decision in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, Presidents have carried out their official responsibilities free from any exposure to civil damages liability” and that decision “established a President’s absolute immunity from civil damages claims predicated on his official acts.” But he continued by saying that “the President, though, does not spend every minute of every day exercising official responsibilities” and “when he acts outside the functions of his office, he does not continue to enjoy immunity from damages liability just because he happens to be the President.” “When he acts in an unofficial, private capacity, he is subject to civil suits like any private citizen,” Srinivasan said. This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.
Embattled GOP Rep. George Santos expelled from House
The House of Representatives voted to expel scandal-plagued Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., on Friday, making him the first House lawmaker to be expelled in more than 20 years. Expelling a member of Congress takes a two-thirds majority vote. The last time a House lawmaker was expelled was more than two decades ago, when late former Rep. Jim Traficant, D-Ohio, was voted out of Congress in 2002. Prior to his ousting, Traficant had been convicted of 10 felony counts, including racketeering and taking bribes. HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE HEAD TO MOVE TO EXPEL GEORGE SANTOS AFTER RELEASE OF DAMNING REPORT Santos has not been convicted of a crime, but he’s been indicted on 23 counts related to wire fraud, identity theft, falsification of records, credit card fraud, and other charges. He’s been accused of using campaign funds on a number of luxury goods and treatments such as botox. He has pleaded not guilty. Sentiments within the House GOP on whether to expel Santos appeared split when Republicans emerged from a closed-door conference meeting on Friday morning. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., a former chairman of the House Oversight Committee, argued to reporters that expelling Santos now would take away the presumption of innocence he is entitled to. He also referenced Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., who was recently accused of taking bribes from and acting in the interest of Egyptian officials, and the fact that he is not being removed from the Senate. “He hasn’t been tried either civilly or criminally, and that’s what probably gives me the most pause,” Issa said. “I’ve also become aware that the Republicans on the ethics committee wanted to consider a lesser sanction than removing him, and the three Democrats were not willing to consider anything except the expulsion.” The House Ethics Committee declined to comment on the statement. Meanwhile, others, chiefly the New York Republican delegation Santos is part of, maintained there was more than enough evidence to expel him. “I believe as I’ve stated that George Santos has committed crimes. He’s defrauded voters, taxpayers and donors. And we have established, through a comprehensive investigation, the standard by which he should be expelled,” Rep. Marc Molinaro, R-N.Y., told reporters. “I just hope that my colleagues see through any distortion and see that we have an individual who is divorced from reality, who has committed crimes, is a con man and will continue to behave in the way he has and has met the threshold not to serve the house.” Santos himself said he expected to be expelled from Congress during a Friday morning interview on “Fox & Friends.”