Hello, it's the weekend. This is The Weekender ☕

Against the odds, and the will of several House Republicans from New York, Rep. George Santos (R-NY) will remain in Congress. The famously mendacious congressman managed to hang on this week through a resolution to expel him from the House. As that resolution loomed, we published a pair of exclusive stories this week digging into the House Ethics Committee probe, which increasingly seems set to decide Santos' fate and outlines some of the reasons his fellow New York GOPers are enraged with him. 

The resolution to expel Santos was proposed by five Republican freshmen in relatively competitive districts. Expulsion is incredibly rare (only two House members have been ousted since the Civil War) and is typically reserved for those who have been convicted of a crime. Two thirds of the House has to vote in favor to expel a member. Santos, who also gets a vote, predictably was with the nays. 
 

Many of those who voted against kicking out Santos — which included most Republicans and 31 Democrats — cited concerns about setting a new precedent that might deny him his day in court, or at least the absence of a completed internal investigation. It's that internal review, in the form of a House Ethics Committee probe into Santos, that formed the basis of our stories this week. 
 

TPM revealed on Tuesday that Ethics Committee investigators have been examining Santos' involvement with the 2022 campaign of fellow Republican Tina Forte, a far-right challenger to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). We detailed how Santos allegedly steered Forte to a consultancy linked to him and his associates, all without disclosing those ties to Forte's campaign, per Forte's campaign manager. The consultancy earned six-figure sums from the race, before the Forte campaign found out and it all ended with a barrage of late-night angry text messages and Forte's team cooperating with House investigators. 
 

After that report — and with the expulsion resolution looming — the Ethics Committee announced it would "announce its next course of action" in the Santos probe by Nov. 17. The following day, we published a look at other New York area campaigns that worked with Santos-linked firms. Like Forte's team, several of the other candidates said Santos pretended not to be familiar with the consultancies as he made introductions, including via bizarre Zooms where he allegedly pretended not to know the participants. 

Santos, who defended himself against expulsion and has denied any wrongdoing in the ongoing criminal case, did not respond to requests for comment. One of his allegedly unwitting clients, former state senate candidate Stefano Forte, did weigh in and described the question he had when he spoke to Santos. It's one that has been sticking in all of our minds since the saga of Santos and his bizarre lies exploded into the spotlight:

"I was like, 'George, you've got to be honest with me: Who are you?'" Forte recalled. 

More on other news below. Let's dig in. 

— Hunter Walker

A Showdown's Brewing (Sort Of)

Next Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote to authorize subpoenas for three powerful right-wing Supreme Court influencers: Leonard Leo, Harlan Crow and Robin Arkley.

There's little drama in the vote, which will fall down partisan lines (from Tom Cotton's staccato indignation to John Kennedy's aw shucksian disappointment, the Republicans on the committee have left little doubt as to which way they'll go). 

Part of the excitement comes from the sheer joy of Democrats and activists who've long felt that the Senate Democrats, led by the bipartisan yearning of chair Dick Durbin of Illinois, don't go half as far as they should in the face of mounting evidence of justice corruption. 

It also comes from the tension of waiting to see if Senate Republicans will make good on their threat to quash the subpoenas. While Democrats can authorize and send out the subpoenas without GOP help, if the three, as expected, ignore them, they'd need a full Senate vote to enforce them. Such a vote would be subject to the filibuster, dooming it. 

Such a vote would also, per Bloomberg Law, be unprecedented — and the norm erosion could seriously degrade investigative panels' ability to gather evidence and testimony in the future. 

The reality for Democrats and the public hoping for some iota of accountability for the untouchable nine is that such oversight will likely hinge on the outcome of the 2024 election. If Democrats win the House, they'll be unencumbered by the filibuster when handing out subpoenas. And there are a host of ambitious members there who tend to be less reluctant to piss off their Republican colleagues.

— Kate Riga

Abortion on the Ballot, Again

Two big races will be decided Tuesday, both which will inevitably be viewed through the lens of abortion politics. 

One is quite straightforward: Ohio will decide whether to enshrine abortion protections in its state constitution. If the vote fails, the state will most likely come under a six-week ban sooner rather than later. If it succeeds, Ohio will remain a relative abortion safe haven surrounded by states where it's virtually outlawed.

The other is slightly more tangential: The entire Virginia legislature is up on Tuesday, and abortion has been a primary plotline. Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) is touting his 15-week ban as the solution to Republicans' abortion woes — which an obsequious press will no doubt laud as brilliant political strategy, should his party do well. Most of the Democrats running, meanwhile, have kept their readiness to defeat such a ban at the forefront of their campaigns. 

We're also now in the hot spot of being too far from the '24 election to actually know anything, so off-year and special elections in the meantime take on gargantuan, prophetic importance.    

But in terms of reproductive freedom and full, human, health care rights, these two elections will have serious ramifications.

— Kate Riga

• Judge Cannon Knocks Jack Smith For A Filing Calling Out Trump's Delay Tactics
• House Passes Dead-On-Arrival, Poison-Pilled Israel Aid Bill
• Tuberville Shoves Staffer Into Moving Traffic (Rhetorically)
• Minnesota Justices Stay Coy On Whether They Can DQ Trump
• Speakership Circus Was Too Much For Some House Republicans To Stomach

— Nicole Lafond

"You voted to kick me out of the freedom caucus, but keep CNN wannabe Ken Buck and vaping groping Lauren Boebert and you voted with the Democrats to protect Terrorist Tlaib. You hate Trump, certified Biden's election, and could care less about J6 defendants being persecuted."

That's Words of Wisdom fan fav Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) publicly declaring a new feud with Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) for his calls to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). But it's her new nickname for ex-BFF Lauren Boebert (R-CO) that's won her a Weekender appearance. 

— Nicole Lafond