Republican congressman George Santos has been expelled from the House of Representatives after a report found “overwhelming evidence” he misused campaign donations.
Mr Santos was ousted 311-114 in a bipartisan vote – only the sixth time a member has been kicked out of the House since it was founded in 1789.
Two-thirds of members must support the move – but an excoriating report by the House ethics committee that accused him of breaking federal law appeared to seal his fate.
The 35-year-old led his own defence on the floor of the House and said he would “not stand by quietly”.
Speaking the evening before the vote, he said: “The people of the Third District of New York sent me here. If they want me out, you’re going to have to go silence those people and go take the hard vote.”
Mr Santos argued it would set a precedent that would make expulsions more common.
Three previous cases involved disloyalty to the Union during the American Civil War, the remaining two were after politicians were convicted of federal crimes.
A congressional investigation found he charged his campaign account nearly $4,000 (£3,151) for spa treatments, including Botox.
He also spent more than $4,000 at designer store Hermes and made “smaller purchases” from the OnlyFans site – best known for sexual content.
Advertisement
As the outcome of Friday’s vote became clear, Mr Santos put his coat over his shoulders, shook hands with some members who voted against his expulsion and exited the chamber.
The House Speaker solemnly instructed a clerk to inform New York’s governor that his seat was now vacant.
Mr Santos was in his first term and had been previously feted as an exciting prospect after he flipped a district from the Democrats in November 2022.
But the committee launched a probe in March after reports he lied about having Jewish ancestry and his grandparents fleeing the Nazis, working at elite investment bank Goldman Sachs, and his college degree.
It lasted eight months and found “overwhelming evidence” of law-breaking – and Mr Santos has now admitted making up much of his biography.
The US attorney’s office indicted him in May, accusing him of cheating donors, laundering campaign funds for his own personal use, and lying to Congress.
It alleged he stole donors’ identities and used their credit cards to make tens of thousands in authorised charges.
Mr Santos has pleaded not guilty to the charges and his trial is scheduled for September 2024.
“Mr Santos is not a victim. He is a perpetrator of a massive fraud on his constituents and the American people,” said Susan Wild, the top Democrat on the ethics committee.
The last person to be kicked out of the House was Democrat James Traficant over a criminal corruption conviction in 2002.
New York state governor Kathy Hochul now has 10 days to call a special election for Mr Santos’s seat.
YouTuber-turned-boxer Jake Paul has defeated one of the greatest-ever fighters, former heavyweight world champion Mike Tyson, who is more than twice his age.
Paul, 27, won the bout via a unanimous points decision at the AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas – home of the Dallas Cowboys and the biggest NFL stadium in the US.
The fight was already controversial but then arguably failed to live up to the hype. Boos were heard from the crowd in the final two rounds, after a perceived lack of action.
Afterwards, the pair heaped praise on each other. Paul said: “This man is an icon and it’s just an honour to be able to fight him. And he’s obviously the toughest, baddest man on the planet.”
Tyson, 58, described Paul as a “good fighter” but dismissed the suggestion he was out to prove something.
“I didn’t prove nothing to anybody, only to myself,” he said.
Boxing careers compared
More on Jake Paul
Related Topics:
This was not Paul’s first professional fight. The American YouTube star made his debut in 2020, and his most high-profile clash was last year against Tyson Fury’s brother Tommy Fury, which he lost by a split decision.
The so-called “Problem Child” has since defeated former UFC contender Nate Diaz, professional boxer Andre August, former Gold Gloves champion Ryan Bourland and most recently MMA fighter Mike Perry.
Advertisement
In contrast, “Iron Mike” Tyson was ranked among the best heavyweight boxers of all time.
During his career, he knocked out 44 opponents – retiring from professional boxing in 2005 after defeat against Kevin McBride.
He returned to the ring in 2020 for a bout against fellow boxing icon Roy Jones, which ended in an unofficial draw.
‘Someone’s getting put to sleep’
Earlier this week, Paul said he believed the bout would not go the distance. “No, someone’s getting put to sleep,” he said. “It’s going to be a war, and we’re both heavy hitters. It’s not going the full 16 minutes.”
Tyson said: “I’ve been through so many ups and downs since my last fight with Kevin McBride.
“I’ve been in rehab. I’ve been in prison, been locked up. Never in a million years did I believe I’d be doing this.”
Several states would not allow the bout to go ahead, and the Texas Athletic Commission only agreed to the fight if there were changes, due to Tyson’s age.
It limited the contest to eight rounds lasting a maximum of two minutes instead of three. Both boxers were also required to wear heavier gloves, designed to lessen the force of punches.
The fight was initially scheduled for 20 July, but was postponed when Tyson suffered an ulcer flareup.
Taylor defends title
Meanwhile, among the undercard fights, Irish boxer Katie Taylor successfully defended her super lightweight world title against Puerto Rico’s Amanda Serrano.
But it was tight. Taylor claimed the rematch 95-94 for all three judges in an epic battle.
The bout came two and a half years after the pair fought at Madison Square Garden, which Taylor won on a split decision.
Bout suffered from buffering
Earlier in the evening thousands of Netflix users in the US reported problems with the coverage, with some posting on social media about buffering.
At one point, more than 98,000 people had reported issues according to Downdetector, which tracks outages.
US House Speaker Mike Johnson has said he will “strongly request” a report into allegations of sex trafficking against Matt Gaetz, who is the president-elect’s choice of attorney general, should not be released.
Mr Johnson said he was against publishing the House Ethics Committee report on Mr Gaetz, 42, who if approved by the Senate will become the nation’s top prosecutor once Donald Trump is sworn in as president on 20 January.
That’s despite Mr Gaetz having previously faced a nearly three-year Justice Department investigation into sex trafficking allegations involving a 17-year-old girl. He denies the allegations and has not faced criminal charges.
Mr Gaetz has also never worked as a prosecutor and has only worked in law for a few years at a local level.
He stepped down from Congress after Mr Trump announced him as his attorney general pick.
His resignation brought the investigation by the House Ethics Committee to an end – two days before it had been expected to release its report into the trafficking claims.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:27
Why is Matt Gaetz a controversial pick?
House Speaker Mr Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, said of the probe: “I’m going to strongly request that the Ethics Committee not issue the report, because that is not the way we do things in the House.”
Politicians of both parties on the Senate Judiciary Committee have said they want to see the report on Mr Gaetz, as part of a Senate confirmation process for cabinet nominees that would start next year with public hearings.
Democrats have described the MAGA loyalist as “a gonzo agent of chaos” and his appointment a “red alert moment for our democracy”, while some Republican senators have also raised doubts about his suitability for the role.
Mr Johnson said he planned to urge House Ethics Committee chairman Michael Guest not to provide the report to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“The rules of the House have always been that a former member is beyond the jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee,” said Mr Johnson, who returned on Friday morning from meeting Mr Trump at the president-elect’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.
“I think it’s a terrible breach of protocol and tradition and the spirit of the rule,” he added. “I think that would be a terrible precedent to set.”
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
A $100m (£79m) lawsuit has been brought against the CIA, FBI and New York Police Department (NYPD) who are accused of being involved in the 1965 assassination of civil rights leader Malcolm X.
The case, which has been filed in a federal court in Manhattan, New York, alleges that the agencies were aware of the assassination, they were involved in the plot and failed to stop the killing.
The legal action has been brought by Malcolm X’s three daughters along with his estate.
The NYPD and CIA have not yet responded to the claims while the FBI said it was “standard practice” not to comment on litigation.
Nicholas Biase, a spokesperson for the US Department of Justice, which is also included in the lawsuit, declined to respond.
Malcolm X was 39 when he was shot dead on 21 February 1965 on stage by three gunmen as he prepared to speak at the Audubon Ballroom in Manhattan.
At a news conference in New York on Friday, to announce the details of the lawsuit, attorney Benjamin Crump said: “The government fingerprints are all over the assassination of Malcolm X.
“We believe we have the evidence to prove it.”
For decades, questions have arisen over who was behind his murder.
Advertisement
Malcolm X rose to prominence as the national spokesman of the Nation of Islam, an African-American Muslim group which supported black separatism.
He broke away from the group in 1964 and moderated some of his earlier views on racial separation, which angered Nation of Islam members and resulted in death threats.
Three men were convicted of his murder but two of them were cleared in 2021 after investigators took a fresh look at the case. They concluded some evidence was shaky and authorities had held back some information.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:46
Malcolm X’s family speaking in February 2023 when the plans for the lawsuit were initially announced
In the lawsuit, which began its process in 2023, it is alleged the NYPD coordinated with federal law enforcement agencies to arrest the activist’s security guards days before the assassination.
It also claims police were intentionally removed from inside the ballroom where Malcolm X was killed and that federal agencies had personnel, including undercover agents, at the site but failed to protect him.
The lawsuit goes on to allege a “corrupt, unlawful, and unconstitutional” relationship between law enforcement and “ruthless killers… which was actively concealed, condoned, protected, and facilitated by government agents”.
Referring to Malcolm X’s family, the lawsuit states: “They did not know who murdered Malcolm X, why he was murdered, the level of NYPD, FBI and CIA orchestration, the identity of the governmental agents who conspired to ensure his demise, or who fraudulently covered up their role.”