Meanwhile, it was a historic day for Congress.

The House today voting to expel embattled New York Representative George Santos.

All 12 of New Jersey's congressional members voted for his ouster.

It's just the sixth time in U.S. history the chamber has kicked a member out.

And it hasn't happened in more than 20 years.

Here to talk about this and some of the other political headlines of the week are Republican strategist Chris Russell and Democratic strategist Dan Bryan.

Dan and Chris thanks so much.

I want to start with this news of the day because it's a pretty big moment in Congress.

George Santos has been expelled from the chamber.

This is only the third time since the Civil War, according to just about every historian.

And yet this is a saga that's been going on now since right after he got elected, Chris.

Why were Republicans hesitant to vote for his expulsion?

Well, it's not I don't think all Republicans were.

I mean, I think a lot of Republicans, including this one, think he's a pretty contemptible human being.

A lot of things he said and did or are now going to be dealt with in a court of law, apparently with these indictments coming down.

Listen, there's a process to these things in Congress.

Nothing moves quickly.

Certainly when it's something historic, like this and expelling a member from the chamber is a somber thing, frankly, that someone is in there that should be expelled.

But I think it was the right choice.

And I think that George Santos being gone is probably something there's pretty broad bipartisan agreement on.

Yeah, of course, Republicans did vote in favor of his ouster today.

There were, of course, charges that he stole money from his own campaign, lied about his family, about his career.

But Dan, what will this mean for Democrats now in terms of the razor thin majority that exists in the House?

Yeah, so the very fine line that Republicans are walking already with their majority gets even thinner I think that, you know, this is obviously a very extreme case with with Congressman Santos, former Congressman Santos, given how crazy the whole situation was, clearly Republicans didn't want to be painted with him, their entire majority, as they were going up for reelection next year and trying to keep and expand their majority.

It's not going to stop Democrats from continuing to pay Republicans with someone like George Santos, given that it took a year to deal with this.

Clearly, Democrats, this is a conversation they've loved to have.

They're going to continue having it despite this this happening today.

All right.

Let me bring it back home.

Congestion pricing.

Everyone's talking about this, of course, whether you want folks to use mass transit or if you're someone who drives into the city.

$15 it's a lot of money.

Chris, what are the political ramifications of this?

We know a lot of elected officials in the state have been railing against it.

Well, listen, I think when you see Governor Murphy, Congressman Gottheimer on this side of the river and other people on the other side of the river, like Mike Lawler, a Republican congressman and others, are all on the same page on this against congestion pricing, against this commuter tax is really what it is.

You know that it's certainly bad for people who have to drive in and out of city all the time.

And I think we all would like to see less, you know, certainly good things for the environment.

But hammering the people who already pay the highest taxes and the highest cost of living in the country with yet another frankly, another tax is just out of the question, certainly how politically popular.

So I think pretty broad.

Again, bipartisan support on both sides of the river for this for people who don't live in the city.

Dan, this was an issue that came up even while you were in the administration working under the governor.

So what do you suppose the conversations are now?

Listen, the biggest issue that Governor Murphy has had with the congestion pricing scheme was less the policy in theory it was more in practice.

This was done without input from New Jersey.

This is done in a way that is that unfairly impacts New Jersey commuters.

So I think there's a way that this could have been done with to to gain everyone's support, including from this side of the river.

The way it was done kind of jammed it down.

New Jersey's first, as Chris said, it unfairly impacts New Jersey commuters.

And it's it's an unfair taxing.

Listen, I think there's still a long way to go to make sure this is successful from their point of view.

And there's no doubt that Governor Murphy and people like Congressman Gottheimer continue to stay at this 20 47.

Let me stay with you, Dan.

Safe to say, yes.

That you are working on First Lady Tammy Murphy's Senate campaign.

They've to say, okay, so let's talk about this research that came out from Rutgers.

Professor Julia Sass Rubin looking into the party line.

We all know what this is.

The first lady got a number of additional endorsements this week, not to mention Essex County executive Joe DiVincenzo.

A number of Black ministers and activists.

So is it an unfair positioning for folks who have this political clout?

Do you agree with that assessment or disagree?

Listen, the county line was there far before Tammy Murphy and for that matter.

Governor Murphy got involved in New Jersey politics.

I would think it's probably going to be there afterwards as well.

I think it's unfair and a bit cynical to pin the entire system on her right now.

Listen.

The most important thing for her is making change for New Jersey, delivering for working families, continuing to make the change that she's been able to make over the last six years.

I think, again, the play coming out of others in this campaign are a bit cynical, especially those who have been elected on the county line before multiple times.

All of a sudden, this is you know, they're trying to put it at Tammy's feet.

I would say what she's focused on right now.

One of the reasons she's been able to build the support that she has up and down the state, she's been there.

She's helped build the party.

She's helped deliver for people.

She's made relationships.

She's built those relationships with people all over, not just party officials, by the way, faith leaders, community leaders, advocates a lot of those folks.

And those voices have come out to support her as well.

There's been a bit of an outsize focus on her here.

I think to the extent people want to have that conversation, they can have that.

But that should be divorced from this current primary.

Chris, your response?

Well, listen, I mean, and I respect Dan, you know, as I was working on the campaign as close to the Murphys.

No, he's he's right that it shouldn't be laid at her feet exclusively.

She didn't create the lines.

She's benefited from them.

But in this case, it's it's crazy to say she's not benefiting from being the governor's wife and having that clout and being able to kind of maneuver people to support her and fall into line.

Listen, the I've worked against a line a few times.

I've worked for the line a lot.

It's an advantage There's no two ways about it's why people work so hard to win these conventions and win these support of certain powerbrokers and stakeholders across the state.

I would say, however, I think it's a fantastic talking point for Andy Kim and I think one that he will use with great effect.

The one thing I don't think we've seen in the state in a while is someone who's been completely shut out of the lines, which appears indicate will most likely be or close to it, who's been able to mount the kind of campaign with the resources and the organizing skills that he has.

I worked against a guy in 2018, lost a very narrow race, but I gained the respect for him in that regard.

He is not to be taken lightly and I'm sure Dan and Company won't, because if they do, they could rue the day they did.

And I think it's a great talking point for him.

Political strategist Chris Russell and Dan Bryan, thank you both so much.

Thank you so much.