Voters Want Santos to Resign: Could he be prosecuted?

I'm a little confused. 🤔When someone joins Congress I have to imagine they have paperwork that they have to submit that to someone. That paperwork might include prior employment, education, things that people need to sign in order even get a door pass card or computer access. I'm surprised there is no legal mechanism to remove people who intentionally misled voters with false information and the Federal Government (including its documents) in a way that would be considered fraudulent. 

We have something like The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996 (FSAA), Pub. L. No. 104-292, H.R. 3166 and the Ethics in Government Act 1978. I'm curious if either these apply to this situation. We might need to ask a professional with experience in potential Congressional type fraud (Honestly, I know its not that simple but it should be.). We should ask the man who started invented the automobile along with Atari and the modern microwave Congress Santos? I'm really confused. If it was me I might look through all the documents he submitted and see if there was intentional falsification. The only problem if we can do it there what percentage of others might have "fudged" just a little with their "embellishments" (Yep....lets just keep that thought out of our conscious for now. Probably, better for the time being to pretend I did not say that. 🙈🙉🙊.) 

*Honestly, I would not be shocked if he wasn't running for president in like 8 years. Its such an odd acceptance "anything goes" in Congress. Thank goodness kids watch cartoons because if they are interested in government affairs we would never get them to complete their homework, tell the truth, or do their chores. The answer they might snap back in the special way kids do, "Santos didn't have to learn anything and look at him now....on his way to presidency!" or, "Dad! Duh! I can just invent a background!" 🤷 From a more serious standpoint. I think the legitimacy of his actions and his presence in Congress is questionable. That might be able to extend back to all of the choices and decisions he makes. Too bad we couldn't just strike everything he does from the record. One could morally make the argument regardless of our current high standards of honesty and excellence we require in modern politics (See Trust Govt. Levels. I don't know the site but it appears to be run by two doctors. Generally, for those doing research it means that they are more credible then news pieces and random self-serving opinions. Not always but most of the time. PhDs in general are part of the academic institution and have a role in sharing knowledge back to society. At least until someone violates freedom of speech. Kind of like what I'm doing here, except my words fall on deaf ears.)