Santos stands up from his usual seat in the middle of the House chamber, three seats from the center corridor where the late-night McCarthy speakership vote almost descended into a brawl. This is his usual perch on the floor, where he frequently yawns, covers his mouth, scrolls on his phone, looks off into the distance, clearly bored. His usual floor comrades: Republicans Burchett, Andy Harris of Maryland, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, and Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, with whom he trades jokes and makes conversation. Nancy Pelosi stops by in a burnt orange pantsuit, exchanging pleasantries with Burchett, grasping his forearm and patting his shoulder, laughing but pointedly never so much as glancing at Santos.
Carrying a brown folder, Santos makes his way down to the well, looking confident. He’s going to give his first floor speech, a one-minute expression of support for Iran’s protests. The chamber had just voted, with 420 members in support, to pass a resolution commending the protesters.
He approaches the clerk, wearing a variation of his trademark ensemble — a charcoal gray pullover under a slate pinstripe jacket — and he starts waxing on Ronald Reagan and freedom, words tumbling over words in a rush to make time. He looks down at the lectern, exposing the thinning tuft of hair atop his head.
“I declare with every bullet and with every act of violence imposed by the Iranian government comes a call for us to condemn their actions,” he says, in a decorous monotone, “and urge the Biden administration to take far greater action than mere sanctions to address the countless murders and examples of senseless brutality.
“I yield back my time.”
I catch Santos as he’s coming out of the Speaker’s Lobby, the colonnaded foyer just outside the House chamber. A veteran journalist is walking with him, deploying the time-honored reporter’s tactic of asking his question in a level, measured tone, so as not to come off as combative.
“Do you feel like at some point you need to answer questions, though, to sort of clear up—” the reporter says. “WHO’S KICKING ME?” Santos spits back at the roving scrum that had now mushroomed to a few reporters pushing for space, including me. (To be clear, nobody kicked him. I’d stepped on the back of his foot by accident amid the chaos. I quickly apologize, but he ignores me.)
Then more questions from the press, which aren’t just questions that journalists have, but questions that his constituents also have: “Have you been contacted by the Ethics Committee?”
“I’ve not,” George Santos says. (“No comment,” writes Tom Rust, the committee’s chief counsel, in a later email.)
I ask: “Have you been in touch with your legal team?”
“With who?” With your legal team.
“With my legal team? Do I have a legal team? I’m asking you, ‘Do I?’ You guys seem to know more than I do about myself!”
[ad_2]
#Hours #George #Santos #Dunkin #Donuts #Steps #Scolding
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
That pronouncement launched her from relative obscurity into national headlines. And going forward, her prosecutorial experience, the desire of fellow Republicans to rid themselves of Santos and the unique powers of the district attorney’s office put her in a prime position to pounce on the fact-challenged lawmaker.
“This fell into her lap. It’s in her backyard. I think she is more than capable of handling it, and she has the will of the people to do something,” said Vito Palmieri, a Long Island attorney who worked in the Nassau County DA’s office in the 1990s. “That the party wants him gone and she is a Republican doing her job — let’s put it this way — I don’t think that hurts her at all.”
Despite the hew and cry of Democrats, perhaps no one wants Santos out of office more than the Republicans of Nassau County, a leafy suburb abutting New York City that is home to 1.4 million people, many of whom commute into Manhattan.
“He needs help,” Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman said about Santos at a recent press conference. “This is not a normal person.”
Blakeman was speaking at an extraordinary event convened by the Nassau County Republican Committee earlier this month, where more than a dozen GOP officials took turns excoriating the freshman lawmaker over lies about everything from his family history (not Jewish) to his education (he did not attend Baruch College, let alone play on its volleyball team).
They had ample reason to fret. Fresh off huge midterm gains there and elsewhere on Long Island, the party will be heading into a tough election season in 2024 with President Joe Biden atop the ticket. With sky-high unfavorability ratings and zero support from fellow party members, Santos will have a tough time clinging to his seat — as evidenced by Democrats and Republicans already drawing up short lists of who might replace him — and could hurt fellow GOP candidates by association.
Rightward shift on Long Island
The midterm red wave that washed over New York City suburbs began building in 2021.
In May that year, the sitting Nassau County DA, a Democrat, was appointed to a judgeship on the state’s highest court, triggering a special election for her successor. As each party scrambled for a candidate, John Wighaus, president of the Nassau County Detectives’ Association, later recalled to Newsday how he introduced Donnelly to the head of the Nassau County GOP.
The then 56-year-old had close to zero political experience. Donnelly had never made a political contribution before 2021, though state campaign finance records show her husband has been a periodic donor to Republican causes.
Her status as a political neophyte was reflected in her campaign ads, where she never addressed the camera. Instead, third parties appeared on-screen to attack her opponent, Democratic state Sen. Todd Kaminsky. Those surrogates included the detectives’ association leader and victims of violent crime, who starred in several spots leading up to the November election.
Donnelly, whose office declined to make her available for an interview, had other professional advantages. She spent her career in the DA’s office working under both Republicans and Democrats, first joining as an assistant district attorney in the District Court Bureau and serving most recently as deputy chief of the Organized Crime and Rackets Bureau.
In the end, few of those details seemed to matter as the race became a proxy for recently changed bail laws in New York state that have drawn Republican criticism and opened a rift within the Democratic Party.
Her run was fueled almost entirely by the local party apparatus. Out of the $1.3 million she raised, nearly $1 million came from the Nassau County GOP, according to state campaign finance records. That cash infusion, along with the relentless focus on bail, propelled her to a resounding 20-point victory over Kaminsky.
And now, as Republicans are hoping to be rid of Santos, she has indicated an eagerness to investigate.
“The numerous fabrications and inconsistencies associated with Congressman-Elect Santos are nothing short of stunning,” she said in a statement in late December, weeks before the county party would reduce their relationship with Santos to cinders. “The residents of Nassau County and other parts of the third district must have an honest and accountable representative in Congress. No one is above the law and if a crime was committed in this county, we will prosecute it.”
That led Joseph Murray, Santos’ attorney, to question whether Donnelly had come under pressure from the Nassau County GOP or protesters calling for an inquiry. Murray said he had supported Donnelly’s run for office in 2021, heartened by her apolitical history, but was disappointed to see the Dec. 28 statement coming from such a seasoned litigator.
“There’s no way a prosecutor of 32 years is going to telegraph an investigation like that to the whole world,” Murray said in an interview. “From a prosecutor’s perspective — not as [Santos’] lawyer — why would you do that?”
Murary declined to discuss any of the allegations against Santos.
The road ahead
Donnelly’s forceful statement stood in stark contrast to federal prosecutors, who declined to comment on a CBS News story that broke news of their probe, and the New York state attorney general, who said she was looking into allegations against Santos.
While each of those offices has its own jurisdiction, there appear to be a few legal avenues for Donnelly to explore.
“They are a very solid office, and they are able to do complex cases,” Howard Master, an attorney who has worked for both state and federal prosecutors, said of the Nassau DA. “Essentially the difference is: Their jurisdiction includes state crimes for which the federal government cannot prosecute.”
Charges related to lying on formal documents or falsifying business records, for example, might serve as a guidepost if Donnelly were to look at Santos’ involvement with an investment fund currently in the crosshairs of the Securities and Exchange Commission. While Santos worked for the company, Harbor City Capital, he was not named as a defendant in a civil lawsuit filed by the SEC.
District attorneys can often be quicker when it comes to mounting investigations compared to their federal counterparts. But in probes involving major figures like elected officials, state prosecutors often take their time to ensure cases are airtight. And it is likely Donnelly’s office is coordinating with the feds, who enjoy several advantages of their own when it comes to gathering testimony and evidence.
“It’s common for state and federal prosecutors who are looking at the same subject to work collaboratively with each other to avoid duplication of efforts in obtaining information from witnesses and other sources of information,” Master said, “and to ensure that the appropriate charges are brought in whichever jurisdiction is best suited to hear [them].”
While Donnelly pledged to uncover any breach of state law, Santos’ fabrications provide much more grist for the feds to bite into: He filed a financial disclosure with the House and submitted campaign finance records to the Federal Election Commission, both actions that fall squarely within the purview of prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York.
Santos’ campaign finance disclosures with the FEC, for example, contain dozens of expenses that fall just cents short of a threshold that would have required him to preserve documentation of those purchases. And he provided dramatically different information on financial disclosure forms filed during his first run for Congress and his successful campaign last year.
“There are blinking red lights related to the comparison between his financial disclosure in 2020 and the entire campaign finance process, including his financial disclosure in 2022,” Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), who has penned both an ethics complaint against Santos and a bill mandating more disclosure from candidates alongside his colleague Rep. Ritchie Torres, said in an interview.
Thus far, no one has released information even hinting an indictment against Santos is imminent. And, according to Goldman — a former federal prosecutor who has been tapped for the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability — the various probes could ultimately lead somewhere unexpected.
“Investigations are rarely ends-oriented,” he said. “It’s much more often you are investigating one thing, you dig into bank records and then start to see a totally different picture.”
An attorney and a spokesperson for Santos did not return messages.
[ad_2]
#York #Republicans #George #Santos #person
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
In fact, his campaign accounted for roughly half of all expenses by all campaigns that cost exactly $199.99 — a statistical improbability.
The rarity of campaign expenses falling so close to the legal limit for retaining receipts has raised concerns that the Santos campaign’s disbursements were “deliberately falsified,” a complaint from the Campaign Legal Center alleges. Major questions about Santos’ campaign financing remain unanswered, including the source of $700,000 that the New York congressman ostensibly loaned to his campaign despite questions about his personal finances.
“This was a multi-thousand dollar operation,” said Adav Noti, a former FEC attorney and senior vice president at the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, which filed a complaint against Santos. “We don’t know where the money came from, we don’t know where the money went to.”
Santos’ lawyer, Joe Murray, declined to comment, citing ongoing investigations. The congressman has previously admitted to exaggerating components of his biography but denied breaking any laws. Both local and federal prosecutors are investigating whether he may have broken the law, but has not been charged with a crime and has bucked calls to resign from fellow GOP members of the state’s congressional delegation.
Most of the Santos campaign’s $199.99 transactions — including the eight Italian restaurant charges — date back to 2021, according to FEC reports. But like the fabricated aspects of the now-congressman’s biography, they went largely unnoticed until after the election.
Under FEC regulations, campaigns are required to report all disbursements and maintain receipts or invoices for those valued at $200 or more. The sheer number of expenses reported as being just under the threshold for retaining receipts was among the subjects of the CLC’s complaint against the Santos campaign. The complaint also cited the $700,000 that Santos reported as a personal loan to his campaign despite questions about his finances.
Of the more than 4,300 House and Senate campaigns that filed any FEC reports during the 2022 election cycle, fewer than 9 percent reported one or more expenditures costing between $199 and $199.99.
Not all campaign expenditures in that narrow range raise questions. A relatively common expense this election cycle: subscriptions to the web-conferencing platform Zoom, which has a business plan priced at $199.90 per month.
But only 25 campaign committees reported any single expense costing exactly $199.99, POLITICO’s analysis found. No campaign other than Santos’ spent that specific amount more than four times. And Santos’ campaign spent that exact figure 37 times, according to his campaign finance reports, totalling just shy of $7,400. In addition to the Italian restaurant and Miami hotel, he reported spending exactly $199.99 on 10 distinct Uber rides, four Delta Airlines flights and two Amtrak trains, among other expenses.
These reported expenses are still a relatively small share of the more than $2.6 million that Santos’s campaign spent last cycle. But CLC’s complaint alleges that they raise questions about the accuracy of his reported disbursements.
The FEC, which is tasked with enforcing campaign finance laws, sent more than 20 letters to Santos’ campaign asking about mathematical errors and other inconsistencies throughout the 2022 election cycle. While such letters are fairly commonplace, that number is atypical, said Noti of the Campaign Legal Center.
The agency is not equipped to flag transactions that are suspicious based on the amounts and vendors.
Santos’ campaign has repeatedly amended its filings both before and after the election in response to FEC letters. That included filing several updated forms on Tuesday to denote previous large contributions that should have been reported in November, as well as amendments to several quarterly reports. The amendments did not touch on the $199.99 disbursements.
[ad_2]
#improbability #George #Santos #expenses
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
The Wiki biography was last edited on April 29, 2011. It contains basic information that matches up with the newly sworn-in congressman, including Devolder being born on July 22, 1988, to a Brazilian family with a European background.
Santos has used the name Anthony Devolder elsewhere for online accounts.
His office referred calls for comment to an outside aide, who did not immediately respond. But if the person who created the Anthony Devolder Wiki bio was anyone other than Santos, it would mean someone used the same alias and same biographical details as him a dozen years ago, all for a user page no one else would see.
The surfacing of the Wiki biography is another twist in a weeks-long saga of lies and embellishments. The New York Republican has been caught fabricating his own resume on everything from his business career, educational achievements and the nature of his mother’s death. He has admitted that he misled about critical parts of his biography, but has also insisted that other politicians have done the same.
The Wiki bio for Anthony Devolder, which is full of spelling and grammatical errors, appears to contain fantastical descriptions of his supposed career in show business. It claims that he had a part in Disney’s “Hannah Montana,” among other examples.
It was, it appears, just the first in several attempts by Santos to edit his bio on the internet encyclopedia — steps that further show the degree to which he has gone to curate his life story.
In November, a Wiki user named Devmaster88 edited the Wikipedia page for then congressman-elect George Santos (a page separate from the Wiki bio for Anthony Devolder). The user changed the section about Santos’ personal life and made edits to his middle name. Around that time another account, georgedevolder22, also made edits to Santos’ public Wikipedia page, removing the entire middle name, Anthony Devolder, so that the biography was shortened to George Santos.
The identity of the users is not revealed by Wikipedia. But both accounts have subsequently been blocked from the site. Moderators, as part of the ban, wrote that Devmaster88 was “abusing multiple accounts” and that it was likely an extension of Georgedevolder22.
Santos, a Republican, has pushed back on relatively few accusations that he has lied about his past. But he did deny the drag performances that were first revealed by MSNBC reporter Marisa Kabas, who posted a photo she alleges to be of Santos dressed in drag in 2008. Kabas also spoke with a Brazilian drag queen who allegedly was friends with Santos when he lived near Rio de Janeiro and used the stage name Kitara.
On Thursday, the New York Post translated a video from Portuguese in which a person who appears to be Santos discusses performing in drag. The video was later posted online by the Daily Mail.
Santos has rebuffed repeated calls from fellow Republicans to resign his seat over the fabrications, even as he has come under investigation over his finances. In recent days he denied separate allegations from New Jersey veterans claiming that he absconded with thousands of dollars earmarked for life-saving surgery for one of their sick dogs.
In the 2011 Wiki bio, the user Anthony Devolder sprinkles show business credits that ring similarly untrue. He describes his Hollywood career as taking off after a meeting with a producer of the 1996 blockbuster “Independence Day.” He name drops the director Steven Spielberg (he misspelled his last name as “Spilberg”), and claims to have starred in “a few T.V shows and DISNEY Channel shows such as ‘the suite life of Zack and Cody” and the hit “Hanna[h] Montana.”
The Wiki bio concludes with Santos writing that, two years prior, he “taped his very first movie startting [sp] Uma Turman, [sp] Chris Odanald, [sp] Melllisa George, [sp] and Alicia Silver Stone [sp] in the movie “THE INVASION.”
“The Invasion” is a 2007 sci-fi/thriller with roots in the “Body Snatchers” storyline and stars Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig.
[ad_2]
#George #Santos #appears #admit #drag #queen #Wiki #post
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
If Santos has checked the historical record — and you can bet he has — he would rightly figure that Congress is the best place for him to lounge for the next two years. And maybe beyond. At the end of December, POLITICO’s Olivia Beavers reported that Santos had told New York party leaders that he wouldn’t seek reelection in 2024. But last Friday, he fended off calls for his resignation by indicating he might seek vindication by running again. And why shouldn’t he keep his seat or run again? The job pays $174,000 a year and with five years of federal employment comes a nice pension. Plus, a House seat allows him to boss all those staffers around. And don’t forget franking privileges!
In normal times, Santos’ gross résumé inflation and other lies would earn him a cold shoulder from all Republicans. But these are not normal times. Given the party’s slim majority, every vote counts, even a liar’s vote. Santos wisely barnacled himself to Speaker Kevin McCarthy as quickly as he could, voting for him on all 15 ballots in the speaker race, and his loyalty has earned him two congressional committee slots — Small Business and Science, Space, and Technology. Santos is said to have coveted finance and foreign policy assignments, but small matter. He can always claim on his résumé that he got those committees. As long as the Republican leadership can count on Santos to vote the party line, he remains a net legislative asset for them.
New York state Republicans have denounced Santos because he makes them look bad, but it’s a different matter in the House. So far, only a handful of Republican lawmakers have demanded his resignation because if he were to resign, his district could easily swing Democratic, diminishing the tiny Republican majority.
“I will NOT resign!” Santos tweeted a week ago. This stand is more practical than principled. As Ben Jacobs noted in Vox, clutching his seat might give him some plea-bargaining leverage if and when federal prosecutors come calling. (Copping a plea spared Vice President Spiro Agnew jail time in 1973.) Santos might figure that surrendering his seat in Congress will only earn him a quicker seat in prison. The question only Santos can answer right now is how hefty is his criminal liability? Might his crimes be so expansive and easily proved that the feds will decline to offer him any sort of deal?
In the short term, we’re stuck with Santos. Serving in Congress is the best job he’s ever had. The Republicans need him. And members of Congress can’t be recalled. But in the long term, he’s toast.
[ad_2]
#Opinion #George #Santos #Isnt
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Verified Twitter accounts with blue check marks bearing the profile names of former President George W. Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair reminisced about the Iraq War on Wednesday.
Twitter Screenshot
A tweet screenshot that is viral on Twitter shows George W. Bush tweeting, “I miss killing Iraqis,” while Tony Blair quotes him and writes, “Same tbh.” But the Twitter accounts are not actually managed by Bush and Blair and are fake, according to reports.
After Twitter changed its verification process and eligibility, now everyone can get the blue checkmark after paying monthly fees as a subscription to Twitter Blue. This change is criticised by the majority of people across the world.
To mock the change in verification, two anonymous accounts that used the names of George W. Bush and Tony Blair tweeted the controversial tweet, the reports say.
In contrast, it was one or more anonymous users who were mocking the upgraded verification process introduced by Elon Musk, the new owner of Twitter, and who charge $8 per month. They created user identities that resembled those of Bush and Blair before enrolling in the premium system to obtain the blue check mark.
Their conversation might have appeared genuine to a casual observer.
As later explained by the fake Bush profile:
Twitter screenshot
“Y’all are missing the point about the $8. “It’s a small price to make this app completely unusable, and I’m assuming he is going to quickly learn we can get refunds from the credit cards we used if he suspends us prior to a month.”
Critics fear that the new verification process will make it simpler to impersonate others and facilitate the spreading of false information, especially in the case of public figures who choose not to pay the monthly charge.
Musk has vowed to suspend profiles that impersonate others.
Within hours following the posts, Twitter deleted both fake accounts.
(We don’t allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)
