Lies, Damned Lies, And George Santos
Republicans won't do anything, because he's one of their own
Imagine that you’re the CEO of a company. After a long and intensive interview process, you’ve just hired someone to occupy a critical, high-profile position within your company. Everyone concerned has agreed that he’ll start his new job on January 3rd. Then, just weeks before he’s due to start that new job, rumors begin to emerge that he’s padded his resume.
In response to the rumors, you begin discreetly conducting inquiries. Unfortunately, in doing so, you discover that not only did your new hire pad his resume, virtually the entirety of his work and personal history are fraudulent. That’s right; none of his relevant experience, his Ivy League education, his volunteer work, or the companies he’s built from scratch are as they were presented to you during the interview process.
Of course, you’ve already issued a press release announcing your new hire and lauding his qualifications and experience. In addition, he’s given speeches in which he’s announced his plans for changes and improvements he’s planning to make in your company’s operations.
So…what do you do?
In the private sector, most companies would drop this person like he was contagious, and deservedly so. In this case, though, we’re talking about the GOP, which cares about one thing- political power. How power is achieved is of little concern because, for Republicans, the means justify the end. And the balance of power is so precarious in the new Congress that Republicans need George Santos, regardless of the lies he sold to his constituents.
And so Republican leaders on Capitol Hill have maintained a conspicuously stony wall of silence. That should tell you everything you need to know about Republican (situational) ethics, because if Santos were a Republican…well, you know the drill.
Long Island Rep.-elect George Santos (R-NY) won a seat in Congress in November, flipping a previously Democratic district His resume suggested a political neophyte who’s well-educated, successful in business, and ambitiously looking to move up in the world. He’d lost a race for the same seat two years earlier to the then-incumbent, but he seemed ready this time around.
Santos won his seat by eight points, and things seemed on track for one of the new Republicans who would give the GOP a slim majority in the new Congress. But there were a few things that didn’t pass the smell test to reporters, a few of whom decided to do some digging. What they began to find was even more disturbing than what they initially suspected.
George Santos, whose election to Congress on Long Island last month helped Republicans clinch a narrow majority in the House of Representatives, built his candidacy on the notion that he was the “full embodiment of the American dream” and was running to safeguard it for others.
His campaign biography amplified his storybook journey: He is the son of Brazilian immigrants, and the first openly gay Republican to win a House seat as a non-incumbent. By his account, he catapulted himself from a New York City public college to become a “seasoned Wall Street financier and investor” with a family-owned real estate portfolio of 13 properties and an animal rescue charity that saved more than 2,500 dogs and cats.
But a New York Times review of public documents and court filings from the United States and Brazil, as well as various attempts to verify claims that Mr. Santos, 34, made on the campaign trail, calls into question key parts of the résumé that he sold to voters.
Reporters from the New York Times were only beginning to unravel a resume that contained several significant fabrications. Or, to call it what it is, George Santos had lied about who he really is to the voters of New York’s Third Congressional District.
There was also little evidence that his animal rescue group, Friends of Pets United, was, as Mr. Santos claimed, a tax-exempt organization: The Internal Revenue Service could locate no record of a registered charity with that name.
His financial disclosure forms suggest a life of some wealth. He lent his campaign more than $700,000 during the midterm election, has donated thousands of dollars to other candidates in the last two years and reported a $750,000 salary and over $1 million in dividends from his company, the Devolder Organization.
It’s still unclear what parts of Santos’ resume may be accurate, but there’s much that’s coming into focus about him, and it doesn’t cast the Rep.-elect in a good light. It seems pretty clear that he lied his way to an election victory.
Here’s some of what’s known so far, according to the New York Times:
George Santos didn’t work where he claimed to. Santos presented himself as an accomplished veteran of Wall Street, with experience at Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. However, neither firm has any record of ever having employed Santos. Instead, Santos says he worked for another firm, LinkBridge Investors. The Rep.-elect told the New York Post he has “used a poor choice of words” (also known as “lying”).
George Santos didn’t graduate from the schools he claimed. Santos claimed to have graduated from Baruch College in Manhattan with a Bachelor’s degree in economics and finance. A biography on the House Republican Campaign Committee website also claims Santos studied at NYU. Neither is true or, as Santos says, “I’m embarrassed and sorry for having embellished my résumé”) (again, also known as “lying”).
Santo is not so much “Jewish,” as he claimed, but rather “Jew-ish.” This is a real “WTF??” headscratcher. Santos says his mother was born in Brazil to parents who “fled Jewish persecution in Ukraine, settled in Belgium and again fled persecution during WWII.” He says he has identified as Catholic and as a non-observant Jew. Further investigation has revealed no connection with Judaism in the Santos family lineage. (But Santos did present himself to voters as a “proud American Jew.”)
Santos didn’t “lose four employees” in the Pulse nightclub shooting. Santos, who says he is gay, has claimed that his company lost four employees in the 2016 mass shooting at Orlando’s Pulse nightclub. However, a New York Times investigation could find no evidence to support this claim. Santos then claimed that the four who were killed “were in the process of being hired” by his company. (More lies? Or merely “stretching” the truth?)
The source of George Santos’ $700k campaign loan remains a mystery. Despite Santos’ business history being marked by a trail of unpaid debts, he somehow managed to lend his campaign $700,000- the source of which is unclear. This isn’t to infer that any laws were broken (not enough is known to reach that conclusion), merely to note the lack of transparency.
There are more issues, of course, but these are the high points (or low, depending on your perspective). And we don’t know that there won’t be more lies forthcoming. These things have a way of metastasizing once they’re exposed to sunlight.
So what happens from here? Well, if the GOP House Leadership has its way, nothing will be done. Kevin McCarthy needs Santos’ vote if he’s to have any hope of becoming Speaker of the House, and Republicans are that hypocritical. Santos could bugger a goat on the House floor, and the Republican caucus wouldn’t so much as bat a collective eyelash.
Of course, if Santos were a Democrat, the weeping and gnashing of teeth would be heard from sea to shining sea. Republicans would be decrying the immorality and injustice of it all- how DARE Democrats allow a confirmed LIAR to take the oath of office and defile the House of Representatives?
But a Republican doing the same thing? Pffft…. Nah, where’s the fire, man? So George Santos embellished his resume a bit? BFD; who among us hasn’t tried to make ourselves look better?
CNN — GOP Rep.-elect George Santos is facing growing condemnation from House Democrats, some of whom have called on him to step aside, and even from some corners of the GOP, with at least one of his fellow incoming Republicans calling for him to face an ethics investigation. House GOP leadership, however, remains silent over revelations that the New York Republican lied about parts of his biography.
Santos has admitted to fabricating sections of his resume – including his past work experience and education – and has apologized but says he intends to serve in Congress.
Democratic Reps. Joaquin Castro of Texas and Ted Lieu of California were among those calling on Santos – after the congressman-elect gave interviews acknowledging “embellishing” his resume – to resign and if he refuses, for the House to expel him.
Castro called for Santos to be investigated by authorities and argued if the New York Republican is allowed to serve in Congress after lying about his resume, “There will be more who seek office up and down the ballot who will believe that they can completely fabricate credentials, personal features and accomplishments to win office.”
Democratic Rep.-elect Dan Goldman of New York, a former federal prosecutor, called Santos a “total fraud.” He criticized House Republicans, saying, “Congress also has an obligation to hold George Santos accountable, but it is sadly clear that we cannot trust House Republicans to initiate an investigation in the House Ethics Committee.”
We should establish one truth first and foremost. George Santos didn’t “embellish” his resume. He LIED about his accomplishments, his qualifications, and his education. Santos would have his detractors believe that what he did was really “no big deal” and that he should be allowed to take the oath of office and serve his term.
No harm, no foul, right? No, not really.
He deceived his constituents into believing that he was something he wasn’t. If someone had been hired in the private sector based on a false resume, they’d almost certainly be bounced on their ass as soon as their deception was discovered. The same should happen to Santos.
If George Santos was a decent, moral human being, he’d have the decency to do the right thing and resign. He doesn’t deserve the office to which he “won” election, because it was obtained under fraudulent circumstances. His constituents deserve to have a Congressman whose word they can trust, regardless of whether that person’s a Republican or a Democrat. Unfortunately, as things currently stand, that’s not the case. Santos needs to do the right thing- resign and allow New York’s Third District to have a special election to replace him with someone honest and whose integrity is not in question.
But why all the lies, especially the lies about his Jewish heritage?
He “never claimed to be Jewish,” he said, instead, he had described himself as “Jew-ish,” presumably to demonstrate his solidarity with the Jewish people….
Santos’ eight-point victory over Democrat Robert Zimmerman—someone who actually graduated from college and is Jewish—may partially be attributed to how he misrepresented his background.
Now, of course, it’s difficult to separate the truth from the lies enough to truly understand who George Santos is.
Or isn’t. And that may be the even bigger question.
It’s difficult to decipher what exactly Santos’ actual biography is; sometime between December 25 and December 27, he deleted the entire “about” section from his campaign website. But Santos did clear the air about something. When the 118th Congress begins on January 3, his dubious history will not be a problem. “I will be sworn in,” he assured WABC. “I will take office.”
If House Republicans get their way, Santos will take office, but will he be able to perform the duties of his office even as he’s fending off questions about his integrity and the lies he’s already told? And how will anyone, especially his constituents, be able to take him at his word?
What happens if he survives the controversy and runs for re-election in 2024? What will his platform be? Honesty? Integrity? Trustworthiness?
Youbetcha. And we’ll all be witnesses to the death throes of irony.
Then there’s the very real possibility that Santos may face legal consequences for his lies and deception.
Yeah, I know; imagine a Republican being held accountable for dishonesty and lack of integrity. Who could’ve imagined that would ever happen, eh?
While it’s not a crime to lie to voters during a campaign, it is a crime to file false forms to the federal government. The penalty can include fines and up to five years in prison. Earlier this year, former Rep. Jeff Fontenberry, R-Neb., was sentenced to two years probation after being found guilty of lying to the FBI about illegal contributions to his reelection campaign.
Once the new Congress is seated next month, Santos could be investigated by the Office of Congressional Ethics, with one watchdog group already calling for an inquiry. The office does not have the ability to remove a member from Congress, which requires a vote from two-thirds of the chamber. The last member to be booted was Ohio Democrat Jim Traficant, who was voted out 420-1 after being convicted on 10 counts of bribery, tax evasion and racketeering.
Santos could also face an investigation from New York state Attorney General Letitia James, who told local TV news outlet NY1 last week her office would review Santos’s situation. The next round of financial disclosure forms for congressional members and their senior staff members are due on May 15.
You remember Jim Traficant, right? Perhaps the most dishonest politician to ever call Youngstown, OH, home? Looked like he had a dead weasel on his head? Liked to pretend he was being persecuted when he was one of the most corrupt Democrats to ever darken Capitol Hill? Yeah, George Santos may not be in Traficant’s class (who is?), but with any luck he may soon be sharing a title with Traficant- felon.
Republicans will never vote to expel Santos; they’re kind of hypocritical that way. Their majority in the new Congress is so thin that they need every Republican vote, even from one so tarnished and shamed as Santos. Besides, it’s not as if shame has ever presented a hurdle for the GOP, the party that Tom DeLay and Newt Gingrich once called home.
Oh, and I haven’t even mentioned what should be one of the biggest and most controversial questions surrounding Santos:
[A]s Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo points out, although Santos claims to have been born in Queens to immigrants from Brazil, it is not entirely clear that he is a U.S. citizen. Former co-workers say he told them he was born in Brazil.
This would seem to be a question with a relatively easy-to-find answer, yet I’ve not heard anyone in a position of power asking it? Por que no?
If Santos isn’t a US citizen, he shouldn’t have been running for Congress in the first place. If he is, he should be able to easily provide proof of citizenship.
Shame (and a conscience) is for losers, Liberals, and Democrats.
None of what I’ve already written about solves the biggest mystery surrounding George Santos, though. Where did that $700,000 come from? And the thousands he donated to other campaigns? How did someone whose business and personal finances have been such a mess over the past few years manage to come up with that kind of money?
As a friend of mine would put it, “There’s fuckery afoot.” Indeed, and Santos is probably doing everything within his power to keep the source of the $700k quiet.
Why? What’s Santos hiding?
Find the answer to that question, and I have a feeling that everything about George Santos' dishonest quest to become a Congressman will come crumbling down.
