George Santos

Live from New York, The GOP Foundation for the Arts Presents:

And what does this have to do with RD?

Nothing, but we didn’t have a Santos thread. Now we do.

1 Like

:nauseated_face: :face_vomiting: :face_vomiting: :face_vomiting: :face_vomiting: :face_vomiting: :face_vomiting:

1 Like

Showtime!

IMG_3375

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4248753-santos-charged-10-new-criminal-counts-superseding-indictment/

Haha. Idiot.

Give the guy a break, he’s in his 90s. He may be controlling all of us, but he’ll be dead soon.

1 Like

Uhm, is this that whole British humor I’ve head so much about? :thinking:

1 Like

Available for birthdays, twenty firsts, bar mitzvahs…

4 Likes

A bit late, but It’ll do.

https://www.axios.com/2023/11/01/george-santos-expulsion-vote-house?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab

Not yet.

  • 24 Republicans broke with their party and voted to expel Santos, but 31 Democrats voted against expelling him. Four Republicans and 15 Democrats also voted present.

What we’re hearing: Some Democrats were concerned about the precedent of voting to expel Santos before either a conviction or an Ethics Committee report, several senior House Democrats told Axios.

These things should take far less time.

1 Like

Can we jump the where are they now version of this guy?

Time to go, dickhead.

House Debate on Resolution to Expel Rep. George Santos (R-NY) | C-SPAN.org

THE CLERK: HOUSE RESOLUTION 878. WHEREAS REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE SANTOS IS A MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; WHEREAS SOON AFTER HIS ELECTION IN NOVEMBER 2022, REPRESENTATIVE SANTOS’ BACKGROUND CAME UNDER PUBLIC SCRUTINY. WHEREAS, ON FEBRUARY 28, 2023, THE COMMITTEE ON ETHICS OF THE HOUSE UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO IMPANEL AN INVESTIGATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE, HEREINAFTER IN THIS RESOLUTION REFERRED TO AS THE ‘‘ISC", TO REVIEW WHETHER REPRESENTATIVE SANTOS MAY HAVE ENGAGED IN UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY WITH RESPECT TO HIS 2022 CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN, FAILED TO PROPERLY DISCLOSE REQUIRED INFORMATION ON STATEMENTS FILED WITH THE HOUSE, VIOLATED FEDERAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST LAWS IN CONNECTION WITH HIS ROLE IN A FIRM PROVIDING FIDUCIARY SERVICES, AND ENGAGED IN SEXUAL MISCONDUCT TOWARDS AN INDIVIDUAL SEEKING EMPLOYMENT IN HIS CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE; WHEREAS THE ISC MET NINE TIMES AND, OVER THE COURSE OF ITS INVESTIGATION, AUTHORIZED 37 SUBPOENAS AND 43 VOLUNTARY REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION, RFIS, LEADING TO ITS RECEIPT OF OVER 172,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS, CONTACTED OR INTERVIEWED OVER 40 WITNESSES, AND REVIEWED MATERIALS RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS AND RELEVANT COURT RECORDS. WHEREAS THE ISC DETERMINED IN ITS INVESTIGATION THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW, THE RULES OF THE HOUSE, AND OTHER APPLICABLE STANDARDS RELATED TO MANY OF THE ALLEGATIONS CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT, AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF ADDITIONAL UNLAWFUL AND UNETHICAL CONDUCT NOT CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT. WHEREAS THESE ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS RELATE TO FALSELY REPORTED LOANS REPORTEDLY RECEIVED BY HIS 2020 CAMPAIGN AND LEADERSHIP POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, GADS PAC, IMPROPER LOAN REPAYMENTS TO HIMSELF, SYSTEMIC REPORTING ERRORS IN HIS 2020 AND 2022 CAMPAIGN’S FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION FILINGS, AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT CAMPAIGN FUNDS WERE CONVERTED TO PERSONAL USE; WHEREAS THE ISC ALSO IDENTIFIED ADDITIONAL ERRORS AND OMISSIONS IN HIS 2020 AND 2022 FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS, AS WELL AS VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW AND THE RULES OF THE HOUSE RELATED TO HIS UNFILED 2021 AND 2023 FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS, WHICH WERE NOT CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT. WHEREAS THE ISC ALSO FOUND THAT REPRESENTATIVE SANTOS FAILED TO MEET HIS DUTY OF CANDOR WITH RESPECT TO THE ISC’S INVESTIGATION, AND INSTEAD PRESENTED THE ISC WITH MISREPRESENTATIONS AND DELAY TACTICS. WHEREAS, ON MAY 10, 2023, REPRESENTATIVE SANTOS WAS CHARGED IN FEDERAL COURT IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WITH WIRE FRAUD IN CONNECTION WITH A FRAUDULENT POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION SCHEME, UNLAWFUL MONETARY TRANSACTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE WIRE FRAUD ALLEGATIONS, THEFT OF PUBLIC MONEY IN CONNECTION WITH HIS ALLEGED RECEIPT OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS, FRAUDULENT APPLICATION FOR AND RECEIPT OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS, AND FALSE STATEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH HIS 2020 AND 2022 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS. WHEREAS NANCY MARKS, WHO SERVED AS TREASURER TO REPRESENTATIVE SANTOS’ CAMPAIGN, PLEADED GUILTY TO CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT WIRE FRAUD, FALSIFYING RECORDS, AND IDENTITY THEFT IN CONNECTION WITH THE SANTOS CAMPAIGN; WHEREAS A SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT WAS FILED ON OCTOBER 10, 2023, CHARGING REPRESENTATIVE SANTOS WITH ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS RELATED TO HIS 2022 CAMPAIGN, INCLUDING ALLEGATIONS OF FALSIFYING FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION REPORTS IN CONNECTION WITH A $500,000 PERSONAL LOAN THAT WAS NEVER MADE, FALSIFYING THE NAMES OF CONTRIBUTORS TO HIS CAMPAIGN, ENGAGING IN AGGRAVATED IDENTITY THEFT AND ACCESS DEVICE FRAUD, AND ENRICHING HIMSELF THROUGH A FRAUDULENT CONTRIBUTION SCHEME. WHEREAS SAM MIELE, WHO SERVED AS A FUNDRAISER TO REPRESENTATIVE SANTOS’ CAMPAIGN, PLEADED GUILTY TO A FEDERAL WIRE FRAUD CHARGE AFTER IMPERSONATING A SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL AIDE FOR THE PURPOSES OF SOLICITING FUNDS; WHEREAS THE ISC THAT WAS ESTABLISHED TO REVIEW THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST REPRESENTATIVE SANTOS ADOPTED A REPORT OF ITS FINDINGS AND SUBMITTED THE REPORT TO THE FULL COMMITTEE. WHEREAS THE COMMITTEE ON ETHICS OF THE HOUSE UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADOPT THE ISC REPORT BASED UPON THE INVESTIGATION PROVIDING SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT REPRESENTATIVE SANTOS- ONE, KNOWINGLY CAUSED HIS CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE TO FILE FALSE OR INCOMPLETE REPORTS WITH THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, USED CAMPAIGN FUNDS FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES, ENGAGED IN FRAUDULENT CONDUCT IN CONNECTION WITH REDSTONE STRATEGIES LLC, AND ENGAGED IN KNOWING AND WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT AS IT RELATES TO HIS FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS FILED WITH THE HOUSE. TWO, WAS A KNOWING AND ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN THE WRONGDOING. AND, THREE, WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY, PURSUANT TO COMMITTEE RULE 17-B, TO SUBMIT A SIGNED WRITTEN STATEMENT RESPONDING TO THE ALLEGATIONS RAISED IN A COMPLAINT FILED BY HIS FELLOW MEMBERS BUT DID NOT DO SO. WHEREAS THE ISC- ONE, REQUESTED THAT REPRESENTATIVE SANTOS PROVIDE ALL DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION RESPONSIVE TO ITS REQUEST FOR INFORMATION, BUT HE DID NOT DO SO. TWO, ASKED REPRESENTATIVE SANTOS TO VOLUNTARILY TESTIFY, BUT HE DID NOT DO SO AND (3) PROVIDED REPRESENTATIVE SANTOS THE OPPORTUNITY, PURSUANT TO COMMITTEE RULE 19-B-3, TO PROVIDE A STATEMENT UNDER OATH, BUT HE DID NOT DO SO. WHEREAS AS A MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTATIVE SANTOS MUST BE HELD COUNTABLE TO THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF CONDUCT IN ORDER TO SAFEGUARD THE PUBLIC’S FAITH IN THIS INSTITUTION. WHEREAS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES CHARGES THE HOUSE WITH POLICING THE BEHAVIOR OF ITS OWN MEMBERS, AND THE HOUSE SHOULD TAKE ACTION AGAINST REPRESENTATIVE SANTOS COMMENSURATE WITH HIS VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW AND THE RULES OF THE HOUSE. AND WHEREAS GIVEN HIS EGREGIOUS VIOLATIONS, REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE SANTOS IS NOT FIT TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE I, SECTION 5, CLAUSE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE SANTOS, BE, AND HE HEREBY IS, EXPELLED FROM THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF

Toast… add some marmite :drooling_face:

1 Like

He’s so shameless. He’s saying he hasn’t been convicted of anything. I don’t think he’s thought things though. His Congressional supporters say he hasn’t been given the opportunity to pay back the money he took illegally and unethically. WTAF? I gotta get me a Congress job. :rofl:

Who are they I wonder, Im surprised he has any supporters.

Low hanging fruit.

1 Like

He has been a target from the get-go.

With all sincerity, be careful what you wish for.

2 Likes

I think they support the process and not him so much, but one guy was from Texas, GOP guy, former MP and cop.

Santos and his supporters – who included Republican Reps. Troy Nehls, Clay Higgins and Matt Gaetz – argued that the New York congressman’s expulsion would set a dangerous precedent and is not reflective of the wishes of the voters who elected him.

Gaetz has his name in the mix.