George Santos’ Other Shoe

/51 Comments/in , /by

Back on September 12, I noted that EDNY seemed to have a plan in place such that George Santos might be considering a plea even as the drama in the GOP House caucus played out.

Which is to say that Big Kev may lose the deciding vote that made him Speaker even before discussions of impeachment and shutdowns are resolved.

Santos’ vote was not enough to save Kevin McCarthy on October 3 (though McCarthy seems unconvinced he’s done, so Santos might yet have another chance to provide McCarthy a deciding vote). And he was in the fractious House meeting when EDNY rolled out a superseding indictment. Santos will vote for someone today, but it’s unclear that’ll result in the election of a Speaker.

The superseding indictment should have come as no surprise. It adds two schemes to the charges in his original indictment. One was mapped out in the criminal information to which Santos’ campaign treasurer Nancy Marks pled guilty last week: in order to qualify for the NRCC program, he and Marks allegedly falsely claimed family members had supported his campaign. For that scheme, EDNY indicted Santos with:

  • Conspiracy to defraud the US (the single charge to which Marks pled guilty) [count one]
  • Two counts of wire fraud for each false FEC report [counts two and three]
  • False statements and falsification charges for the 2021 FEC report claiming the donations [counts four and five]
  • Identity theft tied to misuse of the identities of 11 donors [count six]
  • False statements and falsification charges for the 2022 FEC report claiming Santos had given himself a $500,000 loan [count seven and eight]

In addition, Santos is charged with access device fraud and identity theft [counts nine and ten] falsely using someone else’s credit card to make donations to himself. Specifically, Santos is accused of making a $12,000 payment on August 1, 2021 to a company associated with Santos, most of which Santos then pocketed.

All those charges were larded onto the other counts originally charged in May.

Even with the ten new counts, Santos may not be done.

The credit card fraud counts — two right now — remain fairly amorphous. While Santos is alleged to have attempted to make numerous credit card payments, only that one on August 1, 2021 is enumerated.

And there’s nothing in the indictment specifically tied to Sam Miele, Santos’ finance guy who was indicted on August 15 for impersonating a key McCarthy staffer. Miele’s case was continued in September to last Friday; time was excluded last week until today (extending past yesterday’s grand jury meeting); and yesterday EDNY asked for another month-long continuance, to November 14. Miele hasn’t, apparently, availed himself of the kind of no cooperation plea deal that Nancy Marks entered into last week. But EDNY seems to think he might, on short order.

As it is, Republicans are likely to face a two week window between the time former Rhode Island Congressperson David Cicilline is replaced on November 7, probably by Democrat Gabe Amo, and the time former Utah Congressperson Christ Stewart is replaced on November 21, probably by Republican Celeste Maloy, in which their margin will shrink by one. But EDNY is increasing the heat on George Santos.

And it seems like there’s likely still another shoe yet to drop there.

Update: Roger Sollenberger reported before the superceding indictment came out yesterday that ultimately there was $500,000 that ultimately back-filled the bullshit financial loan Santos made to his campaign. But it’s not clear, yet, whence it came.

image_print
51 replies
  1. I Never Lie and am Always Right says:

    I’ve always been intrigued by people who seemingly (and allegedly) attempt to commit as many felonies as possible within a discrete period of time. What makes them tick? As far as dropping shoes goes, this guy looks like a centipede. Thank goodness he’s not wearing a bow tie.

    • Mart7890 says:

      Had a boss who for two years was usually on the road visiting clients. Turns out he rarely left his house. As a person who sweats out completing the time sheet accurately, it freaked me out that he could get away with it for so long.

  2. Rethfernhim says:

    What astonishes me is the electronic/paper trail. From falsifying his resume and accomplishments, to his personal life, and through to the handling of campaign finances, it seems that he wasn’t even trying to cover his tracks or create a credible narrative. Did he think no one would ever take a close look? Has he skated his whole life without consequences? It’s unfathomable to me.

    • Rayne says:

      But look where Santos is — he made it into Congress and he’s essentially destroyed representation for a congressional district. He’s proof of concept the media ecosystem is still failing and can’t stop infiltration of government by criminals.

      Although the media had already proven it wasn’t going to do that with its coverage of Trump in 2015-2020.

    • CaptainCondorcet says:

      He is the only currently serving openly gay Republican in all of Congress. He is possibly the first POC gay Republican ever elected. And he was neither a fervent anti trumper nor someone interested in giving McCarthy a migraine. That’s a unicorn in the cold civil war ongoing in the GOP. Why look a gift horse in the mouth when primary voters have shown they don’t (or won’t)?

      • harpie says:

        That O’Brien Tweet, from Jan 12, 2023 · 3:40 PM UTC:

        The man holding the door for George Santos is Vish Burra, a Steve Bannon henchman and leader of the New York Young Republican Club. NYYRC is an elite fascist networking nexus with strong ties to far-right foreign political parties. [link][VIDEO][THREAD]

        Burra is Santos’ “operations director.”

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Thanks, harpie! I thought Vish Burra *was* Santos’ ops director (or whatever his title was, never clear to me) and that he left the congressman’s office recently.

          Also vaguely recalled an Infowars connection, but that might have been the comms director, who also (I believe) departed the sinking ship not long ago.

          • harpie says:

            Thanks, Ginevra…I haven’t kept up with the most recent “rats slinking off the sinking ship” stories. I think it’s important to understand why they were there and how they got there…and maybe also where they go next.

            • Ginevra diBenci says:

              Oh, harpie, I’m hardly keeping up with Santos! Back in the early days (nine months ago) I found his weird staff a welcome diversion from the whole GOP speaker thing. Then I lost track, because, well, more important stuff happened…and let’s face it, most stuff seems more important than the comings and goings of George Santos’ Star Wars bar of a staff.

              They did, however, seem to exhibit tentacles every which way, if all those ways were sub-rosa and kind of slimy. It’s almost like there’s a vast right-wing…

              Oh yeah. I’ll let you know if I find out anything real.

              • earthworm says:

                ginevra
                “They did, however, seem to exhibit tentacles every which way, if all those ways were sub-rosa and kind of slimy.”
                Yes. Slimy. Probably way off base, but i was speculating that someone like Vish might’ve/could’ve had a hand in the laptop story.

  4. Rugger_9 says:

    I’m not sure what the whip count is for the GOP in the House, but it seems pretty close to where Jefferies can swoop in and become Speaker with a majority. Even with this latest of a continuing saga (I agree with EW that SDNY isn’t done) ‘Santos’ won’t resign for a couple of reasons analogous to why Defendant-1 keeps fighting against all evidence.

    As a House member in DC, he’s pretty untouchable. Aaron Burr over 200 years ago was similarly untouchable after killing Hamilton (dueling in NY was illegal even if they went across to NJ) so long as he stayed in DC as Jefferson’s Veep. As a House member in DC, ‘Santos’ also has his guaranteed income and medical care. The fact ‘Santos’ is still so vital to the GOP caucus as a vote means he knows discipline will not come from the chamber. ‘Santos’ needs this status quo to continue.

    ‘Santos’ is used since there are still many unanswered questions about his true identity from reliable sources with documentation to support those questions.

    Defendant-1 is also leveraging his status as leading GOP candidate into de facto untouchability (abetted by the courtier press), knowing that the only way he gets out of the current jams is to pardon himself, even on state charges. Whether one considers that part of the POTUS prerogatives (I do not) it is clear that Defendant-1 will try it anyway and dare us to stop him if he steals this election.

      • John B. says:

        True, but I don’t think pardoning himself on federal charges is a thing either, but that won’t stop him from asserting it as true…

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Two separate things. The president’s pardon power extends to federal crimes. It never reaches state crimes. While a self-pardon for federal crimes would be highly controversial, an attempt to pardon state crimes would be illegal, even by the standards of this Supreme Court, and also cause for impeachment.

          • Rugger_9 says:

            I thought I was pretty clear Defendant-1 does not have the power to pardon himself but he’ll try it anyway.

            • earlofhuntingdon says:

              You’ll note from the nesting that I was responding to John B.

              Actually, it remains an open question whether a President can pardon himself. It hasn’t come up before Trump, but the Constitution places no express limits on the pardon power. It would be highly controversial.

        • velcroman says:

          I did not mean to be cryptic. That’s the one where Jackson said (of SCOTUS CJ Marshall) “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”

          So Trump pardons himself (for a State offense) and refuses to recognize any court that indicts, tries, convicts, etc. What then?

    • Scott_in_MI says:

      “I’m not sure what the whip count is for the GOP in the House, but it seems pretty close to where Jefferies can swoop in and become Speaker with a majority.”

      Apparently the GOP is voting on a rule change that would require a candidate for speaker to get 217 Republicans in support, through a series of secret and open ballots held behind closed doors, before they move to a vote on the House floor. WaPo, at least, is pitching this as an attempt to “avoid embarrassment” stemming from multiple public voting rounds, but it also seems to me like it’s an attempt to head off any move by moderate reps to throw votes to Jeffries on the floor by locking them in to support one of the GOP candidates beforehand.

      • CaptainCondorcet says:

        I agree that two things can be true. And from a comparative politics sense, hashing out a party leader behind closed doors is neither novel nor controversial in other democracies, often because they then need that person to negotiate with possible coalition partners.

        • Scott_in_MI says:

          Agreed, but Speaker of the House is a separate post from Majority Leader, and is not required to be a member of the majority party.

          • CaptainCondorcet says:

            Fully understood from a de jure sense. They could call either of us right now and tell us to pack our bags for DC (I would admittedly not likely be polite in my response). But in this era of Hastert rule revival, the speaker of a majority Republican congress is de facto leader. When you add in order of succession given they don’t hold white house,it basically has to be “top dog”

            • Scott_in_MI says:

              “the speaker of a majority Republican congress is de facto leader”

              But that assumes the outcome of the election process: that the Speaker of a House with a majority of Republican seats is, in fact, a Republican. I grant you that’s the most *likely* outcome, but it’s not the necessary outcome, and under current circumstances might not be the *preferable* outcome, for the country or even for a sufficient number of (relatively) moderate Republicans. Trying to do an end-run around that possibility seems anti-democratic to me, and even if that’s not what’s happening here, I’d oppose this move on the grounds that the voters should get to watch the sausage being made, rather than just seeing whatever semblance of unity the GOP caucus is finally able to strongarm or sweet-talk its members into accepting..

              • Scott_in_MI says:

                It’s seemingly a moot point now: WaPo is reporting that the move to change the rules failed, which means that as soon as a single candidate (probably Scalise) is able to get a majority of the GOP caucus vote, they’ll move to a full vote on the floor. I expect at least a few rounds of voting, and lots of shouting, once that happens.

  5. dael_11OCT2023_1443h says:

    No one has ever legitimately confirmed Santos citizenship.

    [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is far too short it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Let me know when they garner the 2/3 majority to eject him. Until then, this looks like a distancing campaign that won’t affect the GOP’s House majority.

  7. punaise says:

    Well Santos is quite a heel, so the title of this post fits.

    He simply confused “ethics” with “orthotics” and opted out.

  8. Narpington says:

    I found it curious that on his disclosures Santos hid his income as a Regional Director of Investment Firm #1 (Harbor City Capital), “purportedly engaged in retail sales of securities products”, on its face a proper job with a respectable salary “of approximately $120,000”.

    “[he] received approximately $25,403 in income from Investment Firm #1, which he failed to truthfully report as required”

    “In addition, from approximately January 2021 through September 2021, DEVOLDER SANTOS received approximately $28,107 in income from
    Investment Firm #1 and approximately $20,304 in unemployment insurance benefits from the
    NYS DOL, both of which he failed to truthfully report as required.”

    I continue to believe that Santos’ candidacy was yet another penetration test of US democracy, designed to find the weak spots in Congress, exploit them and ridicule the whole “democratic experiment”.

    • Happyness says:

      No, not a concerted effort in my view. Just a sociopathic nutcase trying it on, admittedly with support from similar dodgy types. And a depressing but expected lack of response from House colleagues which further normalises and enables such behaviour.

Comments are closed.