"Liar Rep.-Elect George Santos Admits Fabricating Key Details of His Bio"

The New York Post (Victor Nava & Carl Campanile) reports:

"My sins here are embellishing my resume. I'm sorry," Santos said Monday.

Santos confessed he had "never worked directly" for Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, chalking that fib up to a "poor choice of words."

The 34-year-old now claims instead that a company called Link Bridge, where he worked as a vice president, did business with both of the financial giants.

"I will be clearer about that. It was stated poorly," Santos said of the lie….

He also admitted that he never graduated from any college, despite previously claiming to have received a degree from Baruch in 2010….

And there's so much more; check out the article.

Comments

[TwelveInchPianist]

Maybe he and Blumenthal can give each other some pointers.

[Mr. Bumble]

You mean Danang Dick? Old Mr. Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus.

[DonP]

Maybe the "Conqueror of Corn Pop", "Semi-Driver Par Excellance", "Top of His Class With Two Degrees" can hold a seminar from his basement?

[Michael P]

Sorry, today's lid was at noon. Try next month's press session, where the Sniffer-in-Chief will say one thing quite clearly only for his staff to clarify that he meant the opposite thing, and only bad faith Ultra MAGAts would think otherwise.

[Frank Drackman]

You left out he was recruited to play tailback at the Naval Academy

[John F. Carr]

The news says Democrats are calling for him to resign, which means it’s a day ending in y. They think they might win a new election. Much like Labour in the UK keeps calling for new elections based on whatever news happens to be current. What do his voters think?

[Longtobefree]

But he IDENTIFIES as a graduate, so we have to consider him a graduate or he will be sad.
Just like gender, college status is what we want it to be, right?

(just curious, what was the NYT take on Schiff's lying again?)

[Ed Grinberg]

(just curious, what was the NYT take on Schiff’s lying again?)

Have they ever actually acknowledged it?

[Drewski]

Yes, a Republican lying is obviously the fault of progressive Democrats. If they hadn't embraced trans and queer rights, no Republican would ever feel the need to prevaricate. This is why no Republican ever told a lie before c. 1995.

[Bored Lawyer]

Funny you mention that. The other day we were eating lunch at my sister-in-law. She was serving dessert and handed out some chocolate cake. Asked me if I wanted some, and when I said yes, my daughter asked, "aren't you on a diet?"
To which I replied, "that's okay. The chocolate cake identifies as a stick of celery. So I can eat it."

[David Nieporent]

With that kind of wit you should write for the Babylon Bee.

[Bored Lawyer]

Law pays better. Though it's less interesting.

[Noscitur a sociis]

And then everybody stood up and clapped.

[Bored Lawyer]

I got some laughs.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Fat, superstitious, and bigoted is no way to go through life, Bored Lawyer.

[Frank Drackman]

Worked pretty well for Al Sharpton

[ThanksForTheFish]

How's it working for you Artie?

[Orbital Mechanic]

He will be seated and fully embraced by the Republican speaker.

As has been demonstrated over and over again over the past decade, lying is no longer a part of the Republican brand. It is fully integrated into its mainstream MO. Trump didn't invent this of course but he exploited it to maximum effect.

It is actually more newsworthy when a Republic isn't lying.

[Mr. Bumble]

"It is actually more newsworthy when a Republic isn’t lying."

See: Joe Biden,Adam Schitt........

[Nige]

Yes, lying about them, amongst others.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

It is actually more newsworthy when a Republic isn’t lying.

Depends on the meaning of "is", doesn't it, Mr Clinton?

[elnurmamedrafiev]

Coming from the party that lies about everything, and does so in a criminally dishonest matter, that's funny.

"We don't want to take all guns."

"We don't believe in open borders."

"All we care about is equal rights, we don't want to force bakers to make cakes."

[Longtobefree]

To be honest, their party platform clearly stated they wanted to destroy the country, and they are.

[Milhouse]

Of course he will be seated. What possible grounds exist not to seat him? And of course the speaker (whoever that turns out to be) will accept any member who wishes to join his caucus. Even Democrats, should any wish to cross the aisle. He can't be choosy. What is your point?

And no. Lying is so far from the Republican brand that it's newsworthy when one of them does.

[wolfefan]

I disagree about the GOP brand, but to lie to this degree and about so many different things exceeds the routine lies that most politicians engage in. You're certainly right that he'll be seated. Why shouldn't he be? There's no legal to exclude him.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it actually runs the other way: Between lying about incidentals, and policies, I'd much rather elect somebody who lied about getting a degree but was honest about what he'd do in office, than the reverse.

Of course, I tend to think the two forms of lies are heavily correlated, so you're not going to see that much.

[ThanksForTheFish]

Lying is the Republican brand. And the only item on their platform.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Is clueless hypocrisy really your only talent?

[Ed Grinberg]

I'd much prefer to be represented by an honest person rather than a liar. But, between a lying Republican (who'll vote the way I want him to) and an honest Democrat, I'll take the liar.
I mean, AFAIK, Rashida Tlaib is perfectly honest. But I'll take the biggest fibber in history over her!

[Michael P]

Rashida Tlaib? The lady who bigamously married her brother?

[Mr. Bumble]

No, that would be Ilhan Omar who also filed false tax returns.
Wonder if Congress will be demanding that the IRS turn over her returns?

[Frank Drackman]

Good luck with that, they're probably under her Turban with the Anthrax

[David Nieporent]

I mean, that didn't happen and it wasn't Tlaib accused of it anyway, but I guess they kind of all look alike, right?

[Mr. Bumble]

What a dipwad you are.

It was Omar and as I stated above she also filed false tax returns.

Is that OK?

[Nige]

Are TRUMPISTS accusing others of tax shenanigans? Now that's funny.

[Milhouse]

Yes, it did happen. The evidence is clear. How can you deny it?

[David Nieporent]

The "evidence" is nonexistent. There is no documentation showing either a bigamous marriage or that the guy is her brother.

[bevis the lumberjack]

They’re very confused. They don’t even have the correct continent of family origin. Does Tlaib even have a brother?

[David Nieporent]

Does Tlaib even have a brother?

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess "Yes," given this line from a profile of hers when she first was elected:

The oldest of 14 children born to Palestinian immigrants, Tlaib grew up in a working-class home where her parents struggled at times to get by. She often acted as a third parent, changing diapers while juggling homework and school activities.

[BadLib]

People do sometimes confuse people who are members of a small group such as The Squad who hang together and share similar views and seek attention.

[Michael P]

Sue me if I don't remember which radical leftist Somali-American member of The Squad married her brother and which married a somewhat more distant relative.

[David Nieporent]

Tlaib is not "Somali-American." She's American-American, born in Detroit. Or if you insist on talking about her ancestry, she's Palestinian-American.

[wolfefan]

It's no use, David. Racists gonna racist.

[Frank Drackman]

Palestinians are technically "White" as we've been told incessantly by the endless obsession with race on this blog.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I mean, that didn’t happen

Neither did the alleged events of the "Hands up, don't shoot" narrative, but that didn't stop you from enthusiastically perpetuating it and steadfastly refusing to acknowledge that it was a lie even well after it was exposed as such.

[SimonP]

True, a lying, corrupt Republican might be a reliable vote in favor of national abortion restrictions, unfunded tax cuts, and other dead-end policies that seem to be popular among the Republican base.

They're also far more likely to use their position in Washington as a way to gain wealth, pass legislation serving political benefactors that your'e not paying as much attention to, and generally promote their own self-interests to the detriment of the American people. That is, after all, exactly what Trump and company did.

So, you know - vote for the swamp creatures, if you like. Just don't bitch to the rest of us when your shitty life doesn't improve.

[jb]

This is the end game of the culture war as the principle motivating factor of the Republican voting base: they don't end up giving a shit about good governance as long as their elected officials are making the right offended noises (or maybe even occasionally enacting legislation) about issues like grooming or abortion or whatever very offensive thing that other people are doing. As a result, their lives and communities continue to get worse and worse by almost every objective metric, but hey at least there's no trans girls playing middle school tennis!

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe he just worked for 1/1,024th of Goldman Sachs, those high cheekbones, you see.

[Sarcastr0]

Incredible story. Like historic in it's level of lying. And in the press's failure to check some elementary facts.

But the usual folks on here don't care. You will point left to justify literally anything your party does.

Do you realize how dangerous that is?? How corrosive to the republic it is to let one party own not just your vote, but your fidelity to the truth?

I don't mean believing stuff that's wrong. The GOP's conspiritizing is pretty bad. But this is just not caring at all about truth.
You are embracing the politics of a Soviet citizen to own the libs. Congrats on such an oxymoronic achievement.

[TwelveInchPianist]

As opposed to the left not caring about Clinton lying about Monica, the other Clinton lying about sniper fire, the current president lying about getting arrested trying to meet Nelson Mandela, or about the death of his son.

If it's only dangerous when the other side does it, it's not dangerous. This stuff works better when people police their own side.

Much like election denialism or political violence, if you dismiss it when your own side does it, the other side will dismiss it too.

As for Santos, his voters failed to do their due diligence. Hopefully they'll do better in two years.

[Krychek_2]

It's not that the left doesn't care about such things; it's that the left recognizes that there are more important fish to fry than Bill Clinton's 25 year old affair and subsequent lies about it. Neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary Clinton are ever going to get within a country mile of occupying the oval office. They're not a current problem. This guy, and Trump, are current problems.

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess you live in a bubble.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It’s not that the left doesn’t care about such things; it’s that the left recognizes that there are more important fish to fry than Bill Clinton’s 25 year old affair and subsequent lies about it."

They didn't care about his lies under oath to a grand jury 25 years ago, either.

Nothing Santos said was under oath.

[Krychek_2]

And I doubt very much that his fellow Democrats would handle it the same way 25 years later. This is not 1998. Today, his fellow Democrats would force him out of office. Ask Al Franken.

[Ben of Houston]

Are you meaning what happened when there were accusations about Biden forcibly touching his staffers or the secret service members?

A media blackout, denial of what happened, and CNN deleting an episode of Larry King from the archive so no one could reference it?

No. Franken was considered expendable. Biden was thought to be their best shot, and the Democratic establishment deliberately betrayed every principle they claimed to have in order to defeat Trump.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Franken was considered expendable."

Dem governor available to replace him.

Contrast with Virginia where they rallied around a racist governor because he had an accused rapist as lt. governor.

[David Nieporent]

A media blackout, denial of what happened, and CNN deleting an episode of Larry King from the archive so no one could reference it?

I'll take things that Ben of Houston fabricated out of whole cloth for $500, Alex.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cnn-larry-king-live-tara-reade/

[Mr. Bumble]

Snopes is for dopes. It has NO credibility.

[David Nieporent]

The bad facts will not go away if you put your hands over your ears and yell LALALALALALALAICAN'THEARYOU.

[Frank Drackman]

Barney Fag, I mean Frank didn't quit

[SimonP]

Indeed, as Santos put it: "I am not a crook."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Republicans are too tolerant of gays.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Current enough for you?

the current president lying about getting arrested trying to meet Nelson Mandela, or about the death of his son.

[Sarcastr0]

They at least admitted Monica was a thing, and a bad thing. Ask Al Franken how the whole ignoring past stuff goes on the Dem side.

But your whattaboutism is just more pointing left.

I mean, look at these comments. They're mostly everyone hauling out a liberal they hate, and then bashing them with stuff both true some lies as well for spice.

The left sucks in lots of ways, but that's not what you see on the left.

Is there any line the right could cross you wouldn’t absolve because you hate the left *that much*?

It truly seems that for you, there is no bottom.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Clinton set a new standard for shamelessly telling flagrant whoppers, and Trump and now Biden have taken the torch and improved the effort. Whataboutism schmataboutism. You can’t defend Clinton or Biden and dis this guy with credibility, just like you can’t defend Trump or this guy and credibly criticize Biden.

You either believe politicians should be honest or you don’t. I do and you don’t. And you don’t like me because I won’t just criticize the other side.

[Nige]

Both-sideism is being confronted with a proven liar on one side and then going back decades to find anything remotely equivalent on the other.

'You can’t defend Clinton or Biden and dis this guy with credibility'

Both-sideism is also agreeing with the arbitrary parameters for 'allowing' criticism of someone set by the people on the same side as the guy being criticised. The side that just voted yet another massive fraud into power, and who seem set on rewarding him for it.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Criticizing Biden and Trump for things they said this year is going back decades? Ok.

You can’t defend your side so you deflect and dismiss and insult me and yell more about the bad guys. Just another unprincipled hypocrite.

[Nige]

You were talking about Clinton too, as for Biden, they're just bringing up right-wing deep cuts that nobody else understands or believes.

'You can’t defend your side'

This story is not about 'my side,' but you sure are quick to join in efforts to make it so.

[bernard11]

The issue is that you seem unwilling to make distinctions.

Whatever Biden falsehoods you can dredge up there is no comparison between him and Trump when it comes to level of dishonesty.

In fact, there is hardly anyone I can think of in public life who compares to Trump.

Yet in your eagerness to be nonpartisan you refuse to draw a distinction, thereby, in effect, excusing Trump, because there hardly exists a politician who hasn't lied sometimes.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yes, betnard, Trump is a continual liar and probably lies more frequently than he tells the truth. I disregard everything he says and the sound of his voice makes my skin crawl. Is that harsh enough?

On the other hand, one of Biden’s whoppers actually did harm to an innocent person. Remember the drunk driver that killed Biden’s first wife and child? Turns out that the investigation at the scene of the accident noticed no sign that the guy had had any alcohol AND it determined that Biden’s wife was responsible for the wreck, as she left a two way stop too early and pulled into the truckers ROW. Yet for whatever reason Biden let it hang out there for like a decade making the world think that poor man did something he didn’t do. Finally, he did more or less take it back, which is something you’d probably never see Trump do.

So, tell me, Bernard. How do we distinguish between those? One is a serial blowhard who doesn’t seem to know what the truth is, the other very publicly blamed an innocent man for murder for years. You willing to defend either?

[Nige]

'How do we distinguish between those'

Really? You can't work out how to distinguish between the two? One a grieving husband and father who blames the guy who killed his family for killing his family, the other a reflexive liar with absolutely no excuse whatsoever?

[Sarcastr0]

"the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron"

[bevis the lumberjack]

You heartless political bastards are fine with Biden hanging an innocent guy out to dry for more than a decade because you like his politics? Yes, nige, you idiot, an innocent guy. The accident was the fault of Mrs. Biden. At the site they measured 150 ft of skid marks showing that he tried like hell to stop but she didn't leave enough room.

You two literally have no humanity left.

[Sarcastr0]

Look at yourself. Look at what you're trying to make equivalent.

And then consider that just because you don't have a party, doesn't mean you can't be a heartless political bastard with an agenda of your own.

[bevis the lumberjack]

My agenda is to waste my time pointing out your hypocrisy.

Tell me, because again you’re using the word equate when I didn’t, what is it I’m equating? Because I think I said that both are awful in different ways such that I have trouble comparing them. That’s not equating, but I guess that’s a subtlety that is beyond your intellect.

Meanwhile, you can’t even bring yourself to say that Biden identifying an innocent man as a drunken baby killer to gain political sympathy for himself over more than a decade is even a little bad. Merits no criticism at all.

And I’m the partisan.

[Nige]

You claim not to be equating them while claiming they're both awful, only in different ways. You're also talking about one specific supposed 'lie' from Biden and general repeated lying by Trump, so you're rhetorically boosting the 'awfulness' of a single Biden 'lie' to match the sheer quantity of Trump's. In other words, you're equating them.

[David Nieporent]

How do we distinguish between those?

Well, an obvious distinction is that Biden, as far as I know, didn't even name the guy. He didn't go around saying "Curtis Dunn, a really bad and vicious guy, that the Republicans let get away with murder. Many people are saying that Curtis Dunn should be executed." He did claim the guy was drunk (I'm not sure if he ever explicitly said that the accident was Dunn's fault, but that's implicit in the accusation he was drunk).

On the anti-Biden side, he said it for a lot longer than the decade that you refer to; he was saying it at least as much as 30 years later. On the defense side, he didn't just make it up; as Snopes points out, it was commonly believed in his community:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-lie-wife-killed-drunk-driver/

There's no evidence he was knowingly lying (like, say, Trump about the Atlanta poll workers). And he did apologize and admit he was wrong.

[bevis the lumberjack]

He did apologize, but there are write ups on politico and cbs, neither of which can be accused of being right wing rags, that quote the cops as saying there was zero reason to say the truck driver was drunk, and that it was obvious that Mrs Biden pulled away from the stop sign right in front of him. The snopes thing (I saw it today) might be a hair generous to Biden. And as far as saying the guy’s name publicly, the wreck reports were public record so it took the media about 10 minutes to find the guy. Eventually Biden apologized after years of begging from the guy’s daughter and (I believe) after the guy died.

Look, Trump is awful. What he’s doing to innocent poll workers is unconscionable. I’ve clearly said I can’t stand the guy and never considered voting for him and don’t think he’s fit to hold any public office.

Which is worse? Which is worse, a plane crash or a passenger train wreck both of which leave body parts strewn all over? How do you answer that? Both are just appallingly awful.

As to the NY idiot, I just saw that Sarcastro chided me for not sanctioning the guy. I called him a lying jackass and made an obvious joke about his political future. Not sure how I’m supposed to sanction him - I’ve got no power here.

[Nige]

Sure. But it's odd, nearly every right-wing commenter jumped straight to whatabouting Clinton and Biden and gish-galloping other assorted obscure right-wing tropes, but you attacked Sarcastro for apparently not criticising Biden and Clinton enough, rather than those commenters for avoiding criticisng, or even acknowledging Santos. Heck one even said he liked the guy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"They at least admitted Monica was a thing, and a bad thing."

Are you kidding? They denied it until it was exposed through DNA, then downplayed it by saying everybody lies about sex.

"The left sucks in lots of ways, but that’s not what you see on the left."

What I see on the left is the same as I see on the right, for example when you claim that Biden's lies about his son aren't really lies. When your side lies, it's either close enough, or an aberration, or just not a big deal. When the other side does it, it's a threat to democracy.

[not guilty]

I suspect that one of Bill Clinton's greatest regrets is not holding out for a girlfriend who swallowed.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey Now! and even if Monica did, she was a Horseface, I'd have been after Eleanor Mondale

[TwelveInchPianist]

"They at least admitted Monica was a thing, and a bad thing."

They still haven't admitted that Juanita Broaddrick was a thing, and a bad thing, and a rape.

[not guilty]

Juanita Broaddrick has claimed to have been raped. She has also expressly (and under oath) disclaimed any untoward conduct toward her by Bill Clinton. Her pseudonym there was Jane Doe #5. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/affidavit122398.htm

Imagine having to make an important decision about a family member, where the only relevant information comes from Juanita Broaddrick. Anyone who would not there seek out further information is a fool.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Juanita Broaddrick's friend confirms that she returned to her hotel room on April 25, 1978, saw her bruised and bloody with torn pantyhose, and that Broaddrick said that she had been raped by Clinton.

She told several other people about the incident at the time.

In the late nineties, she gave Paula Jones' lawyers an affidavit saying that the incident never happened because she didn't want the hassle.

But her lawyer son told her that she couldn't lie to the FBI, so she recanted her denial when asked by Ken Starr.

[not guilty]

Ms. Broaddrick has made diametrically opposed statements concerning the same (non)event. That is not the conduct of a truthful person. How is anything that she has said worthy of belief (apart from motivated reasoning)?

Of course, when it comes to Bill Clinton, his critics are able, like the White Queen said to Alice, to believe six impossible things before breakfast.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Easy, you look at the circumstances in which the person made the statements and make a judgement about credibility?

You're suggesting that Broaddrick lied to her friends in 1978 about how she got torn pantyhose and a bloody lip, repeated the lie to various other people throughout the years (while refusing to talk to reporters), then suddenly decided to come clean to Paula Jones' lawyers when subpoenaed, only to turn around and lie again to the FBI?

Talk about motivated reasoning!

[Michael P]

He is very guilty of that. And in denial about it.

[not guilty]

"But her lawyer son told her that she couldn’t lie to the FBI, so she recanted her denial when asked by Ken Starr."

Is that so? IIRC, bad things happened to women who got on the wrong side of Kenneth Starr's pursuit of Bill Clinton. E.g., Julie Hiatt Steele and Susan McDougal.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Is that so? IIRC, bad things happened to women who got on the wrong side of Kenneth Starr’s pursuit of Bill Clinton. E.g., Julie Hiatt Steele and Susan McDougal."

Then it's very brave of her that she didn't provide Starr with any testimony that would be helpful to his investigation of perjury and obstruction of justice.

If she were lying to please Starr, she could have said that Clinton pressured her to lie or something. I wonder if Starr threatened her with jail time for her refusal.

[Nige]

Ah, yes, not admitting that the awful unproven stuff said by their worst enemies is true is the equivalent of this guy having every single thing he said about himself being proven to be a lie.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Ask Al Franken how the whole ignoring past stuff goes on the Dem side."

Let's ask Ralph Northam instead.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Or Justin Fairfax.

[Frank Drackman]

C'mon Man! Ralph wasn't wearing Black-Face, he was the guy in the Klan robe.

[David Nieporent]

As opposed to the left not caring about Clinton lying about Monica, the other Clinton lying about sniper fire, the current president lying about getting arrested trying to meet Nelson Mandela, or about the death of his son.

Every human being lies. Politicians lie more than most people. I'll allow that the the Clintons lie more than most politicians, if you insist. But lying about specific anecdotes is different than lying about one’s entire biography, as Santos seemingly has. We know virtually nothing truthful about Santos’s career or c.v. or his personal life. Is he a straight impoverished Catholic criminal or a successful gay Jewish guy?

[Brett Bellmore]

"But lying about specific anecdotes is different than lying about one’s entire biography, as Santos seemingly has."

Oh, come on. At this point Biden has been telling so many fraudulent stories about his life that he pretty much has lied about his entire biography. Although I suspect at this point he can't tell the difference, meaning they're not technically lies anymore.

[David Nieporent]

At this point Biden has been telling so many fraudulent stories about his life that he pretty much has lied about his entire biography.

Really? Is there anyone here confused about (a) where Joe Biden went to school; (b) where he has worked; (c) whether he's Jewish; or (d) whether he's gay?

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, stop just tossing off factual statements that feel true to you and Google them!

[ThanksForTheFish]

If the left admits their lies are bad, will you do the same? No?

Didn't think so. .

[Kazinski]

I have hopes for him, maybe he’s gotten it out of his system. Most politicians reserve the worst of their lies for after they take office.

Here’s a great example from just last month of a much more consequential lie:

“A tweet sent by the White House, on November 1, 2022, claimed: “Seniors are getting the biggest increase in their Social Security checks in 10 years through President Biden’s leadership.”

Of course the COLA was due to Biden leading us into inflation, but the increase was mandated in a law decades old and Biden had nothing to do with it other than blowing inflation out of the water.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"“Seniors are getting the biggest increase in their Social Security checks in 10 years through President Biden’s leadership.”"

As you point out, this is accurate. Biden just wishes it was inaccurate.

[Sarcastr0]

More pointing left.

[Kazinski]

Throw in a Trump lie to make it more palatable, it's still true.

[Sarcastr0]

Like most fallacies, it is true but not relevant.

[elnurmamedrafiev]

Biden decided it was a good idea to buy votes in January by promising stimmies so that his base could buy fake nails and sail phones.

[jb]

You're seriously comparing just making up your entire resume with trying to spin facts that are objectively correct/truthful in a positive direction? Spin isn't just something literally every politician does, it's what basically every company and every person does. Flat out lying about where you went to college, where you graduated, where you work, the property own now, and more, is not something that most people do (not even politicians!) if for no other reason than it's usually pretty easy to figure out someone is lying about it.

[bernard11]

It's a silly, self-aggrandizing, and deceptive statement. And yes, the idea that Biden's leadership had anything to with it is a lie. (Of course, if the GOP had its way there woud have been no increase, maybe even a cut, but never mind.)

But what is so "consequential" about it?

[SimonP]

The really troubling part is less the "embellishing," than the "How did a long-struggling, deeply indebted congressional candidate suddenly manage to get enough money to loan his own campaign hundreds of thousands of dollars?"

All the stuff about being "Jew-ish" is glossing over that central, and so far unanswered, question.

[Bob from Ohio]

Who carres? He's only a 1st term backbencher, 1 of 435. He's just a vote, nothing more.

[SimonP]

I dunno, I kind of would prefer that our government not be run by people with shady sources of cash, even if they usually vote the "right" way. But I have principles; it's hard to imagine how your type lives.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The cash elements of this tale seem likely to be this guy's downfall. Lies about substantial campaign finances are likely to be more consequential than lies concerning schools and jobs.

[Bob from Ohio]

All of them are "shady" in one way or another.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That's how disaffected misfits, viewing the mainstream through obsolete, bigot-tinted lenses from the embittered fringe, tend to see it.

[Frank Drackman]

I hate Bitter Long Island Klingers

[David Nieporent]

To be fair to Bob from Ohio, unlike many he's honestly unprincipled. He doesn't even pretend to care about anything other than the scoreboard.

[Zarniwoop]

Yeah, I suspect excrement will actually hit the rotating airfoil when there's a bit more digging into where his thusfar-unexplained money comes from.

What he claimed: Despite claiming no assets or earned income on his 2020 financial disclosure, he lent his 2022 campaign and political action committee at least $600,000. His 2022 form featured millions’ worth of assets, with more than $1 million in income coming from one of them: the Devolder Organization. His campaign website once said that the company managed $80 million in assets.

What he says now: Of the loan to his campaign, he said, in a radio interview, “That is the money of — that I’ve paid myself through my company, Devolder Organization.”

Parse: As The Washington Post reported Monday, the question of where this money came from might be the biggest one — and perhaps the most troubling for Santos, given the legal implications, including for knowingly filing false financial disclosures. The Devolder Organization was organized in May 2021, according to documents filed with the Florida secretary of state, and Santos reported an annual salary of $750,000 in 2021 and 2022, so $600,000 to his campaign would have been a large chunk of that money. In addition, The Post reported that the financial data company Dun & Bradstreet estimated that, based on its data modeling, Devolder as of July 2022 had revenue of only $43,688.

There's more, but that's probably the most dangerous to him.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/12/27/george-santos-explanations-questions/

[ReaderY]

There would seem to be a threshold question before “where did the money come from” would even be relevant. Did any money ever actually come? Reporting non-existent campaign contributions might be just as valuable as reporting non-existent assets, jobs, and degrees if one wants to impress potential donors with ones viability as a candidate and bring in real campaign contributions.

[Zarniwoop]

Lying to donors =/= falsifying campaign disclosure forms filed with the Federal government.

You get three guesses as to which one might be a criminal offense, and the first two don't count.

[SimonP]

It's a "process crime" when Republicans do it.

[ReaderY]

I’m merely suggesting that Mr. Santos might have had a motive for lying about the existence of campaign contributions, similar to his motive for lying about the existence of other things we now know he lied about.

I’m not suggesting that the legal consequences of different kinds of lies are the same, or indeed expressing any opinion on the legal consequences.

I understand that different legal consequences might affect which kinds of lies a liar might be willing to admit too.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How corrosive to the republic it is to let one party own not just your vote, but your fidelity to the truth?

Define "woman".

Define "marriage".

[Nige]

When you're so obsessed with things like this you vote for fraudulent liars because they're the only people who'll tell you what you want to hear.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Sacrastr0 said it was corrosive to the republic to let one party own your fidelity to the truth.

You and Sacrastr0 are holding insane beliefs because your political tribe dictating your reality to you.

[Nige]

You claim I hold insane beliefs, but you can't even confront the fact that another fraudster took Republicans voters for a ride and may even be rewarded for it, by Republicans. At least this guy wasn't shown to be a fraud until after he won, so I can even sympathise with the voters. That excuse, of course, does not apply to Trump.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Define "woman".

[Nige]

The burning issue of the day.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That seems to be most of what these on-the-spectrum right-wing incels seem to think about.

Well, that and throbbing male members.

The interesting part is how these losers and a bunch of right-wing law professors found each other.

[Frank Drackman]

Jerry S and the Throbbing Male Members.....

[Kazinski]

Sounds to me like he has a great resume as a politician, he can lie with the best of them.

[Sarcastr0]

Taking refuge in cutsey cynicism.

How shallow.

[Nige]

Well, if it's liars you want, it's liars you get, and apparently you want liars.

[Bob from Ohio]

"he can lie with the best of them."

He's certainly a better politician than the dope who lost to him

[ah....Clem]

He’s certainly a better liar than the dope who lost to him.

FIFY

[Nige]

Maybe, but none of you seem put out that he played the presumably mostly Republicans who voted for him for utter fools.

[Bob from Ohio]

better politician = better liar

[TwelveInchPianist]

"FIFY"

They're the same comment!

[bevis the lumberjack]

Biden cheated to finish last in his law school class and tells stories like breaking Mandela out of prison. Trump had the biggest inauguration crowd ever and had the easily won 2020 election stolen from his grasp.

In the current era, this jackass from New York seems cut from presidential timber.

[Sarcastr0]

Just more pointing left. This is extraordinary shit - don't hide in cynicism just so you can bothsides it yet again.

Biden cheated in law school? That's a bullshit take on what happened, if you'd care to read any actual discussion of it. Which, as usual, you have not.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Plagiarism isn’t cheating? On what planet?

Yelling whataboutism is simply your way of saying that you’re ok when your side does it but not the other. Because you have no principles. That ain’t my fault.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Just more pointing left. This is extraordinary shit – don’t hide in cynicism just so you can bothsides it yet again."

Well, maybe you can defend your position.

Why is that when the left lies, it's not dangerous to democracy, but justifiable or excusable, but when the right does it, it's a threat to democracy.

[Nige]

Well, how does that 'sniper fire' anecdote threaten democracy, as opposed to 'the election was stolen from me and I refuse to concede and the constitution should be suspended' and 'literally ever single thing I told the electorate about myself is a complete fabrication and I won?'

[TwelveInchPianist]

I dunno, I wouldn't support any of those people.

[Nige]

Good for you. But irrelevant as to which lies could be credibly described as threatening, or at least be bad for, democracy.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Child sniffing and showering with your underage daughter - Good for Democracy!
Lying on your resume about being a Jew - Bad for Democracy

Sincerely,
Nige

[Nige]

Obsessed with smearing your opponents as pedophiles even as more Republicans get prosecuted for child sex trafficking AND defending a guy who completely defrauded the people who voted for him BUT who is being rewarded for it by the Republicans. Probably not great for democracy.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How many of Epsteins clients got prosecuted?

Weird.

[Nige]

Yeah, how come Trump didn't go after them?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The DOJ is clearly unmoored from any President.

[Nige]

Thats your excuse, anyway.

[TwelveInchPianist]

How does this guys' lies threaten democracy?

[Nige]

He's elected, having effectively defrauded the electorate. That's not great for the democratic process.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Wait until you hear how government agencies colluded with social media companies to censor Hunter news and silence critics heading into the 2020 election.

[David Nieporent]

If they hadn't done that (thing that they didn't actually do), Hunter would have lost his election!

[Nige]

Oh I've heard all about it. Actual evidence is in short supply. Unlike in this guy's case.

[bernard11]

Sure you wouldn't.

[bernard11]

Here, from 1987, are details of the law school plagiarism matter.

Since he was given a F in the class, subject to retaking the course, he would have graduated regardless.

And he was 76th out of 85. Not last. If you want to be accurate.

[Krychek_2]

Wow, 18 comments and 15 of them are what abouts.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not "whatabouts", compare and contrast.

[Nige]

Really? I thought you were all just joining in the liefest.

[Mr. Bumble]

No, that's your job.

[Nige]

Which is what a creatively bankrupt liar would say.

[bevis the lumberjack]

The politically zealous have zero history of holding their pols responsible for flagrant whoppers. You’re no different.

Dismissing that as a “whatabout” is saying “I can’t discuss it honestly because it would involve justifying my side’s bull shot so I’ll just insult it away”. Very persuasive argument that is.

And I mentioned each side and didn’t defend the guy mentioned in the post, so mind you’d better not be calling mine a whatabout.

[Sarcastr0]

You're not holding this guy accountable so you can just be above it all.

You are as much a zealot as any you call out.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I’m not a zealot at all. I give zero shits about what happens to this guy. It proves what a joke our politics is. You screaming about this guy while reflexively defending guys like Clinton and Biden demonstrates your hopeless hypocrisy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You’re not holding this guy accountable so you can just be above it all."

By holding him accountable, do you mean he should suffer a different fate than the Clintons, Blumenthal, or Biden?

[Nige]

So you're basing your moral and ethical principles on your version of the supposed worst of the other side rather than exercising any judgement that comes from a place of personal morality and principle? As usual.

[Nige]

The both-sideism is also an appeal to centrists like yourself. Have you gone through all the alleged lies being told by the left listed here? How many are actual lies, and how many are just right-wing bubble-facts? How many are from years ago, lies of near mythical status returned to time and again for lack of more contemporary examples, as compared to someone like Trump and this guy, who tell new lies every day until they all blend together and require endlessly scrolling web pages to document?

'And I mentioned each side and didn’t defend the guy mentioned in the post,'

Mentioning each side is not a magic spell, and the whole point of the whataboutery was to get people like you to proclaim both sides the same, when there isn't actually a single example of a modern Dem politician as brazen and thoroughgoing a liar as this guy.

[Krychek_2]

No, it's saying that :

1. Most of your whataboutism is stuff from years ago.

2. Most of your whataboutism isn't even apples to apples.

3. A significant chunk of your whataboutism isn't even true.

4. And to the extent that your whataboutism is true, relatively recent and on point, it's still a concession that you've got nothing to justify what this Republican did so all you've got is to point fingers at Democrats.

[TwelveInchPianist]

" it’s still a concession that you’ve got nothing to justify what this Republican did so all you’ve got is to point fingers at Democrats."

Sure, I have nothing to justify what Santos did.

But why would Santon be held accountable to a greater extent than Bill Clinton for lying to oath to a grand jury, or Hillary for lying about sniper fire, or Blumenthal for lying about Vietnam, or Biden for lying about Mandela, or about is son?

Fair's fair, I say we let Santos suffer the same fate as the Clintons, Blumenthal, or Biden.

Sound reasonable?

[Nige]

Sounds completely arbitrary and self-serving, not to mention a stalwart defence of Santos.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Comparing Santos to a bunch of lying Democrats is a defense of him? Maybe in your mind.

[Nige]

Yes, of course it is. He's literally indefensible, therefore defence by false equivalence.

[CountmontyC]

Equal application of standards is arbitrary?

[Nige]

There's nothing equal about the application of standards here.

[CountmontyC]

He literally says that Santos should face the same consequences as the Clintons, Biden and Blumenthal. What is wrong with that?

[Nige]

Why should he face the same sanctions as people who didn’t do what he did? Makes no sense whatsoever. But it is a repeated defence of right-wing crookedness. ‘Prosecute these other people for the crimes we made up about them first!’ But hey, maybe throw the three of them out of the Republican Party and refuse to seat them in Congress? There. Arbitrary and entirely situational ethics satisfied.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Trump is a Democrat? Who knew?

[Ben_]

Yeah, we all got wise to Allinsky Rule #4. No one buys leftists' pretense to belief in principles.

[Nige]

I donlt think you guys know what principles are any more.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Why didn’t all this come out before the election? It wouldn’t have had an effect on Republicans (see Trump), but it would have changed the votes of many independents and energized more Democrats to go to the polls.

[Mr. Bumble]

“Why didn’t all this come out before the election?”

FBI said it was Russian disinformation. Oh wait, that was Hunter’s lap top. Never mind.

[Nige]

You're drooling.

[ducksalad]

Generally safe to be maximally cynical when seeking motives.

If a reporter took down this guy before the election they would get to write mostly-local-coverage stories for eight weeks and then Santos would be a forgotten person along with the reporter. None of us would even be talking about this guy if he'd lost.

With Santos in Congress that's two years (minimum) of stories, with national significance. The reporter could make his career off this thing.

More seriously, it's probably because Santos was not tied into any national narrative. He wasn't a prominent election denier, he wasn't someone Trump had hand picked in a contested primary, and the issues promoted in his campaign were vanilla stuff like energy policy and inflation rather than hot-button culture war stuff. It appeared to be a boring centrist D vs centrist R contest.

[Mr. Bumble]

[Kazinski]

Not exactly what abouts, just pointing out he's not very unusual for a congressman.

"The trouble with practical jokes is they very often get elected."

Will Rogers

The voters probably just got a little confused thinking they were voting for George Costanza instead of George Santos.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Eric Swalwell cheated on his wife with a Chinese spy and nothing was ever done about it.

Diane Feinstein had a Chinese spy on her staff for 20 years and nothing was done about it.

Mitch McConnell has been married to a Chinese spy for decades, and nothing is being done about it.

I think those a bigger problems then some no-name pulling a Pocahontas Warren on us.

[Nige]

You're just trotting out random, vague, poorly understood grievances now. Fauci unleashed the covid and filled the vaccines with poison and nothing was done about it!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Where did COVID come from and were there any ties to US funding of it?

[Nige]

It was all a Dem hoax.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You realize there are videos of Dem's downplaying the pandemic early on to undermine Trump right? Who then turned around and ratcheted up the fear to also undermine Trump, right?

[Nige]

I've also heard there are videos showing Hilary Clinton eating a baby, usually from people like you.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol wow, you never knew those things did you?

You're the perfect bootlicker. Very dumb and very ignorant.

[Nige]

True, I never knew Clinton was a baby eater.

[David Nieporent]

Glad to see that you're a racist as well as an antisemite. But you're also a liar:

Eric Swalwell cheated on his wife with a Chinese spy and nothing was ever done about it.

Amazing how you managed to get two lies into the first ten words of a sentence. First, there's not the slightest evidence — as in zero, zilch, none, nil — that he had an affair with the (alleged) Chinese spy. Second, since he wasn’t married at the time he couldn't have cheated on his wife even if he did have such an affair.

Diane Feinstein had a Chinese spy on her staff for 20 years and nothing was done about it.

I mean, something was done about it: he was fired.

Elaine Chao is an American citizen from Taiwan, you racist lunatic.

[Ben_]

He should resign after Democrats lead by example and establish by their actions that there’s an important principle to be maintained.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hahahahahahaha.....

[Bob from Ohio]

The "Jew-ish" thing is great. I like this guy.

[Nige]

You guys LOVE this guy!

[Zarniwoop]

Pretty disgusting as far as I’m concerned, but sure, have fun with the love-fest. And despite being busted, Santos continues to lie about what he is documented having said:

What he claimed: The first line of his campaign bio stated that “George’s grandparents fled Jewish persecution in Ukraine, settled in Belgium, and again fled persecution during WWII.” He has also claimed that they “survived the Holocaust” and changed their surname to survive. But the Forward and Jewish Insider called that into question, noting that it appears his maternal grandparents were born in Brazil. CNN added that Santos’s claims are “contradicted by sources … including family trees compiled by genealogy websites, records on Jewish refugees and interviews with multiple genealogists.”

What he says now: “I never claimed to be Jewish,” he said. “I am Catholic. Because I learned my maternal family had a Jewish background I said I was ‘Jew-ish.’” He also said he was “clearly Catholic” and said of his grandparents being born in Brazil, “To the best of my knowledge, to the best of my understanding, no, they were not.” He said his grandmother told him stories about having converted from Judaism to Catholicism.

Parse: This is also a big one, given it would again involve exploiting tragedy — the Holocaust — for personal gain. But despite Santos saying that he never claimed to be Jewish, he tweeted Nov. 3, “It was an honor to address fellow members of the Jewish community in #NY03.” And Jewish Insider reports that he described himself last month as a nonobservant Jew.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bob from Ohio: "I like this guy."

That was predictable.

Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit, though, and not a step beyond.

[SimonP]

Bob's only criterion is, "Does this guy upset the libz?"

[Nige]

Has anyone asked if the people who voted for him are upset?

[Bored Lawyer]

(1) Anyone here dumping on the GOP and forgetting Biden's numerous lies is just an opportunist. Biden lies continually about things large and small. I'd have to post 50 links to even start encompassing them all. And, unlike the Clintons, he is in the Oval Office today and may run again in 2024 (assuming he does not keel over). So spare me the sanctimony.
(2) Whataboutism is just a cheap rhetorical trick to avoid one's own double standards. A great line comes to mind from the late Justice Scalia's opinion in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992): "St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules."
Both parties have abandoned any pretense of integrity. I would not believe Santos if he told me the sun rises in the East. But the notion that this is uniquely Republican is hogwash.

[Bored Lawyer]

Although not perfect, this list is a good start:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?category=&ruling=false&speaker=joe-biden

So when those crying here repudiate Biden and call for him to resign, then the GOP should call on Santos to resign.

[Nige]

The essence of whataboutism is 'if we can find a way to paint you as bad, rhetorically if not factually, then it's okay for us to do it too.' This guy defrauded the people who voted for him. They're talking about sitting him anyway. Nothing to do with Clinton, nothing to with Biden, nothing to do with any Democrat anywhere - this is about what Republicans are willing to do and what they're willing to put up with.

[Bored Lawyer]

I get that is what YOU want to make this about. But the issue as far as many see it is your shameless imposition of a double standard on Republicans. Biden's lies are much more extensive, and as president he is in far more powerful a position than a single freshman Congressman. When you condemn Biden and call for his resignation, then we will do the same for Santos. Until then, see the Scalia quote I included.

[Nige]

I 'want' to make this about the guy, his lies, and what could or should be done about it. You're contorting yourself into knots to make it about Democrats, presumably because you have an inkling of how this looks, and how it's going to play out.

[Bored Lawyer]

Keep stamping your feet. Not convincing me.

Try looking up the term "double standard." You may learn something.

[Nige]

Of course I'm not convncing you, you're dead set on blaming the Democrats for this somehow because pwning the libs IS your standard. Even though it was Republican voters who got pwned.

[Mr. Bumble]

Nige has no standards. Trying to have a conversation with him is like talking to a 5 year old who is still shitting his pants.

[Nige]

A five year old who was still shitting his pants could argue rings around you.

[David Nieporent]

I get that is what YOU want to make this about.

No, that is what this is about. You can see, right at the top of the page: it's about George Santos. Not Joe Biden.

[Bored Lawyer]

No, it's about what should happen to George Santos. Some here want the Republicans to complete disown him, refuse to seat him (which is illegal, but never mind, who cares about legality), even tar and feather him, maybe.

Meanwhile, the Dems have a consummate liar about dozens of things sitting in the most powerful position in the country, if not the world.

You want to say Santos lied bigly (to coin a term), sure, he did. You want to say the GOP must disown him. First disown Biden, who is a worse liar and in a much more influential position.

[Nige]

'You want to say the GOP must disown him. First disown Biden,'

You know they won't so you're reaching for justification, and all you have is false equivalence.

[Bored Lawyer]

No, as per Scalia, I refuse to adhere to Marquess of Queensbury rules when the other side wants to fight with no rules.

[Nige]

You refuse to adhere to rules you never bothered with and never had any intention of bothering with? At least try to be plausible if you can’t be honest. You're not in a metaphorical boxing match with the Dems over Santos - it's a Republican Party issue. Nothing to do with the Dems.

[Sarcastr0]

No, it’s about what should happen to George Santos.

And what you want to happen is...for everyone to talk about Joe Biden.

It's extremely obvious what you're doing. You have to know it. Your increasingly sweaty posts show you're at the head of the pack in terms of having a modicum of shame on this thread, so there is that.

[Milhouse]

They have no choice but to seat him. He was duly elected, and that is the only criterion. The house has no authority to refuse to seat someone who was duly elected.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not quite true. They have done so in the past.

[David Nieporent]

Not quite true. They have done so in the past.

And then more than 50 years ago they lost the Supreme Court case that said they can't do that.

But they can expel him if they choose.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Biden’s daughter wrote in her diary he inappropriately showered with her and they couldn’t care less.

Even more so the Democrat Stasi went after the people who made it public, and they couldn’t care less.

These bootlickers have no shame, no values, no principles and no one should give them the time of day.

[Nige]

I can see how a brazen fraud and liar like Santos would appeal to you. Mind you, we also saw how a brazen fraud and liar like Trump appealed to you.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Have you ever seen those videos of Biden sniffing and groping children?

[Nige]

Have you seen the video of Clinton eating a baby?

[Bored Lawyer]

One of my favorite Biden whoppers:

"No U.S. presidents elected before Donald Trump were racist."

Apart from several who owned slaves in the 18th and early 19th centuries, you also had Woodrow Wilson, who was an unabashed racists who segregated the federal civil service when it had been integrated from post-Civil War until Taft.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Biden stretches the truth.

Trump stretches the truth.

The important distinctions are that Biden is a reasonable and good man -- a mainstreamer -- while Trump is a lousy person whose followers are downscale, superstitious bigots concentrated in deplorable, can't-keep-up backwaters.

Carry on, clingers. Your betters will let you known how far. Thank you for your continuing compliance with the preferences of better Americans as you await replacement.

[Bored Lawyer]

So lying is not what differentiates them. Wow, a moment of candor from RAK.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Biden seems to embellish stories. Trump seems to lie for money, especially to engage in un-American evasion of taxation.

I wouldn't expect a clinger to apprehend that distinction, or to be bothered by it if someone explained it.

[Bored Lawyer]

"Biden seems to embellish stories." No, he out and out lies. I see you are backsliding. No more than I would expect of you.

As for Trump's tax evasion, let him be prosecuted. I won't shed a tear, I consider him a consummate con-man.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

A good and reasonable man who sniffs and gropes children and has inappropriate showers with his underage daughter.

[Ben_]

Here’s a list:

https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/08/heres-the-full-list-of-every-lie-joe-biden-has-told-as-president-part-three/

It only goes back to when he was installed as President

[SimonP]

I don't think the standard people are applying here is, "Santos should resign because he didn't tell the truth." I think people understand and expect politicians like Biden (or the Clintons, or even Trump) to spin their accomplishments, sometimes to the point of falsehood. The point is, we still feel like we know who these people are. Sometimes the lies are silly; sometimes they're honestly mistaken; sometimes they're clearly politically motivated.

The point is - no one voting for Biden is likely to feel differently about their vote just because he may have mis-remembered some anecdote about giving his uncle a Purple Heart. No one feels conned. But look at the nature of Santos's lies. What do we know about this guy? How do we even know how he'll vote.

But, look - go to the mat for the con-man if you want. You did it for Trump, so you're already neck-deep in this idiocy. But it's a little like how your kind like to emphasize the criminal background of every Black person whose murder-by-police grabs national headlines - be careful about the heroes you choose. With Trump and co., you're almost guaranteed to be buying the stock while it's still tumbling, and you'll be left holding the bag.

[Bored Lawyer]

So some lies are more equal than others. Orwell would be proud.

[Nige]

See what you just did? Mischaracterising what he said? That's lying.

[SimonP]

I understand materiality, context, and significance, yes. I don't draw bad-faith false equivalences in service of *checks notes* defending an egregious con-man who just duped a bunch of Republican voters into electing him to office.

Again, I don't know why it's so hard to agree that a Catholic who claims to be Jewish, whose business record was mischaracterized in a way that no one within the industry would defend, whose marital status was hidden, and who came up with hundreds of thousands of after years of missed rent payments to fund his own campaign, is maybe a fraudster who shouldn't be in office. Such a stupid hill to die on.

[Bored Lawyer]

Maybe he should not be in office. Biden definitely should not be, for many reasons, including that he is a consummate liar. Sorry, I don't buy your "materiality, context, and significance" dodge. Biden has lied about so many things on so many occasions, including matters of great importance of public policy, that I don't give him a pass.

[Sarcastr0]

You really want to talk about Joe Biden in the Santos thread.

Like, so much.

Dude. It's a fallacy.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, the usual dissembling by you. The issue raised here is what the GOP should do about Santos. The answer is, the same thing the Dems did about Biden. See the above Scalia quote for why.

[Nige]

Biden didn't do what Santos did, so obviously demanding 'the same treatment' is the same culture of dishonesty that runs through Republicans. You can't really smear the Dems as crooked child molesters out to destroy America and then insist on taking your ethical cues from them. It just shows you have no ethics yourselves, as if the smears didn't do that already.

[SimonP]

Sorry, I don’t buy your “materiality, context, and significance” dodge.

And why would you? It doesn't serve the predetermined conclusion you're dead-set on reaching.

If you want to make the case that Biden is a "consummate liar," you'll have to point to something other than a series of political statements where he's trying to shift the media narrative. I don't believe Biden when he tries to take credit for falling gas prices, just like I don't believe Republicans when they try to blame him for inflation. I don't worry too much about whether Clinton was under gunfire on a runway just like I don't worry too much about Trump's silly lies about the crowds at his inauguration.

Materiality, context, significance.

Santos's lies are on a whole different level. He's a con-man, and you know it.

[Bob from Ohio]

Your faux-concern is noted.

Santos is not president, his fate will have no impact outside his district.

[Nige]

But you LIKE him.

[Bob from Ohio]

Sure, shameless rogues are appealing.

[Nige]

To you.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, you would hate him if he weren't one of your guys, Bob. Don't pretend different.

[SimonP]

It's just a small-time con, man, just like Trump's NFT swindle. No harm, no foul, dude.

[Bored Lawyer]

Trump's NFT offer was truly comical and absurd. I especially liked the one in which he had red rays shooting out of his eyes. Should have been orange rays, would have been more poetic.

But in what way was it a "swindle?"

[Nige]

NFTs are a swindle by their very nature, albeit in a 'tulipmania' fashion, but even by NFT standards it was a swindle - they weren't actually NFTs.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Well, I think Biden’s career fabulism should have long-ago disqualified him from the senate, much less the presidency.

Now is it okay for me to say that Mr. Santos is bad?

[Bored Lawyer]

Good for you. Yet somehow the apologists around here seem incapable of writing the simply sentence you wrote.

[Sarcastr0]

Yelling about apologists who just want you to stay on topic in a thread about Santos.

Moral condemnation on everyone else when you're the one trying to change the topic.

Come down from the moral tree you've climbed up to and look at yourself.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I sense Democrats caught a break and Republicans took a hit when this loser chose to role-play as a conservative rather than as a liberal. Maybe he figured the Republican route would be less scrutinized in a Democratic district. Maybe he figured Trump fans would flock toward a fellow Trumper in that district. Or maybe he just flipped a coin.

A counterfeit coin, most likely.

[Yogis_dad]

If misrepresenting one's accomplishments and family history disqualified one from public office, when will Joe Biden be removed?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Delusional, disaffected, bigoted right-wingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.

[Purple Martin]

Deep Throat: Follow the money.
Bob Woodward: What do you mean? Where?
Deep Throat: Oh, I can't tell you that.
Bob Woodward: But you could tell me that.
Deep Throat: No, I have to do this my way. You tell me what you know, and I'll confirm. I'll keep you in the right direction if I can, but that's all. Just... follow the money.

Follow the money. I'm less interested in Trump-esque self-aggrandizing lies, than inindictable actions involving the sources of the funds he leant his campaign. WaPo updated their story late last night:

Rep.-elect George Santos acknowledges ‘résumé embellishment’ but answers little on finances
The Long Island Republican was pressed to address questions about whether he fabricated his biography and why he reported skyrocketing wealth
By Michael Kranish, Azi Paybarah and Hannah Knowles. Updated December 26, 2022 at 11:12 p.m. EST.

…lending his campaign at least $580,000, and his political action committee at least $27,000…

…[Santos 2022 financial disclosure declared] he was worth millions of dollars, with most…from a Florida company in which he was the sole owner: the Devolder Organization.

Documents filed with the Florida secretary of state show that Santos organized the company in May 2021, one month before he declared his latest candidacy.…on July 30, 2022, the financial data company Dun & Bradstreet estimated that Devolder had a revenue of only $43,688…

…on Sept. 6, when Santos filed his financial disclosure report with the clerk of the U.S. House…[he] reported that the Devolder Organization had paid him an annual salary of $750,000 in 2021 and 2022, and that the company was worth between $1 million and $5 million.
…
Candidates are required to file accurate reports of their finances with the clerk of the House. If a candidate knowingly files a form that is false, it could violate a number of laws…

The attorney general may pursue civil or criminal penalties against someone who “knowingly and willfully falsifies” financial disclosure statements filed to the House… Fines can reach up to $250,000 and imprisonment can be as long as five years.… And the House can take “additional action”…

So, where did he get this money? The GOP House may expel him for his lies (they won't), but as one recent resignation-in-lieu-of-expulsion demonstrates (Fortenberry), must expel him if convicted of a felony.

Enough GOP Reps—even of this GOP, and even McCarthy—might join with Democrats to expel him the first day, depending on just how fraudulent (and who? and why?) the source of his money is demonstrated to be.

[Jacob Grimes]

If that's it, then Dun & Bradstreet's estimate was wrong. Doesn't make for as good of a story, though.

[Purple Martin]

So, you think the odd are higher that when George Santos “…filed his financial disclosure report with the clerk of the U.S. House,” he was telling the truth? ooooookay. I’ll be most interested what his 2021 and 2022 W2’s show as his sources of income, and amount of taxes withheld (or, alternatively, the form showing quarterly estimated taxes sent to the IRS).

[David Nieporent]

The problem is, that explanation (which could itself be true) doesn't explain where the business's money came from. Santos was poor until very recently, bouncing checks and being unable to afford rent. How did he start a business that was making $1M+ immediately after appearing?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Could this guy have declared illusory loans to his campaign, hoping for "repayment" from donated funds?

The more I think about the financial declarations, the more inclined I am to expect criminal prosecution. If anyone else signed those campaign finance documents, that prosecution might be entertaining. It's all fun and games until years of incarceration are on the table.

[Purple Martin]

I think it likely the best thing Santos could do for himself right now is go to the U.S Attorney for the Eastern District of New York and see what kind of deal they’ll give him (including enrollment in a Witness Protection Program), to flip on his funders.

Representative-elect George Santos (R-N.Y.) is 34 years old. I understand the Feds have a pretty good record on keeping the Mafia/Russians off the trail of flipped informants/spies, so then maybe Santos would have a decent chance of survival until he’s old enough to run for President.

So, when Jacob Grimes, Mr. Bumble, and the rest of the GOP decides he’s definitely the most qualified heir-apparent to Donald Trump as the Republican nominee (Possible!), he qualifies for Secret Service protection.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...and the rest of the GOP ..."

Gee thanks for the promotion.

[Mr. Bumble]

Good news Purple. Your posts today have out you at the top of the list for VC Fucktard of the day.

[Purple Martin]

Bumble, then please counter my facts with additional or stronger verifiable facts. Counter my opinion with well thought-out, better supported, more logical opinion. That does happen here occasionally and, when it does, I love it because it makes me better!

But until you can do that, all you're creating is graffiti, just gang-tagging, the simple vandalism of virtue-signaling other members of your tribe by spray-painting obscenities on somebody else's wall.

Life's too short to waste on puffed-chest banty rooster strutting. Until you can do better (remember, verifiable facts or logically-supported opinion), you're right, it's probably best to stick with the usual graffiti, which has the advantage of wasting comparatively little time.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Candidates are required to file accurate reports of their finances with the clerk of the House. If a candidate knowingly files a form that is false, it could violate a number of laws…"

Has anyone to date been prosecuted for such a violation?

[Sarcastr0]

This is quite an unprecedented act of lying, it looks like. So no previous prosecutions is not really a great thing to lean on.

Not that I think he'll go to jail - he has a political party behind him. But lets not pretend it's because he didn't break any laws.

[Purple Martin]

Remember, it was "could violate …a number of laws…"

It seemed incredibly unlikely you were completely without knowledge of both the number of different laws potentially involved, and even recent relevant convictions, including the one I mentioned in my first comment:

[On March 24, 2022] U.S. Representative Jeff Fortenberry, who represents Nebraska’s 1st Congressional District, was found guilty by a federal jury...of concealing information and making false statements to federal authorities who were investigating illegal contributions made by a foreign national to the congressman’s 2016 re-election campaign.

Fortenberry, 61, of Lincoln, Nebraska, who has served in Congress since 2005, was found guilty of one count of scheming to falsify and conceal material facts and two counts of making false statements to federal investigators.

But then, oh yeah, a few day ago you professed never having heard of the term National Conservative, right? So, I guess it's not that surprising.

I typically leave this as an exercise for the student but, as an example, a search on "Hunter, Duncan" (you can go farther than the first word you know) brings up former Rep Hunter's Wikipedia entry, including:

Duncan Duane Hunter...served as a U.S. representative for California's 50th congressional district from 2013 to 2020. He is a member of the Republican Party, who was first elected to the House in 2008...[succeeding] his father, Republican Duncan Lee Hunter, a member of Congress from 1981 to 2009.

In 2017, the Department of Justice began a criminal investigation into Hunter and his campaign manager and wife Margaret Jankowski, for alleged campaign finance violations. In August 2018, both were indicted on charges including conspiracy, wire fraud, and violating campaign finance laws. In June 2019, Jankowski pleaded guilty to corruption and named him as a co-conspirator in using campaign funds for personal expenses.

Also in June 2019, federal prosecutors showed that from 2009 to 2016, Hunter had spent campaign funds on extramarital affairs with five women, including lobbyists and congressional staff. In December 2019, Hunter changed his plea to guilty on one count of misusing campaign funds. On January 7, 2020, he submitted letters of resignation...that took effect on January 13, 2020. On March 17, 2020, Hunter was sentenced to 11 months in prison, scheduled to begin in January 2021. He was pardoned by President Donald Trump in December 2020. The next day Trump pardoned Hunter's wife.

Finally, and this seems obvious, a false report often kicks off an investigation, which uncovers illegal acts more serious than a reporting violation, so the indictment is for the more serious thing with a more severe potential sentence (like "conspiracy, wire fraud, and violating campaign finance laws). That's where that "number of laws" modifier comes in.

[Mr. Bumble]

"But then, oh yeah, a few day ago you professed never having heard of the term National Conservative, right? So, I guess it’s not that surprising. "

Not me. Get your facts straight if you're going to make a comment about me.

For what it's worth, the examples you gave were for sitting representatives, not a candidate.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Whatever you think that is worth, you’re wrong.

[Purple Martin]

Are you certain? Pretty sure it was a short name starting with "b" and it sure sounds like the same voice. Though when you're all echoing each other (like today) it's hard to keep people straight. So I'll take your word for it.

And, yes, most examples are of members, not candidates, because candidates can often make a legal issue moot by withdrawing (or losing ). That's one reason this case is so interesting, as Santos already won and both his falsification of submitted reports and more serious campaign law violations are likely to be easily proven. Kevin McCarthy's need for every single R vote for Speaker is probably the only reason that Santos may be a member of the House for more than one day.

So rather than repeatedly tossing out the graffiti of simplistic insult or parroting the same own-the-libs fables as the rest of the echo chamber, you might have demonstrated some knowledge of the issues involved, like observing the difficulties Congress has encountered in enforcing the legal penalties applicable to both new candidates and incumbents running for reelection.

You say "Such as? Care to elaborate?" If you're interested in the actual issue and relevant legislation, search on: INSTRUCTION GUIDE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS and PERIODIC TRANSACTION REPORTS

Open the pdf and do a CTRL-F search on "candidates" and read a little about applicability. Then go to Appendix A for the full text of the ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT, TITLE I (5 U.S.C. appendix §§ 101-111), specifically:

FAILURE TO FILE OR FILING FALSE REPORTS
SEC. 104.
(a)(1) The Attorney General may bring a civil action in any appropriate United States district court against any individual who knowingly and willfully falsifies or who knowingly and willfully fails to file or report any information that such individual is required to report pursuant to section 102.

The court in which such action is brought may assess against such individual a civil penalty in any amount, not to exceed $50,000.

(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly and willfully—
(i) falsify any information that such person is required to report under section 102; and
(ii) fail to file or report any information that such person is required to report under section 102.
(B) Any person who—
(i) violates subparagraph (A)(i) shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both; and
(ii) violates subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be fined under title 18, United States Code.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What type of deal would a sensible prosecutor offer? How useful a witness would this dumbass be? Even most of the (still-licensed) members of Trump Election Litigation: Elite Strike Force could dismantle a Santos on the witness stand.

[Purple Martin]

Well, I didn't say it was a great alternative, but it still might be better than waiting to be prosecuted on whatever turns up.

IANAL, so out of my area of expertise. But U.S Attorney Breon Peace seems to have quite a record in both prosecution and defense of white collar crime, and I understand that includes knowing how to follow the money. The most valuable thing might be just tracing its origination, and then deciding if there are any higher-ups worth pursuing.

Will leave that for those more qualified than I, but I'll be an interested observer.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I doubt anyone with subpoena power would require Santos’ assistance to trace the finances of this flaming shitstorm. This doesn’t seem to be the work of the A Team.

[Mr. Bumble]

"If a candidate knowingly files a form that is false, it could violate a number of laws…"

Such as? Care to elaborate?

[Purple Martin]

Oh, you lil' Gish Galloper you!

I don't need to, since that was a direct quote from a WaPo reporting team (the "quote marks" gives it away). It seems likely they'll be one of many organization investigating and elaborating from different points of view, both objective and partisans of both sides, for all of whom I'll be an interested observer.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Except for the liberals, I don't think anyone here has said that there's anything wrong with what Santos did.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and your point is?

[Purple Martin]

...extremely obvious?

[Mr. Bumble]

...and your "extremely obvious" point is?

[Sarcastr0]

Really telling on yourself here, Bumble.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

No one cares, we won.

[Nige]

If you didn't care, there wouldn't be all the false equivicating. There's some tiny sense of right and wrong, or at least of how they are perceived, nagging away there.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Tired of winning yet? Or sentient enough to recognize that clingers have lost the battles and the war . . .

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Your children are getting transed and butt fucked by mature gays.

My children aren't.

I'd say I'm winning the culture war.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These are your people, Volokh Conspirators. And the reason your law schools wish you would leave, and stop misappropriating their franchises for association with this low-grade right-wing bigotry and obsolete ignorance.

[Bored Lawyer]

What is this, a litmus test?

The man lied, bigly. That's bad. And puts him in the company of many other politicians. Such as the one sitting in the Oval Office today.

[Sarcastr0]

No.

These lies are not the same as political bullshitting.

Stop hiding behind broad-spectrum cynicism and look at what he did.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Damn that stolen election! Right, Bored Lawyer?

[Frank Drackman]

Which "Stolen" erection are you talking about, Klinger?
The one Hillary Rodman (and Jaime Raskin, Pencil Neck....) said was stolen in 2016? or the one that WAS stolen in 0-20?
I mean "Jerry", c'mon (Man!) Stuttering John Fetterman still hasn't commuted your sentence??? You can still make Penn State's Rose Bowl game!!!!

Frank

[Bored Lawyer]

That's you saying it. Biden won in 2020. I have never said otherwise. Biden is also a consummate liar, from before and after the election. There are at least two links above that catalog them.

[Ben_]

"Except for the liberals, I don’t think anyone here has said that there’s anything wrong with what Santos did."

Nor are you saying it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Just making an observation. But my personal opinion is that few candidates (and certainly no Democrats) have so crassly and blatantly lied about their experience and qualifications. No Democrat would stand for this. But Republicans not only stand for it but actually admire people who admit it and in fact boast about it.

Would you admire someone who admitted to murder? I wouldn't. Democrats wouldn't. But Republicans would gleefully support such a man. The important thing is pissing off liberals, even if it means destroying our country, even if it means forcing our daughters to die horrible deaths in illegal abortions, even if it means sending our sons to die in useless wars.

[Ben_]

Plenty of Democrats have done similar and worse. They often have better PR than this guy is all.

They all take an oath to the constitution and then knowingly break that oath whenever there’s any possibility of gain for them.

[Sarcastr0]

You just say stuff.

I'm not even sure you know what Santos did at this point.

Why bother learning, when the answer is always 'Dems worse?'

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

No Democrat would stand for this.

LOL! Democrats cheerfully stand for that and worse. Biden's habitual bullshit has been excused for decades. Hell, when Cuomo was actually killing old people in NY Democrats (politicos, entertainers and idiots of all stripes) actively cheered him on, dubbing themselves "Cuomosexuals". It wasn't until he committed the unforgivable sin of playing a little verbal grab-ass with a few women that the crush lost its luster and they turned on him.

Yeah, Democrat standards are truly an inspiration to us all.

[SRG]

I know from a source that there's a shitload more stuff on Santos that is being checked, though some is trivial - like when he was working at Dish, claiming he was on holiday in Qatar, but showing stock photos to prove it.

So this could be a gift that keeps on giving.

[Dan Schiavetta]

What gift? All this came out after the election (like Watergate, Iran-Contra, Trump’s Russian obligations, etc.) Republican scandals have a habit of coming to light after it would have had any effect.

[Frank Drackman]

Guess your Internets don't work or you'd heard about THIS guy, definitely not a Repubiclown,
https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/judge-wont-drop-charges-former-florida-gubernatorial-candidate-andrew-gillum/

[SRG]

In terms of entertainment value, though...

As I noted to my source, I am reminded of the Bob Arum story. At a prefight presser after he said something a journalist said, "but Bob, you said the exact opposite yesterday!" Replied Arum, "ah, but yesterday I was lying to you. Today, I'm telling you the truth."

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Yes, Watergate certainly had no ill-effects on Nixon. And....Russia, Russia, Russia...seriously?

The stupid...it burns.

The Democrats don't have that problem though, do they? Stuff on them comes out prior to elections, but it gets squashed by their allies in the media (at least partially at the behest of the FBI).

[Purple Martin]

Yes, names are beginning to float up, beginning with Andrew Intrater, money manager to Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg, who gave $56,100 to committees tied to Rep.-elect George “Devolder” Santos.

Vekselberg had earlier pushed hundreds of thousands of dollars from a company called Columbus Nova into Michael Cohen’s Essential Consulting Trump slush fund. Intrater, Vekselberg, and Cohen attended the Trump inauguration together.

It’s early so a lot of unfounded speculation will turn out to be wrong, but there certainly lots of threads to start tugging on.

[Frank Drackman]

Let me know when he abandons a beautiful young woman (who's panties he was trying to get into, not that there's anything wrong with that) to asphyxiate (NOT drown, there's a difference, for the Gazillionith time, Drowning is a form of Asphyxiation, but not all (or even most) Asphyxiations are drownings)
And even then, didn't seem to shorten the career of a certain (Late) fat faced Senator from Tax-a-chussetts

Frank

[Danley Wolfe PhD, MBA]

Pretty disgusting. But not enough to disqualify or overturn an election. However, this scumball should not be allowed to serve on any committee, and it would be appropriate to shame him into withdrawing from office.