Still Not Behind Bars
George Santos’ downfall began at the NY Times— and if anyone gets a Pulitzer for it, they want to make sure it’s the. Yesterday The Times published a where-we-are-now update on the unfolding scandal. As an intro, Michael Gold and Grace Ashford— the pair that got the whole rodeo going— noted that Santos “has misled, exaggerated to or lied to voters about much of his life, including his education; his career; his check fraud case in Brazil; his animal charity; being a landlord; the 2020 election results; and his ties to the Holocaust and Judaism, the Sept. 11 attacks and the Pulse nightclub shooting.” And they further noted that he “admitted to some lies and pleaded not guilty to federal criminal charges. But, as the criminal investigation continues, questions remain around his personal finances, his campaign fund-raising and spending and his role at a company accused of running a Ponzi scheme, among other things.” He’s also facing an inquiry by the ridiculous and toothless clown show known as the House Ethics Committee.
They began with this series of boxes headline “Lies We Know He Told.” The longest and most detailed is called The Animal Charity:
“In 2017,” wrote Gold and Ashford in a related matter, “Santos was charged with theft in Pennsylvania after $15,000 worth of checks to dog breeders bounced. Santos denied writing the checks, saying that his checkbook had been stolen. The charges were later dropped and expunged, according to a lawyer friend who acted on his behalf.”
Remember, the rest are just for entertainment value— none of what follows is what's going to put him in prison, although they are certianly being focused on by the mass media... and by Nassau County voters and by Republican Party elected officials.
Then came the section on the charges he’s actually facing, federal prosecutors having charged him with 7 counts of wire fraud, 3 counts of money laundering, one count of theft of public funds and 2 counts of making false statements to the House. The indictment focused on three schemes identified by prosecutors. First up was the fraudulent political contribution solicitation scheme. “Prosecutors say Santos and an unnamed consultant solicited at least $50,000 in donations for a fake political fund that Santos used to buy designer clothes and pay down debts. [Many people would like to see where those designer clothes are, since he always dresses like a nebbish when he isn’t in drag.] Prosecutors point to five different emails and text messages in total in which Santos or the consultant told donors that their money would be used to support his House campaign or to buy television ads. Prosecutors say that Santos transferred $50,000 in total from two different contributors into two different personal bank accounts. He then moved money between those accounts.”
Then there is the Welfare Queen scheme. “Prosecutors accused Santos of illegally applying for and receiving more than $24,000 in pandemic-related unemployment benefits between June 2020 and April 2021, while he was employed at a Florida-based investment firm and making $120,000 a year. The indictment said that Santos fraudulently received unemployment benefits that were federally funded. Prosecutors point to two payments in January 2021, for $564 each, that passed through ‘interstate wires’ and ‘computer servers located outside New York’ on their way to Santos’s bank account.”
And then there was the lying to the House, also a crime. This one is about financial disclosures. “In May 2020, Santos reported $55,000 from one company as his sole income. Prosecutors say he overstated that number and failed to disclose his salary from another job he held at the time. Prosecutors say that in September 2022, Santos falsely claimed a salary of $750,000 and millions of dollars in dividends from his personal company. They also say that he lied about the amounts in his checking and savings accounts and did not disclose the unemployment benefits that they say he fradulently obtained.”
So… what remains, since “the indictment did not look at many other potential legal and ethical concerns that arose after subsequent reporting into Santos by The Times and other publications. The big enchilada is where his personal finances came from— and no one is ready to accuse Sam Bankman-Fried and the Kremlin yet. “Santos reported earning only $55,000 in 2020. Two years later, he reported a $750,000 salary and over $1 million in dividends from his company, the Devolder Organization. Prosecutors now say that both reports were false, making it even more unclear how wealthy Santos might be. Santos has described his company as doing ‘capital introduction’ and has said it brokered deals between high-net-worth clients. But he has not identified any clients on congressional disclosures. The House Ethics Committee is investigating possible conflicts of interest.”
Tied to that, but not necessarily identical, is the question of where his campaign funds came from (again the Kremlin and Bankman-Fried were part of this). “Santos lent his first campaign, in 2020, $80,000, though he said he was earning less than that annually and reported no savings. Two years later, he gave to his campaign $700,000 that he said was a personal loan. Santos has declined to disclose his clients, raising questions about the sources of the money that went into his campaign. The 2022 campaign’s reports on donations are littered with discrepancies, and several donors said the campaign misrepresented how much they gave. Some contributions to political action committees associated with him did not appear in the ledger for months. Santos has blamed his former campaign treasurer, Nancy Marks, for the reporting issues.”
There is also the matter of how he spent campaign cash. “The Santos campaign’s filings show $365,399.08 in unexplained spending, with no record of where it went or for what purpose. Santos’s campaign reported dozens of unsual expenses pegged at $199.99, one cent below the threshold at which federal law requires receipts. The Federal Election Commission has been investigating these expenses. The campaign paid for what it described as an “apartment rental” at an address where neighbors said Santos and his husband had been living, a possible violation of campaign finance rules. Santos’ lawyer has said the apartment was used for campaign staff and was a legitimate expense. Santos spent campaign money extravagantly, visiting five-star hotels in other states and charging for lunch at the upscale department store Bergdorf Goodman. The spending was all the more striking because he had no primary challenger, but Santos’ lawyer has said the expenses were normal.” If they were normal, it would be the only thing normal about George Santos, whose name and country of birth we don’t even know for certain!
Finally Gold and Ashford got to the Florida Ponzi Scheme. “Santos,” they wrote, “worked as a regional director for the company, Harbor City Capital, but he has since minimized his role there. He has denied knowledge of any wrongdoing and has not been named in any court proceedings, but the Securities and Exchange Commission has interviewed at least two people about his involvement. Santos told one investor he had raised $100 million for the Harbor City funds accused of being used in a Ponzi scheme. But the S.E.C. said the funds only raised $17 million total. Santos’ lawyer declined to comment on a continuing investigation, and Harbor City’s chief executive has denied any wrongdoing. Santos said he and his family invested almost $4 million in Harbor City. A lawyer overseeing its assets said she did not recognize their names as investors.”