Santos faces federal charges

[GMDino]

George Santos has been charged with seven counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, one count of theft of public funds, and two counts of making materially false statements to the House of Representatives.

This is a big deal. https://t.co/yvxQ6wkJYd

— Citizens for Ethics (@CREWcrew) May 10, 2023

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/05/10/nyregion/george-santos-charges-news

Quote:Live Updates: George Santos Is in Custody Facing Federal Charges
The scandal-plagued congressman, who ran on a life story littered with lies, was charged in a wide-ranging indictment with wire fraud, money laundering, stealing public funds and lying on federal disclosure forms.

• Give this article
  
  
  

Image
Representative George Santos, a first-term congressman, has been besieged by questions about his background, his personal wealth and his campaign finances since December.Credit...Kenny Holston/The New York Times



Pinned

Updated 
May 10, 2023, 10:04 a.m. ET3 minutes ago
3 minutes ago
Grace Ashford, Michael Gold and William K. Rashbaum

Santos had been under investigation for his campaign finances and other activities.

CENTRAL ISLIP, N.Y. — Representative George Santos, the Republican whose pivotal victory in New York was soon followed by revelations that he had falsified his biography on the campaign trail, surrendered to the authorities at federal court on Long Island on Wednesday morning.

Mr. Santos was charged with seven counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, one count of theft of public funds, and two counts of making materially false statements to the House of Representatives.

The decision by federal prosecutors to take action against Mr. Santos marked a precipitous turn in the fortunes of a first-term congressman who went from a symbol of Republican resurgence to a scandal-plagued political punching bag.

Mr. Santos has been besieged by questions about his background, his personal wealth and his campaign finances since last December, when The New York Times and other outlets began reporting on numerous lies about his biography, education and work history that he had told voters on the campaign trail.

Subsequent reporting uncovered questions about how Mr. Santos had handled the finances of an animal rescue charity he had claimed to operate before running for Congress and how he had mingled his personal business and political campaign. It also found numerous irregularities in how his campaign spent and raised its funds.

Mr. Santos — who in recent weeks has courted media attention, including making an appearance outside the Manhattan courthouse where former President Donald J. Trump was being arraigned — has not commented publicly on the charges against him. A spokeswoman in Washington referred all questions to Mr. Santos’s lawyer, who did not respond to requests for comment.

But for months, Mr. Santos has denied any criminal wrongdoing, even as he has admitted to lying about going to college and working for prestigious Wall Street firms.

The case against Mr. Santos is being prosecuted by the office of the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, which has been leading one of the inquiries into Mr. Santos’s financial and campaign activities.

That office has worked with the F.B.I. and the Nassau County district attorney’s office to investigate a number of leads, including a $19 million luxury yacht deal brokered by Mr. Santos between two of his wealthy donors.

When he appears before a judge on Wednesday, Mr. Santos will hear the government’s case against him. Shortly thereafter, prosecutors will argue for the terms of release they believe to be appropriate to ensure that Mr. Santos returns to court.

He could be released on his own recognizance, or required to pay monetary bail. He could be required to turn over his passports.
It is not yet clear whether Mr. Santos will lodge a plea or if he will be asked to do so in a subsequent hearing.

Mr. Santos is also currently facing investigation by the House Ethics Committee, which is looking at whether he failed to properly fill out required financial disclosure forms, violated federal conflict of interest laws or engaged in other unlawful activity during his campaign.

And he faces a criminal case in Brazil for check fraud that stemmed from an episode in 2008. Court records show that Mr. Santos spent nearly $700 using a stolen checkbook and a false name at a store near Rio de Janeiro. Mr. Santos confessed to the theft in 2010, but the case was paused when police and prosecutors were unable to locate him after he moved to the United States.

A hearing on that case is scheduled to take place on Thursday.
Show more



May 10, 2023, 10:03 a.m. ET4 minutes ago
4 minutes ago
Nicholas Fandos and Rebecca Davis O’Brien

These are the charges against George Santos.

Image

The U.S. District Courthouse in Central Islip, N.Y., where Representative George Santos is appearing on Wednesday to face a 13-count indictment.Credit...Gabriela Bhaskar for The New York Times



Federal prosecutors have charged Representative George Santos of New York with 13 counts of money laundering, stealing public money, wire fraud and making false statements to Congress.
Prosecutors said the charges resulted from “fraudulent schemes and brazen misrepresentations” designed to enrich Mr. Santos, mislead donors and win a seat in Congress as a Republican from Queens.
Here is an overview of the charges contained in the indictment, which was unsealed on Wednesday.

• The bulk of the charges relate to what prosecutors said was a scheme by Mr. Santos to solicit donations from political donors and then pocket tens of thousands of dollars for personal expenses, including luxury goods and to pay off debts.
• As part of that arrangement, prosecutors accused Mr. Santos of committing five counts of wire fraud by falsely telling potential donors that contributions would be used for his congressional campaign. They said he used a limited liability company he controlled to collect two $25,000 contributions and employed another person to help. Mr. Santos then transferred the money to his personal bank accounts.
• He is charged with three counts of money laundering in connection to the donor solicitation scheme.
• Prosecutors charged the congressman with two more counts of wire fraud and one count of stealing public money in connection with what they said was a scheme to obtain unemployment benefits from New York beginning in June 2020. Even though he was earning $120,000 a year through his employment at a Florida-based investment company, they said he told the state he was unemployed and collected more than $24,000 in benefits.
• Prosecutors also charged Mr. Santos with two counts of making false statements to the House of Representatives on personal financial disclosure reports. In one case, they said he misstated his sources of income and in another that he overstated it.
  

[/url]Read the George Santos Indictment
Representative George Santos of New York was charged Wednesday by federal prosecutors with seven counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, one count of theft of public funds, and two counts of making materially false statements to the House of Representatives.
READ DOCUMENT 20 PAGES
Show more

Read the George Santos Indictment
Representative George Santos of New York was charged Wednesday by federal prosecutors with seven counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, one count of theft of public funds, and two counts of making materially false statements to the House of Representatives.

ADVERTISEMENT
[url=https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/05/10/nyregion/george-santos-charges-news#after-dfp-ad-mid1]Continue reading the main story


May 10, 2023, 9:57 a.m. ET10 minutes ago
10 minutes ago
Nicholas Fandos

I just spoke to the chairman of the New York G.O.P., Ed Cox, who predicted local Republicans would defeat Santos if he does not resign. “He’s out, no matter how you do it, because we have a good party in Nassau County,” Cox said.
Image

Credit...Richard Drew/Associated Press

May 10, 2023, 9:47 a.m. ET21 minutes ago
21 minutes ago
Nate Schweber

George Santos arrived at the courthouse in an uncharacteristically low-profile manner. He slipped past a scrum of several dozen reporters from local and national outlets. Many of the disappointed had waited for hours and expected Santos to make a spectacle. None of them saw him.
It is unclear whether he traveled in a private or a police vehicle. The car passed through a manned guard station with a retractable orange-and-white roadblock arm. He entered via a back door of the building and is now being processed on the third floor.


May 10, 2023, 9:42 a.m. ET25 minutes ago
25 minutes ago
Rebecca Davis O’Brien

The charges leave some tantalizing questions unanswered, particularly about his second financial disclosure statement. For example, prosecutors say that he falsely certified that he earned $750,000 from his company, the Devolder Organization, and that he had received between $1 million and $5 million in dividends from Devolder. In the press release, prosecutors note: “These assertions were false. Santos had not received from the Devolder Organization the reported amounts of salary or dividends.”


May 10, 2023, 9:45 a.m. ET23 minutes ago
23 minutes ago
Rebecca Davis O’Brien
In other words, we know prosecutors are digging into his personal wealth, and the source of that mysterious money he loaned to his campaign. That may take a bit more time to suss out.


May 10, 2023, 9:37 a.m. ET30 minutes ago
30 minutes ago
Rebecca Davis O’Brien

Broadly, George Santos has been charged in three schemes outlined in the indictment:

First, a fraudulent political contribution solicitation scheme, in which prosecutors say Santos and an unnamed Queens-based political consultant induced donors to give money to an LLC he controlled. He then used the money for personal expenses, including to buy designer goods and to pay off personal debts.


May 10, 2023, 9:37 a.m. ET30 minutes ago
30 minutes ago
Rebecca Davis O’Brien
Second, an unemployment insurance fraud scheme: Prosecutors say that in June 2020, in the early months of the Covid-19 pandemic, Santos applied for government assistance in New York, even though he was at the time employed by a Florida-based investment firm and drew an annual salary of $120,000.


May 10, 2023, 9:40 a.m. ET27 minutes ago
27 minutes ago
Rebecca Davis O’Brien
And, finally, the indictment says Santos misled the House of Representatives about his financial condition. In May 2020 – during his first, unsuccessful campaign – he is accused of overstating one source of income while failing to disclose his investment firm salary. And in September 2022, when he ran a second time, Santos is accused of including a number of falsehoods in his financial disclosure form.

[*Nately120*]

They re coming for us, he's just in the way.

[GMDino]

In America there's a presumption of innocence. Now back to Hunter Biden ... https://t.co/o7wEwE6tL5

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 10, 2023

 

[*pally*]

(05-10-2023, 12:10 PM)GMDino Wrote:

In America there's a presumption of innocence. Now back to Hunter Biden ... https://t.co/o7wEwE6tL5

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 10, 2023

 

Santos was a co sponsor of that bill

[GMDino]

The gop voted against expelling Santos and referred it to the "ethics" committee.

The right doesn't care one bit about ethics, the care about having power...and they show it every damn day.

This is insane. A local GOP council member in George Santos' district was caught on video saying she thought George Santos was mentally ill but shouldn’t be expelled because he’s a Republican vote in Congress.

NYC Councilwoman Vickie Paladino, a right-wing bigot who, like… pic.twitter.com/iiWBLG8pio

— CALL TO ACTIVISM (@CalltoActivism) May 18, 2023

 

[*Nately120*]

The GOP protecting Santos is a bit of a catch-22 I guess. They need his vote because their majority is so slim and beholden to fringe candidates...but by protecting him and keeping him in the house the GOP is giving democrats the ability to point at yet another republican and say "See? This is what a republican looks like, folks!" Bonus points for him attempting to go the Trump route and declare this a witch hunt and raise money based upon the notion that he's being unfairly targeted because he fights so damn hard for the common person.

Anyways here is your headline "GOP protects combination drag queen and welfare queen who stole from a veteran from facing consequences."

[SunsetBengal]

(05-18-2023, 11:11 AM)GMDino Wrote: The gop voted against expelling Santos and referred it to the "ethics" committee.

The right doesn't care one bit about ethics, the care about having power...and they show it every damn day.

This is insane. A local GOP council member in George Santos' district was caught on video saying she thought George Santos was mentally ill but shouldn’t be expelled because he’s a Republican vote in Congress.

NYC Councilwoman Vickie Paladino, a right-wing bigot who, like… pic.twitter.com/iiWBLG8pio

— CALL TO ACTIVISM (@CalltoActivism) May 18, 2023

 

Hopefully the ethics committee demands that he resign. 

[*Nately120*]

(05-18-2023, 11:50 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Hopefully the ethics committee demands that he resign. 

Weren't McCarthy and Santos both vocal proponents of gutting and/or eliminating the ethics committee not so long ago?  I'm not sure what became of that initial suggestion of the new-look GOP led house not so long ago, but it's amusing given the idea that McCarthy is all about passing Santos off onto them now.

[GMDino]

(05-18-2023, 11:50 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Hopefully the ethics committee demands that he resign. 

Five Democrats and five republicans...I can't imagine it won't just be knotted up.  But I do hope you are right and they do the right thing that McCarthy didn't have the guts to say himself.

[*Nately120*]

(05-18-2023, 12:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: Five Democrats and five republicans...I can't imagine it won't just be knotted up.  But I do hope you are right and they do the right thing that McCarthy didn't have the guts to say himself.

Amazing that McCarthy went from having presidential aspirations to being unable to stand up to a single unrepentant repeat offender....who also dresses in drag.  My god, this should be a slam dunk for the GOP.  They're so beholden to these fringe nuts. 

[GMDino]

(05-18-2023, 12:11 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Amazing that McCarthy went from having presidential aspirations to being unable to stand up to a single unrepentant repeat offender....who also dresses in drag.  My god, this should be a slam dunk for the GOP.  They're so beholden to these fringe nuts. 

He is thinking that he needs that vote because the gop has such a slim margin...without thinking about how this could hurt them in the next election.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-10-2023, 11:16 AM)Nately120 Wrote: They re coming for us, he's just in the way.

This, sadly, did not age well.  

[*Nately120*]

(05-18-2023, 12:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This, sadly, did not age well.  

Explain please. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-18-2023, 12:28 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Explain please. 

Who made that statement originally?  Now what did the Durham report show?  Santos is a slimy as something that crawled out of a septic tank, btw, so don't see this as any attempted defense of him.

[*Nately120*]

(05-18-2023, 12:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Who made that statement originally?  Now what did the Durham report show?  Santos is a slimy as something that crawled out of a septic tank, btw, so don't see this as any attempted defense of him.

I wasn't saying that to quote Trump, honestly I figured that was a statement that goes way back, or the overall idea that an attack on a political or public figure can be directed into "an attack on you all."  I know Trump and Matt Gaetz said it recently, but that sort of statement has to go way back, doesn't it?  I can just picture all sorts of controversial leaders in politics, cults, religions, etc currying favor from the group by saying something like this and acting like a martyr.

Honestly, if Trump legimately came up with this I'm amazed and impressed.  He can't be the first person to say this, though.  Can he?  I'm getting Jim Jones vibes from the quote really, but you may be right.


EDIT - Trump also said this sort of thing about other things that held more water than the Durham report.  I'm pretty sure Trump played this same card when the FBI found a horde of classified documents he'd been willfully retaining.

[GMDino]

(05-18-2023, 12:56 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I wasn't saying that to quote Trump, honestly I figured that was a statement that goes way back, or the overall idea that an attack on a political or public figure can be directed into "an attack on you all."  I know Trump and Matt Gaetz said it recently, but that sort of statement has to go way back, doesn't it?  I can just picture all sorts of controversial leaders in politics, cults, religions, etc currying favor from the group by saying something like this and acting like a martyr.

Honestly, if Trump legimately came up with this I'm amazed and impressed.  He can't be the first person to say this, though.  Can he?  I'm getting Jim Jones vibes from the quote really, but you may be right.


EDIT - Trump also said this sort of thing about other things that held more water than the Durham report.  I'm pretty sure Trump played this same card when the FBI found a horde of classified documents he'd been willfully retaining.

I believe that's the first time he said it, regarding the documents case.

But again, Trump has always been shady/dirty.  That he's being investigated or that there was a reason to look into him shouldn't be a surprise at all to anyone.  

But, tbf, I get surprised that people still defend Trump no matter what too.  

Edit:

He was talking about everything he's being investigated for.

https://www.rsbnetwork.com/news/trump-theyre-not-coming-after-me-theyre-coming-after-you-im-just-standing-in-their-way/

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-18-2023, 12:56 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I wasn't saying that to quote Trump, honestly I figured that was a statement that goes way back, or the overall idea that an attack on a political or public figure can be directed into "an attack on you all."  I know Trump and Matt Gaetz said it recently, but that sort of statement has to go way back, doesn't it?  I can just picture all sorts of controversial leaders in politics, cults, religions, etc currying favor from the group by saying something like this and acting like a martyr.

Honestly, if Trump legimately came up with this I'm amazed and impressed.  He can't be the first person to say this, though.  Can he?  I'm getting Jim Jones vibes from the quote really, but you may be right.


EDIT - Trump also said this sort of thing about other things that held more water than the Durham report.  I'm pretty sure Trump played this same card when the FBI found a horde of classified documents he'd been willfully retaining.

I'm unaware of the etymology of the term (can you use etymology for a term?  Well, I just did), but I don't recall hearing it prior to Trump.  As for his reuse of the term, this can't be disputed.  The sad thing is he's been proven right and this kind of accusation is a bit like batting average, if you're hitting .333 you're doing very well.  Although "well" in this scenario is bad for all of us.  As I said in the other thread the Durham report lends a huge amount of credence to Trump's other claims as well, true or false.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-18-2023, 12:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: Five Democrats and five republicans...I can't imagine it won't just be knotted up.  But I do hope you are right and they do the right thing that McCarthy didn't have the guts to say himself.

It seems that they did vote 221-204 to send a resolution to expell to the Ethics Committee.

[GMDino]

(05-18-2023, 03:40 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: It seems that they did vote 221-204 to send a resolution to expell to the Ethics Committee.

Sure, because they didn't want to vote on the expulsion themselves.  Send it to be tied up in committee and hope they never have to face it.

[GMDino]

https://www.businessinsider.com/george-santos-bond-guarantors-secret-after-indictment-2023-5?fbclid=IwAR0DyfYFt1WOa_u_LOObuwEqPKUxQf9IleN402hMxVBFkGYI-M2MivE_fNg

Quote:

• Three anonymous people are sponsoring the $500,000 bond for Rep. George Santos.
• A court filing said a judge held sealed court hearings with them to keep their identities secret.
• The secrecy is highly unusual in any case, much less one against a sitting member of Congress.
  

A judge overseeing the federal criminal case against Rep. George Santos of New York held a secret hearing with the three people on the hook for his $500,000 bond and went to extraordinary lengths to keep their identities secret, according to a new court filing.


Santos was arraigned in federal court on Long Island on May 10, pleading not guilty to a 13-count criminal indictment where federal prosecutors alleged he stole funds from political donors meant for campaign expenses, illegally took pandemic unemployment payouts, and lied to Congress on financial forms.


US Magistrate Judge Anne Shields allowed Santos to be released on a $500,000 bond that would be cosigned by three different suretors who would guarantee the bail funds.


The names of those bail sponsors weren't disclosed at the arraignment hearing. And the bond documents haven't appeared on the public court docket in the two weeks since — a departure from normal practice in criminal cases.

In a letter filed to court Wednesday, Dana R. Green, a lawyer for The New York Times, said the court held another secret hearing with the sponsors.


"It is our understanding that the Court also held at least one subsequent hearing with the suretors," Green wrote. "However, it appears these bond proceedings were not open to the public, and no record of the hearing appears in the docket."


It's unclear whether the hearing was overseen by Shields or US District Judge Joanna Seybert, to whom Santos's case has since been assigned. The Times's letter asked Seybert to unseal any bond records, as well as the transcript of the sealed hearing with the bail sponsors.


Criminal defendants sometimes ask judges to keep the names and other personal details of their bond sponsors under seal. Attorneys in the criminal case against Sam Bankman-Fried asked the judge overseeing his case to keep secret the names of the two people guaranteeing his $250 million bond package.
 
After a group of news organizations — including Insider — asked the judge to unseal their names, arguing they were in the public interest, the judge ultimately made the names public. Bankman-Fried's bond guarantors are Larry Kramer and Andreas Paepcke — both have ties to Stanford University, which employs his parents.


Unlike in the Bankman-Fried case, there's no public record that Santos's attorney asked for the bail-sponsor names to remain sealed. Santos's attorney, Joseph Murray, and a spokesperson for the US Attorney's office in the Eastern District of New York declined to comment.


The secrecy surrounding the identities of the three guarantors means that the public has no way of knowing who is ensuring that Santos, an elected official, is allowed to stay out of jail ahead of a trial on the criminal charges against him.


"The public interest in openness is particularly strong in this case. The surety records relate to three individuals who have committed large sums of money to ensure that Rep. Santos can remain at liberty, pending further proceedings," Green wrote in her Wednesday letter. "This presents an obvious opportunity for political influence, given Rep. Santos's elected position and his dependence on these suretors."