Did George Santos lie about everything?

[TBoneTX 44,671]

George Santos Signs Lucrative Endorsement Deal With Whoppers

 

"I haven't been this excited since I escaped the FBI after being abducted by aliens and forced to dance in drag at Atlantis for the delight of a lost race of reptilian creatures," said Congressman Santos after signing with the brand.  [...]

 

https://babylonbee.com/news/george-santos-signs-lucrative-endorsement-deal-with-whoppers

[laylalex 7,282]

Some more news: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/25/george-santos-campaign-filing-personal-loans

Quote

 

Later, the Beast reported on weightier matters, spotting that on new campaign finance filings, a $500,000 loan was no longer listed as “personal funds of the candidate”, as was another for $125,000.

The Beast said no indication was given as to where the loans actually came from.

Amid questions about his apparent wealth, Santos has been linked to a Russian oligarch. It has also been reported that he was once hired by a Florida-based investment firm that was accused by the Securities and Exchange Commission of being a multimillion-dollar Ponzi scheme.

Santos previously told a New York radio host the loans were “the money I paid myself” through his company, the Devolder Organization.

 

 

This is probably the most troublesome of all for him if it really did not come from him. Campaign finance violations are very different from saying you were a star volleyball athlete in college when you didn't even go to college in the first place.

[Dashinka 24,109]

37 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Some more news: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/25/george-santos-campaign-filing-personal-loans

 

This is probably the most troublesome of all for him if it really did not come from him. Campaign finance violations are very different from saying you were a star volleyball athlete in college when you didn't even go to college in the first place.

Aren't campaign finance violations ubiquitous in DC? 

[Boiler 44,855]

2 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Aren't campaign finance violations ubiquitous in DC? 

As I understand it there is a game that needs to be played and he missed out that bit

[laylalex 7,282]

Just because some potential violations are not followed up on doesn't mean we should never follow up on other potential violations. I think the problem here is that it seems like the violation is out in the open for everyone to see. Maybe he messed up again on the form, maybe not. He should be given the opportunity to correct it if he has.

[TBoneTX 44,671]

30 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Maybe he messed up again on the form, maybe not.

He should clarify whether he's in good form or poor form, si LL ma'am.

[Dashinka 24,109]

52 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Just because some potential violations are not followed up on doesn't mean we should never follow up on other potential violations. I think the problem here is that it seems like the violation is out in the open for everyone to see. Maybe he messed up again on the form, maybe not. He should be given the opportunity to correct it if he has.

So ignore some and go after others?  Seems like standard operating procedure in DC.

[TBoneTX 44,671]

Ignore D

Go after R

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

Let's see if I can sum up this thread in 4 words:
 

Quote

 

Santos BAD.

 

Biden GOOD.

 

Is that about it?


 

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

On 1/19/2023 at 10:44 AM, Mike E said:

Python did have regular comediennes in the cast in addition to the men in drag. 
 

The go fund me story has all the markings of a hoax. 

So much attention on Santos. People must want to date him.  

 

Gotta do SOMETHING to detract from classified documents, eh?

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

8 hours ago, laylalex said:

Just because some potential violations are not followed up on doesn't mean we should never follow up on other potential violations. I think the problem here is that it seems like the violation is out in the open for everyone to see. Maybe he messed up again on the form, maybe not. He should be given the opportunity to correct it if he has.

What about when your candidate for president had classified documents at his house for years?  Are THOSE the kinds of "potential violations" of which ye speak?  Or does it only matter when one doesn't agree with the "person of interest"?  

Asking for a friend...

7 hours ago, Dashinka said:

So ignore some and go after others?  Seems like standard operating procedure in DC.

1000%

Hypocrisy.  The fundamental root of the left these days.

[laylalex 7,282]

Um, this isn't a thread about classified documents. It's about George Santos, and I was actually talking about potential violations of FEC rules. I'm just trying to keep on topic.

 

Speaking of the FEC and Santos, it looks like he misrepresented to the FEC about who his treasurer was.

Quote

 

Devolder Santos for Congress filed a new statement of organization on Wednesday listing Datwyler as treasurer and custodian of records, replacing Nancy Marks, who had held both positions since Santos first ran for Congress in 2020.

The switch came amid lingering questions about irregularities in the committee’s financial reports and the source of Santos’ wealth.

Datwyler said through a lawyer, Derek Ross, that he had declined the job and was not aware that he would be listed as treasurer on the campaign’s filings, which included what it said was his electronic signature, along with his email and mailing addresses.

“On Monday we informed the Santos campaign that Mr. Datwyler would not be serving as treasurer,” Datwyler’s lawyer, Derek Ross, said in a statement. “It appears there’s a disconnect between that conversation and the filings (Wednesday) which we did not authorize.”

Under federal regulations, a campaign committee can’t raise or spend money unless it has a treasurer. The treasurer collects all contributions — and only the treasurer, or a person designated by the treasurer, can approve campaign expenses.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fec-wants-answers-on-rep-santos-chaotic-treasurer-switch

 

So Datwyler couldn't have signed the filings because he wasn't treasurer, but the Santos camp made the filings anyway. Again, benefit of the doubt that they didn't know what they were doing, but

Quote

 

The Justice Department has reportedly asked the Federal Elections Commission to not take action against Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., amid a dual investigation by federal prosecutors into his campaign. 

The Public Integrity Section also requested relevant documents from the FEC, suggesting the agency is investigating Santos’ campaign finances, the Washington Post reported, citing anonymous sources. 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fec-asked-hold-george-santos-probe-separate-doj-investigation

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

Oh, I though this thread was about politicians that are dishonest?  Biden has lied thousands of times for decades, and yet you sent him money.   It's clear where your loyalties lie.

Edited January 28, 2023 by LIBrty4all

[TBoneTX 44,671]

George Santos: Legend

 

Let's make no mistake – perhaps the most important and consequential Republican of the current era is one George Santos.  [...]

 

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2023/01/30/george-santos-legend-n2618820

[laylalex 7,282]

George Santos news: 

Embattled Republican Rep. George Santos of New York will not serve on the two House committees to which he was recently assigned until the investigations into his conduct have concluded, his office said Tuesday.

“The congressman is reserving his seats on his assigned committees until he has been properly cleared of both campaign and personal financial investigations,” said his spokeswoman, Naysa Woomer.

...

It was not immediately clear whether Santos made the decision of his own accord, or if he was influenced or directed to revoke his committee assignments by other members of his conference. Spokesmen for House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., did not immediately respond to CNBC’s requests for comment.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/31/rep-george-santos-says-he-wont-serve-on-house-committees-while-investigations-are-ongoing.html

 

By a margin of 78-13%, voters in New York’s 3rd Congressional District overwhelmingly say freshman Republican Representative George Santos should resign, including 89% of Democrats, 72% of independents and 71% of Republicans. His constituents view him unfavorably 83-7%, including 78% of Republicans who view Santos unfavorably, according to a new Newsday/Siena College poll of registered NY 3 voters released today.

Three-quarters of voters do not think Santos can be an effective representative for the people of the district, and 71% say it was wrong for US House Speaker Kevin McCarthy to have seated Santos on two congressional committees. By a two-to-one margin, voters who say they voted for Santos in November, now say they would not have voted for him had they known then what they know now about Santos.

https://scri.siena.edu/2023/01/31/ny-3-voters-say-santos-should-resign-78-13-including-71-of-reps/