Dec.28

electoral-vote.com

Dem 51

   

GOP 49

Santos Story Isn't Going Away

George Santos told his tale to The New York Post on Monday, and took ownership of the various lies that he had told—sort of. His hope was that unburdening himself would mean a significant decline in the amount of Santos-related news stories. He may still get his wish... but not yet.

Perhaps this story would have dominated multiple news cycles at any time of the year. After all, people love a good scandal. But Santos had the bad luck to be outed as a charlatan during one of the deadest times of the year for news in general, and for political news in particular. So, he's been above the fold for days and days, and yesterday was no different.

Before we get to the serious stuff, let's start with an amuse-bouche (that's an appetizer, for those who are not Mehmet Oz voters). This clip of Santos, from a sort-of candidates debate held shortly before the election, has been going wild on social media:

We've cued it up to the key moment, but in case you don't care to watch, Santos looked at his opponent and asked: "Do you have an honest moment inside of you ever when you're campaigning?" That one has not aged well, to say the least.

And on that note, despite spilling his guts, Santos has not exactly dispelled his reputation for being an inveterate liar. The problem is that, as he explained away his lies, he... lied. For example, in an effort to extricate himself from his claims of being Jewish, Santos said he never actually said that, and that the media misrepresented his words. In fact, it did not take long to find both video and audio of Santos describing himself as a "proud Jew." That is not exactly open to multiple interpretations, is it?

A much bigger question than that is whether or not Santos has legal exposure that could land him in hot water. And while there is no definitive answer, as yet, there are almost as many red flags here as there are with Donald Trump's tax returns (see above):

• Brazilian Lawbreaking: Santos was accused of passing bad checks as a teenager in Brazil, but he fled that country before he could be prosecuted. The case is still open, and Brazilian authorities could still pursue him... if they can find him. If they wait until Jan. 3, then they have an excellent chance of locating him at E Capitol St. and 1st St. NE Washington, DC 20004.
  
  
• Citizenship: Santos says he was born in the U.S., but he's also told friends and co-workers that he was born in Brazil. He's going to need to show some evidence that he's actually a U.S. citizen, because if he's not, he can't serve in Congress.
  
  
• Marriage: Santos was married to a woman from Brazil for 7 years, and then he divorced her just days before his first run for political office. He says he's gay; the marriage initially caused people to suspect that might be a put-on. Now, the suspicions run in the opposite direction. That is to say, the current thinking is that he really is gay, and that the marriage was the put-on. In other words, the purpose of the marriage was to secure citizenship for his "wife." If that can be proven, it's fraud and it's a crime.
  
  
• Money: The Representative-elect's financial picture remains... murky. There is ample evidence that he was very poor as recently as 2 years ago. Then, during his successful run for Congress, he was able to write a check to his campaign for $750,000. Santos claims that the business he runs, the Devolder Organization, is the secret to his success. However, Devolder has no known clients, and it was dissolved in its state of incorporation (Florida) for failing to file mandatory paperwork. Santos then reincorporated the company the day after he was exposed by The New York Times.
  
  If Santos is lying about his finances, where might the money have come from? Well, one possibility is Viktor Vekselberg, a Russian businessman with ties to the Kremlin who gave tens of thousands of dollars to Santos' affiliated PAC.
  
  
• Paperwork: This is probably Santos' biggest problem, because it subsumes most of the others. The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996 says that "[whoever] makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both." The Feds absolutely do go after members of Congress for this; for example, then-representative Jeff Fortenberry (R) was popped for filing phony paperwork earlier this year and resigned his seat.

The biggest question of all is whether or not this will cause Santos to lose his seat prematurely. The Democrats want him to resign, of course, but neither he nor the Republican leadership in the House care what Democrats think. However, more than a few Republicans have also called him out. Rep.-elect Nick LaLota (R-NY), whose district neighbors Santos', called for a full investigation yesterday. Former Trump White House adviser Jason Miller said the GOP should "get rid of this loser." Tulsi Gabbard, the "independent" who just so happens to be guest-hosting Tucker Carlson's show this week, also implied that Santos has to go.

Is there any chance that Republican leadership in the House refuses to recognize Santos' credentials, or consents to expelling him? We remain skeptical. The Democrats might jettison someone for questionable behavior, like they did with then-Sen. Al Franken (DFL-MN). But maybe not; they knew Franken was going to be replaced by another Democrat, and they were making a (successful) play for the Alabama Senate seat, and so needed to be "right" on sexual misconduct. In any event, Republicans have shown no indication they are bothered by sleazy behavior; if so, Donald Trump would have been convicted at his impeachment, and at least three or four House Republicans would have been sent packing already.

But is there some other cause that might persuade House Republicans to jump ship on Santos? Maybe. As a tactical matter, they might conclude that they don't want to send the lesson that it's OK to get yourself elected on a completely phony persona. That could cause reporters to look really carefully at every candidate's backstory, which is something that many politicians might not want.

The other possibility we can come up with is that if Republican leadership concludes that Santos is going down anyhow, they might decide they have a better chance of winning a special election in winter (low turnout) than in spring or summer. Jettisoning him would also be a double-PR win; it would "send the message" that Republicans don't tolerate this sort of thing, and would also keep Santos from being an ongoing anchor around the Party's neck.

We still think these are longshots, but stranger things have happened. At the moment, Santos is scheduled to take his seat, and there's less than a week for that to change. (Z)