Jump to content

New GOP Congressman's entire resume is faked


Orale

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, TexasHooch said:

Nope.  There's been no sign of him.  George didn't bring him to his signing in, no longer mentions a husband in his bio (curiously all of the other lies are still there)  and isn't wearing a ring.  As for husband's history, people have been digging a bit but drawing blanks.  For instance, he is supposedly a pharmacist based in NY but there's no record of his license with the state.

 

It would be hilarious if Santos wasn't gay.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh he's gay.  My guess is that his marriage to a woman was related to some immigration thing, and his "husband" was just his boyfriend who fucked off and went back to wherever he's from (word is Brazil) when the pressure ramped up. There's something shady there, of course, and I'm sure that'll drop eventually.  For now he's a ghost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's winning over drag queens by beating a drag queen in a clapback fight on twitter, if the internet is correct. That's kind of funny. This whole thing is hilarious and I agree with atom who said that if he just owned who he was and was a democrat he could have probably done just as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, HamsterHookah said:

He's winning over drag queens by beating a drag queen in a clapback fight on twitter, if the internet is correct. That's kind of funny. This whole thing is hilarious and I agree with atom who said that if he just owned who he was and was a democrat he could have probably done just as well.

You'll note that he's got shady financing and ties to russian oligarchs, which tend to stifle your future in the democratic party - rather than being a selling point to GOP'ers

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, HamsterHookah said:

He's winning over drag queens by beating a drag queen in a clapback fight on twitter, if the internet is correct. That's kind of funny. This whole thing is hilarious and I agree with atom who said that if he just owned who he was and was a democrat he could have probably done just as well.

so I'm not a member of the community but I'd bet my mortgage he is not winning over drag queens with a twitter battle. but members of the drag community tend to be cantankerous and rebellious (can i say bitchy?) so i don't doubt that there are a few loling at him. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/23/2023 at 4:33 PM, atomheartbevo said:

Photos and videos from over 3 years (possibly more) of him doing the full-on drag thing are coming out, and not a one off of him having a bit of fun.

 

 

apologize-jesse-jackson.gif

Edited by Kyrie Eleison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

so I'm not a member of the community but I'd bet my mortgage he is not winning over drag queens with a twitter battle. but members of the drag community tend to be cantankerous and rebellious (can i say bitchy?) so i don't doubt that there are a few loling at him. 

You don't think HamsterHookahMeerkatBongCrispyDonkeyCigar is tuned into the Twitter drag community? 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HamsterHookah said:

He's pathological. 

He will keep escalating this behavior until it's impossible not to remove him or prosecute him. He's ill.

His next fundraising email will be from “The Office of the Speaker of the House George Santos”

Who are we to tell him that he’s not Speaker? 

Edited by Js1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

Not saying that it's untrue, but I would verify anything coming from this guy. He seems to be one of many on the left who tend to post BREAKING!! news that's often incomplete or misleading. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could easily see that Santos or his office spoke or consulted with Datwyler (unique name) about campaign finances. Why would this guy not agree to talk for consulting fees. But most likely in Datwyler eyes, it was only consulting. It's one thing to consult in a scandal, it's something entirely different to sign up to work for it. 

Then when it came to completing the form and signed by the Treasurer, Santos would definitely forge a signature. People with low or no ethics don't even see that as wrong as it's just expediting a formality that no sane person would care about. 

No one in the right mind would sign their name on a Santos document assuming Santos is providing the data for the doc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the Santos congress. From top to bottom.  Basically an entire party and current platform based on fabrication.  Heck they guys that decided to borrow more in a time of plenty than any other congress in history when controlled by Republicans and a Republican President now... are concerned about deficits.

there is a good reason why Santos is still in Congress. Lies simply do not matter to the GOP. Lies are now part of the basic stock and trade of the GOP. Thus thus lies are no longer something any Republican needs to be concerned with at all.

 

 

 

PS- Lindsay Graham is so pissed. He really thought that being filmed, photographed, and interviewed in drag, was something the GOP could never endorse... how wrong he was...

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, horn4life said:

PS- Lindsay Graham is so pissed. He really thought that being filmed, photographed, and interviewed in drag, was something the GOP could never endorse... how wrong he was...

let's be fair to ole lindsay though. he made it about as openly as a southern conservative gay man could in a certain time and place.

now, why he chooses to be republican, absolutely go after him for that. i'll never understand log cabin republicans (or their name, why yall gotta be gross?) or anyone who supports republicans anymore, really. 

but lindsay is a confirmed bachelor and in the south, errybody knows what that means

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Not saying that it's untrue, but I would verify anything coming from this guy. He seems to be one of many on the left who tend to post BREAKING!! news that's often incomplete or misleading. 

https://politicalwire.com/2023/01/25/santos-lists-new-treasurer-who-denies-working-for-him/

Santos Lists New Treasurer Who Denies Working for Him

January 25, 2023 at 8:25 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 214 Comments

“With a disclosure filing deadline approaching as questions swirl around his use of campaign funds, embattled Rep. George Santos’ campaign appears to be left without a treasurer,” ABC News reports.

“On Wednesday, several fundraising committees associated with the freshman congressman from New York filed amendments to their statements of organizations, notifying the Federal Election Commission of a new treasurer.”

“But the newly listed treasurer, Thomas Datwyler, a veteran campaign finance treasurer who has served on multiple other political organizations, says he does not work for the Santos campaign and that the filings were signed under his name without his consent.”

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the cliffs notes version of it.  See the ABC story that the above article links for the real meat of it.  BTW, the filing in question just so happens to be the one in which Santos says nevermind to the hundreds of thousands of dollars that he reportedly loaned his campaign.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has this been mentioned yet? When reporting expenses to the FEC, anything over $200 requires a receipt. Santos reported an unusually large number of expenses in the amount of exactly $199.99.

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2023/01/24/the-improbability-of-george-santos-199-expenses-00079334

Quote

The improbability of George Santos’ $199 expenses

Rep. George Santos’ congressional campaign reported dozens of transactions just cents below the threshold that would have triggered a requirement to preserve spending records — an unusual spending pattern that is now part of broader complaints about alleged financial improprieties.

Santos, who admitted in December that he faked parts of his biography, already faces a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission alleging his campaign repeatedly reported suspicious expenses. Those included eight charges of exactly $199.99 at an Italian restaurant in Queens and another $199.99 charge at a Miami-area hotel where rooms do not usually go for less than $600 per night. The specific amount matters because campaigns are required by law to keep receipts or invoices for expenses greater than $200.

Campaigns rack up millions of dollars in expenses and thousands of line items per campaign, but it is rare for them to notch even one $199 expense, according to a POLITICO review of campaign finance records. FEC data shows more than 90 percent of House and Senate campaign committees around the country did not report a single transaction valued between $199 and $199.99 during the 2022 election cycle.

Santos reported 40 of them.

In fact, his campaign accounted for roughly half of all expenses by all campaigns that cost exactly $199.99 — a statistical improbability.

Spoiler

The rarity of campaign expenses falling so close to the legal limit for retaining receipts has raised concerns that the Santos campaign’s disbursements were “deliberately falsified,” a complaint from the Campaign Legal Center alleges. Major questions about Santos’ campaign financing remain unanswered, including the source of $700,000 that the New York congressman ostensibly loaned to his campaign despite questions about his personal finances.

“This was a multi-hundred-thousand dollar operation,” said Adav Noti, a former FEC attorney and senior vice president at the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, which filed a complaint against Santos. “We don’t know where the money came from, we don’t know where the money went to.”

Santos’ lawyer, Joe Murray, declined to comment, citing ongoing investigations. The congressman has previously admitted to exaggerating components of his biography but denied breaking any laws. Both local and federal prosecutors are investigating whether he may have broken the law, but has not been charged with a crime and has bucked calls to resign from fellow GOP members of the state’s congressional delegation.

Most of the Santos campaign’s $199.99 transactions — including the eight Italian restaurant charges — date back to 2021, according to FEC reports. But like the fabricated aspects of the now-congressman’s biography, they went largely unnoticed until after the election.

Under FEC regulations, campaigns are required to report all disbursements and maintain receipts or invoices for those valued at $200 or more. The sheer number of expenses reported as being just under the threshold for retaining receipts was among the subjects of the CLC’s complaint against the Santos campaign. The complaint also cited the $700,000 that Santos reported as a personal loan to his campaign despite questions about his finances.

Of the more than 4,300 House and Senate campaigns that filed any FEC reports during the 2022 election cycle, fewer than 9 percent reported one or more expenditures costing between $199 and $199.99.

Not all campaign expenditures in that narrow range raise questions. A relatively common expense this election cycle: subscriptions to the web-conferencing platform Zoom, which has a business plan priced at $199.90 per month.

But only 25 campaign committees reported any single expense costing exactly $199.99, POLITICO’s analysis found. No campaign other than Santos’ spent that specific amount more than four times. And Santos’ campaign spent that exact figure 37 times, according to his campaign finance reports, totalling just shy of $7,400. In addition to the Italian restaurant and Miami hotel, he reported spending exactly $199.99 on 10 distinct Uber rides, four Delta Airlines flights and two Amtrak trains, among other expenses.

These reported expenses are still a relatively small share of the more than $2.6 million that Santos’s campaign spent last cycle. But CLC’s complaint alleges that they raise questions about the accuracy of his reported disbursements.

The FEC, which is tasked with enforcing campaign finance laws, sent more than 20 letters to Santos’ campaign asking about mathematical errors and other inconsistencies throughout the 2022 election cycle. While such letters are fairly commonplace, that number is atypical, said Noti of the Campaign Legal Center.

The agency is not equipped to flag transactions that are suspicious based on the amounts and vendors.

Santos’ campaign has repeatedly amended its filings both before and after the election in response to FEC letters. That included filing several updated forms on Tuesday to denote previous large contributions that should have been reported in November, as well as amendments to several quarterly reports. The amendments did not touch on the $199.99 disbursements.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Old Freak Nasty said:

The only reason this won't end in suicide is he's a narcissistic sociopath.  For any somewhat normal person all of this would be too much mentally.

Ugh.  I don't really want to get into it again, but look it up.  The suicide rate, particularly for narcissists, is higher not lower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Has this been mentioned yet? When reporting expenses to the FEC, anything over $200 requires a receipt. Santos reported an unusually large number of expenses in the amount of exactly $199.99.

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2023/01/24/the-improbability-of-george-santos-199-expenses-00079334

  Reveal hidden contents

The rarity of campaign expenses falling so close to the legal limit for retaining receipts has raised concerns that the Santos campaign’s disbursements were “deliberately falsified,” a complaint from the Campaign Legal Center alleges. Major questions about Santos’ campaign financing remain unanswered, including the source of $700,000 that the New York congressman ostensibly loaned to his campaign despite questions about his personal finances.

“This was a multi-hundred-thousand dollar operation,” said Adav Noti, a former FEC attorney and senior vice president at the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, which filed a complaint against Santos. “We don’t know where the money came from, we don’t know where the money went to.”

Santos’ lawyer, Joe Murray, declined to comment, citing ongoing investigations. The congressman has previously admitted to exaggerating components of his biography but denied breaking any laws. Both local and federal prosecutors are investigating whether he may have broken the law, but has not been charged with a crime and has bucked calls to resign from fellow GOP members of the state’s congressional delegation.

Most of the Santos campaign’s $199.99 transactions — including the eight Italian restaurant charges — date back to 2021, according to FEC reports. But like the fabricated aspects of the now-congressman’s biography, they went largely unnoticed until after the election.

Under FEC regulations, campaigns are required to report all disbursements and maintain receipts or invoices for those valued at $200 or more. The sheer number of expenses reported as being just under the threshold for retaining receipts was among the subjects of the CLC’s complaint against the Santos campaign. The complaint also cited the $700,000 that Santos reported as a personal loan to his campaign despite questions about his finances.

Of the more than 4,300 House and Senate campaigns that filed any FEC reports during the 2022 election cycle, fewer than 9 percent reported one or more expenditures costing between $199 and $199.99.

Not all campaign expenditures in that narrow range raise questions. A relatively common expense this election cycle: subscriptions to the web-conferencing platform Zoom, which has a business plan priced at $199.90 per month.

But only 25 campaign committees reported any single expense costing exactly $199.99, POLITICO’s analysis found. No campaign other than Santos’ spent that specific amount more than four times. And Santos’ campaign spent that exact figure 37 times, according to his campaign finance reports, totalling just shy of $7,400. In addition to the Italian restaurant and Miami hotel, he reported spending exactly $199.99 on 10 distinct Uber rides, four Delta Airlines flights and two Amtrak trains, among other expenses.

These reported expenses are still a relatively small share of the more than $2.6 million that Santos’s campaign spent last cycle. But CLC’s complaint alleges that they raise questions about the accuracy of his reported disbursements.

The FEC, which is tasked with enforcing campaign finance laws, sent more than 20 letters to Santos’ campaign asking about mathematical errors and other inconsistencies throughout the 2022 election cycle. While such letters are fairly commonplace, that number is atypical, said Noti of the Campaign Legal Center.

The agency is not equipped to flag transactions that are suspicious based on the amounts and vendors.

Santos’ campaign has repeatedly amended its filings both before and after the election in response to FEC letters. That included filing several updated forms on Tuesday to denote previous large contributions that should have been reported in November, as well as amendments to several quarterly reports. The amendments did not touch on the $199.99 disbursements.

 

 

 

33 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Change the threshold from $200 to like $50 and say it’s because of him. Every member and staffer will be pissed at him for 2 years. Maybe change it back once he’s out of office. 

This is probably more common that just Santos. Maybe someone who works in/around The Hill can comment.

But even when I was at Deloitte, you didn't need a receipt for anything under $50 so naturally every personal meal and everything was $40-49.99 range. That was common practice.

  • Fuck You 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, HamsterHookah said:

 

This is probably more common that just Santos. Maybe someone who works in/around The Hill can comment.

But even when I was at Deloitte, you didn't need a receipt for anything under $50 so naturally every personal meal and everything was $40-49.99 range. That was common practice.

Tell me you didn't read the article without telling me. FTA:

Those included eight charges of exactly $199.99 at an Italian restaurant in Queens and another $199.99 charge at a Miami-area hotel where rooms do not usually go for less than $600 per night.

It wasn't charges just under $200, it would be eight of them back to back at the same place. They also mention the general improbability of it being normal behavior:

Campaigns rack up millions of dollars in expenses and thousands of line items per campaign, but it is rare for them to notch even one $199 expense, according to a POLITICO review of campaign finance records. FEC data shows more than 90 percent of House and Senate campaign committees around the country did not report a single transaction valued between $199 and $199.99 during the 2022 election cycle.

Santos reported 40 of them.

In fact, his campaign accounted for roughly half of all expenses by all campaigns that cost exactly $199.99 — a statistical improbability.

Just apply a minute of reading and thinking before forming an opinion my dude. Your #bothsides bias is showing in that the article clearly states that it wasn't normative compared to ANY other campaign 

Edited by Captainant
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't  article say he's got more 199.99 documentations than everyone else combined?  I'd like to hear from someone in the know as well, but I don't think it's like the typical reimbursement or company card limits that us common folk deal with,-in which we document for as much as we can get when we go over.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, elfenix said:

Maybe the hotel is something but if I were him I'd be doing the exact same thing at a restaurant with other people's money. Tip is at my discretion.

Just the tip?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2023 at 12:27 PM, hayden_horn said:

so I'm not a member of the community but I'd bet my mortgage he is not winning over drag queens with a twitter battle. but members of the drag community tend to be cantankerous and rebellious (can i say bitchy?) so i don't doubt that there are a few loling at him. 

I'm no drag queen, but I can appreciate a good burn, even if that burn is coming from a villain.  I'm still going to want the good drag queens to win overall, but Imma still point and laugh when that villain wins a round.

For instance, my favorite burn ever on Drag Race came from a villain.  I wanted her to fail, but she definitely slayed in that round.  Her victim got the last laugh, because she ended up winning the whole thing that season.

Edited by NameAlreadyInUse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...