The half-life of George Santos’ lies.

December 29, 2022

          The news cycle is devolving into year-end reviews of songs, movies, and recipes for New Year’s Eve. The story attracting the most attention in the political world is the flaming roadside wreck that is George Santos. It is impossible to look away no matter how hard we try. But there are insights to be gleaned from the GOP’s unwillingness to acknowledge the Santos scandal and its inability to prevent Santos from taking a seat in Congress. Indeed, George Santos is the poster boy for the GOP’s tenuous hold on power in the House.

          Let’s get this part out of the way: EVERYTHING that Santos says should be presumed to be a lie until it is substantiated by independent, verifiable documentation. Media outlets are devoting barrels of ink (or enough electrons to power the Large Hadron Collider) to repeating Santos’ latest re-imagining of his fictional past. Each iteration of his biography has a half-life of about 6 hours until it is modified, superseded, or “memory-holed” into non-existence. Physicists have begun to use the term “Santos half-life” to refer to the decay rate of Element 105 on the Periodic Table.

          Although the conventional political wisdom is that Santos will be able to “hang on” to his seat in the House for two years, I doubt that assertion. Santos is going to be indicted sooner rather than later. True, neither indictment nor conviction serves as a constitutional impediment to election or service in the House of Representatives. And the likelihood that anyone in the GOP will prevent Santos from taking his seat and voting for Speaker is zero. But all indications are that the true story of Santos’ life will be uglier than the political press is willing to acknowledge at this point. If and when evidence of criminality and corruption emerges on a large scale, the pressure to remove Santos from Congress will become irresistible.

          Let’s look at the troubling facts—or rather, the absence of facts—regarding Santos’ funding of his campaign. As we do, let’s keep in mind that lying on federal campaign disclosure forms about the sources and uses of funds could result in indictments for multiple felonies, including making false statements, wire fraud, accepting payments in excess of federal limits, conspiracy, money laundering, and willful violations of disclosure laws.

          Where did Santos obtain the $700,000 he “loaned” to his campaign? No one knows the answer (yet), but here is a big clue: Santos claimed that he was the “head guy” in charge of investments by New York City in an investment firm that now stands charged with being “a classic Ponzi scheme.” See Talking Points Memo, Santos Once Boasted About Being ‘Head Guy For New York City’ At Alleged Ponzi Scheme.

          As noted in TPM, Santos conveniently terminated his association with the alleged Ponzi scheme (Harbor City) one month before the SEC filed a complaint against Harbor City to shut it down. Santos then established his own investment firm with several of his colleagues from the erstwhile Ponzi scheme:

[Santos] went on to create another company that has extensive links to Harbor City executives. That firm, the Devolder Organization, is central to Santos’ evolving explanation for a surge in income he claims to have enjoyed over the past two years.

          Ponzi schemes generate lots of cash—for their operators. Santos’ proximity to a Ponzi scheme puts him in close contact with people with access to lots of cash.

          Santos claims that he made his fortune from a business that investment firms typically perform for free—“capital introductions.” Although the phrase seems intentionally vague, Santos claims that he matched wealthy people to providers of goods and services peddled to the ultra-rich. It is not clear why the ultra-rich couldn’t buy a yacht without Santos’ assistance, but let’s leave that for another day.

          Wherever Santos obtained sudden access to unexplained millions, providing it to his campaign may have been illegal if he lied about the source of the funds. Why would he do that? The Daily Beast suggests some reasons. See Daily Beast, George Santos’ Massive Campaign Loans May Not Be Legal. Per the Daily Beast, Santos claimed that he loaned the money to his campaign from corporate accounts at his investment firm (named the “Devolder Organization”). But per federal campaign finance rules, it is illegal to loan funds from a corporation to a campaign (as opposed to a loan from the candidate in their personal capacity).

          In an interview between Santos and the Daily Beast, Santos appeared to be unaware of that restriction:

          Informed of the rules, Santos promised he would “immediately” look into the matter and rectify anything that needed to be addressed.”

          Oops!

          Late Wednesday evening, the NYTimes reported that federal and state prosecutors had commenced investigations into Santos’ financial affairs. See NYTimes, George Santos Faces Federal and Local Investigations and Public Dismay.

          It is only a matter of time before Santos’ house of cards comes tumbling down. In the meantime, some Republicans are beginning to urge that the GOP dump Santos. See Mediate, Jason Miller: Get Rid of 'Loser' George Santos. But Kevin McCarthy can’t afford to lose a single vote in his quest to be Speaker. See Politico, Santos scandal crashes into McCarthy speakership battle. Per Politico,

the Republican leader has five members threatening publicly to oppose his speakership bid on Jan. 3, which happens to be the same number required to block him from reaching the needed 218 votes. And the party is buckling in for potentially multiple votes, marking only the second time since the Civil War that the speakership race would go beyond a first ballot.

          So, there you have it. Santos’ stories are crumbling faster than he can spin them, and the half-life of his usefulness to Kevin McCarthy is measured in days. If it turns out that he financed his campaign with the proceeds of a Ponzi scheme, not even McCarthy’s bottomless depravity could find a way to keep Santos seated in the House.

The revelations in Cassidy Hutchinson’s latest transcripts.

         Cassidy Hutchison will be acknowledged as the most important witness in the January 6th Investigation. With the release of her latest transcripts, it is clear that she will be a critical witness in the criminal trials of the ringleaders of the coup and insurrection. She provides critical evidence of Trump’s knowledge that the insurrectionists were armed as he sent them to the Capitol. She testified that Mark Meadows regularly burned documents after meetings with Scott Perry, who brought Jeffrey Clark into the conspiracy to corrupt the Justice Department.

          All of this and more is set out in riveting detail by Substack author TCinLA in his post, Cassidy Hutchinson is the John Dean of January 6. If you are looking for helpful analyses of the January 6th report, TCinLA’s essay is a good entry point!

More on Christian Nationalism and January 6th.

          My comments on Governor Gregg Abbott’s “anti-Nativity” narrative continue to generate discussion among readers about the difference between Christianity and Christian nationalism. A reader included a link in the Comments to a multi-media resource entitled Uncivil Religion: January 6, 2021. As explained by the authors, Michael J. Altman and Jerome Copulsky

Uncivil Religion curates pieces of digital media – tweets, videos, photos, FBI files – that represent the various and complex religious dimensions of the “Stop the Steal” protest in Washington, D.C. and riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

We contend that religion was not just one aspect of the attack on the Capitol, but, rather, it was a thread that weaves through the entirety of the events of January 6.

To supplement the digital media presented in this website, we have invited a number of established and emerging scholars of religion to contribute short interpretive essays to contextualize and interpret a selection of images and videos.

          Check out the Uncivil Religion resource. There is a LOT to explore.

          Separately, a reader posted this note in the Comments:

Episcopal priest here, speaking up on behalf of mainline churches. There ARE mainline churches speaking up. There are pastors and priests at protests. We preach about justice issues in our congregations frequently. The issue as I see it, is that the press rarely reports on those actions. That does not mean they aren’t happening. For example: here’s a recent statement put out by a group of mainline Christian ministers about the current egregious rise of antisemitism in our country: A National Reckoning of the Soul: A Call to the Churches of the United States to Confront the Crisis of Antisemitism (ccjr.us)

The person who planted the seed to get this statement written was an Episcopal priest in Texas. Has anyone seen any news anywhere in main stream media about this? I doubt it. It was picked up by Religion News Service, but not in the Washington Post or NY Times. All of which is to say: many of us are speaking up. It’s just not “click bait” enough for the press to cover it.

          The reader / Episcopal priest makes a fair point: When Christian leaders do condemn antisemitism or Christian nationalism, that is newsworthy but is seldom treated as such. Read the statement linked above to see a strong condemnation of antisemitism by a Christian organization.

Concluding Thoughts.

          Representative Jamie Raskin announced on Wednesday that he has “been diagnosed with Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma, which is a serious but curable form of cancer [and that] prognosis for most people in my situation is excellent after four months of treatment.”

          Jamie Raskin has been a stalwart defender of democracy during one of the most unsettled periods in our nation’s history. He is held in affection by his colleagues in the House. And he is a decent person who treats others with respect, even in the heat of battle. He was a role model before his diagnosis. Although we should take nothing for granted, if the past is prologue, he will continue to be a role model as he undergoes treatment. The nation is fortunate to have him at this moment in its history. We wish him the best as he faces the next challenge in his life.

          Talk to you tomorrow!