Representative-elect George Santos' completely fabricated past and qualifications

[Alli]

This is going to be a movie one day.

It already is. The one with Leonardo DeCaprio where he pretends to be important people, “Catch Me if You Can.” From IMDB: “Barely 21 yet, Frank is a skilled forger who has passed as a doctor, lawyer and pilot. FBI agent Carl becomes obsessed with tracking down the con man, who only revels in the pursuit."

 

[AG_PhamD]

McCarthy hasn't remained silent though, he's throwing his full support behind Santos.

McCarthy doesn’t call for Santos to resign: ‘The voters elected him to serve’

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Wednesday declined to call for Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) to resign over fabrications about his résumé and questions about his finances even as New York …

thehill.com

It’s a ridiculous argument- it’s up to his constituents to decide what they want to do, but they don’t actually have any mechanism to recall him.

Does Santos have a serious mental condition or is he just an opportunist who learned from Trump that constant, even easily refuted, lying is not an impediment to being elected.

Not to diagnose anyone, but Santo’s pathological lying seems consistent with someone with a personality disorder, such as narcissistic PD or Borderline PD. There is almost always overlap among the various PD traits. Borderline, for whatever reason (including the risk of potential bias in diagnosis), tends to disproportionately found in gay men, which Santos appears to be, allegedly.

Santos’ insatiable need to appease or garner attention (including sympathy) from his audience and using manipulation (including lies) to reach that end is one giant red flag. It also appears he may have appropriated other people’s biographical stories, likely people he had unhealthy admiration for, would also be another red flag.

It would be interesting to hear more about past and present relationships with others.

I dislike this trend in the media to call any type of pathological behavior as “Trumpian” or “Trump like”, as if this was “invented” by Trump, is somehow exclusive to him, or that others who act this way must have adopted it from him. Trump certainly has a unique personality and aspects of it apparently can be politically useful. Some have emulated aspects of it, but in terms of what appear to be deep rooted pathological traits, it’s not an appropriate term.

It’s not uncommon to see narcissistic traits among politicians and other leaders- and to some extent antisocial traits (Note there is a difference between personality traits and personality disorders). We all know not uncommon for politicians to be dishonest and manipulative, including inflating their accomplishments. In some sense these traits may be beneficial for leadership roles.

But it’s a very different story when someone literally constructs an entirely false identity and is fundamentally dishonest about everything, including pretty inconsequential things to manipulate how everyone sees them, likely due to their own insecurity of self. Or to be so self-obsessed that they cannot accept reality. Now we start getting into actual mental health issues.

Regardless, I believe Santos is a sick person. I think he would lie about what he ate for breakfast if he thought it would help how people perceive him. Like Trump, these personality traits (likely personality disorders) should be a concern regarding their ability to correctly, safely, ethically, etc carry out their duties as elected officials.

 

[lizkat]

It already is. The one with Leonardo DeCaprio where he pretends to be important people, “Catch Me if You Can.” From IMDB: “Barely 21 yet, Frank is a skilled forger who has passed as a doctor, lawyer and pilot. FBI agent Carl becomes obsessed with tracking down the con man, who only revels in the pursuit."

There are actually quite a few noir movies from the heyday of that venue in the 40s, early 50s, with plots that involve characters with "shady" pasts, cons whose backgrounds and family stories don't hang together except from the POV of individual acquaintances --and of course the con's undoing is usually launched when two of those folks happen to meet up and start comparing notes.

Santos is way past all that though, considering he put himself out there as a public figure. I'm not sure what's more amazing to me in this ongoing saga, that he thought he could skate on all these lies, or that so far he's actually managing to do so. "So far..."

btw as a follow-up to an earlier post I made about my congressman (Molinaro) having tried to skate on the fence by saying he didn't think Santos could "fully fullfill" his responsibilities, later in the day the Albany Times Union inquired of his spokesman whether by that statement he meant Santos should resign. At least through the spokesman, the response was affirmative..,.

Lawler, Molinaro call on Santos to resign; Stefanik still silent

The Hudson Valley congressmen are adding to the litany of New York Republicans saying the...

www.timesunion.com

“George Santos’ dishonesty has eroded his ability to represent his neighbors and serve in Congress,” Molinaro said in a statement to the Times Union. “I don’t see how he can continue.”

Asked to clarify Molinaro’s statement, Dan Kranz, his communications director, texted: “Yes that statement means he thinks he should resign.”

Six of the 11 Republicans in New York’s congressional delegation want Santos to quit his job: Lawler, Molinaro, former state GOP Chairman Nick Langworthy, Nick LaLota, Brandon Williams and Anthony D’Esposito, whose Long Island district abuts Santos’.

 

[Roller]

Not to diagnose anyone, but Santo’s pathological lying seems consistent with someone with a personality disorder, such as narcissistic PD or Borderline PD. There is almost always overlap among the various PD traits. Borderline, for whatever reason (including the risk of potential bias in diagnosis), tends to disproportionately found in gay men, which Santos appears to be, allegedly.

Santos’ insatiable need to appease or garner attention (including sympathy) from his audience and using manipulation (including lies) to reach that end is one giant red flag. It also appears he may have appropriated other people’s biographical stories, likely people he had unhealthy admiration for, would also be another red flag.

It would be interesting to hear more about past and present relationships with others.

I dislike this trend in the media to call any type of pathological behavior as “Trumpian” or “Trump like”, as if this was “invented” by Trump, is somehow exclusive to him, or that others who act this way must have adopted it from him. Trump certainly has a unique personality and aspects of it apparently can be politically useful. Some have emulated aspects of it, but in terms of what appear to be deep rooted pathological traits, it’s not an appropriate term.

It’s not uncommon to see narcissistic traits among politicians and other leaders- and to some extent antisocial traits (Note there is a difference between personality traits and personality disorders). We all know not uncommon for politicians to be dishonest and manipulative, including inflating their accomplishments. In some sense these traits may be beneficial for leadership roles.

But it’s a very different story when someone literally constructs an entirely false identity and is fundamentally dishonest about everything, including pretty inconsequential things to manipulate how everyone sees them, likely due to their own insecurity of self. Or to be so self-obsessed that they cannot accept reality. Now we start getting into actual mental health issues.

Regardless, I believe Santos is a sick person. I think he would lie about what he ate for breakfast if he thought it would help how people perceive him. Like Trump, these personality traits (likely personality disorders) should be a concern regarding their ability to correctly, safely, ethically, etc carry out their duties as elected officials.

You just did.

I tend to agree with you about Santos, but even if his fabricated past and other actions are rooted in a mental disorder, it shouldn't get him and his party off the hook at all. I suspect a psychiatric dive into Donald Trump's mind would likewise find matches for several diagnoses in the DSM.

 

[AG_PhamD]

You just did.

I tend to agree with you about Santos, but even if his fabricated past and other actions are rooted in a mental disorder, it shouldn't get him and his party off the hook at all. I suspect a psychiatric dive into Donald Trump's mind would likewise find matches for several diagnoses in the DSM.

Absolutely. For the sake of the political discussion, or really any context beyond a clinical one, a diagnosis is irrelevant. It’s the behavior and ethics that matter, which in this case is extremely concerning.

It’s worth noting that that mental health diagnoses do not imply incompetence and that they do not preclude someone from being in positions of high responsibility or leadership, like politicians. There are many successful (and publicly well-liked) people, including politicians, with mental health conditions, both diagnosed and probably many more undiagnosed. Some condition’s traits, while unfavorable in many circumstances, can actually be beneficial in one’s ability to reach and carry out responsibilities in such positions. That said, this is obviously not always the case. It all depends on the condition, the circumstances, and one’s ability to manage their symptoms.

 

[lizkat]

More "embellishments" peek out of Santos' fakery: Previously he claimed his mother had been in one of the WTC towers and managed to escape but died later on due to cancer. But immigration records show she applied for a US visa in February of 2003 while in Brazil, and had stated on her application that she had not been in the USA since 1999. Visa records were obtained via an Freedom of Information Act request.

Records show Rep. George Santos’s mother wasn’t in New York on 9/11 (WaPo, paywall lifted)

Meanwhile McCarthy has now given Santos slots on two House committees: Small Business (!) and the committee on Science, Space and Technology.

MSN

www.msn.com

Of course there were already concerns about the potential for Santos to access sensitive information. House leadership and intel officials together determine the level of access any given congressman is eventually allowed, but the starting point is that any congress person is considered "eligible" to receive a security clearance. From a NY Post piece in December:

George Santos may pose ‘espionage threat’ due to murky background, intelligence expert warns

A longtime federal official warned Wednesday Rep.-elect George Santos presents an unprecedented challenge to national security.

nypost.com

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

More "embellishments" peek out of Santos' fakery: Previously he claimed his mother had been in one of the WTC towers and managed to escape but died later on due to cancer. But immigration records show she applied for a US visa in February of 2003 while in Brazil, and had stated on her application that she had not been in the USA since 1999. Visa records were obtained via an Freedom of Information Act request.

Records show Rep. George Santos’s mother wasn’t in New York on 9/11 (WaPo, paywall lifted)

Meanwhile McCarthy has now given Santos slots on two House committees: Small Business (!) and the committee on Science, Space and Technology.

MSN

www.msn.com

Of course there were already concerns about the potential for Santos to access sensitive information. House leadership and intel officials together determine the level of access any given congressman is eventually allowed, but the starting point is that any congress person is considered "eligible" to receive a security clearance. From a NY Post piece in December:

George Santos may pose ‘espionage threat’ due to murky background, intelligence expert warns

A longtime federal official warned Wednesday Rep.-elect George Santos presents an unprecedented challenge to national security.

nypost.com

I'm shocked McCarthy didn't assign him to the ethics oversight committee and kick out every other member. What a missed opportunity. He's going to regret that one.

 

[lizkat]

I'm shocked McCarthy didn't assign him to the ethics oversight committee and kick out every other member. What a missed opportunity. He's going to regret that one.

Who's going to regret everything about Santos being in the House and McCarthy giving him more than the time of day is going to be my congressman, Molinaro (R-NY19).

I was already among those who called to complain initially last week when Molinaro only suggested Santos would have difficulty "fully fulfilling" his congressional responsibilities when CNN happened to interview him and another NY delegation Republican, the latter of which flatly had said Santos should quit.​

​

Later that day Molinaro said again he didn't see how the guy could serve out his term but stopped short of saying a Santos resignation was the correct path forward.​

​

Once more unto the breach, dear friends: finally his spokesman, when questioned, said "yeah... he means the guy should resign."​

​

So It's clear I have quite the pretzel-brained congress critter this time around. I liked my pre-redistricted district better, not least bc the guy who represented us was a Democrat in a purple district. The new district is purple too, but the new critter is not yet house trained by his half-and-half constituency. I'm one of those working to fix that situation!

​

Anyway I should put Molinaro's office on speed dial because it's clear the guy needs help.

 

[Alli]

Meanwhile I’m trying to figure out if we‘re all being pranked or if the one thing Santos left off his resume is that he truly was a drag queen in Brazil.

How does anyone still take the GOP seriously?!

 

[GermanSuplex]

The fact McCarthy can’t even get a backbone against this real life movie scoundrel is pretty sad.

Saw a hilarious tweet…

 

[ronntaylor]

Meanwhile I’m trying to figure out if we‘re all being pranked or if the one thing Santos left off his resume is that he truly was a drag queen in Brazil.

How does anyone still take the GOP seriously?!

But wait, there's more...

https://twitter.com/MarisaKabas/status/1615808517176234020

 

[lizkat]

But wait, there's more...

https://twitter.com/MarisaKabas/status/1615808517176234020

This guy Santos is really two-faced trying to persuade LGBTQ+ to join a party nominally still headed up by a former prez who one day lied about having consulted "his" generals and then casually tweeted his decision to throw trans people out of the military... because at the time, Trump wanted to shuffle money from the military budget to build his "wall" and wackily figured that every trans person in the military was in there solely to finance their transition surgery, so getting rid of them in one fell swoop would erase that (huge and imaginary!) potential cost and so meet his (illegal) budget shift.

One must wonder more and more what Santos is really about, and who has managed to help plant him in the federal government -- and soon to be sitting on two House committees with potential access to sensitive information. Well one can only hope that the intel agencies will decide Santos doesn't merit any kind of security clearance that the average office cleaner doesn't have in DC. He just seems like a national security nightmare. His whole persona is like one of those fake operative identities that is arranged in advance and then when needed someone plugs in all the details .., except in Santos' case, no one plugged in the details and everything's coming up fishy. He's like a cardboard character. A paper doll.

Where did that $700k loan "from" Santos to his campaign (illegally made through his straw "corporation") even come from? It's a huge missing piece of info. He'd have to have struck a great number of lucrative deals --just playing middleman to people with boats they wanted to sell to people with enough money to buy them-- in order to come up with that much dough.

That whole story stinks and so do the links between Santos and Andrew Intrater, and Intrater's Russian oligarch cousin, and between Intrater's company and the Ponzi scheme outfit in Florida where Santos worked longer than he said he had done... I sure hope the NYT and some other media outlets are trying to thrash out the details of all that stuff, because there's enough smoke there to say something pretty smelly has been burning.

George Santos scored donations from Russian oligarch’s cousin accused of being go-between in Stormy Daniels hush money deal: report

Controversial Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) reportedly scored big bucks donations from a New York real estate kingpin who is a cousin of a Russian oligarch and was once accused of being a go-between …

www.nydailynews.com

 

[AG_PhamD]

This guy Santos is really two-faced trying to persuade LGBTQ+ to join a party nominally still headed up by a former prez who one day lied about having consulted "his" generals and then casually tweeted his decision to throw trans people out of the military... because at the time, Trump wanted to shuffle money from the military budget to build his "wall" and wackily figured that every trans person in the military was in there solely to finance their transition surgery, so getting rid of them in one fell swoop would erase that (huge and imaginary!) potential cost and so meet his (illegal) budget shift.

One must wonder more and more what Santos is really about, and who has managed to help plant him in the federal government -- and soon to be sitting on two House committees with potential access to sensitive information. Well one can only hope that the intel agencies will decide Santos doesn't merit any kind of security clearance that the average office cleaner doesn't have in DC. He just seems like a national security nightmare. His whole persona is like one of those fake operative identities that is arranged in advance and then when needed someone plugs in all the details .., except in Santos' case, no one plugged in the details and everything's coming up fishy. He's like a cardboard character. A paper doll.

Where did that $700k loan "from" Santos to his campaign (illegally made through his straw "corporation") even come from? It's a huge missing piece of info. He'd have to have struck a great number of lucrative deals --just playing middleman to people with boats they wanted to sell to people with enough money to buy them-- in order to come up with that much dough.

That whole story stinks and so do the links between Santos and Andrew Intrater, and Intrater's Russian oligarch cousin, and between Intrater's company and the Ponzi scheme outfit in Florida where Santos worked longer than he said he had done... I sure hope the NYT and some other media outlets are trying to thrash out the details of all that stuff, because there's enough smoke there to say something pretty smelly has been burning.

George Santos scored donations from Russian oligarch’s cousin accused of being go-between in Stormy Daniels hush money deal: report

Controversial Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) reportedly scored big bucks donations from a New York real estate kingpin who is a cousin of a Russian oligarch and was once accused of being a go-between …

www.nydailynews.com

This whole story more than stinks. I’m surprised no one mentioned him defrauding a disabled veteran for $3000, the man trying to pay for his dog’s veterinary surgery. Santos creates a charity and ran off with the money... allegedly. It doesn’t get more sick than that.

While it’s very likely this Andrew Intrater guy is involved, I think we need to be careful not to automatically assume this is some grand Kremlin conspiracy. While it’s true he has ties to his Russian Oligarch cousin, he was born in western Ukraine, is an American citizen, went to college in the US, and is independently (or perhaps somewhat independently of his cousin) very successful- running an investment firm with ex-PM Ehud Barak of Israel and being on the board of the Shoah Foundation, which is Steven Spielberg’s creation.

It’s entirely possible he’s in the Kremlin’s pocket, or the pocket of his cousin who is in the Kremlin’s pocket. Or he’s looking to be a puppeteer by buying a puppet (Santos) into office. Or it’s possible, though less likely, he is yet another victim of Santo’s schemes.

I feel like the media gets overly excited about circumstantial connections with Russians. I’m not saying they can’t be behind it or that there haven’t been previous instances that make them a prime candidate. And while I have no affection for the Russian State, the knee jerk reaction of Russian conspiracies can look rather silly if it’s not the case. It’s also not fair to indict someone largely or in part because on their nationality.

I will say Intrater has a sketchy history, such as his connection with Michael Cohen and friends. He has made illegal campaign contributions in the past. At the same time, he was investigated (presumably quiet thoroughly) during the Mueller Probe and wasn’t connected with collusion. That said, it’s possible the probe read him wrong or he has since decided to act as an agent of the Kremlin.

All that said, there is certainly reason to be suspicious. But I think we should wait to make judgements regarding the media’s insinuation this could be a Russian plot.

 

[fooferdoggie]

This whole story more than stinks. I’m surprised no one mentioned him defrauding a disabled veteran for $3000, the man trying to pay for his dog’s veterinary surgery. Santos creates a charity and ran off with the money... allegedly. It doesn’t get more sick than that.

must have learned that one from trump.

 

[lizkat]

I feel like the media gets overly excited about circumstantial connections with Russians. I’m not saying they can’t be behind it or that there haven’t been previous instances that make them a prime candidate. And while I have no affection for the Russian State, the knee jerk reaction of Russian conspiracies can look rather silly if it’s not the case. It’s also not fair to indict someone largely or in part because on their nationality.

I will say Intrater has a sketchy history, such as his connection with Michael Cohen and friends. He has made illegal campaign contributions in the past. At the same time, he was investigated (presumably quiet thoroughly) during the Mueller Probe and wasn’t connected with collusion. That said, it’s possible the probe read him wrong or he has since decided to act as an agent of the Kremlin.

All that said, there is certainly reason to be suspicious. But I think we should wait to make judgements regarding the media’s insinuation this could be a Russian plot.

imo the thing the media outlets get wrong about Russian money sometimes is an assumption that there's a connection to Putin's current government.

Plenty of Russian oligarchs are not fans of Putin. The thing about the oligarchs' money in the west, however, is that it invariably needs laundering and usually through cash-level transactions in real estate or expensive luxury items, whether they got their wealth while Putin was winking and nodding on his own way up, or whether they exported their take ahead of time and are now looking over their shoulder in case Putin thinks he didn't get his proper cut or maybe didn't get anything.

These guys took advantage of the economic and social turmoil as the glasnost period proceeded. It was a time when people were climbing over each other to stake out a piece of private sector business in "new Russia" after the fall of the USSR. The other thing about big money of Russian oligarchs who emigrated westward is that its owners were necessarily steeped in how to get along and go along in the old days of the USSR and in the beginnings of the new Russia. One way to figure out how to get along and go along in the USA's ways of power-playing is to get some friends in high places. I'm not saying a House seat is a very high place in US politics, but if someone does owe you a favor related to how you got your seat in Congress, maybe some useful info leaks out of your office once in awhile.

There was a time that potential sexual scandal was regarded as a blackmail risk and a threat to continuity of government, and not just in the USA, of course... who of a certain age doesn't remember the Profumo scandal in the UK? Or the era when "gentlemen's agreements" among media outlets not to report on politicians' indiscretions in the USA afforded blackmailers assorted opportunities. All that has changed now. Today sexual scandal translates to harassment suits rather than blackmail or the fall of governments over adultery... and scandal in government is most often financial, with "scandal" such a relative word that we apparently tolerate spectacles like the Texas state's Attorney General serving and even getting re-elected while under indictment for felony security fraud (for 7 years and counting now!).

That said, if ever there was someone who might be a blackmail risk in the US Congress, George Santos certainly fits the bill. There are surely at least hundreds of people who know bits of his actual story as compared to his fabricated existence. Some have come forward already, some the public is undoubtedly yet unaware of, e.g. HR employees of corporations where Santos may have applied and that rejected him because they did actually check out his proffered resumé, etc.

 

[AG_PhamD]

Right… let’s talk to those people.

And yes, these reports are shocking and insane. But not in the way our friend and 99-time Mt. Everest climbing champion George-Anthony means.

 

[KingOfPain]

Does he mean "rescue" or how do you "reduce" a dog?

The last sentence was a bit too short:
These distractions won't stop me from lying even more!

 

[lizkat]

Meanwhile there's more unpacking happening regarding Santos' first (2020) campaign for Congress, which had handed him a loss. There was a "Redstone Strategies" outfit that purported to be soliciting GOP campaign donations totalling $1.5M as an ad-buying fund... a ghost setup which was not registered with the FEC. Investigation turned up abuse of donor credit cards on file that were used to rack up extra "donations" that were not made by the donors... like many thousands of dollars.

This was a big mistake for sure because Amex got involved while refunding some of the fradulent charges and Amex of course will like to get that money back and is not without resources to look into stuff like that.

Also the piece reporting all this notes that Santos is linked via the "Redstone Strategies" fund to another GOP congressional candidate in 2020, Tina Fortes, who was running against AOC in the Bronx (and lost by 44 points). Credit cards behind some of the donations originally made to Santos were fraudulently used again to make donations to his own campaign as well as to Ms. Fortes' campaign. In at least one case the original donor to Santos had never even heard of Ms. Fortes but "donated" $5800 to her via the fraud.

Campaigns Linked To Santos Left Donors Feeling Ripped Off After Questionable Credit Card Charges

Late in the 2020 election cycle, one regular Republican donor said they were getting bombarded with messages asking them to contribute to a New York congressional candidate named George Santos.

talkingpointsmemo.com

Late in the 2020 election cycle, one regular Republican donor said they were getting bombarded with messages asking them to contribute to a New York congressional candidate named George Santos. The donor, who asked that their name be withheld since they are not a public person, checked in with then-Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY), who, at the time, was representing a House district adjacent to the one where Santos was running on Long Island.

“I did reach out to Lee Zeldin and I said, ‘You know, who’s this George Santos? I’m getting nonstop phone calls, texts, everything,’” the donor recounted in a conversation with TPM.

According to the donor, Zeldin noted Santos was a “gay Republican.” Those are two of the aspects of the story Santos presented on the campaign trail that actually seem to be true. The donor was glad to offer Santos their support.

“That kind of diversity for the party, I thought, would be good,” said the donor. “So, the next time someone from his campaign called, which was probably very soon after, I gave my credit card over the phone for a $1,000 donation.”

Santos lost the 2020 race soon afterward. However, the donor’s brief interaction with Santos’ first unsuccessful House bid was the beginning of a long odyssey that they said resulted in more than $15,000 in false credit card charges. Some of that money inexplicably went to the campaign of Tina Forte, another Republican congressional candidate in New York whose campaign had links to Santos.

“It’s just wrong on so many levels,” the donor said.

“To charge a credit card on file without a donor’s permission is highly extraordinary,” Weiner said. “If in fact anyone’s credit card was intentionally charged without their permission, that would be a crime, and you’re not really in campaign finance law land anymore, you’re in criminal law land, because that’s illegal.”

According to the donor, two more charges for $2,900 showed up in August and September of 2021. However, this time, for reasons that remain unclear, the money went to the Forte campaign rather than the Santos campaign. The donor was baffled. “I had never even heard of her,” the donor said of Forte.

Forte challenged prominent progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) last year and lost by more than 44 points. As with Santos, her campaign finance reports were littered with irregularities including travel expenses, meals, and donations attributed to “anonymous.” The filings show Forte was paid more than $14,000 by her own campaign for “expense reimbursement.” Three charges that added up to more than $1,500 and were purportedly for “Digital Consulting” went to a business identified only as “Paramount.” Rather than a consulting firm, the company’s address appears to correspond with the Paramount Hotel in Times Square.

How this is not all getting to be way too much for Santos' peers in Congress to stomach is beyond me.

 

[mac_in_tosh]

How this is not all getting to be way too much for Santos' peers in Congress to stomach is beyond me.

They stomach someone who incited an insurrection, who stole top secret documents and obstructed attempts to retrieve them and who continues to make deranged, threatening social media posts. What's a little lying to them?

 

[lizkat]

They stomach someone who incited an insurrection, who stole top secret documents and obstructed attempts to retrieve them and who continues to make deranged, threatening social media posts. What's a little lying to them?

He's their peer, though. A frank fraud, a guy elected by duping voters and now sitting in Congress just like they are sitting in Congress. Did all those other congress critters lie about where they went to school and what was their GPA and where did they work and for how long and how much wealth their family business has accrued?

Because maybe we are wondering about that now. If our own reps didn't lie, why do they tolerate this sack of lies that now sits amongst them with an invented background he's still airbrushing?

This isn't a guy who left a six-month gig off his resumé because it was embarrassing to admit he was sacked for showing up to work late too many times. This is a guy who INVENTED himself and calls the resulting mysteries and conflicts with reality a matter of having "embellished" his credentials.

Imagine the kids of all the other House representatives at the dinner table:

How come this guy gets to lie about all that and I'm grounded for just saying my homework was done when it wasn't. ​

​

Why can't you say you make a little less money, so I can get a better financial aid package?​

​

If he gets away with lying about where his money came from, why do I have to explain how I got the money to buy my new iPad? What's it to you, anyway. You and dad buy stuff on credit all the time and argue about the bills, but I paid cash and don't owe nobody nothin' and you ride me about where I got the money? ​

Santos --or whoever he really is-- is a guy whose peers are letting him skate because half of them, the ever-optimistic Dems, just figure he's gonna get what's coming to him "pretty soon" and if not then will make great campaign ad fodder in 2024.

And the other half, the "so much winning" Republicans with a five-vote margin in the House, figure hey in the meantime he's a vote for their side... and because the appointments to the House Oversight committee are busy gearing up to investigate Hunter Biden's laptop and Joe Biden's garage 24/7 for two years so they don't have time to urge an ethics committee (is there one any more?) to look into someone from their own clown car.

And in the meantime all the rest of us get to sit home defending "rule of law" under our own roof?

Actions have consequences. Accepting Santos as a peer in the House says "He's one of us." We already didn't like our representatives in Congress because of their allowing lobbyists to write the legislation against interests of ordinary wage earners and home makers. Now they tolerate Santos, a guy they can't even defend at their own family dinner tables?

What's next? Where's the bottom? Why are we paying House members to dig a bottomless pit to bury the shreds of integrity, principle, ethics, morality? The GOP now does this right in front of us as if they've all suddenly signed on to the barn-burners' intention to weaken Federal government by making it no more than a circus, and so dysfunctional as to be disregarded entirely by voters.