George Santos (R-NY) and his imaginative (but dishonest) résumé

June bug · #1076

Gregg wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 5:48 am
Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 10:09 pm Why in the world is any Republican Club hosting Santos? They couldn't get somebody who hasn't been indicted?
Not if they wanted a Republican.

#1077

Rep. George Santos @RepSantosNY03 wrote: Congressman George Santos on the Adam Schiff Sham:
"We must preserve the integrity of the U.S House of Reps. and censure Adam Schiff today."

#1078

Frater I*I · #1079

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2023 3:56 pm

Rep. George Santos @RepSantosNY03 wrote: Congressman George Santos on the Adam Schiff Sham:
"We must preserve the integrity of the U.S House of Reps. and censure Adam Schiff today."

This is word that mayhap you are not too familiar with....

Ben-Prime · #1080

Oh, come on, folks. It's clear he means the physical integrity in that he honestly believes that Schiff is an anthropomorphic rip in the space-time continuum. Geez, that was obvious!

#1081

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2023 4:12 pm Oh, come on, folks. It's clear he means the physical integrity in that he honestly believes that Schiff is an anthropomorphic rip in the space-time continuum. Geez, that was obvious!

#1082

He's letting his gay flag fly for Pride Month. He looks terrible and his voice is catty and sissy (which isn't a slam, it's just not how he's ever sounded).

Added the docket to https://protopage.com/birthers (that page is busy AF!).

United States v. Devolder Santos (2:23-cr-00197)
District Court, E.D. New York
Last Updated: June 14, 2023, 3:28 p.m.
Assigned To: Joanna Seybert
Referred To: Anne Shields
Citation: United States v. Devolder Santos, 2:23-cr-00197, (E.D.N.Y)
Date Filed: May 9, 2023
Date of Last Known Filing: June 13, 2023

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67 ... er-santos/

Entry 17 RESPONSE in Opposition re 14 MOTION to Unseal Document has exhibits of the nasty things folks have been emailing and leaving as voicemails for Joe Murray, Kitara's lawyer. They seem tame compared to what Democrats receive.

#1083

What the -- after cat boy's mewing, he voted PRESENT and the Schiff censure failed. RedState:

Resolution to Censure Adam Schiff Fails Because Republicans Can't Do Anything Right
By Bonchie | 6:00 PM on June 14, 2023

Are you ready for another round of failure theater?

A resolution put forth by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna to censure Adam Schiff failed on Wednesday after 20 Republicans joined with Democrats to kill it. The names of those who defected are listed below along with another oddity, which was Rep. George Santos voting present despite putting out a video earlier in the day urging members to vote in favor of the measure.

Four other Republicans did not vote or were not present to vote.
In addition, Santos (NY) and Issa (CA) voted present
McHenry (NC), Gonzalez (TX), and Dunn (FL) didn't vote
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) June 14, 2023

And with that, the GOP managed to miss yet another easy lay-up because the party can’t manage to get out of its own way. To be sure, there’s blame to go around. The most obvious culprits are the Republicans who didn’t just suck it up and vote yes, regardless of whether they thought the censure resolution was flawed or not. I understand there were concerns over the legality of the fine and what kind of precedent it would set. But so what? It’s a censure resolution, not a constitutional amendment, and no one deserves to be censured more than Schiff.

And what in the world is Santos doing? It’s bad enough he’s probably cost the GOP a seat in an already slim majority due to his lies and indictment. Now he’s making videos pledging to vote for something and then backtracking within hours? I’m at the place where I wish that clown would just resign already. Let’s have a special election and get someone serious in the spot.

With that said, and I’m probably going to tick some people off with this critique, attaching a $16,000,000 fine to the censure resolution was idiotic. Such a fine would have never survived legal scrutiny because as Rep. Thomas Massie has argued, it was blatantly unconstitutional.

Whether you like Schiff or not, and I don’t think anyone reading this does, you can’t legally force him to pay back millions of dollars in investigative costs just because he’s a political hack. Making that the centerpiece of the censure resolution instead of making it a pure referendum on his behavior gave moderate Republicans (as well as the California members who banded together) an out and ultimately saved Schiff.

Why make that the issue when it was never going to be relevant anyway? Getting an actual censure of Schiff passed would have sent a big message and provided a moment of unity for the GOP. Instead, the resolution failed because Luna decided to Leroy Jenkins the matter for online clout.

That’s the problem with the modern Republican Party perfectly illustrated. No one can be bothered to ever think strategically. They’d rather push a resolution to the floor that they know will fail than ensure it meets a standard whereby it will pass. In the end, wouldn’t it have been better to, you know, actually accomplish something? I’m probably spitting into the wind at this point, but the frustration is real.

I’m just so tired of the ineptness. I’m tired of moderate Republicans who won’t grow a backbone, and I’m tired of opportunists who can’t think past their next cable news hit to actually get things done. The GOP remains a mess, and things aren’t getting better.

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/06/14 ... ht-n761544

#1084

What did Schiff allegedly do?

Ben-Prime · #1085

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2023 6:52 pm What did Schiff allegedly do?

He tried to call Dear Leader to account.

#1086

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2023 6:52 pm What did Schiff allegedly do?

It's a laundry list: https://wcxlkscemchnctarosew.supabase.c ... cJppP-.pdf

Kendra · #1087

Breaking—

An order to unseal the identities of the co-signers of Rep. George Santos's bond has been AFFIRMED by a federal judge.

The identities will remained sealed until Thursday at noon EST, in case the suretors seek to withdraw.
@LawCrimeNews

#1088

Slim Cognito · #1089

Not sure which I want more, to find out their names or to have them withdraw and see Santos go to jail.

Maybenaut · #1090

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 5:32 pm Not sure which I want more, to find out their names or to have them withdraw and see Santos go to jail.

Yeah, it’s a toss-up.

Reality Check · #1091

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 5:32 pm Not sure which I want more, to find out their names or to have them withdraw and see Santos go to jail.

I vote for the latter option.

#1092

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 5:32 pm Not sure which I want more, to find out their names or to have them withdraw and see Santos go to jail.

Jail.

Reality Check · #1093

Since Santos didn't appeal I am guessing the names of the co-signers will be revealed. He will not go to jail - yet.

#1094

The magistrate judge's order was appealable to the district court judge, because magistrate judges don't meet the qualifications of Article Three of the Constitution, which sets out what it takes to be a federal judge. So litigants who are unhappy with a magistrate judge's order can seek a do-over from the district court judge.

But a district court judge's order concerning bail isn't appealable to the court of appeals, absent extraordinary circumstances. When a district court judge has violated a clear legal duty, a court of appeals will sometimes grant a petition for a writ of mandamus to correct the district judge's error, but most dead-ender mandamus petitions are swatted like flies.

The lawyer for Santos doesn't seem to be a super star, and I wasn't impressed with his papers on the appeal of the magistrate judge's order, but he seems to have a solid criminal law practice. I doubt that he'd advise his client that seeking mandamus was a good idea, and I also doubt that he's being paid enough to waste time on bad ideas.

jemcanada2 · #1095

How about both? They withdraw and Santos goes to jail. In a fit of pique, Santos pulls a Trump** and posts their names in a tweet.

A girl can dream

#1096

jemcanada2 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 9:21 pm How about both? They withdraw and Santos goes to jail. In a fit of pique, Santos pulls a Trump** and posts their names in a tweet.

A girl can dream

I like how you think.

#1097

#1098

#1099

Is it Thursday yet?

#1100

U.S. Constitution, Article 6, Clause 1:

The Senators and Representatives shall ... in all Cases,
► Show Spoiler
except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace,
be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; ....

So I guess he can just camp out in the Capitol, and no one can touch him.