Mediaboss Marketing

Photo Illustration by Elizabeth Brockway/The Daily Beast/Reuters

Republicans say theyre simply following due process. Democrats say theyre trying to do right by voters and Congress. And all the while, as the two sides bicker, indicted Rep. George Santos (R-NY) will remain in Congress.

After Republicans turned a long-shot motion to kick Santos out of Congress into a vote to refer the matter to the Ethics Committee, Democrats were quick to cry foul, complaining that Republicans were just using due process as an excuse to keep Santos in Congress indefinitely.

The House voted 221-204-7 on Wednesday along party lines, with seven Democrats voting present, on a procedural motion to refer the matter of Santos expulsion to the Ethics Committee. That decision will allow Santos to continue serving while a slow-moving judicial process takes place, and it gives Republicans the cover they wanted to not remove Santos. (They didnt vote to not remove Santos; they simply voted to refer the matter to the Ethics Committee.)

Republicans said they wanted to wait for either House Ethics to hand down some recommended sanctions, or for Santos to be formally convicted after his indictment on 13 federal charges last week, to actually remove Santos from Congress. But as Democrats noted, all Republicans really did was buy Santosand themselvessome time.

George Santos Staffer Faces Discipline for Menacing Sexual Comments to Reporter

Ethics investigations are slow. Prosecutions for criminal misconduct are potentially even slower. And the Department of Justice generally asks House Ethics not to investigate something they are also investigating.

By delaying a Santos expulsion, Republicans get to keep their slim majority from getting even slimmerparticularly ahead of critical votes on the debt limit and federal budget. If he were to be expelled, or to resign, it would spark a special election in his swing district, which went to President Joe Biden in 2020.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-C) has urged House Ethics to move rapidly. And hes insisted the committee will move forward, even if DOJ objects.

Story continues

Still, not all of his members think its that simple.

Does Ethics ever work quickly? Its kinda hard to say, said Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) on Wednesday. I will vote to refer it to ethics, thats the right move. In the past we have expelled members when there's a conviction. I did a little bit of research on the history and precedent and that's how we've done it in the past but I will say this: George Santos should resign. Period.

Santos has a year-and-a-half left in office, in which hell live on a taxpayer-funded salary, receive the perks of staff and resources given to members of Congress, and be the voice representing his hundreds of thousands of constituents. Hes running for re-election, too, and has shown no willingness to resign.

All the same, every single House Republican in attendance on Wednesday voted in favor of sending the referendum to the Ethics Committee. Democrats voted against, except for seven Democrats that voted present, most of whom were on the Ethics Committee themselves. (Its highly unusual for members on House Ethics to vote on a referendum to come to themand the support from House Republicans raised some eyebrows.)

Three memberstwo Democrats and one Republicansimply didnt vote.

A number of House Republicans have called on Santos to resign. But it seems that outright expelling him is a different storyas even those anti-Santos Republicans fell in line with McCarthy plan Wednesday.

Some Republicans have justified their opposition to expulsion by insisting its a political move by Democratsand that expulsion historically has been reserved for members who are already convicted.

Democrats say its a matter of not kicking the can down the roadand getting Santos out sooner rather than later.

Republicans in the House now have an opportunity to stand with the American public and their constituents or to stand with someone who has been indicted on 13 counts, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), who introduced the resolution, said at a press conference Wednesday morning. We also understand that expulsion is serious.

Another frequent critic of Santos, freshman Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), was emphatic that criminal standards of law shouldnt be the standard for serving in Congress.

Indictment Highlights One of George Santos Greatest Hypocrisies

We should not be in a body where criminal law concepts of due process dictate whether or not someone belongs here, Goldman said. The measure of whether someone deserves to be a member of Congress is not merely whether they are a criminal or not.

In the past, there has been a high bar for expelling a member of Congress, one even Santos hasnt quite reached. The last expulsion happened two decades ago after Rep. Jim Traficant (D-OH) was convicted for bribery, tax evasion and racketeering. Before that, it was Rep. Michael Myers (D-PA), who was expelled after he was convicted of bribery. Before that, it was the 1800s, when more than a dozen members were convicted for supporting the confederacy.

But the quantity of evidence against Santos for so many different misdeeds is, to say the least, staggering.

Santos has already admitted to some of his embellishments, acknowledging in January that he jazzed up his resume for the sake of electability. But hes adamantly denied wrongdoing in many of the reports that have come out since, ranging from him stealing puppies from an Amish dog breeder, to numerous questionable campaign finance filings of $199, to his massive campaign loans probably not being legal.

In order for an actual expulsion vote to succeed, all Democrats and 77 Republicans would have to vote for the measure, which was always unlikely. A vote to refer the issue to House Ethics only requires a simple majorityand it saved Republicans from actively to taking a vote to save Santos.

To be sure, there is also an obvious political motivation for Democrats in the expulsion vote: On top of potentially taking out a Republican vote, it was a chance to put Republicans on the record protecting the scandal-plagued member.

As of Wednesday, Democrats House Majority Forward had already begun making robocalls in districts held by vulnerable House Republicans, encouraging voters to pressure their members to support the expulsion, according to Axios.

Meanwhile, Santos appears to be outright enjoying the attention. He changed his Twitter profile picture to a shot of him exiting the courthouse last week, surrounded by reporters.

On the House floor Wednesday evening, Santos did, in fact, support delaying a vote on his expulsion too. He told reporters on the Capitol steps as he exited that he believes he has a "constitutional right" to defend himself.

When The Daily Beast asked if he would willingly comply with an Ethics Committee recommendation that he step down, Santos said, Well, of course, I mean, I'm not chaining myself here. If the ethics committee makes that recommendation that's a different story.

Santos says he has been cooperative with the Ethics Committee but has not yet appeared before them.

Santos ultimately cut out of the gaggle as two of his New York colleaguesReps. Jamaal Bowman and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY)started heckling him.

Read more at The Daily Beast.

Get the Daily Beast's biggest scoops and scandals delivered right to your inbox. Sign up now.

Stay informed and gain unlimited access to the Daily Beast's unmatched reporting. Subscribe now.

Read the original:
Republicans Pull Off Face-Saving Gambit to Keep George Santos in Congress - Yahoo News

US politics

Experts say partys tough-on-crime approach for 2024 could spark rise in violence and worsen US mass incarceration

Republican and rightwing rhetoric over the state of crime in the US could spark a rise in violent incidents and worsen the countrys mass incarceration problem, experts say, as tough-on-crime political ads and messaging seem set to play a large role in the 2024 election.

Violent crime was a huge focus for Republican candidates during the 2022 midterm elections. Republicans spent about $50m on crime ads in the two months leading up to those elections, the ads pushing a dystopian vision of cities ridden by murder, robbery and assault, and of Democratic politicians unwilling to act.

As the 2024 contest heaves into view, it is clear that Republicans plan to follow the same playbook.

Joe Biden and the defund-the-police Democrats have turned our once-great cities into cesspools of bloodshed and crime, Trump said in a recent campaign video.

Trump said if elected president he would order police forces to reinstate stop and frisk a police tactic which has been shown to disproportionately target young Black men and said he wanted to introduce the death penalty for drug dealers.

Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor who is expected to be Trumps closest rival for the Republican presidential nomination, has also leaned into tough-on-crime rhetoric and policy. Last month, DeSantis signed a law lowering the death penalty threshold in Florida, allowing people convicted of certain crimes to be sentenced to death if eight or more jury members recommend it.

They think thats the way to score political victories, said Udi Ofer, a professor at Princeton University and the former deputy national political director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

I think theres a bit of a kneejerk, and, quite frankly, lazy attitude that tough-on-crime is the only way to win an election, despite the fact that we have so much evidence today that shows there are other ways.

There is also an element of Republicans, and, Ofer said, some Democrats, pouncing on an increase in violent crime during the Covid pandemic.

The Brennan Center for Justice found that the number of murders per 100,000 people rose by nearly 30% nationwide in 2020, while aggravated assault rose by 11.4%. The rate of murder rose in big cities, which tend to vote Democratic and which are repeatedly demonized by Republicans and the rightwing media. But it also rose across the rest of the country.

So-called red states actually saw some of the highest murder rates of all, the Brennan Center said.

Since that peak, most types of violent crime have now dropped. Crime declined in 35 large cities in 2022, according to the Council on Criminal Justice, although rates remain higher than pre-pandemic levels. Still, the rate of homicide in major cities was about half that of historic peaks in the 1980s and early 1990s.

The 1980s was when tough-on-crime rhetoric exploded, Ofer said. It culminated in the election of prosecutors who promised more convictions and longer sentences.

The impact, Ofer said, was an exponential growth in incarceration in the US. About 300,000 people were in prisons and jails in 1973, but by 2009 that number had grown to 2.2m making the US the largest incarcerator in the world.

This was a result of hundreds of new laws and practices at the local level, at the state level, at the federal level, including new mandatory minimum laws, more cash bail and pre-trial detention, and more aggressive prosecutorial and policing practices, Ofer said.

In this crime crackdown, not everyone was treated equally. Black people have been historically more likely to be arrested than white people, which led to higher rates of incarceration. A 2003 report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that in 2001 an estimated 16.6% of adult black males were current or former State or Federal prisoners. Just 2.6% of adult white males had been incarcerated.

Some progress has been made in the last two decades. By 2020 the number of people in jail or prison was down to 1.2 million meaning the US still has the fifth highest incarceration rate in the world but the obsession with tackling crime, through measures including more arrests, more prosecutions and more imprisonments, could see a reversal.

We are on the verge again of seeing the types of policies that devastated particularly low-income communities of color grow again as it did in the 1980s and 1990s.

Republicans have led the charge on crime rhetoric, Ofer said. But now Democrats are getting in on the act we are seeing a growing movement within the Democratic party pushing for more tough-on-crime policies, Ofer said.

The rhetoric and fearmongering over crime has led, in part, to an expansion of stand-your-ground laws in the US. In the past 10 years, 14 states in the US have added some form of the law, which can rule that people determined to have acted in self-defense can escape prosecution for actions up to and including murder.

A 2022 investigation by Reveal found that 38 states now have some version of stand your ground and the laws have proved devastating: a study published in 2022 found that the legislation was linked with an 8-11% increase in homicides.

Ironically, given the accusation from the right that Democrats are too soft on crime, it appears to be traditionally red states that have the more serious crime problem.

The murder rate in the 25 states that voted for Donald Trump has exceeded the murder rate in the 25 states that voted for Joe Biden in every year from 2000 to 2020, Third Way, a US thinktank, reported in January. Third Way also found that in 2020 murder rates were 40% higher in Trump-voting states than Biden-voting states.

Although Republicans harangued Democrats over crime in the 2020 midterms, the strategy seems to have had mixed success. Republicans largely underperformed in those elections, and Ofer pointed to the success of progressive prosecutors across the country as evidence that a tough-on-crime message is not always a successful route to take.

As well as the impact on incarceration and violent offenses, the tough-on-crime approach can also lead to the demonization of certain communities, said Stephen Piggott, a researcher at Western States Center, a non-profit organization which works to strengthen democracy.

Republican talking points about the danger of immigrants and people who live in inner cities could be behind an increase in attacks on minority groups. In recent years, theres been a real mainstreaming of both violent and dehumanizing rhetoric, and its espoused by elected officials and media personalities, Piggott said.

And its really served to kind of normalize this political violence. When you have individuals with large platforms, like elected officials and media personalities, and theyre talking about things like an impending civil war, it could lead to folks kind of taking that to heart and then acting on it.

The number of hate crimes in the US increased by 12% in 2021, according to the FBI, although the true number is likely to be much higher, given data from some of Americas largest cities was not included in the FBIs report.

About 65% of the hate-crime victims were targeted because of their race, according to the report, while 16% were targeted over their sexual orientation and 14% of cases involved religious bias.

So there are direct consequences on the ground for people of color, immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community, Piggott said.

Theres a lot of impact going on right now.

{{topLeft}}

{{bottomLeft}}

{{topRight}}

{{bottomRight}}

{{.}}

Go here to see the original:
Stark warning over Republicans dehumanizing rhetoric on crime - The Guardian US

Governmentagencies haveproposed dozens of major regulations so far this year. One specifies the kinds of operating cords that can be used on custom window coverings, and another would effectively require carmakers to transition two-thirds of all new passenger cars to electric technology.

Under a little-noticed provision in a House bill that passed this month, all of those regulations would need to come before Congress for a vote before they could go into effect.

It may seem like its in the weeds, but it really affects all of us, said Susan Dudley, the director of the regulatory studies center at George Washington University, who was the top regulatory official in the George W. Bush administration. She was one of several leading experts who were unaware that the bill contained this provision.

The Republican legislation, which is not expected to become law in its current form, has mostly attracted attention for its part in the debate about raising the countrys borrowing limit, and for its proposals to reduce federal deficits over the next decade. But its effort to reshape the federal regulatory process could arguably have a deeper impact on the future functioning of government.

While Congress passes laws every year, federal agencies tend to roll out many, many more regulations. Those long, often technical rules help business understand how the government works, by setting standards for allowable pollution, establishing how much doctors and hospitals will be paid for medical care, and explaining what numerous technical or vague terms and processes in legislation really mean. The process of rule making often takes years, and requires a period of public comment before a regulation becomes final.

Regulations are not apolitical. As Congress has become more polarized and gridlocked, presidents have become more aggressive about enacting major policies through them. Barack Obama tried to use rule making to limit carbon emissions from power plants. Donald J. Trump used rule making to deny green cards to immigrants who had used certain social benefit programs. And President Biden is hoping to use regulation to forgive hundreds of billions of dollars in student loans.

But many major regulations make fewer headlines, and most rely on technical expertise by federal agencies that Congress would be hard-pressed to replicate. This years list includes one updating technical standards for mammography equipment, and one clarifying when a guns features mean it is designed to be fired from the shoulder. A recent payment rule for Medicare Advantage changed the formula meant to pay private insurers for covering customers with vascular disease, based on a detailed review of medical data.

The legislation would require Congress to approve each of those actions before they go into effect, under a fast-tracked legislative process that would force up-or-down votes on the rules without any possibility of amendment. Any major rule that failed to pass both houses of Congress could not be proposed again for at least a year. Current law allows Congress to upend a regulation it does not like, but the process requires majority votes by both houses of Congress, and a signature by the president, meaning nearly all regulations go into effect.

The legislation to change this default was first written more than a decade ago by Geoffrey Davis, then a Republican congressman from Kentucky. Mr. Davis, who came from a business background, was concerned about the number of high-cost regulations he saw approved while he was in government.

One day he received a visit in his district office, and this gentleman asked me one question, and this was my turning point: Why cant you just vote on this? Mr. Davis said. And it just clicked.

Supporters of Mr. Daviss idea, known as the REINS Act for Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny say it would force Congress to take more responsibility for being clear about what its laws mean. Mr. Davis said he felt that Congress had too often written vague laws that delegated too many important decisions to executive agencies to decide.

It would increase the incentives for Congress to be more proactive, said Jonathan Adler, a professor of law at Case Western Reserve University, who wrote an article supporting the idea in 2011. We need legislators to legislate, and part of legislating is taking accountability for the big policy decisions that are being made.

Others, of course, like the idea because it would make it harder for the government to enact any regulations at all the same reason that many regulatory experts are less enthusiastic about the REINS Act.

The practical impact of this in a time of divided government like we have now is that I think no major rule would ever get done, said Jonathan Siegel, a law professor at George Washington, who has written about the bill at length.

If the Republican House wanted to deny the Biden administration policy wins, it could simply vote no on every regulation it proposed. Those might include rules that explain how major portions of last years Inflation Reduction Act are meant to work. In a REINS Act world, the Republican House could just block those rules, effectively thwarting legislation passed by a previous Congress.

If you starve the beast by never allowing the implementing regulations to issue, then you have in effect nullified the legislation, said Sally Katzen, a co-director of the legislative and regulatory process clinic at N.Y.U., who was the top regulatory official in the Clinton administration. She pointed out that Republicans tend to schedule votes on the REINS Act when there is a Democratic president, but not when a Republican holds the office.

What they want to do is to make it impossible to regulate, said Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan.

The obstruction can work both ways. Imagine how the Democratic House might have voted on Trump-era rules that had the effect of cutting all family planning funding for Planned Parenthood, limiting civil rights protections for transgender Americans, or rolling back controls on power plant emissions.

Mr. Davis said blocking rules wholesale was not his intention. His hope was to improve Congresss process. I want to make the legislation specific enough to force a bipartisan dialogue, he said.

But Congress already has problems writing legislation in technical and contested areas. Many Republicans dislike environmental regulations interpreting the Clean Water Act, which asks the E.P.A. to limit pollution that is harmful to human health. But Congress has not made major revisions to that lawin decades. Simply voting on rules about how those old laws apply to new scientific findings may not be enough to prompt robust new legislating.

Its hard to get anything through Congress, even in the best of times, and now is not the best of times, Mr. Bagley said. Its a recipe for stasis.

Read more from the original source:
From Electric Cars to Windows, Republican Bill Could Limit Regulation - The New York Times

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.) said she doesnt know whether her fellow home-state senator will run for reelection and hasnt asked him about it. But a presidential bid? He might hes talking about it, she said.

Theres no sugar-coating the dire position in which Manchin finds himself. After Democrats dominated West Virginia for decades, the state has gone full-blown MAGA in recent years. Former President Donald Trump won it by nearly 40 percentage points in 2020, and there are only 14 Democrats left in West Virginias 134-member state legislature. Manchins approval rating has plummeted, with 55 percent of voters giving him a thumbs down, according to a recent Morning Consult poll.

But interviews with 18 elected officials, strategists and political observers in West Virginia and Washington, D.C. reveal that Manchin isnt quite being left for dead yet. Even Justices former pollster said it would be unwise to count Manchin out.

There is a reason that Joe Manchin is basically the last standing Democrat in a state that has had a red tsunami since 2014, said Mark Blankenship, a West Virginia-based GOP pollster who worked for Justices 2020 gubernatorial campaign. You cant say that its impossible for him to win because hes won so much.

West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice (R) announces his Senate campaign.|Chris Jackson/AP Photo

Manchins GOP colleagues agreed with the sentiment: You cant take Joe for granted. Hes a formidable politician, said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who appeared as a featured speaker at Justices campaign kickoff last month.

The early investment from McConnells allies at the group One Nation could save Republicans money next year if it nudges Manchin toward the exit. Otherwise, the GOP will have to spend millions convincing West Virginia voters to part ways with a man who has not lost an election since the 1990s. Without Manchin on the ballot, many operatives see the state as an automatic flip, and Republicans can redirect their money toward other crucial battleground states.

It would be nice if we didnt have to, said Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) when asked if his party would need to spend money if Manchin retires. Well see how it all plays out.

Manchin first joined the West Virginia state legislature in 1982 at the age of 35. He served in both chambers before departing to run an unsuccessful primary campaign for governor in 1996. It was the only race he ever lost. He ended up supporting the Republican nominee over the woman who beat him for the Democratic nomination.

Four years later he became West Virginias Secretary of State and won the governorship in 2004. In 2010, he made the jump to the Senate, campaigning in a special election seat left open by Democrat Robert Byrds death.

Democrats best hope of keeping Manchins seat in 2024 involves him seeking reelection and a brutally messy Republican primary that leaves the eventual nominee bruised and broke.

Justice, while wealthy and well-liked, does not have the GOP field to himself. Also in the race is Rep. Alex Mooney (R-W.Va.), a conservative hardliner who trounced a fellow member in a Republican primary for a House seat in 2022. He is planning on running to Justices right with the help of $10 million from the anti-tax Club for Growth super PAC.

Democrats and Republicans alike said Manchin has been able to hold onto elected office in the past in part due to his skills as a retail politician, a key advantage in a state of only 1.7 million people.

He is the best face-to-face politician Ive interacted with outside of Bill Clinton, said Patrick Hickey, a political scientist who previously worked at West Virginia University. He has that Clinton-esque ability to make everybody feel like hes your friend and hes listening to you and hes concerned about you.

In 2012, Hickey said he invited Manchins GOP opponent, John Raese, to class. Within a week, he said, Manchin came into his class to glad-hand students.

Manchin, a moderate, has benefited from distancing himself from national Democratic leaders for years. During his first Senate campaign, he fired at Democrats cap-and-trade bill in an ad. His vote to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 was credited with helping save him in that years Senate race. But Manchins favorability rating took a nosedive last year after he voted for and helped write President Joe Bidens Inflation Reduction Act. Thats left many of the few remaining Democrats in West Virginia feeling pessimistic about Manchins chances for holding on, regardless of his history.

I dont think he can pull it out, said Deirdre Purdy, chair of the Calhoun County Democratic Party. My county has so few Democrats in it, I cant even get a full committee together.

Manchin is now threatening to vote to repeal Bidens signature climate legislation with Republicans, arguing that Biden has extended electric vehicle tax credits beyond the laws specifications.

Given the states deep-MAGA hue, some in the GOP think it doesnt even matter whether Justice or Mooney wins the nomination because either will defeat Manchin. This states now solidly Republican, said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Manchin has given few clues about whether he will run for reelection except to say that he wont make a decision until the end of the year. Amid that vacuum of information, political insiders have desperately tried to read the tea leaves.

When a political operative who has served as an adviser to both Manchin and Justice attended Justices campaign launch, it set off speculation among Republicans that Manchin may not run. Larry Puccio, Manchins former chief-of-staff and longtime friend, would only go to the event, the thinking went, if he had gotten a signal from the senator that hes bowing out. A GOP strategist close to Justice said Puccio will not have an official role on Justices Senate team, but the governor will talk to him about the race and campaign.

Some Democrats cautioned against reading into it, however. According to a person close to Manchin, Puccio will support Manchin for any office he seeks.

Puccio did not respond to a request for comment.

Jonathan Kott, a former senior adviser to Manchin, said he believes Manchin is truly undecided on another Senate run. In the 2018 election, Manchin waited until January days before the filing deadline to tell his colleagues that he was seeking reelection.

This is just who he is, he said. He just doesnt focus on the campaign till he has to. Hes busy being a senator for West Virginia and legislating. Hell sit down with his family, I would guess sometime in like December, and thats when theyll make a decision. Im pretty sure thats what he did last time.

Visit link:
Republicans want Manchin to bow out, fearful that he may have one ... - POLITICO

Opinion

Even where the technicalities of the apparent malfeasance are different, the Republican spirit is the same

When news broke on Tuesday afternoon that the justice department was indicting George Santos the disgraced Republican Long Island congressman whose election to the House of Representatives in 2022 was enabled by a series of lies about his background and elaborate, inventive frauds it was at first hard to think of just what he was being indicted for. George Santos, after all, is alleged to have been so prolifically criminal in his 34 years that one imagines law enforcement would have a hard time narrowing things down.

Would Santos be charged over the fake pet charity he seems to have invented, collecting money for things like surgery for the beloved dog of a veteran, which was never turned over to the animals owner? Or would he face charges stemming from his lies about his professional background, like the claim he made during his most recent congressional campaign, wholly false, that he used to work for Goldman Sachs, or his bizarre story, also a fabrication, about having been a college volleyball star?

Would it be something like the check fraud he allegedly committed in Brazil as a teenager, or like the bad check he supposedly wrote to, of all people, a set of Amish dog breeders in Pennsylvania?

What George Santos has been indicted for is not one of his funnier or more colorful scandals, but something extremely typical in Washington: lying about money. On Wednesday, prosecutors at a federal courthouse in Central Islip, New York, charged Santos with seven counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, two counts of making false statements to the House of Representatives, and one count of theft of public funds. He pleaded not guilty, and was released on a half-million dollar bond.

The indictment against Santos is sprawling and complicated, reflecting the expansiveness of the congressmans alleged frauds, but the allegations that federal prosecutors make fall essentially into three columns: first, they charge that Santos set up a fraudulent LLC, where he directed donors to give money that he claimed would be spent on his political campaign. Instead, he used the funds to make car payments, pay off his debts, and notably, to buy expensive clothes.

Second, the Department of Justice charges that Santos defrauded the government when he applied for and received special Covid unemployment benefits in New York, despite drawing a salary of approximately $120,000 from an investment firm in Florida. (That firm, Harbor City Capital, is itself alleged to be a classic Ponzi scheme.)

And third, the indictment claims that Santos falsified financial disclosure forms related to his congressional seat, falsely certifying to Congress that he drew a $750,000 salary and between $1m and $5m in dividends, and had between $100,000 and $250,000 in a checking account and between $1m and $5m in savings. It was often remarked upon with wonder, and not a small amount of alarm, that Santos, who had not long before his election to Congress struggled to pay rent and faced eviction, was suddenly in possession of so much income and such apparent good luck. How, exactly, had Santos come across all that money? Now, a federal indictment alleges that he simply didnt: he made it up, like so many college volleyball championships.

Maybe its for the best that Santos is being charged, ultimately, for the most typically white-collar of his crimes: it will help dispel the myth that he is not a typical Republican. Since the revelation of Santoss seemingly bottomless dishonesty and malfeasance, a number of House Republicans have tried to distance themselves from the congressman. Nancy Mace, a South Carolina congresswoman trying to style herself as a moderate, called for his resignation; so did Max Milner, of Ohio, over Santoss false claims of Jewish heritage and having lost relatives in the Holocaust. Reportedly, Senator Mitt Romney encountered Santos at the State of the Union address and told him, with his signature air of the put-upon patrician: You dont belong here.

But doesnt George Santos belong in the modern Republican party? After all, how different, really, is Santoss alleged scheme to defraud donors for his own enrichment from Donald Trumps insistence, in the aftermath of the 2020 election, that his supports should donate to him to fight the election fraud that didnt exist? How different is Santoss use of his congressional campaign to raise funds for fancy clothes from Clarence Thomass use of his seat on the supreme court to get fancy vacations on Harlan Crows dime? How different is George Santoss alleged falsification of his financial records to Congress from the conspicuous omissions on the financial disclosure forms required of justices of the supreme court?

Even where the technicalities of the malfeasance are different, the Republican spirit is the same, in everyone from George Santos to Clarence Thomas to Donald Trump: the use of public office for personal enrichment, the contempt for the public interest, the indignant declarations that any efforts to hold them accountable are partisan, illegitimate and conducted in bad faith. Outside the federal courthouse on Wednesday, George Santos channeled Trump, calling the indictment against him a witch-hunt. Id say he fits in with the Republican party just fine.

{{topLeft}}

{{bottomLeft}}

{{topRight}}

{{bottomRight}}

{{.}}

Read the original:
George Santos, liar and fantasist, fits in with the Republican party just fine - The Guardian