Even More Trouble for George Santos

my life better?

We're the hosts of The Wirecutter Show from The New York Times.

in every category that will actually make your life better.

about major events in his life.

told about his life and his career.

Santos also claimed he graduated from New York's Baruch College.

The school says there's no record of him ever attending.

He lives at the address where he's registered to vote.

We just learned the exact federal charges Congressman George Santos is now facing.

Thirteen counts in total stemming from wire fraud, money laundering, theft of public property.

means for his role in Congress.

It's Thursday, May 11th.

So Michael, describe what happened in New York on Wednesday.

at a courthouse in Long Island sometime before 9 a.m.

There were tons of reporters outside, but we didn't actually see Mr. Santos in court

until around 2 p.m.

When he entered, he was wearing a dark olive sweater, a blazer and the thick rimmed glasses

that have been characteristic of his media appearances over the last several months.

Santos pleaded not guilty to the 13 counts against him, counts that mostly had to do

with the mishandling of money.

He was then released on a $500,000 bond that was secured by three people whose identities

we don't know.

And the judge told him that he could travel between his district in residence in New York

and Washington, where he serves in Congress, and places in between.

And this indictment was the culmination of months of investigation by federal prosecutors

in the Eastern District of New York, who also worked with the FBI and officials in the Nassau

County District Attorney's Office.

And much of the information detailed in the indictment follows reporting by The New York

Times about George Santos.

was sparked largely by reporting in The New York Times that uncovered that the congressman

had lied substantially about his background in order to win a congressional seat on Long

Island and Queens.

And the lies were big and small.

Santos said that his grandparents fled first from Ukraine and then from Belgium during

World War II.

He said that they were Jewish refugees who were escaping persecution during the Holocaust,

which turned out not to be true.

From there, he talks about his mother working her way up through the world of finance and

eventually being in the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001, though that turned

out not to be the case.

It's like he made up every single point of his biography, right?

Like I remember reading the headlines from that time and thinking, is there anything

this guy said about who he is that's real?

Like he even lied about being a college volleyball star.

It really ran the gamut.

And our reporting also found a number of questions about Santos' financial disclosures.

And in follow-ups, we and other outlets looked at questions around his campaign spending

and personal finances.

So as more reporting came out about Santos' lies, the federal authorities started to look

into Santos, and we were able to report that the Justice Department had launched an investigation

in late December.

But we didn't hear much about the details of that investigation.

It was fairly leak-proof, and it wasn't until Wednesday morning that the indictment was

actually unsealed, and we got a look at the case that federal prosecutors were bringing

against him.

Okay, so let's go to the charges then.

What are the charges?

Walk me through them one by one.

and all of those schemes involve mishandling money or lying about funds.

The first and biggest scheme in the indictment is one involving Santos and an associate defrauding

potential contributors to his political campaign.

So if you'll back up with me for a second, when a candidate runs for office, they launch

their own campaign committee, but they're often separately PACs or political action

committees that are fundraising on their behalf.

These are the organizations that people tend to donate to in order to support a candidate

because they're not subject to the same contribution limits as a political campaign.

So this is for political candidates, a huge bucket of money, and that money is supposed

to be used only for paying things related to campaigning and an election.

So that's advertisements, that's flyers, things that would help a candidate get elected.

And Santos did have a number of PACs, but in addition to these more legitimate fundraising

the Justice Department says that he and an associate essentially made up a fake political

committee in order to generate campaign contributions that Santos later used for personal expenses.

Hmm.

the money and used it for luxury designer clothing, credit card payments, cash advances,

and to pay down a car payment and other debt.

And it's right there also in the open, like for everybody to see.

That's pretty audacious.

We had heard that someone had been soliciting money for this fund that said it was raising

money for Santos.

And we checked with the Federal Election Commission to see if they had any information about that

fund, and it wasn't registered with them, and we had no idea where the money went.

So we didn't get more detail about that until the indictment.

maybe less noticed run for Congress.

Do you remember the CARES Act?

Could I forget the CARES Act?

So the CARES Act, just as a refresher, gave extra unemployment money for people who lost

their jobs during the pandemic.

And Santos, in June 2020, applied for unemployment benefits with the New York State Department

of Labor, and those benefits were funded by the CARES Act.

To get those benefits, Santos said that he was unemployed.

And according to the indictment, he had to certify that he was unemployed every week.

So according to the indictment, from June 2020 through April 2021, Santos told them

that he was unemployed on a weekly basis, and he got more than $24,000 in funds from

the government.

But prosecutors say that at the time, he was actually working for an investment firm based

in Florida, making $120,000 a year.

So he's allegedly lying about being unemployed, stealing from the state, in the middle of

a pandemic when, of course, everybody is lining up to also get benefits, waitresses,

hotel clerks, all over the map.

Meanwhile, he's making $120,000 a year in an investment firm?

And one of the interesting footnotes to this today has been that Santos actually is one

of 35 co-sponsors on a House bill specifically meant to target this issue and to help states

recoup fraudulent or overly paid pandemic unemployment benefits.

about this bill and talking about this being a focal issue.

But at the same time, they were also saying that Santos was innocent until proven guilty

and they didn't want to rush to make judgment on these accusations.

and unemployment fraud.

What's the third scheme?

wealth when he filed financial disclosures with the House of Representatives in 2020

and 2022.

These are disclosures that candidates and members of Congress are required to make essentially

to help deal with issues that might arise from conflicts of interest if they're elected

or reelected.

The one that he filed in 2022 is a bit of a doozy and it was something that we'd raised

in our initial story.

On this form, Santos said that he was making $750,000 from his personal company, the Devolder

Organization.

And in the indictment, federal prosecutors are saying that that's not true.

On the form, he also said he had millions of dollars in savings and he said that his

company was paying dividends between $1 and $5 million.

And they said that that's not true.

So overall, the picture that he's painting of himself in this 2022 form is that he's

a very rich man making all this money from his business.

And prosecutors are saying that that wasn't the case.

Like what's in it for him to overstate his finances like that?

especially in this most recent go-round.

And he's running in a district that covers a pretty wealthy part of Long Island with

a lot of money managers, a lot of people who work on Wall Street, a lot of people who work

in finance.

You know, he was presenting himself as this experienced financier and this Wall Street

guy, but presumably he can't file a public disclosure that reveals that that's not the

case if he's simultaneously telling voters that he's working for this wealthy family

firm that he owns.

This was his story that he was kind of birds of a feather of the people who were in his

district.

They accuse him of misleading the House of Representatives and the public in an effort

But we've seen this pattern with him where he has been lying about all sorts of things,

his personal life, his volleyball history, his work with an animal charity, his mom's

ties to 9-11, the list goes on and on and on.

And it's all in service of creating a very specific underdog, inspirational life story.

to do with the loudest and most public lies he told, right?

Like being the descendant of a Holocaust survivor or working for Goldman Sachs.

The things that actually got him in trouble were the quiet lies, like the boring stuff

he put on disclosure forms.

like, what do you mean wire fraud?

What is this about?

What about the lies about being Jewish?

What about the lies about 9-11?

What about the lies about Wall Street?

What about the lies about college?

But what we're seeing is a case that is much more technical and much more focused on finances

than I think a lot of people might have expected.

What kind of sentence is Santos facing?

face up to 20 years in prison.

At the same time, we aren't entirely sure whether there's other stuff that they may

be investigating and whether this is the end of the indictment.

We know that prosecutors have talked to people regarding other leads.

You know, they have looked at the work that Santos did with his purported animal rescue

charity, for example.

None of that's represented in the indictment.

So it's possible that there may be more to come.

We just don't know yet.

How is that going to affect his role in Congress?

I'm a researcher and fact checker with The Daily.

What I do is make sure details in our episodes are accurate.

I also spend a lot of time reviewing pretty much anything a guest on the show says.

Let's say they're describing the color of someone's sweater.

If I find out this person actually wore a blue sweater instead of a red one, I have

to make sure that we address it.

And I guess some might think that this kind of stuff is trivial, but for us, every single

fact in an episode matters.

We all make mistakes.

We're all human.

And our job is to be that extra layer.

The Daily is part of The New York Times.

We do everything we can to make sure we get the facts right.

Subscribers make it possible for us to do that.

If you want to subscribe to The New York Times, go to nytimes.com slash subscribe.

Santos and his role in Congress.

who's been accused or even convicted of a crime from serving in Congress.

People are innocent until proven guilty, obviously, but theoretically, Santos, if he were convicted

and sentenced to prison, could serve from prison.

He just wouldn't be able to vote in the House.

Interesting.

But I think maybe more importantly for him, Santos is sort of being insulated by the politics

of the moment and by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

How is he being insulated?

and standing in Congress.

In January, he said that he was going to step down from the two House committees to which

he'd been assigned.

And we know now that he did so because of pressure from Kevin McCarthy and House Republican

At the same time, Santos is still a pretty vital vote for McCarthy and House Republicans.

You know, the Republican Party has a pretty slim majority.

They've only got four votes in the House.

And that caucus is very fragmented right now.

McCarthy has been facing challenges from people who are further to his right and further to

Santos's right.

And so far, Santos has been a fairly reliable vote for McCarthy.

So House Republicans need him in order to get their legislative priorities done.

Like McCarthy has very little room to maneuver, right?

More than even less room.

And I think that's especially crucial to consider right now in light of the debt ceiling standoff

that's happening in Washington.

Right.

You know, there's going to be a vote on that sometime soon.

And Santos has said that he would vote to support McCarthy on this bill.

McCarthy needs his vote.

But I think even beyond the immediate future and the debt ceiling vote, McCarthy's kind

of making a calculation here based on politics.

to replace him in Congress.

It had been held by a Democrat for a decade.

And there's no guarantee that another Republican would win if Santos were to resign.

And so McCarthy's vote margin would go from four to three.

McCarthy has largely been defending Santos's right to stay in Congress.

that he might reconsider if Santos were to be convicted.

House Republican leaders doubled down on that position on Wednesday morning.

In America, there's a presumption of innocence, but there are serious charges.

He's going to have to face the charges that he has.

With Representative Steve Scalise.

This is not the first time a member of Congress from either party has been indicted.

And Elise Stefanik both saying that they would let the legal process play out and that they

wouldn't rush to take action against Santos based solely on the indictment.

of Congress?

two thirds vote.

And there are certainly some Republicans who have called on Santos to resign.

And we saw a few more add to that handful on Wednesday morning.

But the coalition that wants Santos to step aside is far from two thirds of the total

House of Representatives.

Santos could, of course, decide to resign at any time, though all indications from him

suggest that he has no intention of doing so.

And it's possible that Santos might agree to a plea deal.

If that were to happen, House Republicans might feel pressured to force him to resign

since he would be acknowledging that some of these accusations against him were, in

fact, true.

And it's entirely possible that he could offer to step down as part of whatever deal he might

make should he make such a deal with federal prosecutors.

I mean, that he would take a plea deal?

Santos just saw the charges on Wednesday morning, just like the rest of us.

So it's going to take some time for him and his lawyer to evaluate them and figure out

what their next option is.

A plea deal wouldn't happen immediately if it happens at all.

And the other possibility is that, given all this scrutiny, Santos could decide not to

seek re-election.

But he just announced his re-election bid two weeks ago.

And already he is fundraising off of today's court proceedings, suggesting that voters

might want to give him some money in order for him to continue to fight for freedom of

some kind.

Interesting.

He shied away from using the scandal or the controversy in order to fundraise.

of real accountability is going to have to come from a conviction or from the voters

because, you know, it's not going to come from his own party in Congress.

You know, there's not enough pressure on him at the moment from the people in Congress

who actually matter and help make these decisions to get him to resign.

And we know that Santos remains pretty unpopular in his district.

There was polling from January that found that 78 percent of voters in his district

wanted him to step down.

But he's not bowing to that pressure.

And so it looks like he's going to be a member of the House for the foreseeable future.

He came out of the courthouse and was immediately mobbed by reporters and TV cameras.

We have all, we have the information that the government wants to come after me.

Now I'm going to have to go and fight to defend myself.

The reality is, is it's a witch hunt.

I'm going to fight my battle.

I'm going to deliver.

I'm going to fight the witch hunt.

I'm going to take care of clearing my name, and I look forward to doing that.

Hold on.

And we'll start right here.

Go ahead.

George, George, there's a bill that helps states recoup COVID money, yet you're being alleged that...

So are you accusing me?

Or are you going to allow the process to play itself and allow me to clear my name?

When you look at that first week, his first day on Capitol Hill, I was there and he looked very quiet and very ashamed.

And then I think as he realized the exact nature of this Republican caucus, that it was very fragmented, that if he could reliably vote for McCarthy, McCarthy had little incentive to do anything about him.

He seems to have become bolder and bolder and bolder.

And he seemed to realize that he had a firm grip on his seat in Congress.

And he reaches a point where he feels comfortable running for reelection in April, which is a calculation that he seems to be making, that he's going to weather this storm and make it to 2024 and that he can go beyond that.

But now he's looking at this legal case and that's a lot harder to avoid.

And it's the kind of thing that the political reality of Washington can't get you out of.

Here's what else you should know today.

On Wednesday, former President Donald Trump appeared on a major television network for the first time since 2020 and, through a stream of lies, half-truths and name-calling, showed that he had not changed his politics.

That was an unbelievable and it was a beautiful day.

And scientific advisors to the federal government gave the first indication that the birth control pill might soon be available without a prescription.

A panel of experts to the Food and Drug Administration voted unanimously that the benefits of making birth control available over the counter outweighed the risks.

It was a significant step in the decades-long push to make oral contraception available on a mass scale.

Today's episode was produced by Mary Wilson, Eric Krupke, and Diana Wynne.

It was edited by Liz O'Ballen, Rachel Quester, and Michael Benoit, contains original music by Dan Powell and Marian Lozano, and was engineered by Chris Wood.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Lansford of Wonderly.

That's it for The Daily.

I'm Sabrina Tavernissi.

See you tomorrow.