Tearful George Santos pleads for a pardon from Trump
Former congressman George Santos, who pleaded guilty to wire fraud and identity theft last year, is hoping President Donald Trump bestows some form of clemency to keep him from serving seven years in federal prison.
Last month, a federal judge in New York sentenced Santos to 87 months in prison for his crimes, believing the former congressman had no remorse for the campaign donors and voters he lied to and swindled out of money.
On Thursday, Santos appeared teary-eyed and lethargic on Piers Morgan Uncensored to make his plea to the president.
'Previously, I was not entertaining a pardon because I didn't know what my judgment would be. Now, I am in the process of filling an application to a pardon for the president. I'll take a commutation, a clemency, whatever the president is willing to give me,' Santos said.
The former congressman, who was ousted by his colleagues following a damning House Ethics Report in December 2023, said he believes the judge's sentence was 'over the top' for a first time offender.
Taking a page from Trump's book, he asserted that former attorney general Merrick Garland had been unfair in leading the Justice Department, and the case against him was politically motivated.
'I do believe this is an unfair judgment handed down to me. There was a lot of politicization over the process,' Santos said.
The Independent has asked Santos for further comment.
Federal prosecutors brought a series of charges against Santos in 2023, alleging he engaged in several schemes to pocket money from political donors and government assistance programs to enrich himself as he sought a seat representing New York's 3rd congressional district.
Santos had gone from relative obscurity to an overnight headline-maker in a series of months after reports accused him of fabricating education and work experience on his resume, lying about his mother's whereabouts on September 11, 2001, misrepresenting himself as being Jewish, misleading people about running a dog charity and more.
Now, Santos believes his bad actions could be used in the country's benefit to 'sniff out other bad actors.'
'Who better, Piers, and President Trump – I hope he would agree, to be able to sniff out other bad actors doing similar actions that I did. I mean, I understand that I could help, I can be an asset for the country and I want to use that for the good,' Santos said.
Last August, Santos pleaded guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft to avoid a federal criminal trial. He also admitted to a series of other wrongdoings, including lying to Congress and fraudulently collecting unemployment benefits.
But since pleading guilty, Santos had taken to social media to capitalize on his name recognition and dispute prosecutors' claims.
His defiance against federal prosecutors ultimately cemented his harsh punishment.
Santos believes it was unnecessarily harsh, tearfully telling Morgan that it would impact his family's routine, force him to miss crucial life events and potentially put him at risk of serious injury.
'President Trump, I'd appreciate if you could give me a consideration. I'm not an altar boy, I'm not pretending to be one. But I'm not a hardened criminal who deserves to be in prison for seven years off of what I would call ambitious mistakes and it's something that I deeply regret,' Santos said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Neighbors at war in suburban Minnesota over resident's perfectly LEGAL plan
A Minnesota suburbs' solution to the housing crisis backfired and sparked an almighty debate among residents who are up in arms over one neighbor's plan to build a tiny home on his land. The Blaine City Council decided to allow residents to build 'accessory dwelling units' (ADUs) on their properties in an attempt to allow for more affordable housing. Now, four years later, homeowner Alex Pepin became the first to apply for planning permission to build one. But in doing so, Pepin sparked uproar within the community and the council began to completely reconsider their solution. 'Everybody is upset,' said resident David Hime, Star Tribune reported. 'The neighborhood is up in arms over this.' Pepin runs a nonprofit for the homeless and his plans for his ADU would be with hopes to rent it out to a family in need. 'There's no encampments in the north metro or anything like that, but there is, you know, homelessness is an issue,' Pepin told CBS News. 'It would be families coming out of homelessness, so they would have gone through a program first.' His goals were to help families eventually find permanent housing solutions, working alongside nonprofits. His application was approved, before the council then revoked the permissions following backlash within the community. 'Their ruling was based on the concerns from other people that were not necessarily grounded in fact or anything,' Pepin told the outlet. 'It was disappointing for us. We're just trying to do an allowable activity in the city. This is an allowable means to get affordable housing for people who need help in our community,' Pepin told the Tribune. Hime furthered in April that their area was for 'private homes' and hadn't been designed for 'low income housing,' CBS News reported. 'This will destroy the enjoyment of our backyard,' he added, and cited worries of traffic, and the safety of their neighborhood as well as home values in the area. Blaine Mayor Tim Sanders, however, also argued that the ADU movement was not intended for low incoming housing but instead for family or starter homes. 'The intent was for families to have an option for housing, whether it be for parents or in-laws, or kids trying to get their start,' Sanders told the Tribune. 'It was not intended to be a revenue generator for the homeowner to rent out the space to a second family more or less living in someone else's backyard.' Resident Gregory Nelson wrote to the council in April stating: 'This is zoned single family housing... It would be a horrible eye-sore. Plus they want to put a driveway next to the exiting house to drive into the back yard... No one wants cars driving alongside their house into the backyard...' 'This proposal would just decrease the property value of everyone else who lives on the Park... I know to some it may not be a big deal since we are not as big as the new developments in town, but it is important to us.' Jeff and Rhonda Brekkestran wrote in to voice their concerns, and cited property values dropping, the view from their backyard, estrangement between neighbors, as well as security and privacy concerns. Reggie Meyer wrote: 'While I think they are trying to do the right thing, this is not the right place for something like this. These properties are right off a park where children are constantly running around and I don't think having homeless people and recovering addicts in the park is a good thing for families in the neighborhood.' Meyer also pleaded to the council to 'please consider all the families and children at this park while making a decision'. But Pepin said, while he understood the concerns of those within the community who opposed his plans, he believed they had misinterpreted who he would be renting the unit out to. His plan was to build the unit, within the city's restrictions, and most likely rent it out to a single-mother with children following a criminal screening and recent drug testing. Pepin has already submitted a proposal for a unit he intends to use for his family, but has yet to decide if he will contend the decision to deny his unit for a homeless family considering it was within city requirements Pepin's proposal - meeting city requirements- included a two-bedroom, 616 square foot home, with a maximum of four occupants. Pepin hoped that living on the same property as his family would also help provide a support system for the renter, which homeless people often lack. 'We try to live out our Christian lives by caring for people who need support,' he told the Tribune. 'And we know that people coming out of homelessness need time and stability.' Pepin added that he felt 'bad' that the code was being revised following his proposal, but asked how big of a problem it was truly going to be considering he was the first and only application since the policy's approval. He has already submitted a proposal for a unit he intends to use for his family, but has yet to decide if he will contend the decision to deny his unit for a homeless family considering it was within city requirements. Council member Chris Ford said: 'I know it's a highly emotional, charged thing. I do feel for you, the neighbors that don't want this. But right now, it's policy.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
My son caught world's most infectious disease and could suffer permanent damage... my warning to all parents
A mother who lives in the epicenter of the Texas measles outbreak has revealed how her son's infection left her fearing he could suffer permanent brain damage. Alex, from Lubbock, near Gaines County, revealed her baby erupted in the hallmark red and splotchy measles rash and developed a dangerously high fever after he was exposed at daycare to the virus — the most infectious in the world. At eight months old, he was too young to have received the measles vaccine — which is normally administered for the first time at 12 months old — but there is a high proportion of unvaccinated people in the area, which is experiencing a record-high case count. Earlier this month, the US officially reported 1,000 measles cases in 2025 — marking only the second time case counts have crossed this threshold since the disease was declared eradicated in 2000. And officials are warning if the disease continues to spread unabated, the US could lose its measles elimination status. Alex said her son was exposed to measles on April 3, after another parent sent their child to daycare despite having another child at home who was infected with the virus. She said: 'If you're not going to vaccinate, at the very least, don't send your sick kids to daycare. My baby now has measles.' She was alerted to the infection by the daycare, and immediately isolated her baby — thinking for the first few days that they were in the clear. Then, on April 10, the little boy developed a mild fever, became sluggish and had congestion and a cough. After she took him to see a doctor on April 13, she was told they could see small, white spots on the inside of his cheeks — a sign of a measles infection. The next day an angry, red rash erupted, which spread down from his hairline to his face before eventually overtaking his whole body. The worried mother-of-two posted videos of her son's rash online, where her baby appeared tearful, listless and completely covered in the rash. Alex was extremely concerned her son's infection could turn fatal or leave him with lasting side effects. She said on her TikTok: 'Apart from brain swelling, I'm mostly concerned about secondary pneumonia.' Measles can cause brain inflammation, also known as encephalitis. It is a serious side effect of the virus and can cause permanent brain damage. The CDC reports it occurs in about one in 1,000 cases. Additionally, pneumonia can lead to septic shock, respiratory failure and even kidney and lung damage. Measles is the most infectious disease in the world, with an infected person able to pass the disease to nine out of 10 people exposed who are unvaccinated. It is particularly dangerous to young children, with the CDC saying one in 20 unvaccinated children who are infected develop pneumonia while one in 1,000 suffer from encephalitis — swelling of the brain that can cause permanent damage. One to three in every 1,000 unvaccinated children who are infected die from the disease. Many people commenting on Alex's videos were quick to say the disease did not appear to be a mild illness, with some even saying it motivated them to get their children vaccinated. One wrote: 'My mother told me measles wasn't that bad when I told her I won't travel with my baby because of the outbreak. I sent her this and she changed her mind. My heart hurts for your baby.' A second said: 'I'm so sorry your little angel is going through this. My son got his six months shots today, and I elected to get the MMR early because of your video.' Texas is in the grips of America's biggest measles outbreak in two decades — mostly among young children. Two young and unvaccinated girls, ages six and eight, have died as a result of the outbreak. After two days of the rash, Alex posted it was beginning to calm down — saying she felt they were now over the worst of the virus. Her son was not hospitalized for the disease, but was treated at home to help reduce the symptoms. In another video, she detailed what she gave to her son to help with the infection. She gave him Tylenol and Motrin for the fever and budesonide, a prescription drug used to reduce inflammation. He also received antibiotics to head-off any secondary infections, because measles weakens the immune system — raising the risk of other illnesses. The mother only let her baby sleep lying down on her chest throughout the illness, and kept using cool baths and washcloths to try to lower his temperature. She also gave him the probiotic Ther-Biotic Baby for his gut, and cod liver oil - an unproven remedy touted by Robert F Kennedy Jr - to boost his levels of Vitamin A and D. Her baby had mostly recovered by April 17, with his rash having disappeared. Alex showed him crawling and smiling again. The mother said she posted her son's illness online to warn others over measles, with doctors being quick to comment saying this was the first modern case recorded publicly that they had seen. Alex has another child who has been vaccinated against measles, and she said she was not pro- or anti-vaccine, but felt it was important for everyone to work together to stop the disease from spreading.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Stakes are high for US democracy as conservative supreme court hears raft of cases
A year has proved to be a long time on the scales of US justice. Less than 12 months ago, the US supreme court was in serious disrepute among liberals following a series of ethics scandals and a spate of highly contentious, conservative-leaning rulings. It culminated in a ruling last July vastly expanding a president's immunity from prosecution, virtually guaranteeing that Donald Trump would escape criminal censure for the 6 January 2021 insurrection and retaining classified documents. So far had the court's stock with Democrats fallen, that Joe Biden called for radical reforms on how the court was run and a constitutional amendment asserting that no president was above the law or immune for crimes committed in office. Now, with a re-elected and vengeful Trump having run rampant over democratic norms by issuing a fusillade of often illegal and unconstitutional executive orders, the same court – with the same nine justices on the bench – is being cast in the unlikely role of potential saviour of American democracy. Critics who once derided the judicial consequences of the court's six-three conservative majority hope that the justices will show enough fealty to the US constitution to mitigate the effect of Trump's all-out assault on a range of rights, from birthright citizenship to basic due process appeals against deportation, and preserve the constitutional republic's defining contours. 'The court is certainly a very important institution at this moment since Congress is completely pliant and not asserting its own prerogatives and the executive branch doesn't seem to be guided by any internal legal constraint,' said Jamal Greene, a law professor at Columbia University and a former high-ranking justice department official in the Biden administration. The court has already adjudicated in several high-profile cases since Trump's return – notably ruling against the administration in ordering it to 'facilitate' the return of Kilmar Ábrego García, a Maryland resident wrongly deported to El Salvador. But it has ruled in Trump's favour, at least temporarily, in several others. The stakes are about to be raised further still as a spate of cases arising from rulings against the administration by lower judges awaits the supreme court's final say before its current term ends this month. These include: the rights of lower courts to issue injunctions against Trump's efforts to restrict birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed in the constitution; an attempt by Tennessee to ban or limit transgender care for minors; a complaint by parents in Maryland against allowing LGBTQ+ books in elementary schools; the need for insurers to cover preventive healthcare costs under the Affordable Care Act; and attempts to cut off public funding for Planned Parenthood. Added to that daunting schedule, the justices can expect additional unaccustomed summer workload in the shape of seemingly unending emergency cases wrought by Trump's no-holds-barred attempt to transform government. Most experts believe the court will ultimately rule against Trump's attempt to undermine birthright citizenship rights, given that they are so clearly defined in article 14 of the constitution. Yet the devil may be in the detail. Some analysts believe the court has already lent the administration's case unwarranted credibility by agreeing to consider its challenge against lower courts' powers to issue nationwide injunctions on the subject. Perhaps tellingly, the court has not called for a supplemental briefing on whether Trump's 20 January executive order was legal. Hopes that the current court can act as a brake on Trump seem forlorn given its conservative majority and the fact that three of its members – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – were appointed to the bench by Trump himself. In addition, justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito consistently take hardline positions that seem predisposed to favour Trump. Yet speculation that the chief justice, John Roberts, and Coney Barrett have become disenchanted by the brazenness of Trump's actions has fueled optimism. Some believe they could vote with the court's three liberal justices, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson – who consistently issue dissenting opinions on rightwing rulings – frequently enough on key occasions to form an effective bulwark. But Leah Litman, a law professor at Michigan University and author of a book on the court entitled Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes, is sceptical. A recent ruling upholding the president's firing of the head of the National Labor Relations Board, Gwynne Wilcox, and overturning a 1935 precedent known as Humphrey's Executor – which gave Congress the power to limit a president's ability to remove officials from independent agencies – shows the conservative justice's reverting to type, she said. 'Some people wondered: 'Was the court going to have second thoughts about, for example, their immunity decision giving Donald Trump such leading powers, including powers to act outside of the law and above it?'' Litman argued. 'I think the Wilcox ruling underscored that the answer is definitively no.' Underpinning the conservative justices' approach is the unitary executive theory, which posits that the president has sole authority over government's executive branch, allowing him to fire members of nominally independent agencies without cause. 'They have been pushing this theory for over three decades and now they have a chance to make a pretty muscular version of it the law,' Litman said. 'Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett understand that the court can't let Donald Trump get away with everything, including usurping Congress's power or obviously depriving individuals of due process. But short of that, I don't think they are having any kind of second thoughts about their own views of executive power or about the law more generally.' The few cases of the court standing up to Trump, argues Litman, have been 'overplayed' and pale in importance compared with other rulings that have emboldened the president, including upholding the stripping of temporary protected status from about 300,000 Venezuelans. Greene defined the court's approach as 'formalist' and ill-suited to counter Trump's lawbreaking. He contrasted it with the much bolder ethos under Chief Justice Earl Warren's leadership in the 1950s and 1960s, when the court became renowned for creatively enforcing racial desegregation and civil rights orders in the south. 'Trump's modus operandi is to exploit what he perceives as weaknesses in the system of enforcement and accountability,' Greene said. 'If he thinks that courts are not going to be able to step in, he will try to exploit that as much as he can, unless and until he's stopped by some political actor or an actor with more power. 'The Trump administration is exploiting the formality and the lack of creativity of courts in general, but the supreme court in particular.' The court's writ has already been exposed as limited by Trump's failure to comply with its order to facilitate the return of Ábrego García to the US. According to Greene, the White House's failure to police its own actions to ensure they are in line with the law and the constitution already amounts to a constitutional crisis, because the courts lack the time and resources to counter unbridled violations. That puts added onus on the supreme court to fulfill its role as ultimate arbiter, argues Litman. 'We should continue to demand that they actually do uphold the law,' she said. 'I don't think we should just give up and give in to their inclination to not enforce the law and allow Donald Trump to get away with legal violations. If they don't, force them to expend the capital and pay a price in their public approval rating.'
