Marjorie Taylor Greene asks for George Santos' sentence to be commuted
U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is asking President Donald Trump to commute former U.S. Rep. George Santos' prison sentence.
Santos, a 37-year-old Republican from New York, reported to the Federal Correctional Institution Flatiron Satellite Camp in New Jersey on Friday, July 25 to begin a seven-year prison sentence for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. Santos pleaded guilty to the charges last year.
Less than two weeks after the disgraced politician's sentence began, Greene, a Republican from Georgia, sent a letter to Pardon Attorney Edward R Martin requesting that he urge the president to take action on the matter.
'I wholeheartedly believe in justice and the rule of the law and I understand the gravity of such actions,' wrote Greene. 'However, I believe a seven-year sentence for such campaign-related matters for an individual with no prior criminal record extends far beyond what is warranted.'
Greene continued her letter, stating Santos is 'sincerely remorseful and has accepted full responsibility for his actions.'
She alleged: 'Many of my colleagues who I serve with have committed far worse offenses than Mr. Santos yet have faced zero criminal charges.'
Newsmax's Rob Finnerty asked the president about intervening in Santos' case in an interview that aired on Friday, Aug. 1. Trump said Santos 'lied like hell,' but 'he was 100 percent for Trump.'
Trump said he didn't know Santos and wasn't sure if he had ever met him. While no one specifically asked him to intervene in the case, the president agreed that seven years is 'a long time.'
He didn't rule out the possibility of commuting Santos' sentence, telling Finnerty: 'I have the right to do it.'
In his second administration, Trump's already granted 58 pardons and 12 commutations. On the president's first day in office, he granted clemency to every person charged or convicted for their role in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
More recently, he pardoned reality TV stars Julie and Todd Chrisley. The couple was convicted of fraud and tax evasion in 2022. Their daughter, Savannah Chrisley, has been a staunch Trump supporter and endorsed the president in a speech at the 2020 Republican National Convention.
Shortly after Santos won the New York Third Congressional District election in 2022, media outlets discovered he had lied about much of his past, including a career on Wall Street, connections to the Holocaust and the Sept. 11 attacks.
Parts of his resume also were called into question. In December 2023, he was expelled by his fellow congressional members.
Santos had a history of advocating for the president's agenda and found himself aligned with other lawmakers who shared similar ideals, including Greene.
Shortly after arriving in prison, Santos wrote an op-ed for The South Shore Press, a Long Island, New York-area newspaper, which was published on Monday, Aug. 4.
'As I crossed the threshold of the dormitory and took my first steps into what would become my new reality, I caught a glimpse of myself in the small, scratched mirror held up by one of the inmates,' wrote Santos.
'That image – me, hollow-eyed, clad in state-issued polyester – hit me like a punch to the gut.'
Michelle Del Rey is a trending news reporter at USA TODAY. Contact her at mdelrey@usatoday.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
3 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Jorge Elorza's big bet on school vouchers
Now Elorza is embracing a long-standing third rail in Democratic politics: Elorza is encouraging Democratic governors The rules of Trump's new program haven't yet been published and it won't take effect until 2027, but families would be eligible for up to $1,700 in federal tax credits for reimbursement for private school tuition, or as Elorza likes to point out, for hiring tutors or buying laptops for students. Get Rhode Map A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State. Enter Email Sign Up As he sees it, the new program presents an opportunity for Democrats to embrace innovation in education – an issue the party has largely abandoned over the last decade. Advertisement 'Republicans are creating a new federal program that is giving lower income families money to do whatever they wish with, and it is Democrats who are against this,' Elorza told me this week. 'What world are we living in where that is the case?' Elorza is not a political novice, so he knows the answer to his own question. Advertisement Teachers' unions hate the idea of school vouchers for the same reasons they often oppose public charter schools: they believe those programs take money away from traditional public schools, which eventually leads to job losses. Indeed, Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, told The New York Times, that ' Elorza offered a familiar retort: 'I believe that money following the child should be the default operating system that we use for schooling in the United States.' He said Democrats should be alarmed that polling suggests 'I understand the logic behind political alliances if they're paying political dividends,' Elorza said. 'But we are now under water.' His own experience underscores his point. Elorza was largely an unapologetic progressive during his eight years in City Hall between 2015 and 2023, establishing a pilot program on universal basic income, and becoming one of the first mayors in the country to push for Still, he never quite earned the adulation of progressive advocates because of his tense relationship with the Elorza's frustrations with the union boiled over to the point that he Advertisement But as Elorza grew disillusioned with the lack of progress in Providence schools, he found himself alone on an island because most allies didn't want to cross the state's teachers' unions. Nationally, school reform efforts also fell on the backburner. He said that Democrats largely rallied to oppose anything Trump put forward in his first term, but President Joe Biden rarely made K-12 education a top priority during his four years in office. He said he's hopeful that a new crop of Democratic governors might be more willing to focus on education, and make it a winning issue for the party again. Elorza pointed out that President Bill Clinton was an early supporter of charter schools, and President Barack Obama was a staunch school advocate who created the Race to the Top program that funneled billions of dollars to states that were willing to overhaul low-performing schools. 'The unions weren't happy with that and [Clinton and Obama] became the leaders of the free world,' he said. 'What we haven't had is the guidance right from the very top.' The question now is whether Elorza can convince other Democrats to concede the school voucher battle to Trump in order to win the broader war on education in the long run. Dan McGowan can be reached at
Newsweek
3 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Gerrymandering Is America's Dumbest Political Tradition
Americans live with many oddities in our political system. We hand the White House to candidates who lost the election by popular vote count. We elect sheriffs and judges like it's still the Wild West. We tolerate Senate rules that allow 41 members to block the will of 59. But of the various artifacts of American political exceptionalism, none so reliably damages democracy as gerrymandering. This weekend brought yet another illustration: Democratic lawmakers in Texas fled the state to prevent a vote on a Republican redistricting plan that would carve five new districts in ways that dilute minority and urban representation, effectively guaranteeing GOP congressional gains in 2026. Governor Greg Abbott responded with threats of arrest. Attorney General Ken Paxton floated declaring the seats vacant. And most of the country barely reacted—because what should be an institutional crisis has become routine. Like frogs who grow accustomed to ever-more scalding water, Americans have come to accept that these are reasonable ways to behave. But viewed from abroad—where I have spent most of my career as a foreign correspondent—it looks like a mutation of politics. Gerrymandering has existed in the United States since the early 19th century, when Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry approved a contorted district map, one segment of which resembled a salamander. The idea is to use district boundaries to minimize the other side's representation. In today's data-driven age, what began as crude, localized manipulation has become a mathematically precise tool for systematically distorting election results, sometimes cementing minority rule. Both parties have used it, but Republicans in recent decades have elevated gerrymandering to an art form. After the 2010 census, the GOP launched Project REDMAP to target swing-state legislatures and redraw maps for maximum partisan advantage. In Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, the results were astonishing: in 2018, Democrats in Wisconsin won 53 percent of the vote but received only 36 of Wisconsin's 99 State Assembly seats. In state after state—Texas, Ohio, North Carolina, Alabama, Florida—legislatures have engineered maps that ensure one-party dominance, often through racial gerrymandering techniques like "cracking" minority populations to dilute their votes across districts or "packing" them into as few as possible. After the 2020 census, Texas gained two new congressional seats thanks to population growth among Latino and Black residents. But rather than enhance those communities' representation, lawmakers redrew boundaries to minimize their political impact. Even when courts intervene, legislatures delay action, ignore rulings, or revise maps just enough to skirt the edges of compliance. The consequences are profound. Competitive elections become rarer. Incumbents grow unassailable, accountable only to low-turnout partisan primaries, which reward extremism and penalize compromise. Minority voices are marginalized. In this disgraceful landscape, public cynicism becomes rational. AUSTIN, TEXAS - AUGUST 07: Attendees view a map during a Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting public testimony hearing on August 07, 2025 in Austin, Texas. AUSTIN, TEXAS - AUGUST 07: Attendees view a map during a Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting public testimony hearing on August 07, 2025 in Austin, see the results: basic gun reforms stall in Congress despite widespread public support. State legislatures pass book bans and restrict abortion access in defiance of majority sentiment. Fringe candidates win office on the backs of ideological activists, then shape national policy. And many Americans, correctly sensing the game is deeply flawed, give up on voting altogether. America's voter participation levels are rather low. The U.S. is nearly alone in tolerating gerrymandering. The U.K. also uses district-based elections, but it relies on independent commissions—devoid of political input—to draw its maps based on geography and population. Canada and Australia follow similar models. Most European democracies use proportional representation, where seats are allocated according to vote share. That can come with other problems, like unstable government and unwieldy coalitions, but it does make the very idea of gerrymandering structurally impossible. American politicians, by contrast, not only draw their own maps but do so under few constraints. Judicial oversight is minimal. Federal standards are nearly nonexistent. That we have normalized this madness is a measure of our democratic decline. Gerrymandering is part of a broader pattern: a constellation of structurally anti-democratic mechanisms that Americans have come to accept. The Electoral College has routinely awarded the presidency to the loser of the popular vote. In this system—consider this absurdity—presidential candidates have no reason to visit the nation's three most populous cities or its capital. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington are not in swing states, so the results there are pre-ordained. Indeed, until the 1964 election the residents of the capital could not even vote for president—the District of Columbia is not a state; it took a constitutional amendment to fix that nonsense. The Senate filibuster blocks legislation backed by broad majorities. The election of law enforcement officials politicizes justice. Even the United States' measurement system—miles, pounds, gallons, with hardly anyone knowing how many inches there are in a mile—sets us at odds with scientific and global norms. To me, this looks like dysfunction masquerading as heritage, and ossification passing itself off as tradition. It has real consequences for trust, governance, and national cohesion. There is nothing in the Constitution requiring states to draw districts this way. Several—Arizona, California, Michigan, Colorado—already use independent commissions with obviously better outcomes (meaning: not partisan cheating). Congress could impose basic national standards for fairness, transparency, and timing. But that remedy, too, is blocked by the Senate's procedural choke points—and, essentially, by the Republicans, who at this point have no shame. Ultimately, it will take a cultural shift: a refusal to accept gerrymandering as just another partisan tactic. It is, at its core, election-rigging. Parties that engage in it should be punished at the polls. Instead, they're rewarded with power. A fix may require a breakup of the current political duopoly. What's needed is a grand centrist force—perhaps not a party but a movement—committed to democratic principles, to institutional reform, and to fair representation. Such a force must reject gerrymandering outright: not balance it between parties or trim around the edges, but end it completely. No democracy can endure if its structures suppress majority rule. Outrages that seem entrenched are eventually swept aside, sometimes politely and sometimes with force. I have seen this happen again and again, around the world. At some point, the public says: enough. Dan Perry is the former Cairo-based Middle East editor (also leading coverage from Iran) and London-based Europe/Africa editor of the Associated Press, the former chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem, and the author of two books. Follow him at The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
5 minutes ago
Why the stock market shrugged off weak data, recession fears
Weak jobs data came out hours before President Donald Trump fired the head of labor statistics. A report on gross domestic product indicated a slowdown of growth over the first half of the year. A sweeping round of tariffs hit nearly 70 countries. These events -- all within the last last week -- prompted some analysts to warn of a recession and others to raise concerns about the political independence of gold-standard U.S. economic data. The stock market, however, hardly blinked. The tech-heavy Nasdaq has ticked up 0.4% since the end of trading last Tuesday, a day before the GDP report marked the first in a series of major developments. Over that same period, the S&P 500 has dropped 0.6%, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average has fallen 1.4%. Despite mixed results, the indexes remain well above where they stood three months ago. The Nasdaq has surged 20% since May, while the S&P 500 has jumped 13%. The Dow has climbed 7% over that period. Analysts who spoke to ABC News attributed investor optimism to robust corporate profits, the prospect of interest rate cuts at the Federal Reserve and an abiding expectation that Trump will not return to the steep tariffs initially rolled out in April. The resilient stock market has generated a momentum of its own, some analysts added. "The mindset of the market is to embrace risk because that brings rewards rather than losses -- keep shrugging it off," Steve Sosnick, chief strategist at trading firm Interactive Brokers, told ABC News. "That can paper over a lot of concerns." The economy added an average of about 35,000 jobs over three months ending in July, which marks a major slowdown from roughly 128,000 jobs added monthly over the prior three months, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data on Friday showed. Employers are hiring at their slowest pace since 2020. Two days earlier, fresh GDP data indicated average annualized growth of 1.2% over the first half of 2025, well below 2.8% growth last year. Hours after the release of the jobs report on Friday, Trump fired BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer, an appointee of former President Joe Biden who was confirmed by a bipartisan vote in the Senate in 2024. In a social media post, Trump volleyed sharp criticism and baseless accusations at McEntarfer, claiming without evidence that the data had been "manipulated." The jobs report featured revisions of previous months' data, which is a routine practice. "Trump touted his economic performance in a social media post: "The Economy is BOOMING under 'TRUMP' despite a Fed that also plays games, this time with Interest Rates." McEntarfer did not immediately reply to ABC News' request for comment. "It has been the honor of my life to serve as Commissioner of BLS alongside the many dedicated civil servants tasked with measuring a vast and dynamic economy," McEntarfer said in a social media post after her dismissal. "It is vital and important work and I thank them for their service to this nation." The major stock indexes fell markedly last Friday, suggesting concern among traders about the weak jobs report. Within days, however, stocks had largely recovered the losses. Alongside mixed signals from the economy, a series of major companies have released strong earnings, indicating a resilient corporate bottom line. The list of high-performers includes tech giants like Meta and Microsoft, which account for a disproportionately large share of the S&P 500. "The markets like to focus on earnings," Ed Yardeni, the president of market advisory firm Yardeni Research and former chief investment strategist at Deutsche Bank's U.S. equities division, told ABC News. "They've been pretty impressive considering some of the economic data has looked soft of late." The outlook for the economy remains uncertain, leaving open the possibility of continued growth and soaring stocks, some analysts said. The economy has largely averted the type of widespread job losses that often accompany a recession. Consumer spending, which accounts for about two-thirds of economic activity, ticked higher over three months ending in June. If the economy sours, the Federal Reserve will likely move forward with interest rate cuts, buoying the market, Sosnick said. "There's a belief that there's nothing better for the market than a rate cut," Sosick added. Still, the combination of elevated tariffs and sluggish hiring could hurtle the U.S. toward an economic double-whammy known as " stagflation," in which the economy slows while prices rise. Potential stagflation poses difficulty for the Fed. If the Fed raises interest rates as a means of protecting against tariff-induced inflation under such a scenario, it risks stifling borrowing and slowing the economy further. On the other hand, if the Fed lowers rates to stimulate the economy in the face of a potential slowdown, it threatens to boost spending and worsen inflation. "There's definitely a possibility the market is getting it wrong on inflation," Jay Ritter, a professor of finance at the University of Florida, told ABC News. For now, markets remain opportunistic about current gains, rather than wary of possible headwinds that may emerge in the coming weeks or months, Sosnick said. "This market is preferring to deal with the here and now than deal with the conceptual," Sosnick added.
