George Santos prosecutors seek seven-year prison term for campaign fraud
Prosecutors are seeking more than seven years in prison for disgraced former congressman George Santos after he pleaded guilty to federal fraud and identity theft charges.
The US attorney for the eastern district of New York argued in a court filing on Friday that a significant sentence was warranted because the New York Republican's 'unparalleled crimes' had 'made a mockery' of the country's election system.
'He lied to his campaign staff, his supporters, his putative employer and congressional colleagues, and the American public,' the office wrote. 'From his creation of a wholly fictitious biography to his callous theft of money from elderly and impaired donors, Santos's unrestrained greed and voracious appetite for fame enabled him to exploit the very system by which we select our representatives.'
The office also argued that Santos had been 'unrepentant and defiant' for years, dismissing the prosecution as a 'witch-hunt' and refusing to resign from Congress as his web of lies was debunked.
Even after pleading guilty before trial, prosecutors said his claims of remorse 'ring hollow', noting that he has not forfeited any of his ill-gotten gains or repaid any of his victims.
'The volume of Santos's lies and his extraordinary pattern of dishonesty speaks to his high likelihood of reoffending and the concomitant need to remove him from the community he has repeatedly victimized,' prosecutors wrote.
The 87-month sentence proposed by prosecutors represents the high end of court guidelines in such cases. That would be roughly four to five years behind bars plus a mandatory minimum two-year sentence for aggravated identity theft, they said.
Santos' lawyers did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment Friday, which was the deadline for both sides to submit their sentencing memos to court.
A federal judge on Long Island is scheduled to hear arguments and decide on Santos' sentence during a court hearing on 25 April.
The once-rising Republican, who represented parts of Queens and Long Island, served barely a year in office before he was ousted by his House colleagues in 2023 – just the sixth congressperson ever expelled in the chamber's history.
Santos' political demise came after it was revealed that he had fabricated much of his life story, leading to questions about how the political unknown had funded his winning campaign.
The now-36-year-old cast himself as a wealthy businessman who had graduated from top colleges, worked at prestigious Wall Street firms and held a valuable real estate portfolio. In truth, he was struggling financially and faced eviction.
Santos admitted in August that he duped voters, deceived donors and stole the identities of nearly a dozen people, including his own family members, to make donations to his congressional campaign.
He was initially due to be sentenced in February, but a judge granted him a three-month reprieve to come up with more than half a million dollars in court fines.
As part of his plea deal, Santos agreed to pay nearly $375,000 in restitution and $205,000 in forfeiture.
Santos's lawyers said at the time that he had little more than $1,000 in liquid assets and needed more time to build his newly launched podcast Pants on Fire in order to begin paying off the debt.
Prosecutors maintain Santos profited handsomely from his infamy, arguing he has earned more than $800,000 from appearances on the video-sharing website Cameo and from a new documentary since his expulsion from Congress.
Two of Santos's campaign staffers have also pleaded guilty to federal charges in connection to the campaign financing scheme.
Sam Miele, his former campaign fundraiser, was sentenced in March to one year and one day in federal prison. He admitted to impersonating a high-ranking congressional aide and charging donors' credit cards without authorization while raising campaign cash for Santos.
Nancy Marks, Santos's former campaign treasurer, admitted she submitted to federal regulators bogus campaign finance reports filled with fake donors and even a fake $500,000 personal loan from Santos himself.
The embellishments helped Santos hit campaign fundraising thresholds needed to qualify for financial backing from the national Republican party.
Marks is due to be sentenced in May.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
3 hours ago
- NBC News
Weather, war and protests threaten to rain on Trump's military parade
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's military parade here on Saturday — a celebration of the Army's 250th birthday that happens to coincide with the commander in chief's 79th birthday — comes at a time when American forces are supporting domestic deportation efforts and Israel's defense against Iranian missiles. The first such parade since Washington welcomed victorious U.S. troops home from the first Gulf War in 1991 — and an echo of similar extravaganzas following the Civil War and World Wars I and II — Saturday's affair will feature more than 6,000 troops, a procession of various types of armored vehicles alongside the National Mall on Constitution Avenue, and dozens of military aircraft cruising overhead. Trump, who relishes pomp, will have his own reviewing stand. But he runs the risk, literally and metaphorically, of watching rain drench his parade. Weather forecasts show a significant chance of precipitation and the possibility of evening thunderstorms. More substantively, the demonstrative show of American force will play out against the backdrop of Trump's inability to leverage U.S. power to fulfill campaign promises to end wars in Ukraine and Gaza. In a twist of timing, the long-planned exercises come the day after the U.S. began providing aid to Israel in shooting down Iranian missiles and days after Trump deployed National Guard and Marine troops to southern California to quell protests against immigration raids. Military parades have a long history in the United States, both at the national level and in local communities, said Barbara Perry, a presidential historian at the University of Virginia's Miller Center. "Humans are drawn to pageantry," Perry said, but she noted a difference between traditional military expositions and Trump's birthday version. "It's usually about the personnel," she said. "Now we know that this president has political issues all around the world, and wanting to show off the might. And if he views it, as in his first term, 'his generals,' and, if he views it as 'his military,' then you tie it to your personal special day of your birthday — that's what's different." Trump critics say he is exploiting the military to nurture his own ego — at a cost of as much as $45 million to taxpayers — and, as he claims sweeping executive powers, presenting himself in the manner of a dictator. For decades, Americans have associated heavily armed military parades with Cold War-era authoritarianism in the former Soviet Union and other countries. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., also made that comparison this week and said he didn't think the parade was the best idea. "I wouldn't have done it," Paul said Tuesday. "The images you saw in the Soviet Union and North Korea, we were proud not to be that." That may help explain why most American adults are sour on the idea. New NBC News Decision Desk polling, released Saturday morning, shows that 64% of adults surveyed say they disapprove of the parade. Protests are planned in Washington and across the country, organized under the slogan "No kings." Trump, who promised to meet protesters with " very big force," has sought to rebut the notion that he is celebrating himself. "It will be a parade like we haven't had in many, many decades here," he said this week. "And it's a celebration of our country. It's a celebration of the Army, actually." Democratic lawmakers pushed back on Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who was on Capitol Hill for a round of hearings this week, over their choices in how to use the military. "You are deploying the American military to police the American people. Sending the National Guard into California without the governor's request. Sending the Marines — not after foreign threats, but after American protesters," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, told Hegseth. 'And now President Trump is promising heavy force against peaceful protesters at his D.C. military parade," she said. "Those sorts of actions, and that sort of rhetoric from the president, should stop every one of us cold. Threatening to use our own troops — on our own citizens — at such scale is unprecedented, it is unconstitutional, and it is downright un-American." Ken Carodine, a retired Navy rear admiral, said in a telephone interview with NBC News that the parade is not just "a terrible idea" but one that many of the servicemembers may not be excited about. "Most of the guys that are involved in either organizing or participating in this thing, it's the last thing they want to be doing. But they can't say anything," he said, explaining that they must follow the orders of their superiors, right up to the commander in chief. "It's a stupid order," Carodine said. "But it's a legal order." Some Republican lawmakers, including those who routinely back the president's actions, said this week that they are not enamored of the idea of the display. "The United States of America is the most powerful country in all of human history," Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said Tuesday. "We're a lion, and a lion doesn't have to tell you it's a lion. Everybody else in the jungle knows. And we're a lion.' Federal officials held discussions Friday afternoon about whether to move the start of the parade, scheduled for 6:30 p.m. after a day of festivities around the National Mall, to try to avoid the dangers and discomfort of possible thunderstorms. They ultimately decided to move ahead as planned. For Trump, it promises to be another moment of triumph, an exclamation point on the 2024 election victory that brought him back to the helm of the most powerful nation on the planet. But while the U.S. military has executed many successful missions in the years since Operation Desert Storm pushed Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991, the more memorable wars for most Americans are the drawn out engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S. is not fighting any war abroad right now, and it is not coming off of any recent victory. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars, once supported by the American public, became unpopular over time as they cost the nation dearly in blood and treasure. The U.S. retreated from Afghanistan in 2021 — after 20 years — under an agreement negotiated by Trump and fulfilled by President Joe Biden. "Nobody had a parade for the kids coming back from Afghanistan," Carodine said. "That would have made a lot more sense than what we're doing tomorrow."
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Australian man shot to death at a villa on the tourist island of Bali
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
The Herald Scotland
5 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Mahmoud Khalil to stay in detention under Trump DOJ argument: judge
On June 11, Farbiarz initially ruled Khalil couldn't be detained by Secretary of State Marco Rubio's determination that he threatened American foreign policy interests. But Farbiarz left open other options for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold Khalil. Ahead of a court-ordered deadline to respond on June 13, Justice Department lawyers argued Khalil could be held for misrepresenting information on his permanent residency application, under a federal immigration statute lawyers have presented to the court. "Khalil is now detained based on that other charge of removability," Justice Department lawyers wrote in a June 13 letter submitted to court. "Detaining Khalil based on that other ground of removal is lawful." They said Khalil now has options to seek his release with the charge pending. Farbiarz sided with that assessment and said the secondary charge hasn't been blocked by the court. He said, "a number of avenues are now available to" Khalil, "including a bail application to the immigration judge presiding over the immigration case." Khalil's lawyer, Amy Greer, said that the government was using "cruel, transparent delay tactics" to keep him away from his wife and newborn son on their first Father's Day, on June 15. "Instead of celebrating together, he is languishing in ICE detention as punishment for his advocacy on behalf of his fellow Palestinians," Greer said in a statement. The Justice Department had no comment beyond the filings, an agency spokesperson said in an email. The government had until June 13 to appeal the judge's initial ruling. Justice Department lawyers pushed Khalil to follow the administrative actions instead of filing in federal court. "These administrative processes are the proper avenues for Khalil to seek release, not having a federal district court hold that the government cannot detain Khalil on a charge that the Court never found to be unlawful," the government lawyers said in the letter. In his original June 11 ruling, Farbiarz Khalil's request to temporarily block federal officials from deporting him under Rubio's determination. On June 13, he extended the government's time to respond to appeal his decision. Justice Department lawyers instead brought up the second argument. Khalil's legal team sent a letter to Farbiarz the morning of June 13, requesting that the client be freed since the appeal from the government did not meet the morning deadline. Khalil has been held in an immigration detention center in Louisiana since March. His lawyers have fought for his release to be with his wife and newborn son, Deen. However, a June 12 email sent to Khalil's lawyers by Brian Acuna, director of the New Orleans ICE Field Office, stated that he had "no information [that] your client will be released or a time for that," court records showed. His lawyers instead needed to contact ICE's Office of Chief Counsel on that matter, the email said. Immigration agents arrested Khalil, a green card holder married to an American citizen, on March 8 in the lobby of his university-owned apartment building in Manhattan. A Palestinian born in Syria, Khalil was a spokesman and negotiator for pro-Palestinian protesters at Columbia. Khalil was not accused of any crime. Noncitizens can be deported if the Secretary of State finds that their presence threatens U.S. foreign policy interests, even if their beliefs, statements or associations are "otherwise lawful," the Trump administration argued. They cited a rarely used provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 as the basis. Farbiarz ruled against the Secretary of State's determination and said the secondary argument -- that he omitted information on his application to enter the country -- "almost surely flows" from Rubio's determination. On June 13, Farbiarz said Khalil hadn't given factual evidence as to why it could be unlawful to detain him on the secondary charge.
