George Santos to report to prison for start of 7-year prison term
Santos, 37, has not announced the prison at which he will surrender to begin an 87-month prison sentence — more than seven years — which he received after pleading guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft as part of a plea deal last summer.
He faced 23 federal counts for a number of criminal schemes, including money laundering, theft of public funds, making materially false statements to the House of Representatives and Federal Election Commission (FEC) and falsifying records submitted to obstruct the FEC.
The beginning of Santos's prison sentence marks the end — for now — of a story that captivated Washington for months, which began in 2022 with praise for the first openly gay Republican to win a House seat as a non-incumbent, gained notoriety when news broke that much of his biography and resume were fabricated, grew larger after two criminal indictments, and hit an apex when he was expelled from the House, becoming just the sixth lawmaker to ever be ousted from the lower chamber.
Santos recognized his drama-filled tenure in Congress in a social media post published one day before he reported to prison.
'Well, darlings… The curtain falls, the spotlight dims, and the rhinestones are packed. From the halls of Congress to the chaos of cable news what a ride it's been!' Santos wrote Thursday on social platform X. 'Was it messy? Always. Glamorous? Occasionally. Honest? I tried… most days.'
He added, 'To my supporters: You made this wild political cabaret worth it. To my critics: Thanks for the free press.I may be leaving the stage (for now), but trust me legends never truly exit.'
In the lead-up to his report date, Santos made his interest in a pardon clear, filing the necessary paperwork and going as far as to tell Piers Morgan during an interview on his YouTube show in May: 'I'll take a commutation, clemency, whatever the president is willing to give me.'
'Seven years and three months in prison for a first-time offender over campaign matters just screams 'over the top,' and I would appreciate if the president would consider,' the former New York lawmaker added.
In the days before arriving at prison, however, he recognized that his efforts would likely be futile. The Federal Bureau of Prisons does not disclose the locations at which inmates are set to report ahead of their surrenders.
The judge overseeing his case requested he be housed in a facility 'within the North-East region of the United States.'
Santos's former campaign treasurer pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy charges last year for her role in fabricating the ex-lawmaker's campaign finance reports. She was sentenced in May to three years of probation, avoiding prison time, unlike her former boss.
The Santos saga began in December 2022 when — after being lauded for flipping a Long Island battleground district red — The New York Times published a bombshell report that he misrepresented his family history, previous employment and education.
The scandal snowballed from there.
Santos arrived in Washington shrouded in controversy, prompting him to quickly step down from his two committee assignments within a month of beginning his tenure in Congress. The House Ethics Committee announced an investigation into the embattled lawmaker in March, his first 13 charges came in May, followed by another 10 in October.
Throughout that timeline, Santos faced three efforts to remove him from Congress, including failed tries in May and November. In December, however, an attempt led by other New York Republicans — worried that the chaos of Santos would negatively impact their re-election endeavors — was successful, with lawmakers overcoming the inflated two-thirds threshold for passage.
The vote was 311-114-2, with 105 Republicans joining nearly all Democrats to eject Santos from the chamber after roughly 11 months on the job, leaving the GOP conference one vote down in its razor-thin majority.
The impetus was a damning report from the committee, which determined that Santos 'violated federal criminal laws,' finding that he improperly used campaign funds — including on luxury goods and Botox — and reported fictitious personal loans to his campaign and another political action committee.
'To hell with this place,' Santos declared on his way out of the Capitol following the vote.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
‘Tariff rebates' proposed: How would they work?
(NEXSTAR) — If you've been waiting and hoping for another stimulus check since receiving your last COVID relief payment in 2021, you may be in luck. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has introduced legislation that would send out 'tariff rebates' meant to 'allow hard-working Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump's tariffs are returning to this country.' As The Hill reports, the rebates would be modeled after the payments sent out after Congress authorized the 2020 CARES Act. In that case, adults received direct payments of $1,200 and $500 for their dependent children. Hawley introduces bill to provide $600 tariff rebates to adults and children Unlike those payments, these rebates would serve to offset the higher prices consumers have faced amid tariffs. According to Hawley, the U.S. has recorded $30 billion in tariff revenue as of June. He cited additional projections that say the revenue could exceed $150 billion this year alone. Under Hawley's bill, however, the individual payments would be much smaller. How much would the tariff rebates be? Each adult would receive 'at least $600,' as would each dependent child. The total rebate for a DINK (dual income, no kids) household, for example, would be at least $1,200, while a family of four could receive $2,400. Payments could increase 'if tariff revenue exceeds current projections for 2025,' according to a press release from Hawley's office describing the proposed legislation. Who will — and won't — have a three-payday August Payments would also decrease based on household income. The bill's text says rebates would be reduced based on a taxpayer's filing status and their adjusted gross income. That income threshold is $150,000 for those filing a joint return; $112,500 for those filing as a head of household; and $75,000 for a single taxpayer. Who would be eligible for a payment? Hawley's bill does not explicitly outline who would be eligible, but rather who is ineligible. That includes: 'any nonresident alien individual'; those who can be claimed on another taxpayer's taxes; and estates or trusts. As we saw with the COVID stimulus checks, your most recent taxes would likely be used to determine your eligibility and the size of your payment. When could tariff rebates be sent out? It's too early to say, as Hawley's bill would still need to make it through Congress. President Donald Trump has expressed support for the idea, telling reporters last week that the U.S. has 'so much money coming in' because of the tariffs that 'we're thinking about a little rebate.' 'A little rebate for people of a certain income level might be very nice,' he said, while noting that 'the big thing we want to do is pay down the debt.' As of Tuesday, the federal deficit sits at roughly $36.7 trillion. If you would like to help pay it down, you can now use Venmo to contribute to the 'Gifts to Reduce the Public Debt' program.
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
Most support Trump immigration goal, but say approach goes too far: Survey
Most Americans support President Trump's immigration goals, but they argued that the administration's approach is overreaching, according to a new survey. The Wall Street Journal poll, released Monday, found that 62 percent of U.S. adults said they are supportive of the administration's deportation of migrants who are in the country illegally. Despite the support, many respondents are against two approaches that administration has taken to facilitate Trump's robust crackdown on illegal immigration: Mass deportation without due process and deporting immigrants to jails in countries other than where they are from. Both approaches received 58 percent opposition, the survey shows. Close to 60 percent of independents said the White House has gone too far in deporting migrants without granting them a hearing or sending them back without evidence that they are in the U.S. illegally. GOP voters are strongly supportive of Trump's immigration policies, with 90 percent of them being fully on board. Just 11 percent of Republicans said the administration has gone too far, according to the poll. Around 75 percent of GOP voters also signaled support for deporting migrants without giving them a chance to appear before a judge or sit for a court hearing. Amongst all Americans, the support is at around 39 percent, the poll revealed. Nearly two-thirds of Americans, 62 percent, said the administration is deporting as many people as possible, regardless of whether they have a criminal background. Around a third of U.S. adults said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is mainly deporting migrants who are in the country illegally and have a criminal record, according to the poll. Earlier this month, a Harvard CAPS/Harris poll found that 60 percent of voters support Trump's push to close the border. The survey showed that 75 percent of Americans are supportive of the administration's push to deport migrants who are in the country without authorization. The Wall Street Journal survey was conducted from July 16-20 among 1,500 registered voters. The margin of error was 2.5 percentage points.
San Francisco Chronicle
25 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Virginia judge bars Youngkin's university board appointments rejected by Senate Democrats
FAIRFAX, Va. (AP) — A judge ordered that eight public university board members tapped by Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin be removed from their posts in a victory for Virginia Senate Democrats who rejected the appointees in a June committee vote. Fairfax Circuit Court Judge Jonathan D. Frieden severed the newly appointed members from their governing-board seats at the University of Virginia, George Mason University and the Virginia Military Institute. His order came at the request of nine Virginia Senate Democrats who filed a lawsuit last month requesting immediate action against the heads of university boards, also known as rectors or presidents. The nine senators argued that despite the legislative committee rejecting the membership of the eight board members, the board chairs had continued acknowledging them as members, and Frieden agreed. 'Here, the public interest is served by protecting the power of the elected legislature to confirm or reject gubernatorial appointees,' Frieden wrote in an opinion letter about his order. An attorney representing the board rectors said in court that if unsuccessful, he intended to appeal Frieden's order. The case comes amid the White House's effort to reshape higher education, with a focus on DEI. Colleges in Virginia and across the U.S. have recently become a groundswell for political tension between academic leaders and the federal government, with boards at the center of those battles. The political and cultural divide in higher education has only escalated conflicts over who gets to have a seat at the table for critical board votes that could shape those institutions' future. In June, University of Virginia President Jim Ryan resigned after the Justice Department pushed for his removal. Earlier this month, the Trump administration initiated a civil rights investigation into George Mason University's hiring practices. The board at George Mason is having a meeting later this week. And earlier this year, the board at the Virginia Military Institute ousted its president, Retired Army Maj. Gen. Cedric T. Wins. His tenure as president was marked by the implementation of diversity initiatives, which faced pushback from some conservative alumni. Last month, the Virginia Senate Privileges and Elections committee met through an ongoing special session and opted against approving the eight university appointees made by Youngkin, notably including former Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli II and Caren Merrick, Youngkin's former commerce secretary. According to the state Constitution, all gubernatorial appointments are subject to confirmation by the General Assembly. Following the vote, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Scott Surrovell wrote a letter to all board chairs, reminding them that appointees must be approved by the legislature. But Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares also wrote to the heads of the university boards, instead advising them that the appointed members should remain on the governing bodies because only a committee, not the whole state General Assembly, had voted to reject them. Mark Stancil, an attorney representing the Democratic senators, argued that the attorney general's guidance was incorrect. 'Their position flies in the face of the text of the Constitution, the text of the governing statute, and decades of longstanding practice," he wrote in a court filing. Christopher Michel, representing the rectors, countered that if the Constitution states that the legislature has the power to reject appointees, that would mean the full legislature rather than one committee. 'The General Assembly is a two-house body,' Michel said. Michel further questioned whether the Virginia senators met the legal requirements necessary to have board members immediately removed by a judge. He asserted that Virginia senators had sued the wrong people, and that the rectors did not represent the voted-down members themselves. In turn, Stancil argued to the court that rectors are responsible for holding meetings and counting votes. Frieden said in his letter that the rectors did have culpability in the case, writing: 'As the person presiding at those meetings, each ... is responsible for recognizing members who wish to speak and recognizing and announcing the votes of members.' Inside the courtroom, Surovell, state Sen. Kannan Srinivasan and Deputy Attorney General Theo Stamos sat among the benches. Surovell said to a group of reporters outside the courtroom that state Democrats had a responsibility to push back. 'These boards just don't seem very interested in following any law or listening to anything that the entity that controls them says,' he said. 'This hearing today is about making sure that we have a rule of law in Virginia — that the laws are followed and that the Senate is listened to.' ___
