George Santos set to surrender to prison for 7-year sentence
Santos was sentenced in April to 87 months in prison and he was ordered to report by 2 p.m. on July 25. He was also ordered to pay $373,949.97 in fines and restitution.
At this point, it's unclear exactly when or where he will surrender. The Federal Bureau of Prisons does not disclose this information ahead of time, but says locations are determined based on the level of supervision, medical or programming needs, security measures and proximity to a person's residence.
Prior to his sentencing, Santos told his followers he planned to request solitary confinement in prison.
The former congressman pleaded guilty to federal wire fraud and identity theft charges for exaggerating or lying about parts of his backstory to defraud voters and donors in New York's 3rd Congressional District.
Federal prosecutors said in their sentencing memo that he "made a mockery of our election system" and used a "wholly fictitious biography to enrich himself and capture one of the highest offices."
His offenses ranged from getting a vendor to forge a Baruch College diploma to presenting false financial disclosures to Congress claiming he was a multi-millionaire. He was also accused of faking donations in the names of relatives, creating a fake nonprofit to solicit donations and running a credit card fraud scheme to steal from elderly and cognitively impaired donors.
Santos then spent those donations on luxury items from Hermès and Ferragamo, Botox, a rent payment and other accommodations in Atlantic City and the Hamptons, according to campaign files, bank records and other documents released by the House Ethics Committee.
"From the moment he declared his candidacy for congress, Santos leveraged his campaign for his own enrichment and financial benefit," U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York John Durham said after the sentencing. "He did this by targeting specific supporters and constituents. He saw them as easy marks and he made them victims of his fraud."
The U.S. Department of Justice wanted Santos to serve 87 months in prison, while his lawyers sought just 24 months. Santos had asked the judge for leniency and read a statement in court, admitting that he betrayed his supporters and the institutions he was sworn to serve.
After the sentencing, he posted a lengthy statement on X, which read in part, "I believe that 7 years is an over the top politically influenced sentence and I implore that President Trump gives me a chance to prove I'm more than the mistakes I've made. Respectfully, George Santos."
Santos, 37, helped the GOP secure the House in the 2022 midterm elections. But before he was sworn into office, his lies started to unravel.
The first charges were filed against him in May 2023, with more to follow that October. The House Ethics Committee then released a scathing 56-page report detailing the extent of his misconduct.
Santos was removed from Congress weeks later, becoming just the sixth House member to be expelled in the nation's history.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
10 minutes ago
- Axios
MAGA's warning to Trump's heir
MAGA's growing independence as a political force is an early warning to the GOP's next leader about the limits — and dangers — of inheriting a populist juggernaut. Why it matters: Even when President Trump is out of sync with MAGA — like on Jeffrey Epstein — he can still bring supporters to heel. That power stems from the personal loyalty and shared enemies they've forged over a decade of political warfare. But as both MAGA diehards and establishment Republicans have long acknowledged, there's only one Trump. Whoever comes next won't command the same personal allegiance — or the same ability to rein in the base if it veers from the party's regularly scheduled programming. Driving the news: For a brief moment last month, the tail was wagging the dog. The MAGA base erupted over the Trump administration's insistence that there was nothing more to know about Epstein's sex trafficking operation and 2019 death in prison. Trump, visibly annoyed by his supporters' obsession, attempted to divert attention to his record and new conspiracy theories about his political opponents. MAGA grumbled that Trump was out of touch, and warned that the administration was bleeding trust. But the flare-up didn't last. A Wall Street Journal piece tying Trump to Epstein snapped the movement back into line, uniting them against the "fake news." Then came Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's flurry of new disclosures about the 2016 Russia investigation, redirecting MAGA outrage toward the "Deep State." Trump's gravitational pull did the rest. The big picture: The Epstein uproar showcased a new degree of independence for the 10-year-old MAGA movement, which was built on the personality and prowess of one man. MAGA sources warn the movement's appetite for unity won't naturally extend to anyone not named Donald Trump, and that future leaders will be on far shorter leashes if they cross the base on its core issues. What they're saying: "The reason Trump can be so formidable is he inspires that fanatical degree of direct loyalty. And it also means people in his own party can't easily stand against him without everyone getting very angry at them," one MAGA media figure told Axios. "What will be hard to capture is Trump's authenticity. That's what makes him so beloved…That engenders a level of trust from the base that I've never really seen before in my political life," added one MAGAworld operative. "The smartest candidate will understand that everything is in deference to the base and present it that way." Zoom out: Some Trump allies have been more successful than others in winning over the MAGA base. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are now beloved, having convinced supporters that they've genuinely learned from their past criticisms of Trump or "neoconservative" views. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), meanwhile, is still viewed skeptically by MAGA, which recognizes his personal friendship with Trump but disdains his support for stronger U.S. involvement abroad, including aid to Ukraine. Between the lines: Breitbart editor-in-chief Alex Marlow told Axios there's a blueprint for MAGA's next leader, but that "they are going to have to earn it the way [Trump] did." "The formula is not hard to follow: make the centerpiece of the agenda issues that are popular with base voters (America First nationalism) and average Americans (populism), ignore the left, ignore the GOP establishment as much as possible, and don't get wrapped up in every online frenzy," Marlow said. "Rack up victories as quickly as humanly possible to control the media narrative. Do this and you'll build a track record. If you can do that while communicating well, the base will be there for you." The bottom line: Any Republican with presidential ambitions will have to woo the base to even get close to Trump's grassroots dominance.
11 minutes ago
‘They roll right over': Many Democrats call their party weak and ineffective, AP-NORC poll finds
WASHINGTON -- Many Democrats see their political party as 'weak' or 'ineffective,' according to a poll that finds considerable pessimism within Democratic ranks. Republicans are more complimentary of their party, although a small but significant share describe the GOP as 'greedy' or say it is generally "bad." The poll conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research in July reveals warning signs for both major U.S. parties as the political focus shifts to elections in New Jersey and Virginia this fall and the midterm contests next year. Respondents were asked to share the first word or phrase that came to mind when they thought of the Republican and Democratic parties. Answers were then sorted into broad categories, including negative and positive attributes. Overall, U.S. adults held a dim view of both parties, with about 4 in 10 using negative attributes, including words such as 'dishonest' or 'stupid." But nearly nine months after Republican Donald Trump won a second presidential term, Democrats appear to be harboring more resentment about the state of their party than do Republicans. Democrats were likelier to describe their own party negatively than Republicans. Republicans were about twice as likely to describe their own party positively. 'They're spineless,' Cathia Krehbiel, a 48-year-old Democrat from Indianola, Iowa, said of her party. She believes the party's response to the Trump administration has been 'scattershot.' 'I just feel like there's so much recently that's just going abhorrently wrong," Krehbiel said. "And they speak up a little bit and they roll right over.' Overall, roughly one-third of Democrats described their party negatively in the open-ended question. About 15% described it using words like 'weak," or 'apathetic,' while an additional 10% believe it is broadly 'ineffective' or "disorganized.' Only about 2 in 10 Democrats described their party positively, with roughly 1 in 10 saying it is 'empathetic,' or 'inclusive.' An additional 1 in 10 used more general positive descriptors. It is unclear what impact the Democrats' angst may have on upcoming elections or the political debate in Washington, but no political organization wants to be plagued by internal divisions. Still, the Democrats' frustration appears to reflect their concern that party leaders are not doing enough to stop Trump's GOP, which controls Washington. There is little sign that such voters would abandon their party in favor of Trump's allies in upcoming elections, and the vast majority of Democrats described the GOP negatively. But disaffected Democrats might decide not to vote at all. That could undermine their party's push to reclaim at least one chamber of Congress in 2026. Jim Williams, a 78-year-old retiree from Harper Woods, Michigan said he typically supports Democrats, but he is 'disappointed' with the party and its murky message. He feels much worse about the Republican Party, which he said 'has lost it' under Trump's leadership. 'All he does is bully and call names. They've got no morals, no ethics. And the more they back him, the less I like them,' the self-described independent, said of Trump. Republicans are about twice as likely as Democrats to describe their party positively, with many also using straightforward ideological descriptors like 'conservative.' About 4 in 10 Republicans used positive attributes to characterize the GOP, making general mentions of words such as 'patriotic' or 'hardworking,' or offering associations with the word 'freedom.' Samuel Washington, 65, of Chicago, said he typically votes Republican. Washington praised Trump's leadership, even while acknowledging that the president's policies on trade and spending might be creating short-term economic hardship. 'There's a lot of pain, but the pain is the result of 12 years of misuse and misguided leadership from the Democratic Party,' he said. 'I'm feeling really good about Republicans and the direction that they're going.' But views were not uniformly good. About 2 in 10 Republicans said something negative about the party, including phrases such as 'greedy,' 'for the rich' or 'corrupt.' Republican Dick Grayson, an 83-year-old veteran from Trade, Tennessee, said he is 'disappointed' by his party's fealty to Trump. Among other things, he pointed to the price tag of Trump's tax-and-spend package, which will add nearly $3.3 trillion to the nation's debt over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. 'I've always been a Republican, but I'm disillusioned about both parties,' Grayson said. Among all Americans, the poll finds that the Republican Party is viewed slightly more negatively than the Democratic Party. The different is not large: 43% used negative words to describe the Republicans, compared with 39% for the Democrats. Much of the negativity is driven by the opposing party — and independents' distaste for both. Independents are much likelier to describe both parties with negative attributes rather than positive descriptors, though a significant share did not offer an opinion at all. Curtis Musser, a 60-year-old unaffiliated voter from Beverly Hills, Florida, said both parties have shifted too far toward the extreme for his liking. He said he is ready for a serious third party to emerge before the next presidential election, pointing to Elon Musk's new 'America Party,' which has been slow to launch. 'Maybe he would get us headed in the right direction,' the retired schoolteacher said. ___ Peoples reported from New York. ___ The AP-NORC poll of 1,437 adults was conducted July 10-14, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.
11 minutes ago
The Justice Department seeks voter and election information from at least 19 states, AP finds
NEW YORK -- The requests have come in letters, emails and phone calls. The specifics vary, but the target is consistent: The U.S. Department of Justice is ramping up an effort to get voter data and other election information from the states. Over the past three months, the department's voting section has requested copies of voter registration lists from state election administrators in at least 15 states, according to an Associated Press tally. Of those, nine are Democrats, five are Republicans and one is a bipartisan commission. In Colorado, the department demanded 'all records' relating to the 2024 election and any records the state retained from the 2020 election. Department lawyers have contacted officials in at least seven states to propose a meeting about forging an information-sharing agreement related to instances of voting or election fraud. The idea, they say in the emails, is for states to help the department enforce the law. The unusually expansive outreach has raised alarm among some election officials because states have the constitutional authority to run elections and federal law protects the sharing of individual data with the government. It also signals the transformation of the Justice Department's involvement in elections under President Donald Trump. The department historically has focused on protecting access to the ballot box. Today, it is taking steps to crack down on voter fraud and noncitizen voting, both of which are rare but have been the subject of years of false claims from Trump and his allies. The department's actions come alongside a broader effort by the administration to investigate past elections and influence the 2026 midterms. The Republican president has called for a special prosecutor to investigate the 2020 election that he lost to Democrat Joe Biden and continues to falsely claim he won. Trump also has pushed Texas Republicans to redraw their congressional maps to create more House seats favorable to the GOP. The Justice Department does not typically 'engage in fishing expeditions' to find laws that may potentially have been broken and has traditionally been independent from the president, said David Becker, a former department lawyer who leads the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research. 'Now it seems to be operating differently,' he said. The department responded with an emailed 'no comment' to a list of questions submitted by the AP seeking details about the communications with state officials. Election offices in Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Utah, and Wisconsin confirmed to the AP that they received letters from the voting section requesting their statewide voter registration lists. At least one other, Oklahoma, received the request by phone. Many requests included basic questions about the procedures states use to comply with federal voting laws, such as how states identify and remove duplicate voter registrations or deceased or otherwise ineligible voters. Certain questions were more state-specific and referenced data points or perceived inconsistencies from a recent survey from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, an AP review of several of the letters showed. The Justice Department already has filed suit against the state election board in North Carolina alleging it failed to comply with a part of the federal Help America Vote Act that relates to voter registration records. There are signs the department's outreach isn't done. It told the National Association of Secretaries of State that 'all states would be contacted eventually,' said Maria Benson, a NASS spokeswoman. The organization has asked the department to join a virtual meeting of its elections committee to answer questions about the letters, Benson said. Some officials have raised concerns about how the voter data will be used and protected. Election officials in at least four California counties — Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego and San Francisco —said the Justice Department sent them letters asking for voter roll records. The letters asked for the number of people removed from the rolls for being noncitizens and for their voting records, dates of birth and ID numbers. Officials in Arizona, Connecticut, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Wisconsin confirmed to the AP that they received an email from two department lawyers requesting a call about a potential 'information-sharing agreement.' The goal, according to several copies of the emails reviewed by the AP, was for states to provide the government with information about instances of election fraud to help the Justice Department 'enforce Federal election laws and protect the integrity of Federal elections.' One of those sending the emails was a senior counsel in the criminal division. The emails referred to Trump's March executive order on elections, part of which directs the attorney general to enter information-sharing agreements with state election officials to the 'maximum extent possible." Election officials in several states that received requests for their voter registration information have not responded. Some said they were reviewing the inquiries. Officials in some other states provided public versions of voter registration lists to the department, with certain personal information such as Social Security numbers blacked out. Elsewhere, state officials answered procedural questions from the Justice Department but refused to provide the voter lists. In Minnesota, the office of Secretary of State Steve Simon, a Democrat, said the federal agency is not legally entitled to the information. In a July 25 letter to the Justice Department's voting section, Simon's general counsel, Justin Erickson, said the list 'contains sensitive personal identifying information on several million individuals.' He said the office had obligations under federal and state law to not disclose any information from the statewide list unless expressly required by law. In a recent letter, Republican lawmakers in the state called on Simon to comply with the federal request as a way "to protect the voting rights of the citizens of Minnesota.' Maine's secretary of state, Democrat Shenna Bellows, said the administration's request overstepped the federal government's bounds and that the state will not fulfill it. She said doing so would violate voter privacy. The department 'doesn't get to know everything about you just because they want to,' Bellows said. There is nothing inherently wrong with the Justice Department requesting information on state procedures or the states providing it, said Justin Levitt, a former deputy assistant attorney general who teaches at Loyola Law School. But the department's requests for voter registration data are more problematic, he said. That is because of the Privacy Act of 1974, which put strict guidelines on data collection by the federal government. The government is required to issue a notice in the Federal Register and notify appropriate congressional committees when it seeks personally identifiable information about individuals. Becker said there is nothing in federal law that compels states to comply with requests for sensitive personal data about their residents. He added that while the outreach about information-sharing agreements was largely innocuous, the involvement of a criminal attorney could be seen as intimidating. 'You can understand how people would be concerned,' he said.
