George Santos Admits to Lying About College and Work History - The New York Times

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  jbb  •  one month ago  •  82 comments

By:   Michael Gold and Grace Ashford (nytimes)

George Santos Admits to Lying About College and Work History - The New York Times
The congressman-elect confirmed The New York Times's findings that he had not graduated from college or worked at two major Wall Street companies, as he had claimed.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The congressman-elect confirmed The New York Times's findings that he had not graduated from college or worked at two major Wall Street companies, as he had claimed.

26santos-1-1718-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale Congressman-Elect George Santos at the Republican Jewish Coalition in Las Vegas in November.Credit...Mikayla Whitmore for The New York Times

By Michael Gold and Grace Ashford

Dec. 26, 2022Updated 8:11 p.m. ET

Representative-elect George Santos admitted on Monday to misrepresenting his professional experience and educational history to voters, but said it would not deter him from taking office in January.

Mr. Santos, a New York Republican who was elected in November to represent parts of northern Long Island and northeast Queens, confirmed some of the key findings of a New York Times investigation into his background, but sought to minimize the falsehoods in his first remarks since The Times published its findings last week.

"My sins here are embellishing my resume," Mr. Santos told The New York Post in one of two interviews he granted on Monday to conservative-owned media outlets.

"I am not a criminal," Mr. Santos said, adding that he would still be an effective legislator. In a separate interview with WABC-AM radio, he said he still intended to be sworn in at the start of the next Congress.

The admissions by Mr. Santos served as a capstone to one of the more astonishing examples of an incoming congressman falsifying key biographical elements of his background — with Mr. Santos maintaining the falsehoods through two consecutive bids for Congress.

Yet even as Mr. Santos, whose victory helped Republicans secure a narrow majority in the next House of Representatives, admitted to some fabrication, his actions will still not prevent him, in all likelihood, from being seated in Congress.

Democrats — including the outgoing House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and the next House Democratic leader, Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York — have accused Mr. Santos of being unfit to serve in Congress. Top House Republican leaders, including Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, have largely remained silent.

The Aftermath of the 2022 Midterm Elections


A moment of reflection. In the aftermath of the midterms, Democrats and Republicans face key questions about the future of their parties. With the House and Senate now decided, here's where things stand:

Biden's tough choice. President Biden, who had the best midterms of any president in 20 years as Democrats maintained a narrow hold on the Senate, feels buoyant after the results. But as he nears his 80th birthday, he confronts a decision on whether to run again.

Is Trump's grip loosening? Ignoring Republicans' concerns that he was to blame for the party's weak midterms showing, Donald J. Trump announced his third bid for the presidency. But some of his staunchest allies are already inching away from him.

G.O.P leaders face dissent. After a poor midterms performance, Representative Kevin McCarthy and Senator Mitch McConnell faced threats to their power from an emboldened right flank. Will the divisions in the party's ranks make the G.O.P.-controlled House an unmanageable mess?

A new era for House Democrats. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the first woman to serve in the post and the face of House Democrats for two decades, will not pursue a leadership post in the next Congress, paving the way for fresher faces at the top of the party.

Divided government. What does a Republican-controlled House and a Democratic-run Senate mean for the next two years? Most likely a return to the gridlock and brinkmanship that have defined a divided federal government in recent years.

The House can only prevent candidates from taking office if they violate the Constitution's age, citizenship and state residency requirements. Once he has been seated, however, Mr. Santos could face ethics investigations, legal experts have said.

Mr. Santos, through representatives, has declined multiple requests to speak with The Times. His interviews did not fully address the scope of The Times's reporting, which also included omissions on his financial disclosure forms and a charity he claimed to have founded and registered with the I.R.S.

He also firmly rejected having been charged criminally anywhere in the world, but did not appear to explain the existence of records identifying him as being charged with check fraud in Brazil.

Over the course of his campaigns, Mr. Santos claimed to have graduated from Baruch College in 2010 before working at Citigroup and, eventually, Goldman Sachs. A biography on the National Republican Congressional Committee website said he had attended both Baruch and New York University and received degrees in finance and economics.

But the colleges and companies could not locate records to verify his claims when contacted by The Times.

In Monday's interview, Mr. Santos admitted to The Post that he had not graduated "from any institution of higher learning." He also admitted that he never worked directly for Goldman Sachs or Citigroup, blaming a "poor choice of words" for creating the impression that he had.

Past statements of Mr. Santos are relatively clear however: An archived version of Mr. Santos's former campaign website preserved by the Wayback Machine says that he "began working at Citigroup as an associate and quickly advanced to become an associate asset manager in the real asset division of the firm."

Instead, he told The Post, he dealt with both firms through his work at another company, LinkBridge Investors, which connects investors with potential clients.

Mr. Santos told The Post that LinkBridge had "limited partnerships" with the two Wall Street companies.

The Times was able to confirm Mr. Santos's employment at LinkBridge. But in a version of his campaign biography posted as recently as April, Mr. Santos suggested that he had started his career on Wall Street at Citigroup and that he was at Goldman Sachs briefly before his time at LinkBridge.

A spokeswoman for Citigroup declined to comment. Representatives for Goldman Sachs and LinkBridge did not immediately respond to a request for more information.

Mr. Santos has not fully accounted for his employment during the years that he had claimed, until recently, that he was advancing on Wall Street. In his interview with WABC radio, he confirmed reporting by The Times that he had worked at a call center in Queens in late 2011 and early 2012.

The WABC interview itself was something of a political sideshow curiosity. Mr. Santos was interviewed by John Catsimatidis, a supermarket magnate and a big Republican donor, and Anthony Weiner, the former Democratic congressman who resigned in disgrace in 2011.

Mr. Weiner asked Mr. Santos about his claim, made in an interview last month shortly after his election, that a company he had worked for "lost four employees" at the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando in June 2016. The Times reviewed news coverage and obituaries and found no evidence that could support the claim.

On Monday, Mr. Santos told WABC that those four people were not yet employees but instead were in the process of being hired.

"We did lose four people that were going to be coming to work for the company that I was starting up in Orlando," he said.

Mr. Santos did not name the company or provide additional information to support his statement. Public records show Mr. Santos was living in the Orlando area at the time of the shooting and that he was registered to vote there during the 2016 election.

Continue reading the main story


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JBB    one month ago

My Goodness!

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
2  Buzz of the Orient    one month ago

Is it possible for the voters in his constituency to demand a new election?   Does the Republican Party want a proven liar to be their representative in Congress?

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2.1  bbl-1  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    one month ago

Santos is the perfect GOP candidate.  He is a Trumper.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    one month ago
Does the Republican Party want a proven liar to be their representative in Congress?

It's Joe" a coal miner from a family of coal miners" Biden's world, and everyone else is just playing by his rules.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
2.2.1  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2    one month ago
Biden's world

George Santos.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    one month ago
s it possible for the voters in his constituency to demand a new election?

depends on what the state constitution and laws  allows , most times and in most cases , there are no allowances for a recall election at the federal level, otherwise cheney would have been recalled .

 Now something that the house can actually do is refuse to seat him on ethics violations or censure, which is basically kicked out  , but since the house is controlled by the party he was elected under , chances of that are slim . in any case if they dont refuse to seat him , his tenure in the house will likely be a single 2 year term .

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
2.3.1  Snuffy  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.3    one month ago

yep, with the slim majority the Republicans have in the House I suspect they will not refuse to seat him.  But I doubt he will be put on any committees and I agree that his tenure is very probably just the one term.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
2.3.2  Split Personality  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.3    one month ago

That's a $174,000 annual reward for fraud, $348,000 in total.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.4  Tessylo  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    one month ago

It is a requirement for today's gqp, you must be a liar, cheat, fraud, thug, thief, killer - all are welcome and required for today's gqp

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.4.1  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @2.4    one month ago

you must meet some or all of the above requirements

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
2.4.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Tessylo @2.4.1    one month ago

When you take into consideration that the Republicans would accept him to represent them at the same time as blackballing Liz Cheney, I don't need any further evidence to be totally disdainful of that political party. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.4.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.4.2    one month ago
blackballing Liz Cheney,

she did that to herself actually, even with all the "help" in  the primary she got from the left  with crossover voting and political donations . money wont buy and election or a seat if the people dont believe you anymore .

 The people who vote in wyoming are the ones that handed her her walking papers for not doing what they expected .

 it doesnt take an idiot to figure out not to piss off the people you need to vote you into office .

 she lost her last election run by about the same amount  as she won her first run at the house seat .

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
2.4.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.4.3    one month ago

I know, Mark, you've already explained that to me.  I believe she was blackballed by her party before by her electorate.  If you were given a choice between Santos and Cheney, and you HAD to support one or the other, which one would you support for the good of the Republican Party?  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.4.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.4.3    one month ago

Nah.  The majority of her electorate supported the Big Lie and voted her out for opposing it.  They put an insurrection supporter in her place, despite Cheney toing the GOP line for years.  She had the integrity to piss off the Big Lie supporters, and that's a good thing.  Supporting lies is wrong, even if it's popular.  It takes integrity to choose right over expedient.  Too many in her state either don't appreciate that, or are suckers for the lie.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.4.6  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.4.5    one month ago

first off Sandy , keep in mind i never voted for her, thanks to her losing the primary i didnt have to worry about not voting for her in the general , buhbye lizzard  , it isnt "HER' state , many felt she was a virginia oppertunistic carpetbagger whom never really lived in the state ( year she spent one semester here in elementary school as a child  doesnt cut it, nor does buying a vacation home in a tourist area to establish "residency"  ) with questionalble ties and history with and to the state of wyoming .

She had the integrity to piss some off? the big lie supporters ? most of the folks i know didnt believe it from the gitgo anyway , what she had was the idiotic idea that she could go on a vendetta of her own personal choosing  and not be called on it by the people of the state that vote on whether she kept the seat or not , and many didnt think she had any place on that J-6 comittee , and all at the optic she was ignoring other issues important to the state and its people , whom she works for and was to represent . she lost that bet when she lost the primary even with democratic "help" which didnt sit well with many of the voters republican or independant .

 LMFAO @ LIZ toeing the GOP line for many years , she was in office for 6 total  not really many years considering ...

 Now hageman im in agreement with you on and im glad i didnt vote for her either , but i will be keeping an eye on her once she is seated and see if the "trump endorsment " wears off . before trumps endorsment i was leaning towards possibly voting for her , after , nope .

And before you go clutching your pearls about me not voting for the republican , i didnt vote for the democrat either, that one was a retread that had ran before and lost  to cheney ,I have a habit of not voting for those that ran before and lost against someone i think was worse  , i went as usual constitutionalist independent , whom didnt even register in the polls it was basically after all a 2 horse race , hageman and the dem greybull . but i voted . i appreciate that Lizz is gone , now to get that carpetbagger taste out of my mouth .

you are of course welcome to your own opinion on what you think happened , but i was here when it was all happening and was listening to what the voters here had to say , unlike many that simply listened to the talking heads that were not here .

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.4.7  sandy-2021492  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.4.6    one month ago

The fact remains that she supported the GOP platform, such as it is, every bit as much as Hageman does.  Policy-wise, they're pretty much the same.  But one kisses Trump's ass, and the other doesn't.  Her loss says a lot about the majority in her state.

One was censured by her party for standing up to Trump.  That says a lot about the GOP in general.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.4.8  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.4.7    one month ago
Her loss says a lot about the majority in her state.

All her loss says about the majority in the state , again not hers , she has more ties to Virginia  she lived there most all her life ,  is they expect those they elect to listen to them and do the work they expect , her standing up to trump does not and did not fit the job description  the voters held and hold . she after all was an employee of the people of the state , not their over seer or leader ., I think that is a pretty good cautionary tale for anyone thinking of ventuing into politics , keep the ones who vote you into office happy , she didnt and paid the price by losing her seat and rightfully so . Whats the old saying ? if mama aint happy aint no one happy ? well in this case mama was the voters , not lizz.

thats the way it is in wyoming , and frankly we dont give a rats ass how others do it elsewhere or what they think.

 Now she can go look for another state to see if they are interested in her representing them , there are 49 more after all.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.4.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.4.8    one month ago
All her loss says about the majority in the state , again not hers , she has more ties to Virginia  she lived there most all her life ,  is they expect those they elect to listen to them and do the work they expect , her standing up to trump does not and did not fit the job description  the voters held and hold

That's not really a good look for those who voted against her.  "We paid you to kiss the lying buffoon's ass, not have integrity and support the Constitution!"

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.4.10  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.4.9    one month ago
"We paid you to kiss the lying buffoon's ass, not have integrity and support the Constitution!"

again , your opinion and welcome to it , 

We that actually live here in Wyoming have our own , which i have pretty much explained already ,  she failed to live up to voter expectations , besides , wyoming has a habit of term limiting the house seat since its the only one we have , to 3-4 terms , she knew IF she won a 4th term it was her last anyway  and the voters would not let her past the next primary even a 3rd term is not guarenteed   same goes for senators on the federal level (4) , as well as for the govenor(2) , each office has a pretty much agreed to with the voters how many terms they will get if they do what the voters think they should be doing.

. Her going off on her own and doing the integrity bit the dems so love her for , simply nailed her political career coffin shut in wyoming, didnt kill her political career , as i said there are 49 other states she can look into , wyoming is done with her .Doubt they will ever take her back either  as an elected official in any form  . personally i wouldnt vote for her as dog catcher .

 she was no longer doing the job the voters expected of her  for the state  in the eyes of the voters . If thats too hard to understand , i cant help you .

*** i always voted against her for whatever seat she ran in the state .

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.4.11  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.4.10    one month ago

Lizzy Cheney took an axe , tried to give Trump 40 whacks ....

 when she saw what she couldnt get done , the voters of Wyoming gave her 41 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.4.12  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.4.4    one month ago

asking wrong person because im not a republican, so how they run their party is up to them , i simply watch and get to decide if the candidates they choose fit what my views are  so likely wouldnt vote for either , even if i had to , or i would write in mickey mouse . or find that 3rd door/ option as i usually do , even if i know they wont win  .

 The party did withdraw their support on the state level so she could be considered blackballed there , but only after her actions the state party disagreed with, the state party has that authority and power  , on the national level the republican leadership made that choice to remove her from leadership  after a vote of sitting party members in congress , her own actions dictated that vote, 

She made herself ineffective as a representative for the state that elected her in the eyes of the voters ( the ones that actually mattered here ) , so they ultimately fired her for cause . the party wasnt her boss nor could the party save her  , it was the voters of the state she dissatisfied  that blackballed and fired her if she was really blackballed at all.

 all i know or care about , in 6 days time she is unemployed as a congress member .

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.4.13  seeder  JBB  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.4.4    one month ago

Translation - He would back Santos!

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
2.4.14  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JBB @2.4.13    one month ago

Not at all, jbb.  Mark is a very fair person, and I would trust what he says. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.4.15  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  JBB @2.4.13    one month ago

AAAAND, as per usual , you would be wrong ,  you are entitled to your opinion , even if it IS wrong ....

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.4.16  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.4.14    one month ago

LOL buzz , thank you , but i think thats always open to individual interpertation , if someone says im fair and open minded , believe them , if someone says i am an asshole , believe them , i treat people accordingling as they treat me  so if someone says im an asshole , well i will just leave that there .

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    one month ago
Is it possible for the voters in his constituency to demand a new election?

I like his, "I never claimed to be Jewish, I said that I was Jew'ish."

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.5.1  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @2.5    one month ago

I heard that and immediately thought jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.5.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Tessylo @2.5.1    one month ago
I heard that and immediately thought

Trumpists will believe him too.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
2.5.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ozzwald @2.5    one month ago
"I never claimed to be Jewish, I said that I was Jew'ish."

Taking into consideration that he is a liar, cheat and a fraud, that is an antisemitic statement.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3  Kavika     one month ago

I'd sure like to know where the money he loaned to his campaign came from. He has no assets, no job, and was unable to pay his rent on a few recent occasions. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Kavika @3    one month ago

This confession only leads to more questions...

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
3.2  bbl-1  replied to  Kavika @3    one month ago

The money.  Was it laundered?  Was it foreign?  Or just good ole' American oligarch?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
3.2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  bbl-1 @3.2    one month ago

Who cares...he's just as well qualified to serve as your average Democrat.

If a sleazy whore can be vice president, what difference doesn't it make if his resume is incomplete.

After all, Biden tells lies and embellishes his credentials all the time.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
3.2.2  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @3.2.1    one month ago
average Democrat.

Pretty sure he is a republican. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Kavika @3    one month ago
I'd sure like to know where the money he loaned to his campaign came from.

it sure would be funny to find out that it was the opposition that funded him thinking he was the prefered candidate they could beat , not like thats ever happened before right ?

 IF that were the case , i would have to say , man did that backfire ....

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3.3.1  Kavika   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.3    one month ago

That doesn't seem to be the case and his answer as to where the money came from has triggered investigations by  both the state and feds..

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.3.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Kavika @3.3.1    one month ago

just saw that on my news feed , i will say it will be interesting to watch .

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Kavika @3    one month ago
I'd sure like to know where the money he loaned to his campaign came from.

maxresdefault.jpg

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4  Sean Treacy    one month ago

Biden nods his head approvingly and asks him to be his VP in 2024.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
4.1  bbl-1  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    one month ago

And again the MAGA mind divulges.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  bbl-1 @4.1    one month ago

By all means, let's see the performative outrage from Biden supporters over a candidate lying about his background and history.

[deleted]

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
4.1.2  bbl-1  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.1    one month ago

What in the name of Othella are you talking about?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  bbl-1 @4.1.2    one month ago

That you are unfamiliar with Joe Biden's  decades long history of lying about his family history, education, personal life and resume does not surprise me.

The memory hole is real. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1.4  seeder  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.1    one month ago

Are you saying Joe Biden did not serve 36 years in the United States Senate, two full terms as Vice President of the United States and is not serving as the President of the United States of America right now?

What has George Santos done?

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
4.1.5  bbl-1  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.3    one month ago

Yes.  His first wife and daughter were killed in an automobile accident.  He also rode the Amtrack to work.  He has also changed his stances on issues due to changing circumstance.  

Pardon me, but I suggest you think more of your nation's future than the prospects of a grifter who inhabits Mar-a-Largo.  Memory hole?  You are the one that degraded my Vietnam military service a few years ago.  I suggest sir, you banter with those on the level that you inhabit.  You are out of your league.

This will be our last conversation.  You can join the Texan.  

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
4.1.6  bbl-1  replied to  JBB @4.1.4    one month ago

You may be replying to a Russian bot.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
4.1.7  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.3    one month ago
Joe Biden's  decades long history of lying

(Yea, opinion, but dispute them? We'll wait). 

If you want to talk about lying politicians and deflect to Biden? Hey, lets do it...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  bbl-1 @4.1.5    one month ago

He has also changed his stances on issues due to changing circumstance

you think that’s what I’m talking about? The guy has lied about everything in his life. He’s lied about his jobs, he lied about how his family died, he lied about his his family being coal miners, he lied about his athletic career, he’s lied about being under fire, he’s lied about his education, he lied about his grades, he plagiarized papers in school, he plagiarized speeches, he lied about protesting, he lied about being arrested, he lied about confronting other polticans…

He’s lied about his entire life. And the Democratic shills don't care.. But boy, are they mad at Santos for lying about his background.

It's really funny to anyone who's brain isn't broken by partisanship.   

You are the one that degraded my Vietnam military service a few years ago

that's a lie. The only thing I know about you is you constantly spout insane conspiracy theories ( Helsinki!) and believe Hillary Clinton stole the 2016 election.  Loony tune shit.  If you say you served in Vietnam I have no reason to doubt it, but  it also doesn’t  give you free reign to lie and spout wild conspiracies without consequences.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.7    one month ago

I agree, trump and Biden are serial liars. Two peas in a pod.

But shill, shill for your hero Biden.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  bbl-1 @4.1.6    one month ago

You may be replying to a Russian bot.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @4.1.4    one month ago

Could you miss the point by a bigger margin?

Do you admit Biden’s lied about his background and accomplishments for decades?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1.12  seeder  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.11    one month ago

On January 3rd President Biden will have held the highest offices in the US  (Senator, Vice President and President of the United States of America) for Fifty years...

Well, except for Jan 2017 till Jan 2021.

What does Joe have to compensate for?

How long has Santos been in Congress?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @4.1.12    one month ago
hat does he have to compensate for?

Good  question!  What  psychological issues have caused Biden  to constantly lie about every aspect of his  life for years? 

How long has Santos been in Congress?

You are correct. He doesn't have the decades long record of lying about his life like Biden does. He's a piker just getting started!  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1.14  seeder  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.13    one month ago

Now you are just talking smack...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @4.1.14    one month ago

Why is  it so difficult for you to admit the obvious, that Biden’s lied about his background for decades?  that’s literally what he was famous for. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
4.1.16  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.10    one month ago

all looking for moose and squirrel ....

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  bbl-1 @4.1.2    one month ago

He's too brainwashed to even understand at this point

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.1.18  Trout Giggles  replied to  bbl-1 @4.1.5    one month ago

I applaud you

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
4.2  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    one month ago
Biden

Not even the subject of the article. You [deleted just cannot accept reality.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @4.2    one month ago

I have no problem accepting reality. This guy is a liar. Kick him out of congress I don’t give a shit..

you can’t cope with the reality of Biden’s lying, hence the lashing out and deflection to trump.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
4.3  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    one month ago
Biden

His name is Santos actually. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
5  bbl-1    one month ago

Satos is the perfect GOP flotsam dude, falling in with the, "I'm like a really smart guy," crowd.  Quote from DJT.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6  Mark in Wyoming     one month ago

Well as the departed Harry Reid once said when confronted about lying to get a piece of legislation passed in the senate after it passed  ," it worked didnt it ?"

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
6.1  MrFrost  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6    one month ago
Harry Reid

So, you are talking about George Santos right? 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  MrFrost @6.1    one month ago

No, he is not! And, it is pretty obvious why...

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.1.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  MrFrost @6.1    one month ago

i AM talking about politicians  in general , and how lying has been set as a precedent to get their goals , HRs was to get apiece of legislation passed , so he lied about it and it got passed , it was found out he lied and was confronted , his indifference to the fact he lied to get what he wanted was shown in his response , it worked .

 same can be said of santos , it worked , it got him elected . The voters and the opposition party didnt do their due diligence in vetting who they were running against or voting for , that , is on them .

 IF lying  were grounds for removal , then there would be no politicians in DC from either party . and big government would grind to a standstill IMHO.

 Seems to me , SOME people are ticked off a page was taken from their playbook , used against them and they lost because of it .

 As i said to buzz when he asked if the guy can be recalled or the voters get another election , depends on the state , it seems NY doesnt have any provisions to recall or hold another election on the federal level , as in the case in most all the states  , otherwise the dems wouldnt be calling for his resignation ( then they MIGHT get another election)  not realizing even if he resigns , that the party org in the state  he is affiliated with gets to choose who  could possibly replace him , either way a rep won the seat , a rep will remain in the seat . Again that is dependent on the states constitution and its laws , but thats generally how it works .

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.1.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.2    one month ago

Now , if i were a member of the NY state republican party( I am neither a republican , nor do i live in NYS) , i would already be telling party leaders to have a list of 3 people from the party to give to the govenor ( that is who would ultimately choose this guys replacement if it came to that unless state law dictates otherwise  )ready with already vetted individuals with not a hint of any impropriety in their histories .

How do i come to this conclusion? if someone dies in office , resigns or is removed , the party they are affiliated with chooses who is to replace them from the state they were elected to represent  . 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.1.4  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  JBB @6.1.1    one month ago
And, it is pretty obvious why...

do tell.

 (i cant wait  for this one )

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7  JohnRussell    one month ago

There are only a couple comments in this entire 38 comment seed that address the issue of George Santos, The rest of them are just the normal everyday whining from the right that we get all the time.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
7.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @7    one month ago

He’s a liar and a fraud.  How many ways or times do you want to read that?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @7    one month ago

Certain folks pollute a lot of good articles here with their projection, deflection, denial and trolling

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
7.2.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @7.2    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
8  Drinker of the Wry    one month ago

Like all Congressional candidates, Santos filed a report of his finances with the clerk of the House. If he lied on this report, the DoJ could pursue criminal penalties. Fines up to $250K and or up to five years in prison. to the guide. 

Perhaps the next move is Garlands.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
9  Hal A. Lujah    one month ago

Probably the biggest whopper to come out of this guy’s mouth was when he said he was embarrassed about being caught.  Like so many other contemporary Republicans, this guy does not know shame.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
9.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @9    one month ago

At another point in the interview, Gabbard asked Santos, “Do you have no shame?”

He didn’t answer and immediately pivoted to attacking Democrats.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @9.1    one month ago

When he was asked about HIS lying, he literally blamed the Democrats and Joe Biden. 

He may be a fraud, but he knows where his bread is buttered. 

There are actually people on this forum who believe that Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are as big or bigger liars than Trump. Nothing on earth can save these people. 

Unfortunately, on Newstalkers, we are supposed to "debate" them. It is beyond ridiculous. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
10  Drinker of the Wry    one month ago
Like so many other contemporary Republicans, this guy does not know shame.

Did you mean guilt instead of shame which many liberals find to be an unhealthy feeling?  Shame is, I am bad. Guilt is, I did something bad.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
10.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @10    one month ago

The difference between pickaune and pedantic?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
10.1.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @10.1    one month ago

Not to many in the mental health industry.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
11  Sean Treacy    one month ago

Here’s Biden throwing out a blizzard of lies  about his background in 88. The way the media reacted to his lies in 88 compared to now is telling. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
11.1  Tacos!  replied to  Sean Treacy @11    one month ago
The way the media reacted to his lies in 88 compared to now is telling. 

Isn’t that amazing? Back then, it not only ruined his presidential aspirations, he was a laughing stock in the media. Sadly, his constituents in Delaware were unfazed and kept reelecting him to the Senate, and 30+ years later, most of the rest of the country has decided they don’t give a shit either.

The thing is, it was not necessary. Graduating from college is impressive enough. One degree is fine. You don’t need “three.” Same with law school. Unless you’re applying for a job with some big firm, right out of school, no one cares if you were in the top or bottom half of your class. Lies like this create more bad impressions than any good they could ever generate.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
12  Tacos!    one month ago

A lot of people do this. It’s sad and pathetic. Don’t lie about who you are or what you’ve done.

I guess people think their lie will impress people, but you never what will impress people. Maybe they would have liked you because of - or in spite of - your perceived “shortcomings.” And maybe your lie will still not be good enough.

What most voters really like is someone they can relate to as a real person, not a fake.

 
 

Who is online



Vic Eldred
devangelical
George
Sean Treacy
Texan1211
Ronin2
Snuffy
Greg Jones


30 visitors