George Santos won’t seek re-election after ethics panel finds he ‘blatantly stole’ from campaign, ‘deceived donors’
Lying Long Island Rep. George Santos leveraged “every aspect” of his successful 2022 House campaign for personal profit, according to a damning new report from the House Committee on Ethics released Thursday.
An hour after the report came out, the 35-year-old announced he would not seek re-election next year, writing on X that “my family deserves better than to be under the gun from the press all the time.”
“I will not stand by as I am stoned by those who have flaws themselves,” Santos wrote.
The ethics panel did not make specific recommendations on action against the already indicted Santos, but it did refer its evidence to the Justice Department.
The committee emphatically declared that the Republican lawmaker “cannot be trusted” and his conduct “warrants public condemnation, is beneath the dignity of the office, and has brought severe discredit upon the House.”
Santos had been under investigation by the 10-member ethics panel since February. He has been adamant that he will not step down from Congress regardless of the findings against him.
Earlier this month, Santos survived an expulsion effort championed by six of his fellow House Republicans from New York.
Rep. Michael Guest (R-Miss.), who chairs the ethics committee, said Thursday he plans to furnish another motion to expel Santos, which the House is expected to consider after its Thanksgiving recess.
In his lengthy response to the report, Santos raged that the Ethics Committee “went to extraordinary lengths to smear myself and my legal team about me not being forthcoming (My legal bills suggest otherwise).
“It is a disgusting politicized smear that shows the depths of how low our federal government has sunk,” he added. “Everyone who participated in this grave miscarriage of Justice should all be ashamed of themselves.”
Campaign finance violations
In public, Santos has faulted his former campaign treasurer, Nancy Marks, for submitting false reports to the Federal Election Commission.
But the panel concluded that “Santos was heavily involved in the day-to-day financial operations of his campaign.”
“All of the campaign staff the [investigative subcommittee] spoke with testified that Representative Santos had a close relationship with Ms. Marks,” the report said.
Some staffers raised questions to Santos about Marks’ timeliness and reporting practices, but Santos allegedly shrugged that off and deemed her “‘untouchable,’ ostensibly to continue the schemes they had undertaken.”
Marks has since entered a guilty plea to fraud conspiracy, telling prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York last month that she and Santos falsified financial reports to say that the rep loaned his own campaign $500,000 — despite his bank accounts registering less than $8,000 at the time.
The ex-treasurer also said she furnished a fake list of Santos campaign donors to the FEC.
The Long Island lawmaker is facing a 23-count indictment, including charges of embezzlement and lying to Congress.
He has denied many of the accusations or insisted he made innocent mistakes and that prosecutors with the Eastern District of New York have been heavy-handed.
Santos has also publicly insisted he was not familiar with the FEC filing system, but the report cited emails in which he questioned Marks about why “certain deposits were not reported on the campaign’s FEC reports.”
In one of the more striking findings, the investigators alleged that Santos was paid at least $200,000 across 2022 by a Florida-based company, RedStone Strategies, where he was “managing director,” that purportedly offered “political services” including “digital consulting and fundraising” as well as “compliance consulting.”
In one egregious example of self-dealing, Santos told a campaign staffer in April of that year to wire $6,000 to RedStone, telling the person: “It’s for ads that we were supposed to pay and I forgot.”
The $6,000 was later sent to Santos’ checking account, which investigators reported had just $136.93 in it at the time, and was used to pay the then-House candidate’s credit card balances.
That October, $50,000 sent to RedStone by two Santos contributors was sent to his account and used on, among other items, “a $4,127.80 purchase at Hermes; and for smaller purchases at Only Fans; Sephora; and for meals and for parking,” the report said.
Around the time that the ethics panel commenced its inquiry, Santos publicly vowed, “I’m going to comply 100%” with it.
“Despite his public assurances, Representative Santos provided limited documents to [investigators], often following lengthy delays,” the report said.
“While it is not uncommon for respondents to require additional time to gather information to respond to requests from the Committee, it is clear to the [investigative subcommittee] that Representative Santos’ claim that he would cooperate with the investigation was just another falsehood.”
Outstanding material that investigators still want from Santos include internal communications with his staff during his 2020 and 2022 campaigns, a declaration attesting to the accuracy of the material he’s provided, and testimony from him personally.
Sexual misconduct
In a rare bit of good news for Santos, investigators dismissed allegations that he engaged in sexual misconduct against a man who briefly worked in his congressional office.
That unnamed individual, who was dubbed “Witness 10” in the report, but who identified himself publicly as former journalist Derek Myers, had his employment rescinded on Feb. 1, purportedly due to concerns “about then-pending felony wiretapping charges against him.”
Two days later, Myers filed a complaint alleging that Santos had engaged in sexual misconduct days earlier while they were “going over mail correspondence from constituents.”
According to Myers, Santos initially invited him to karaoke with other staffers. When the aide declined, Santos allegedly touched Myers’ groin and told him: “My husband is out of town tonight if you want to come over.”
Ultimately, investigators were “unable to substantiate this allegation” and found testimony from witnesses that contradicted the accusations.
Moreover, the investigative subcommittee found concerns about Myers’ motivation and credibility, citing inconsistencies in his testimony.
Conflicts of interest
Another area of concern for investigators was Santos’ Devolder Organization LLC consulting firm.
Congressional rules prohibit members from “receiv[ing] compensation for affiliating with or being employed by a firm … or other entity which provides professional services involving a fiduciary relationship.”
“Because Representative Santos has not meaningfully cooperated with the … review, [investigators were] unable to determine whether Devolder Organization has provided fiduciary services since Representative Santos began serving in Congress,” read the report.
Investigators also flagged concerns about Santos’ legal counsel, Joseph Murray, who may have had a personal and professional relationship with Marks and a staffer in Santos’ office.
“This individual was the office manager of Mr. Murray’s law firm, while also serving as a constituent services representative in the district office,” the report said.
“The [committee] did not receive any information about whether the individual’s employment was intended as some form of compensation for Representative Santos’ counsel’s criminal defense services.”
Santos has been engulfed in controversy following revelations late last year that he lied about vast swaths of his personal backstory, including his education, previous employment and family background.
“George Santos has disgraced the institution of the United States House of Representatives and deceived neighbors who comprise his Congressional District,” Nassau GOP chairman Joe Cairo told The Post in a statement. “The Nassau County Republican Committee has repeatedly declared that Mr. Santos has no future in the Nassau Republican Party. Additionally, the Nassau GOP supports the expulsion of George Santos in the best interest of Congress and the constituents of the 3rd District.”
Additional reporting by Carl Campanile
