Republican Representative-Elect George Santos Admits To Fabricating His Work, Education, and Family Background History During election. Says He's "Not a Criminal" and Intends to Fully Serve Term.

[I_M4_AU 7,819]

2 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I'd trust a "socialist" who has lived in the real world and struggled and has to do real work over a Capitalist who Inherited their wealth from family and have had all their opportunities handed to them on a platter. 

You really believe those are the two extremes?  I wouldn’t necessarily think an inheritance is a guarantee of success.  They would have to do something with their life before people should believe what they are selling.  A good example of coming from money and having no clue is John Kerry and he just married money.

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

16 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You really believe those are the two extremes?  I wouldn’t necessarily think an inheritance is a guarantee of success.

It depends on how you define success I guess. Being born into wealth normally gives a person access to education, job opportunities and most importantly connections to other wealthy or powerful people that 99% of people do not have access to. 

Being born into wealth is...as the saying goes being born on 3rd base...It doesn't guarantee you'll run in for a score, but it does give you vastly greater odds than the 99% of the rest of us who are born at the plate and have to learn and earn everything on the fly through hardwork and a lot of luck. 

 

Coming from wealth does also usually guarantee that even if you completely flop in life and make terrible decisions, or decide you just don't want to work at anything, you'll never be homeless or truly struggle....your family and money will protect you from dumb decisions most of the time. 

16 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

.  A good example of coming from money and having no clue is John Kerry and he just married money.

Again, I don't know how you define "success", but Kerry served IN Vietnam receiving MULTIPLE combat injuries and medals.  He's had a very active and highly decorated political career too. 

He didn't marry his super rich wife till he was in his 50's I think? 

 

Edited December 29, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[aubiefifty 16,791]

19 hours ago, Tigermike said:

I too served during the Vietnam war and not once have I ever misspoke about being in Vietnam when in fact I wasn't.   Blumenthal is a liar and also guilty of stolen valor.  Make excuses for him if you want.

 

this is why i say i am a five point nam vet versus a ten point nam vet. you would think people would know the difference.

[Tigermike 3,027]

Unlike this guy that has you so worked up, here's a lie that will affect all of you. 

 

[AUFAN78 3,895]

On 12/28/2022 at 4:50 PM, CoffeeTiger said:

It makes Blumenthal's "controversy" look very minor in comparison. Blumenthal was criticized for saying that he served "IN" Vietnam in one or two public speeches he made, when in reality he did not ever go to Vietnam, but instead served DURING the Vietnam era. He acknowledged that he had mispoken a couple of times on that fact and that he shouldn't have ever said he was in vietnam. He also apparently never listed on a resume or on documents or on websites that he served in vietnam....and he was recorded in instances before the controversy as honestly saying he never served in Vietnam in past political talks.

Stolen Valor is a crime. Let's not try to downplay it's seriousness. 

[TexasTiger 12,862]

[I_M4_AU 7,819]

3 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

It depends on how you define success I guess. Being born into wealth normally gives a person access to education, job opportunities and most importantly connections to other wealthy or powerful people that 99% of people do not have access to. 

Being born into wealth is...as the saying goes being born on 3rd base...It doesn't guarantee you'll run in for a score, but it does give you vastly greater odds than the 99% of the rest of us who are born at the plate and have to learn and earn everything on the fly through hardwork and a lot of luck. 

 

Coming from wealth does also usually guarantee that even if you completely flop in life and make terrible decisions, or decide you just don't want to work at anything, you'll never be homeless or truly struggle....your family and money will protect you from dumb decisions most of the time. 

I was not born of money, but I wouldn’t change anything about my life as the journey was great.  I feel a little sorry for those that don’t get to struggle and make something out of nothing.  If you don’t have gratitude you are only left with resentment.

Yes money does come with privilege, but if you are to succeed you will need more than that if you are to be taken seriously. Now, a person can be enabled by their wealthy parents, but it does them no good in the end.

As for John Kerry, in 1971 he was permanently put on the same level as Jane Fonda for me.  If you want to protest, that’s great, but why say our soldiers were committing war crimes while the war was raging?  JMO.

[jj3jordan 2,052]

5 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

It depends on how you define success I guess. Being born into wealth normally gives a person access to education, job opportunities and most importantly connections to other wealthy or powerful people that 99% of people do not have access to. 

Being born into wealth is...as the saying goes being born on 3rd base...It doesn't guarantee you'll run in for a score, but it does give you vastly greater odds than the 99% of the rest of us who are born at the plate and have to learn and earn everything on the fly through hardwork and a lot of luck. 

 

Coming from wealth does also usually guarantee that even if you completely flop in life and make terrible decisions, or decide you just don't want to work at anything, you'll never be homeless or truly struggle....your family and money will protect you from dumb decisions most of the time. 

Again, I don't know how you define "success", but Kerry served IN Vietnam receiving MULTIPLE combat injuries and medals.  He's had a very active and highly decorated political career too. 

He didn't marry his super rich wife till he was in his 50's I think? 

 

Kerry was a traitor. He fired his swift boat weapon inside minimum range at an already dead vehicle, fragged himself because he got too close, then put himself in for a Purple Heart. That’s insulting to all who served and were wounded in combat.

[homersapien 11,373]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/29/george-santos-gop-deserves-representative-elect/

In George Santos, the GOP gets the representative-elect it deserves

By Eugene Robinson

December 29, 2022

 

Sooner or later, the Republican Party’s devolution was bound to saddle GOP leaders with someone exactly like Rep.-elect George Santos of New York: a glib, successful candidate for high office who turns out to be pure fantasy with zero substance.

Santos, 34, who helped give Republicans their slim House majority by winning an open Long Island seat previously held by a Democrat, has admitted to “embellishing” his résumé and using a “poor choice of words” in touting his credentials. Those are understatements akin to calling the Amazon a creek or the Grand Canyon a ditch.

After initial reporting by the New York Times, journalists have discovered that, basically, Santos’s whole life story — as he sold it to voters — is a lie. He did not attend the exclusive Horace Mann Prep school in the Bronx, according to school officials. He did not graduate from Baruch College, as he had claimed. He did not climb the ladder of Wall Street success via Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, as he boasted. He is not “a proud American Jew,” as he wrote in a campaign document seeking support from pro-Israel groups, but instead considers himself “Jew-ish, as in ‘ish.’” Which apparently means not being Jewish at all.

Those are just a few of the acknowledged or apparent lies Santos told. He presented himself as the made-for-television incarnation of the vitality and diversity the Republican Party would like to project: a handsome gay Latino man, wealthy and self-made, whose very existence refuted the charge that today’s GOP shamelessly panders to racism and bigotry.

With that existence now revealed to be an illusion — with the “George Santos” voters elected shown to be a fictional character — most leading figures in the GOP have been silent. One exception is Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), who defended him with tweets acknowledging that Santos lied but accusing “the left” of lying, too, although most of the examples she cited were not lies at all. “The left said George Floyd didn’t die of a drug overdose, they lied,” she wrote. Fact check: Floyd was murdered, and a jury convicted former police officer Derek Chauvin of the crime.

Some Democrats have called for Santos not to be seated in the new Congress; others have called for an immediate House Ethics Committee investigation. GOP leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), hoping for Santos’s vote to help him be elected House speaker, has offered no comment as to what steps, if any, the incoming Republican majority might take.

The most honest thing House Republicans could do, in my view, is welcome Santos with open arms. The party embarked on the path of make-believe politics long before Santos came onto the scene. All he did was expand the frontier.

For me, the key moment came when Republicans decided not to write a platform for the 2020 presidential election — when, in effect, they refused to tell voters what they would do if elected. They pledged only to enact whatever policies President Donald Trump might propose, ceding their political philosophy to a man who, by Post count, told more than 30,000 lies during his four years in the White House.

The party can’t blame it all on Trump, though. In today’s GOP, a leading figure such as Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) — a cum laude graduate of Princeton University and a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School who clerked for Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist — routinely rails against smarty-pants “elites” who supposedly look down on regular folks like him.

Greene and others have shown that the way to prominence in the party is not through legislative or administrative accomplishments but via attention-grabbing displays of performative outrage. If you can “own the libs” on Fox News and on Twitter, you can raise a lot of campaign cash; and if you can raise tons of money, you can have tons of power. What does it matter if what you say has no grounding in fact? By the time you get called on it, you’re off to the next over-the-top statement.

Santos’s carapace of lies is so elaborate and encompassing that it may suggest psychological issues we should hope he gets help in addressing. And there are serious legal questions about the source of $700,000 he reported lending to his campaign, with both local and federal prosecutors now said to be investigating.

But his idea of building a political career in the Republican Party on sharp-edged rhetoric and audacious lies was hardly original. Santos just took that routine further than his soon-to-be colleagues have done. We’ve had lots of metaphorical empty suits in Congress over the years. Now comes the emptiest yet.

[DKW 86 7,423]

George Santos should run to replace trump as Head of MAGA...

This guy needs serious psychiatric help, just like trump.

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

15 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Stolen Valor is a crime. Let's not try to downplay it's seriousness. 

 

The crime of Stolen Valor applies only when a person falsely claims to have received a medal or military award for the purpose of receiving money or other tangible benefit. That's not what Blumenthal did.

It's not a crime to misspeak or to even lie about serving in any war or theater of war. 

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

12 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Kerry was a traitor. He fired his swift boat weapon inside minimum range at an already dead vehicle, fragged himself because he got too close, then put himself in for a Purple Heart. That’s insulting to all who served and were wounded in combat.

I've tried looking it up, but I can find no claim or proof that Kerry "put himself in for a purple heart" and a Navy review says that ALL of Kerry's medals were properly awarded and followed correct protocol, 

https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-17-kerry-navy-awards_x.htm 

 

Isn't it more insulting to veterans to claim that their wounds or military awards aren't valid decades later because you don't like their politics? 

 

 

 

[TexasTiger 12,862]

12 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Kerry was a traitor. He fired his swift boat weapon inside minimum range at an already dead vehicle, fragged himself because he got too close, then put himself in for a Purple Heart. That’s insulting to all who served and were wounded in combat.

You’re deeply, deeply disturbed.

[TexasTiger 12,862]

33 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

Isn't it more insulting to veterans to claim that their wounds or military awards aren't valid decades later because you don't like their politics? 

 

 

 

It’s downright unAmerican. 

[I_M4_AU 7,819]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

George Santos should run to replace trump as Head of MAGA...

Only if he claimed to graduate at the top of his class from Trump University.  

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

13 hours ago, homersapien said:

 

Greene and others have shown that the way to prominence in the party is not through legislative or administrative accomplishments but via attention-grabbing displays of performative outrage. If you can “own the libs” on Fox News and on Twitter, you can raise a lot of campaign cash; and if you can raise tons of money, you can have tons of power. What does it matter if what you say has no grounding in fact? By the time you get called on it, you’re off to the next over-the-top statement.

 

If Santos is able to use this controversy to convince Conservatives that he's a victim of the mean, evil , liberal mainstream media then his career in GOP politics may be far from over if he gets monetary and donor support behind him and gets his face on enough interviews through Fox/OAN/Newsmax. 

 

Santos's biggest issue is that he's in a 'purple' district that's historically been Democrat so his next election looks very much in doubt.. Santos would need to move to a solid R district if he wants to have a hope of re-election. 

[SaltyTiger 7,798]

On 12/28/2022 at 12:00 AM, CoffeeTiger said:

I can’t name you one person period who has never lied in their life. 

Been thinking hard about this since Wednesday…..finally remembered the time as I told my mom it was not me that broke my little brothers push popper’s handle. 
 

Guys a real fabricator and exaggerator. 

[Auburn85 432]

https://www.mediaite.com/news/local-outlet-broke-george-santos-scandal-in-september-but-no-one-noticed-until-nyt-reported-it-after-the-election/

 

 

Quote

 

Local Outlet Broke George Santos Scandal in September, But No One Noticed Until NYT Report — AFTER the Election

A local outlet broke part of the scandal surrounding Rep.-elect George Santos (R-NY) in September, but the candidate’s problems with truth did not go viral until a The New York Times report after the election.

The North Shore Leader, based in Long Island, reported on Santos’ questionable finances that included claiming a net worth of $11 million.

The outlet’s managing editor, Maureen Daly, wrote:

Two years ago, in 2020, Santos’ personal financial disclosures claimed that he had no assets over $5,000 – no bank accounts, no stock accounts, no real property. A net worth barely above “zero”.

And his income was only just over $50,000 for the prior year, derived from a venture fund called “Harbor Hill Capital,” that was closed and seized in 2020 by US federal prosecutors as a “Ponzi Scheme.” Santos was the New York Director of that “fund.”

Now, in a filing dated September 6th, 2022, Santos claims his assets are now as much as $11 million, including personal bank accounts of between $1 million and $5 million; a Condo in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, of between $500,000 and $1 million; and business interests of between $1 million and $5 million.

The Times, which did not credit The North Shore Leader, reported those details and other discrepancies from his education to business background on Dec. 19. Santos is under state and federal investigation and is the subject of a House Ethics probe. Santos has apologized but has rebuffed calls for his resignation.

 

 

[jj3jordan 2,052]

4 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

You’re deeply, deeply disturbed.

How so?  Kerry tossed his medals out according to him. Then we find out they weren’t actually his they were just medals. How does that make me disturbed?

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

36 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

How so?  Kerry tossed his medals out according to him. Then we find out they weren’t actually his they were just medals. How does that make me disturbed?

I think he's saying you declaring a military veterans injuries and medals to be invalid because you don't like him politically is what is disturbing. 

[jj3jordan 2,052]

31 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I think he's saying you declaring a military veterans injuries and medals to be invalid because you don't like him politically is what is disturbing. 

I would call that injury illegitimate yes. And it was very minor. Yet he got himself the same Purple Heart as a soldier who actually fought the enemy. Then he pretended to throw them away all the while keeping his medals. How disingenuous can you get? Then called our troops Ghengis Khans. Sorry but I am not the disturbed one here.  He gets zero respect and that is what he deserves.

[AUFAN78 3,895]

6 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

The crime of Stolen Valor applies only when a person falsely claims to have received a medal or military award for the purpose of receiving money or other tangible benefit. That's not what Blumenthal did.

It's not a crime to misspeak or to even lie about serving in any war or theater of war. 

 

 

 

crime

 

an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law.

"shoplifting was a serious crime"

• illegal activities.

  "the victims of crime"

   
• an action or activity that, although not illegal, is considered to be evil, shameful, or wrong.

  "they condemned apartheid as a crime against humanity"

[AUFAN78 3,895]

3 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

crime

 

an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law.

"shoplifting was a serious crime"

• illegal activities.

  "the victims of crime"

   
• an action or activity that, although not illegal, is considered to be evil, shameful, or wrong.

  "they condemned apartheid as a crime against humanity"

What is stolen valor? There are many examples but the basic definition includes the act of falsely claiming military service, falsely claiming a certain rank which was not earned, and can also include the wear or claim of certain military awards or decorations that were never actually awarded.

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

32 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

crime

 

an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law.

"shoplifting was a serious crime"

• illegal activities.

  "the victims of crime"

   
• an action or activity that, although not illegal, is considered to be evil, shameful, or wrong.

  "they condemned apartheid as a crime against humanity"

I'm going off what the US government says. 

https://www.archives.gov/oig/military-records-fraud-fact-sheet

Isn’t it always a crime to lie about military service?

In general, no.  While it may be morally reprehensible, it is usually not a crime.  However, the Stolen Valor Act of 2013 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/258) makes it a crime for someone to claim they received certain medals to obtain money, property, or some other tangible benefit.  The law only bars false claims about certain military awards, including the Purple Heart, Bronze Star, and a few others; and ONLY when someone makes a false claim about them to gain money or some tangible benefit from a crime.  Someone falsely claiming military service to brag or impress others is not a crime.  However, our office can investigate other crimes as long as it involves forging, altering, or misusing records from NARA in some way.

Edited December 30, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[AUFAN78 3,895]

24 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I'm going off what the US government says. 

https://www.archives.gov/oig/military-records-fraud-fact-sheet

Isn’t it always a crime to lie about military service?

In general, no.  While it may be morally reprehensible, it is usually not a crime.  However, the Stolen Valor Act of 2013 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/258) makes it a crime for someone to claim they received certain medals to obtain money, property, or some other tangible benefit.  The law only bars false claims about certain military awards, including the Purple Heart, Bronze Star, and a few others; and ONLY when someone makes a false claim about them to gain money or some tangible benefit from a crime.  Someone falsely claiming military service to brag or impress others is not a crime.  However, our office can investigate other crimes as long as it involves forging, altering, or misusing records from NARA in some way.

Understood. But as is stated in the in the 2nd sentence above, it is morally reprehensible. The next statement states it is usually not a crime, which I suppose they are thinking in a prosecutorial sense. Regardless, morally reprehensible squares with the true definition of crime I posted.