The big question is what's Moronic Kevin McCarthy going to do?
"I'll look at the charges," McCarthy said.
Sleazy Santos will play the Trumpish delay game. Could be 1/2025 before there's a verdict.
No one seriously expects Sleazy Santos to win in 2024, if he even runs.
SINO McCarthy can't demand a resignation or push for impeachment because the NY Gov and the people of Nassau County are certain to replace Sleazy Santos with a Dem.
So, my guess is that SINO McCarthy does nothing of consequence, other than maybe uselessly whining the RW dog whistle, "Why not Hunter, too?
Sad, but most likely accurate.
There was a time, fairly recently where being under multiple federal indictments would be a death knell for a politician even from it's own party.
Another trump legacy.
We now know the long list of deplorable deeds that Sleazy Santos is charged with, SINO.
Along with "freedom of speech" one of the most misunderstood phrases in American english is "innocent until proven guilty." No, it does not mean anybody really thinks a person charged with a crime is innocent. If they thought he was innocent, they wouldn't bring charges. It simply means that in a court it is the prosecutions job to prove their case, not the defendant's job to prove their innocence. A more accurate phrasing would be "in a court of law, the judge and jury will assume the defendant not to be guilty until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt by the state." But things get shortened, misunderstood and distorted until you have some clown saying "innocent until proven guilty" on issues that the defendant has essentially admitted to. Is there any reasonable doubt whatsoever that Santos lied about a bunch of significant stuff? No. So who has to "assume him innocent"? Only the court. Only the court. Everybody else can consider him guilty guilty guilty.
Along with "freedom of speech" one of the most misunderstood phrases in American english is "innocent until proven guilty." No, it does not mean anybody really thinks a person charged with a crime is innocent. If they thought he was innocent, they wouldn't bring charges. It simply means that in a court it is the prosecutions job to prove their case, not the defendant's job to prove their innocence. A more accurate phrasing would be "in a court of law, the judge and jury will assume the defendant not to be guilty until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt by the state." But things get shortened, misunderstood and distorted until you have some clown saying "innocent until proven guilty" on issues that the defendant has essentially admitted to. Is there any reasonable doubt whatsoever that Santos lied about a bunch of significant stuff? No. So who has to "assume him innocent"? Only the court. Only the court. Everybody else can consider him guilty guilty guilty.
Hell, it's the same phenomena with trump.....just accuse him of something and the cult goes apoplectic over it. Convict him and they go berserk. At the same time they haul out these accusations about everybody in Biden's family without a hint of any evidence. For years it's been Hunter Biden, now it's the whole fucking family.But they give nary a thought that the entire trump family might be, and has been, corrupt for fifty years. Starting before the patriarch died.
... After reporters pressed him on whether it was time for Santos to leave Congress, McCarthy dismissed the idea.
“He will go through his time in trial and let’s find out how the outcome is,” according to CNN reporter Haley Talbot....
Rough day for the party of law and order.
... Back in January, when Santos was first sworn into Congress and there were multiple reports on his pattern of lies, McCarthy told reporters about the conditions under which he might ask the congressman to resign.
“If for some way when we go through Ethics and he has broken the law, then we will remove him,” McCarthy said, adding, “He has a responsibility to uphold what they voted for, to work and have their voice here, but at any time, if it rises to a legal level, we will deal with it then.”
Roll Call 217 | Bill Number: H. Res. 114 May 17, 2023, 05:34 PM | 118th Congress, 1st Session
Vote Question: On Motion to Refer
In the matter of George Santos Vote Type: Yea-And-Nay Status: Passed
VOTES
yea: 221, all RepuQs
nay: 204, all Dems
present: 7, all Dems
not voting: 3
Not Voting
RepuQs 1
Dems 2, including Clyburn, South Carolina
... Bowman was joined by his fellow New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY), who mostly just laughed at the spectacle. But Santos himself didn't stick around long once Bowman's shouting began....
Bowman went on to squabble with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) immediately thereafter, shouting back and forth over guns, immigration and Santos, before Ocasio-Cortez walked up and told Bowman, “She aint worth it bro.”
"The Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section is committed to rooting out fraud and corruption, especially when committed by our elected officials,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite, Jr. of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “As alleged, Santos engaged in criminal conduct intended to deceive and defraud the American public. As this indictment reflects, the Department of Justice will hold accountable anyone who engages in such criminality.”' unless it's trump
How quickly the doj pounces when it's not trump's more serious crimes.
I can't know, but it wouldn't be that surprising for two longtime working class NY residents to own homes/condos that are now worth a total of $500K or more that they can put up as bail or collateral for bond, or for them to scrape together $50K for the bail bondsperson. Or, it's money from his many cons that Sleazy Santos stashed with dad and aunt.
Supposedly they didn't have to put up any cash, just guarantee the bond - likely with their houses. Wouldn't surprise me if Sleazy Santos bolts and screws them both.
