comment: >
  
  This is actually probably one of the more normal political things Santos has done tbh
context: He'd also spend exactly $199.99 at a time there, just below the level requiring preservation of receipts.  
  
  Santos, it should be said, is really good at spending just $199.99 almost everywhere he goes—his financial disclosure forms show him spending that exact amount at a Hyatt Orlando (in July 2021), on Delta Airlines and at BJ’s Wholesale (August 2021), at Target and on “Uber” (October 2021), and at many other establishments or services including W Hotel South Beach, JFK Parking, Best Buy, Walgreens, and the TSA line-skipping company Clear.
  
  I ate at the Italian restaurant where Santos is often, for some reason, spending exactly $199.99.
  The improbability of George Santos’ $199 expenses >
  
  The $199 expenses only total about $7,400 (out of $2.6 million) - but I bet if they looked closer they'd find a ton of sub$200 expenses (more than normal).  I'm sure they padded the hell out of it and stole a hell of a lot more than $7,400 - they were just stupid enough to list 37 of them right at the limit. >
  
  Yeah I read they compared it to like 5,000 other campaign finance reports, and barely any other campaigns had any transactions below the threshold. The ones who did only had one or two, and always differing amounts. Not $199.99 37 times. You have to be a special kind of dumb to do that and think it won't get noticed eventually. >
  
  I don't know...would anyone have gone through Santos's filings if he lost?
  I'm starting to think that his campaign was really just a big money laundering operation and he won by mistake.
  Like The Producers, he could have gotten away with the con if he hadn't succeeded. >
  
  I 100% believe that. I don't think he thought he would ever win, and decided to take a play out of old Donny's playbook and commit to the grift as long as possible. 
  But the million question is where did the money come from. Dude didn't have a penny to his name before like 2 years ago, and there's no way in hell I believe he raised it. Someone (or someplace) backed him. >
  
  Here’s what I consider the Occam’s razor of the situation:
  Santos did the small-time grift of losing candidate in a race heavily favoured for the other party. He’d done this before- and lost. Lots of people do this. You get to have the clout of an official candidate and maybe can make a little money off the whole thing.
  However, someone saw the potential for him to win this time. They invested heavily in him through backdoor means, and essentially bought him. It was most likely the Russians. 
  Meanwhile, George either didn’t realise he actually might win thus causing much more attention on his campaign and finances or, more likely, he decided he liked the idea of winning too and thought he was smart enough to know how to properly hide all the bad stuff. 
  Whoever funded/bought him did NOT do a good job of exposing to him how to launder the money and stuff like that properly. So he’s over there thinking he’s being super clever at all this while making terribly elementary mistakes. 
  He won, causing attention for defying odds. But then, what his backers couldn’t have expected is that he would get not only that attention but much more extreme attention for being exposed as a pathological liar. 
  If things in the house hadn’t been so close, republicans may have forced him to resign because he’s even too much even for them. But McCarthy needed him so George got extremely lucky (or unlucky as this all happening is what led to the rest coming to light). This made the already extreme attention on him ridiculously, incredibly extreme, with everyone wanting to find new lies and check into every aspect of him, especially and including things like his campaign finances. 
  Thus, he’s getting caught now because of these very unlikely sequences of events. If all this hadn’t happened, he still may have got away with it as people would’ve never investigated him in the first place if he’d lost, and would’ve bored of investigating him if he’d resigned fairly quickly. >
  
  While I agree that this is a plausible explanation, I think you need to reread about Occam's Razor.  It's the idea of preferring the explanation with the fewest assumptions. >
  
  So what's the explanation requiring the fewest amount of assumptions? He went from broke to millionaire in 2 years by sucking dick in an Olive Garden bathroom? >
  
  Grifting and bribing are certainly reasonable.
  'Conman runs fake campaign and launders money through it' involves very few assumptions.  Saying that the money is of Russian origin introduces another element that requires proof.  When we go in that direction we move away from wanting to be certain and move towards wanting a story.  And after all, can we really ask for more than a story when our political leaders are just stage actors?
  Edit:  this is not to say that there isn't proof that Russia gave money to Santos.  Just that it wasn't included in this context.  That comment was meant to point out any of the specifics that were added to the story, not to say that it is unlikely. >
  
  
  Saying that the money is of Russian origin introduces another element that requires proof.
  
  I don't think the Russian connection is as big of a assumption as you do. >
  
  What’s the point of fraud if you can’t give your friends some kickbacks along the way? >
  
  Whoa there.  How do we know he didn’t distribute 1,131 orders of rigatoni to a soup kitchen?  Would be just like his father, Jose Andres. >
  
  Because he was on his second tour of Vietnam saving orphans from communists at the time >
  
  Ah, the years he spent as Henry Kissinger’s muse >
  
  He must be the one providing the monthly blood transfusions that allows Kissinger to keep that healthy glow! >
  
  I thought that was the adrenochrome? >
  
  Kitara actually invented adrenochrome >
  
  Can someone please explain to me how this lying loser is even still a representative? Whoever he knows that's keeping him in the position is clearly corrupt right? How are they not removed and given plenty of money for it?
  ​
  Do republicans really care this little about how their party appears? How hard is it to not hire a proud piece of shit? >
  
  You pretty much answered your first question with your second question.
  No.  No, they do not.  Idiots will vote for them whatever they do. >
  
  This right here. I specifically remember watching a bit on TV a while ago where they interviewed people who live in Marjorie Taylor Greene's district what they thought of her and all the stupid shit she says. Most said they didn't approve of the things she said but they will still vote for her. This country is full of complete and utter morons. >
  
  It’s spite
  Full on “cutting your nose off to spite your face” level hatred for the kind of people who vote Democrat, mixed in with “No Taxes, No Regulation” hatred of government
  They know that they’re not going to be able to retire fully, that they’ll go into debt from medical bills, that the police will get more violent, that roads and bridges will crumble and everything will get more expensive and less safe as the world wide liberal order falls apart
  Doesn’t matter, they’re hurting people they don’t like and the government isn’t telling them what to do, at least for the stuff they like to do >
  
  there is definitely a lot of hate, and I believe opinion shows like Fox News are responsible. They aren't just being biased, they specifically stoke people's fears and paint opposition party as "enemies". They always try to get a rise out of people over stupid shit. And in the end you end up with crazies like the guy who bashed Paul Pelosi with a hammer >
  
  Its not just the crazies that are the issue. All of their other voters support those crazies in action even if they claim they dont. They are all capable of it. Its just that most are smart enough to try and get their evil legislated into law instead of being so overt. >
  
  You think the mafia knew he was this incompetent when they decided to use him? >
  
  They are also incompetent, just quieter. >
  
  Jesus, just arrest him already.   These fks get away with this shit and no consequences are ever paid. >
  
  No no, the law only punishes poor people, like say a dude who is stopped for a traffic violation while black, or a dude who has no legs dangerously "running" away from cops, or a teenager who somehow managed to shoot herself in the mouth while her hands were handcuffed behind her back in the back of a police car, or a dude selling singles, or someone holding a pink umbrella. >
  
  He is a poor person though. Has to launder money through his campaign to afford food and rent it seems. >
  
  You’re not poor when you have powerful friends who are able to benefit off of you >
  
  Obviously some benefactor loaded his campaign with a lot of cash with specific goals in mind.  The issue is though that he was potentially so broke that he couldn't keep his hands off the cookie jar long enough to create benefit for his sponsors. >
  
  Need to remove campaign financing in its fucking entirety, so sick of this. >
  
  Sides?! 26,000 in sides?! >
  
  Did the sides cure cancer? >
  
  The sides did cure cancer. That’s the problem. That’s why they were so expensive >
  
  I don't want to make assumptions, but that sure does have Mafia vapors wafting off it >
  
  The family that owns this place has a member from Italy who was deported from the US and attempted to smuggle Chinese nationals into the US on his boat from the Bahamas.  That deported Italian donated money directly to the Santos campaign (which is a campaign violation because you can't accept foreign money).
  So there's all levels of weirdness and corruption going on here.
  Personally I think that there's another MAIN source who funded Santos with hundreds of thousands and then Santos during his campaign attempted to 'embezzle' those campaign funds himself with fake receipts and also attempted to use this place to wring up tens of thousands in campaign finance expenses.
  So he was basically 'ripping off' the person/entity that funded his campaign and these people were helping him imo. >
  
  I got one better.
  In July 2010, Italian authorities arrested ~300 organized crime members.
  The capo of that crime family:
  
  Has the same last name as the owner.
  Comes from the same small town in Italy.
  Is similar enough in age to be the restaurant owner’s father.
  
  That organized crime ring used bistros and cafes as fronts for money laundering and narcotics distribution.
  This is entirely circumstantial.
  (I can cite public sources but not gonna doxx this dude cause Reddit has such a good track record with crime research.)
  Edit: This crime family definitely has a presence in NYC, based upon Italian wiretaps and at least 1 arrest here in the US. >
  
  Rocco Oppedisano is a convicted human trafficker so hes 100% in the mafia too. And there was a powerful mafia family ran by another Oppedisano? No way thats a coincidence >
  
  The restaurant owner also owns a seaplane. Which is kind of weird for someone living in NYC to own.
  Edit: This specific crime family is heavily involved in drug trafficking and money laundering. >
  
  Yeah, the dude even left the hospital early in order to vote. I guess politics is important to him.
  Especially since his family is part of the Santos campaign.
  Edit: The “Small Business for Santos Coalition” reads like a cliché out of a movie. Construction, Waste Management, Restaurants…. >
  
  My first thought was he balled out on some First Growth Premiere Cru or something, but the most expensive bottle they have listed is Dom for $285. How TF did they spend $26,000 there? >
  
  This place is pseudo famous. Not for the food, which is like decidedly B+ at best. The owner is a Republican mini me attention whore who's buddies with Giuliani, crashed his plane in the east river (killing one of his best friends) and had a cousin get arrested for smuggling Chinese Nationals and metric fuckload of drugs into the states on his yacht. >
  
  Yeah if you read the article he hosted an event costing 18k, and his sister held another one costing 4k (22k~ total)
  So really he spent 3000$ there alone, the rest was on campaign events. I'm loving watching him crash and burn as much as anyone but that's somewhat possible.
  Edit: I replied to the wrong person... Whoops >
  
  I mean he’s a three-time rigatoni eating champion so this shouldn’t be a surprise. >
  
  Not surprising, you work up an appetite painting the Mona Lisa, which George Santos did. >
  
  
  painting the Mona Lisa
  
  With his left hand... his right hand was doing rubik's cubes because he was bored. >
  
  I’ve eaten at Not an Obvious Front and their bolognese is lovely. Just avoid it Mondays sometimes the grinder still has some snitch in it leftover from the weekend. >
  
  Legitimate Businessman’s Club >
  
  Georgie the Squealer >
  
  Johnny Tightlips >
  
  we want our moneys in 24 hours, and just to show you we are serious, we want the moneys in twelve hours.  See you at… 5:00am, Mrs.  Simpson. >
  
  When the server started grating the Parmesan cheese they never said when. Case closed, nothing to see here. >
  
  "Leave the tumor in the dog. Take the cannoli." >
  
  “I’ll make him an offer for $199.99 he can’t refuse” >
  
  He laundered the Ponzi scheme money through his campaign. >
  
  Then, just to be safe, he laundered the cash through a casino in Vegas.  In a single transaction. >
  
  I’m waiting for someone to catch him doing something honest. >
  
  This sounds absurd, but hear me out: what if George Santos is actually just another character of Roger from American Dad. He's gay, loves being in costumes and lies constantly. His backstory makes no sense whatsoever, his name sounds like a fake politician name (George Washington + Matt Santos from The West Wing = George Santos).
  This would also explain the levels of consumption of rigatoni which would be required for this to make sense. >
  
  This is the most plausible explanation I’ve seen yet. >
  
  Reminds me of S5E1 in the Sopranos when Chris is bitching to Tony about having to constantly pick up $1000 restaurant tabs.  
  
  You pay till I tell you you don't have to pay no more.And don't give me that face. You know how many tabs, how many dinners I picked up over the years? I got Richie Aprile, fat fucking Jerry Anastasia. Those guys killed me at Benihana's. And forget it, if they want a steak. I put a new wing on Peter Luger's. Brandy, cigars, champagne. Could've bought a fucking plane. >
  
  But Ton' that was before inflation >
  
  T we got this Congressman from Long Island. Says he’s a Jew but he’s actually a Portuguese or something like that. No one knows anything about him, real sketchy dude. But I think we can get the big hookup if homeboy delivers the stock news he says he can. Says a bunch of senatahs got away with it in broad daylight last yeaaahh.  
  Tony: Christofah, bribing a congressman? Are you fuckin crazy? Do I look like I need that kinda agita right now? My loy-uh says the guy is being investigated by the Feds both here and down in Brazil, you fuckin stunad. Use your fuckin head. >
  
  So more laws have been broken without consequences. Sounds about right! So many GOP criminals in elected seats…drain the GOP swamp! >
  
  So he is a money laundering system >
  
  A bottle of white...
  A bottle of red...
  Perhaps a bottle of campaign fraud instead? >
  
  Santos is probably a gift to the republicans.  everyone focuses on his bullshit while the others quietly fuck stuff up unnoticed by the press >
  
  Tomorrow’s headline:
  Italian Restaurant In Queens Says Never Served George Santos >
  
  FTFY: George Santos' campaign ~~spent~~ laundered more than $26,000 at an Italian restaurant in Queens. >
  
  I expect he will release a statement along the lines of, "George Santos is a competitive eater and has won national awards in it including the Presidential Medal of Freedom which was personally handed to him by Ronald Reagan." >
  
  We need to be digging into ALL POLITICIANS finances and holding. Them. Accountable. I'm sick of the same story over and over, make them face consequences >
  
  So the hypothesis is that his entire campaign was ONLY meant to be a money laundering operation, and he accidentally flipped the seat and won, bringing attention to it?  
  This fits Occam's razor. >
  
  Yep. everything point to Santos being a front for both Italian and Russian mafia >
  
  Smells like money laundering. >
  
  Smells like a subplot in a Godfather sequel. A delicious subplot with enough Rigatoni Bolognese to fill a small swimming pool with >
  
  Money laundering?  If it looks like a duck… >
  
  If your goal was to make folks crave Italian food, you've succeeded admirably. >
  
  I don't get it. All of the other stories about this guy show really obviously that he's a fraud.
  This one's just about how he enjoys a completely normal quantity of Italian food??? >
  
  So many politicians are grifting within the law with very little effort and this guy is too lazy and/or stupid to do even that. >
  
  not to be that guy but can you IMAGINE if this was a democrat ? they’d be hanging be their feet in front of the capitol building already and this dude is only being removed from his committee positions because they want omar gone >
  
  A democrat doing this would have been murdered already. I’d put money on it. 
  If they could only hate the monsters they associate themselves with half as much as they hate women that merely oppose them. >
  
  Mama mia >
  
  Here we go again! >
  
  95% of the tab will be for expensive booze. >
  
  Santos got a massive donation from the owner of the restaurant’s brother and his daughter sat on one of Santos’ commission boards. It’s good ol’ fashioned money laundering.
  I give give you a $100k “donation”, you spend $26k at my brother’s place, $30k over here, $14k over there, $18k here and pocket the rest, got it? (I made up the numbers, but the principle doesn’t change). 
  It’s the only way to explain a massive amount of “personal wealth” that Santos used that he can’t seem to account for how it was gained. >
  
  it’s one bolognese, michael, what could it cost? $26,000? >
  
  So, laundering? >
  
  Bottle of red 
  Bottle of white
  Whatever funds you want
  To hide Tonight
  Bottle of white
  Bottle of red
  Squeal on the mob and 
  You'll end up dead 
  I'll meet you anytime you want (with a large duffel bag of unmarked non-sequential bills) at our Italian restaurant. >
  
  I mean, nobody wants to admit they ate 1131 orders of rigatoni >
  
  
  George Santos' campaign spent more than $26,000 at an Italian restaurant in Queens. 
  
  No, he reported spending 26 large.  Did he actually spend that money or was he doing some laundry?  There are a number of ways that number would get recorded, none of them entailing spending it a restaurant. >
  
  People voted for this fucking guy.  Unbelievable >
  
  Why is he paying for his food there? He is the head cook at that restaurant and should be eating for free.