comment: >
  
  They all make money in indecent ways. You think Pelosi became a millionaire from just being in office and getting “lucky” in the stock market. Most of them are corrupt. Too much money in Washington.
context: And likely lied on his FEC financial disclosures, under penalty of perjury. >
  
  I remember learning from Jared Kushner that you are permitted to amend those as many times as you want.  As people learn of inconsistencies, they get disclosed.  There is no penalty for this. >
  
  You are thinking of security clearances. >
  
  Thank you.  So security clearances are lower level than applications for these positions?  I oberthink clearance. >
  
  
  In April 2022, Santos provided a different description of Devolder to the Daily Beast. He reported that he had created Devolder to help “all the people who were left adrift” after Harbor City was charged by the SEC. He also said that Devolder had by then been dissolved. The Daily Beast also reported that Devolder was one of several stakeholders in Red Strategies USA, a consulting firm that did work for Tina Forte, a QAnon-ish challenger to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). 
  So, what was Devolder? An assets management firm handling his family’s supposed wealth? Or something else connected to political campaigning? 
  
  This guy's story gets more interesting by the day. >
  
  It's been by the hour today! >
  
  (russians) >
  
  +1 on Russian money. He's very likely an agent (correction: asset) that the Russians put together, especially with that completely fake bio/resume that he can't even get right. >
  
  At this point, I wouldn't be too surprised if it's revealed that his name isn't even "George Santos." >
  
  Honestly half expecting Mystery Inc to set a trap and unmask him. We're going to find out it's Putin under a mask. >
  
  He'd have gotten away with it if not for those damn kids and their fucking dog >
  
  Zoiks! >
  
  Never change Reddit.  We love you. >
  
  My prediction is that we will learn that Santos never had millions and never will. Someone funded his campaign for the purpose of having a bought off politician. >
  
  That seems pretty obvious at this point. Question is who and why. >
  
  Russia and putin having a tiny cock >
  
  You should first look inward before declaring it a foreign cause. 
  There are numerous groups and at least one political party in the USA that would be interested and has done similar/same. >
  
  Except it's already been revealed that some of the money came from a Russian oligarch, so we're already in the territory of partially confirmed. >
  
  Oh dang. Didn’t catch that one in the slew of allegations and revelations. 
  I’d ask what GOP candidate isn’t getting money from Russian at this point. The party is completely overrun. Remember Maria Butina! >
  
  It would be nice to get records/evidence of how the money is being transferred to them.
  It's probably via corporations which the Rs conveniently made into US citizens who had free speech to give money to political candidates and parties. But, I'm just guessing. >
  
  It was a heck of a lot easier to funnel Russian money to Republicans before the NRA (mostly) blew up. >
  
  It doesn't seem to have entirely stopped though. >
  
  I honestly think most/all of the money does not exist - this is someone who lied about owning multiple properties when he in fact was getting evicted over and over, he's the kind of person who'd inflate his wealth on disclosure forms to look flashier. 
  Here in Arizona our Republican nominee for AG got his brother to loan him $1M before a financing deadline, hyped up the "massive early haul raised in Q1", and then immediately repaid the loan. This flash infusion of cash made his campaign seem more viable at the moment than it was IRL relative to primary opponents. The money did not end up getting spent by the campaign in those few days, and there's no proof it even truly existed as a transaction.
  Looking at Santos's campaign expenditure forms (I'm partially taking this from this Twitter thread, which looks at the rather slush-fundy feel of the reported expenditures from the campaign fund):
  
  
  The topline numbers Santos's campaign reports over the two campaigns he ran in were $3,374,132.81 income (I), $3,395,624.01 expenditures (E), and $43,043.23 cash on hand (COH) at the end of the last reporting cycle. This is the first case of math not adding up - I less E in this case is -$21,491.20, ~$64k less than what Santos's final report lists.
  
  
  Santos's final report claims his campaign owes $742,997.94 in debt. This math also does not make sense - his total reported loans were ($81.25k loaned - $31.2k repayed in 2020)=$50.05k debt, plus $705k ($0 repayed) in 2022...which would work out to $755,050, and not $742,997.94.
  
  
  Topline numbers also do not match with line item submissions. When you export everything to Excel, you get $3,802,971.25 reported I + $514,171.61 in unitemized small donations vs.  $2,385,496.27 E and $659,198.90 in duplicate donation records, which'd result in $1,272,447.69 COH left over. 
  
  
  Line item loan submissions total only $661,250 loaned instead of the $786,250 claimed on the top-line.
  
  
  $166,549.87 of reported income in donations came from people whose employer is listed as "Best Efforts", which is campaign finance speak for "We tried to figure their employer as best we could but found nothing :(". Some level of incompleteness in employer info is unavoidable, but this is a surprisingly high amount.
  
  
  Reported small-dollar donations (donor gave <$200 total to that candidate during the campaign) total $514,171.61 over two election cycles - and $464,406.27 in 2022. This works out to 15.83% of all total receipts (going off topline numbers). This is very big for a Republican: for comparison, neighboring GOP Congressman-elect Nick LaLota raised $50,696.19 in unitemized contributions, totaling only ~3.31% of all receipts.
  
  
  Given that the hole in data between reported topline expenditures and actual line-item disbursements is that large - close to twice the total cash he claims he loaned to his campaign - I have my strong doubts that most or any of that $786,250 loaned existed, as with his reported 2022 salary. >
  
  The only way this gets funnier is if we find out the way he made his money was entirely off scamming donors and the RNC during his previous campaign. >
  
  Please let it be Russian. >
  
  Its honestly looking this way as the facts emerge. >
  
  My favorite thing about Santos is that he said he'd " embellished my resume'.  I think Democrats and progressives should start referring to the GOP's ludicrous lies as "Santos style embellishments" >
  
  "Santos-ish" >
  
  "Sant-ish" >
  
  There is a real problem here. Deliberately lying about your accomplishments must be a disqualification for holding a seat in Congress. 
  The lack of immediate repudiation is stunning. >
  
  It isn't a disqualification. No mechanism exists to preemptively disqualify someone who has been elected. This is 100% down to hoping the GOP has moral standards. 
  Which lol >
  
  Agreed on the lol. It would take 2/3 of the house to vote to remove him. >
  
  
  Santos declared on financial disclosure statements that he made his millions through a company called Devolder Organization LLC, formed in May 2021. (His full name is George Devolder Santos.) This was weeks after the Florida investment firm called Harbor City Capital where he was working had been accused by the Securities and Exchange Commission of running a Ponzi scheme.
  
  I think this guy was somehow wrapped up in the Ponzi scheme and made off with a bunch of money. His sloppy efforts to pay himself with that money, and the scrutiny he's earned with his brazen and stupid lies, will cause him a lot of trouble. >
  
  Hmm… if he wasn’t such a fine, upstanding citizen, one might just be starting to have a few doubts about this guy… >
  
  At this point, he could split open on live TV and have a thousand alien spiders spill out of the hollow shell, and I wouldn't be that surprised. The man isn't at all what he's made himself appear to be. >
  
  Pity I can't post the image directly... >
  
  This guy is just the grift that keeps on giving >
  
  Did he know Sam Bankman-Fried perchance? >
  
  So Taco Bell does a better background check than the RNC? Sounds about right. They didn't verify a single thing about him. Also his Democratic opponent should be ashamed at having done zero opposition research. >
  
  And where was investigative journalism here? I know that newsrooms have been underfunded, but this is embarrassing. >
  
  "Senior House Republican leaders were aware of the false biographical claims before the election, with an insider telling the New York Post that the topic had become a "running joke", and that "we assumed [these issues] would be worked out by the voters." >
  
  Disgusting all around. >
  
  This guy is going to end up in prison - I guarantee it. >
  
  Are most people in this day and age mentally challenged?  Believing anything this cretin says at this point is fucking insane.  If he told me the sky is blue i would definitely look up. >
  
  As the saying goes, “follow the money.” >
  
  Someone gave him the money and told him to run as a Republican because they will elect literally anyone. >
  
  Known liar lies >
  
  Surprise, surprise! >
  
  This is the future of politics. >
  
  The house has the right to see anyone's tax returns they want. But I'm guessing that once it is controlled by Republicans they will not want to. >
  
  I see where this is headed. Trump/Santos 2024. 
  Finally, a minion Trump can trust to be crooked. >
  
  The dark money guys supporting him must be kicking themselves. >
  
  Or enjoying the chaos. >
  
  Maybe this guy is who QAnon was really talking about. His phone autocorrected it to Soros and he just kept doubling down on the mistake until a wild cult formed. >
  
  I have a theory on this dipshit. I feel like the GOP knew and gives no shits for the simple reason just to distract from something else those clocks are plotting >
  
  I find it unlikely that no one knew better. I agree that some amount of support for him is just testing the waters and seeing what they can get away with in the public eye or dragging the Overton window even more to a norm-less and lawless direction. Others just didn't care at all because he said the right things when it comes to what constitutes policy for these people. >
  
  He really needs psychiatric help. >
  
  That was my question. Is this intentional lying or does he have some sort of fabulist compulsion? >
  
  Follow the money. >
  
  So far, this is the only thing that’s been written about him that’s the truth. >
  
  Did this guy escape from the 4th floor of a psych ward? Even Trump came up for air. >
  
  The house ethics committee can look into this next week when the Republicans take over. >
  
  Once the republicans take over they will drop this like a hot potato. It will be labeled fake news and forgotten by them in minutes. >
  
  Yes, but there’s a simple explanation for all those apparent inconsistencies: he’s a bullshitter and a crook, he’s always been a bullshitter and a crook, and because he’s a Republican, he always will be a bullshitter and a crook. >
  
  This man is an asset and we’re about to find out for who. >
  
  Why stop with him? Audit them all on both sides. Politicians are public servants. Their records should be public. How are they all getting rich on their salaries? Many questions need to be asked. We are just peasants to them. >
  
  
  How are they all getting rich on their salaries?
  
  Most of them don't need to do anything illegal to get rich off the office.  You instantly have dozens of groups that will pay you tens of thousands to make a speech, you can "write" a "best seller" that gets bought by friendly PACs, you buy into exclusive investments that are run by actual experts or people willing to fudge the numbers to ensure you get 15% return every year. >
  
  That's called bribery. >
  
  Maybe he’s like Trump and just lying about the millions along with everything else in his life. >
  
  Could the members of the RNC responsible for vetting Santos please stand up? >
  
  I copypasta'd this already, but:
  It was reported that senior House Republican leaders were aware of the false biographical claims before the election, with an insider telling the New York Post that the topic had become a "running joke", and that "we assumed [these issues] would be worked out by the voters."
  They knew. >
  
  The Qanon connection seems plausible. The GOP will do anything to get control. >
  
  Getting to the point where his Democrat opponent is looking really suspicious for not doing enough with the opposition research. >
  
  I think we have learned from the 2022 midterms that we can easily assume incompetence on the part of New York Democrats. >
  
  And the press! Finding shit like this out is literally their job in our democracy.  To bad investigative journalism is dead and clickbait bullshit is in! >
  
  The little local newspaper actually reported on this during the election! It did not make national news and nobody paid any attention to them >
  
  Every politician has mystery millions. Wtf do we care now? >
  
  Did you read the article? >
  
  Well, if he considers the lies he already got caught in, little lies, then this should be good once the investigation starts. >
  
  He's just a liar. It's not complicated. >
  
  That is raising a red flags
  Someone is going to find out where the money came from >
  
  Is Republican for pay the new gay for pay? >
  
  Yeah this guy is gonna go to jail >
  
  Interesting story here. I wonder where this will go. >
  
  Once he is sworn in, no where. There is almost zero chance of them stopping him from being sworn in. >
  
  Has anyone asked Santos if he’s registered as a foreign agent yet? Most definitely he’ll say “yes”. >
  
  Surprise! A Republican grifter! Alert the press! >
  
  McCarthy must really be in deep shit if he hasn’t punted this blatant grifter to the curb yet. Even my Republican family thinks Santos is a scumbag. >
  
  It’s those inconsistencies & outright lies that makes him a Shining Example among the Conservative Elite in the Republican Party.
  According to Party Elders, he promises to bring about a baseless insurrection w/in his first year in office. 
  Make no mistakes, this kid’s going places…
  And Our Justice Department can’t wait to show him exactly where! >
  
  Our democracy is going through a litmus test and there are a lot of things broken with it (not a bad thing). You are going to see more of these reps on the ballots. MTG set the precedent when she moved to a district she could win. This guy is another prime example. Hershel Walker was another. There needs to be a stipulation that requires you to live in a district for X amount of time before you can run. >
  
  How did none of this come to light during the campaign, before the election? It seems like a lot of it was very easily discovered. >
  
  I'm gonna go with "money laundering" >
  
  He’s now under investigation.  You can lie on your resume, but if your financials don’t jive, you will not be seated - no matter how bad McCarthy needs your vote for Speaker. >
  
  my guess is russia >
  
  From the party that screamed “election integrity” for months >
  
  Welcome to life in the public eye dip shit! >
  
  I just keep thinking: Can you IMAGINE if a Democrat pulled this crap? >
  
  He’s obviously someone’s puppet the question is who and if this idiot is smart enough to come clean before he ends up falling out of a building. >
  
  Brazilian authorities need to look no more for him >
  
  Next ask Pelosi how she got so rich. >
  
  Why? >
  
  Because this whataboutism can be used to absolve George Santos. And it convinces people that all politicians are corrupt so they just give up and accept that.