comment: >
  
  Why are Republican voters such good marks for fraudulent candidates?
context: He reminds me of the Fyre Festival dude, Billy McFarland. Dude still doesn't admit he is a total fraud and conman who stole millions. He says he just "made some mistakes". Exactly how Santos is playing shit off. >
  
  Mistakes-ish. >
  
  Mistakes-adjacent >
  
  If people are wondering about what the actual investigation is relating to it's likely tax fraud or campaign finance fraud. Santos is alleged to have reported no income for several years on his taxes and then suddenly had >$700,000 to loan of his "own" money to his campaign. Covered here.
  
  Santos’ Federal Election Commission filings for his 2022 campaign show he loaned more than $700,000 to his bid, nearly as much as his Devolder Organization salary.
  His FEC filings for 2020 show he loaned more than $81,000 to that campaign.
  
  This loan to his campaign (which can be fully reimbursed through fundraising and paid back to him) came when Santos was dealing with multiple evictions and tens of thousands of dollars in debt to multiple landlords.
  He's a sketchy guy all around with a history of financial fraud allegations back in Brazil as well. >
  
  He may not even be a US citizen. (Take that, birthers!) >
  
  Doesn't our government check for citizenship status when you file to run for office? It really seems like it should be someone's job to at least vet that before an election.
  If Santos isn't a citizen, the god damn balls to run for office is incredible. It seems like this dude has spent the last 2-3 years making some great lies pay off for him. And like Trump, decided to draw WAY TOO MUCH attention to himself. >
  
  Idk how it is when you apply to run for office, but on most forms the deepest they get into checking your citizenship is making you check a box saying that you are. >
  
  The Dems really needed to do some better opposition research. >
  
  The Dems did their research and shopped it around to several local papers before the election , but none of them would publish. >
  
  Which would be an excuse if it were 1962. It's 2022. Put it on Twitter or Facebook.
  Have a sympathetic voter sue him for improper ballot access since he's maybe not a citizen. >
  
  Especially in the times of "leaked from an anonymous source" >
  
  Any other job, you would lose for lying on your resume >
  
  Standards are lower for elected officials. They are above the law. >
  
  It's not that they are above the law.  It's just that the laws regarding them were written by guys who didn't originally intend for anyone other than land owning men to vote, so they assumed that the checks and balances is that the voters wouldn't possibly elect complete charlatans or egregious criminals, and if they did, it would be a short matter to get them expelled. So they figured the requirements would be simple, and the voters would then choose who would do the best job to protect their interests.
  What we are seeing are the problems with reforming the voter eligibility (a good thing), without ever once reforming the methods and requirements for holding office (a bad thing).  Now it is far easier for the masses to be tricked into voting for liars and morons.
  On paper, it is a pretty simple process for Congress to expel George Santos.  It requires only a two-thirds vote, and any ethical member of Congress would vote Yes.
  Now, the hard part is that there are now almost 51% of Congress is Republicans, and Republicans are remarkably short on even the most basic ethics these days, especially among their leadership. >
  
  Move quicker on this one please >
  
  At the rate the DOJ moves I reckon he might see consequences in 2033. >
  
  "We can prove the motive, intent, and willful act, but since he's a politician we really can't do anything unless he handcuffs himself and signs a guilty plea"