NextGen Lying Republican George Santos

[TC Talks]

This guy won in a democrat district - where was the oppo research?

I think this was a redistricting situation that favored the GOP.

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/ne ... ve-israel/

From the Daily Beast:

The cousin and cash handler for one of Russia's most notorious oligarchs poured tens of thousands of dollars into electing a newly minted congressman-elect who called Ukraine's government "a totalitarian regime."

Republican George Devolder-Santos vanquished Democrat Robert Zimmerman this month in the race for a House seat covering parts of Long Island and the New York City borough of Queens—riding a red wave that swept the Empire State this cycle, and washing away two decades of Democratic dominance in the district.

Devolder-Santos had long courted conservative media attention by presenting himself as a "walking, living, breathing contradiction"—a gay Latino millennial born in New York City, who is also a fervent devotee of ex-President Donald Trump.

[Honeyman]

This guy won in a democrat district - where was the oppo research?

I think this was a redistricting situation that favored the GOP.

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/ne ... ve-israel/

Still, Matt is right on. How could none of this been found out by the Democrats? Did they even check if a man named Santos had a bar mitzvah? I know it's hindsight, but it sure seems there were plenty of red flags, and just things that basic vetting could have brought out.

[Circle Seven]

Still, Matt is right on. How could none of this been found out by the Democrats? Did they even check if a man named Santos had a bar mitzvah? I know it's hindsight, but it sure seems there were plenty of red flags, and just things that basic vetting could have brought out.

I wonder if this was a district that everyone assumed was to go Republican.
And the Democrats focused their vetting on other seats that would be a closer race. I dunno if this is the case. Just the first thing to cross my mind.

[TC Talks]

Here comes the pile on from everyone who has lost their minds over missing this one.

Days after Representative-elect George Santos admitted misrepresenting his background, a Long Island prosecutor said she would investigate whether he had committed any crimes, while those who supported his campaign expressed mixed emotions about the revelations now swirling around him.

Anne Donnelly, the Nassau County district attorney, said in a statement that the “numerous fabrications and inconsistencies associated with Congressman-elect Santos are nothing short of stunning” and called for him to be more accountable.

“No one is above the law, and if a crime was committed in this county, we will prosecute it,” said Ms. Donnelly, a Republican, in a statement that was first reported by Newsday.

Ms. Donnelly’s examination adds to the mounting pressure faced by Mr. Santos, a Republican who will represent northern Nassau County and northeast Queens when the next Congress begins, in the wake of a New York Times investigation that uncovered discrepancies in his campaign biography and raised questions about his business dealings.

[Honeyman]

This guy would make a perfect Speaker for the Republicans.

https://nypost.com/2022/12/29/george-sa ... m-in-2016/

[TC Talks]

I mean, he must REALLY love Trump based on the proficiency with which he lies...

Maybe a illegitimate son?

[Honeyman]

But who comes to this liars defense?

You have one guess..........












MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/marjorie ... 9de1b339ec

[FakeAndyStuart]

Still, Matt is right on. How could none of this been found out by the Democrats? Did they even check if a man named Santos had a bar mitzvah? I know it's hindsight, but it sure seems there were plenty of red flags

Here's a wild theory - maybe they DID know. Or had an inkling. They were convinced they were going to lose the House anyway, and one seat wouldn't matter. They get a whiff of the improprieties in Santos' CV and say "We could bring this up now.. it would be a local story - we would be accused of mudslinging and it would die down soon. OR we can wait til after the election. If we win, no big deal. If we lose, we leak some details to The NY Times, which has a lot more resources for research than we do. And maybe it will allow us to discredit the new "Republican Liars Regime." That's how I see it...

[Honeyman]

Still, Matt is right on. How could none of this been found out by the Democrats? Did they even check if a man named Santos had a bar mitzvah? I know it's hindsight, but it sure seems there were plenty of red flags

Here's a wild theory - maybe they DID know. Or had an inkling. They were convinced they were going to lose the House anyway, and one seat wouldn't matter. They get a whiff of the improprieties in Santos' CV and say "We could bring this up now.. it would be a local story - we would be accused of mudslinging and it would die down soon. OR we can wait til after the election. If we win, no big deal. If we lose, we leak some details to The NY Times, which has a lot more resources for research than we do. And maybe it will allow us to discredit the new "Republican Liars Regime." That's how I see it...

Interesting theory. I think you might be giving the Dems too much credit, but it is plausible.

[MotorCityRadioFreak]

The Republicans spent lots of money in NY Congressional swing districts and the state Democratic Party took it for granted. Pretty dumb.

[TC Talks]

Still, Matt is right on. How could none of this been found out by the Democrats? Did they even check if a man named Santos had a bar mitzvah? I know it's hindsight, but it sure seems there were plenty of red flags

Here's a wild theory - maybe they DID know. Or had an inkling. They were convinced they were going to lose the House anyway, and one seat wouldn't matter. They get a whiff of the improprieties in Santos' CV and say "We could bring this up now.. it would be a local story - we would be accused of mudslinging and it would die down soon. OR we can wait til after the election. If we win, no big deal. If we lose, we leak some details to The NY Times, which has a lot more resources for research than we do. And maybe it will allow us to discredit the new "Republican Liars Regime." That's how I see it...

The New York Times has the best investigation team in the US. Don't insult them by suggesting politicians could do better.

[FakeAndyStuart]

Still, Matt is right on. How could none of this been found out by the Democrats? Did they even check if a man named Santos had a bar mitzvah? I know it's hindsight, but it sure seems there were plenty of red flags

Here's a wild theory - maybe they DID know. Or had an inkling. They were convinced they were going to lose the House anyway, and one seat wouldn't matter. They get a whiff of the improprieties in Santos' CV and say "We could bring this up now.. it would be a local story - we would be accused of mudslinging and it would die down soon. OR we can wait til after the election. If we win, no big deal. If we lose, we leak some details to The NY Times, which has a lot more resources for research than we do. And maybe it will allow us to discredit the new "Republican Liars Regime." That's how I see it...

The New York Times has the best investigation team in the US. Don't insult them by suggesting politicians could do better.

Sorry Buckaroo - it seems that some of this info WAS in the oppo research done by the Democrats after Santos became the candidate. Just wasn't communicated too well.

Read it for free here. You're welcome

And when you read the original NY Times article (from Dec 19th) you get the feeling that someone or something tipped off these reporters, one who recently moved from investigations to NY politics beat. (Sorry, you'll have to get that one on your own)

[Rate This]

Still, Matt is right on. How could none of this been found out by the Democrats? Did they even check if a man named Santos had a bar mitzvah? I know it's hindsight, but it sure seems there were plenty of red flags

Here's a wild theory - maybe they DID know. Or had an inkling. They were convinced they were going to lose the House anyway, and one seat wouldn't matter. They get a whiff of the improprieties in Santos' CV and say "We could bring this up now.. it would be a local story - we would be accused of mudslinging and it would die down soon. OR we can wait til after the election. If we win, no big deal. If we lose, we leak some details to The NY Times, which has a lot more resources for research than we do. And maybe it will allow us to discredit the new "Republican Liars Regime." That's how I see it...

The New York Times has the best investigation team in the US. Don't insult them by suggesting politicians could do better.

The political parties employ teams of people who’s job it is to embarrass their opponents and dig up dirt and dust off skeletons… who are you kidding?

[TC Talks]

And yet, New York Times reporters have decades of experience. I'm not suggesting that George wasn't low hanging fruit, but suggesting that NYT doesn't need help from a 22 year old intern at the state office who knows how to surf social media, and I know a few kids who did this during the midterms.

It seems like the DMC wrote off this district and didn't pay much attention to it.

[TC Talks]

It looks like Long Island Republicans want Santos gone... They just released his "resume" so the world could see how extensively he lied...

For a good laugh...
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ ... 3/full.pdf