From Botox to OnlyFans: Key revelations in George Santos ethics report

The long-awaited Home Ethics Committee investigation into George Santos landed laborious – changing into the ultimate nail within the coffin of the New York consultant’s scandalous time on Capitol Hill.

The prolonged report from the committee revealed in early November said that there was credible proof to point that the Republican misused marketing campaign funds for a variety of private bills, dedicated fraud, and misled the Federal Election Fee (FEC).

It was a damning finish to a months-long investigation which had, till then, been Mr Santos’s golden ticket to outlive the repeated efforts by his fellow lawmakers — together with Republicans from his personal state — to kick him out of Congress.

His days had been numbered and, on 1 December, Mr Santos was expelled from Congress in a historic vote.

Home lawmakers voted 311 to 114 for his elimination, with 105 Republicans becoming a member of with Democrats for his expulsion.

Lawmakers had tried to take away him simply weeks earlier than the report dropped – Mr Santos was saved that point by colleagues who didn’t want to set a precedent of prejudging a member underneath investigation by the Ethics Committee. The New York congressman was already going through quite a few felony fees in New York underneath indictment from the Justice Division.

Let’s dive into the Ethics Committee’s closing report, which was referred to the Justice Division and which marked the start of the top for Mr Santos’ political profession.

Fraud, fraud and extra fraud

On the very prime of the record is a staggering stretch of dishonest monetary behaviour. The congressman is, in brief, accused of mendacity about loaning his personal cash to his 2022 congressional marketing campaign, then “paying himself again” for these faux loans with actual cash.

These faux loans topped $500,000 — no small quantity. However that’s not the one fraud Mr Santos is accused of partaking in; he’s accused of deceiving donors into giving cash to RedStone LLC, ostensibly to help his marketing campaign; in actuality, that cash was additionally used, in keeping with the Ethics Committee, as a type of slush fund for Mr Santos’s private use.

He and his marketing campaign are additionally accused of acquiring donors’ bank card numbers and stealing their identities.

Misuse of marketing campaign funds

That is maybe the widest number of crimes Mr Santos is alleged to have dedicated — although not by a lot.

The congressman “was incessantly in debt, had an abysmal credit score rating, and relied on an ever-growing pockets of high-interest bank cards to fund his luxurious spending habits,” in keeping with the investigative subcommittee. He used marketing campaign funds to repay these bank card money owed partially, in keeping with the Ethics Committee, whereas additionally making direct deposits from marketing campaign accounts into his private checking account.

He supposedly used these funds — transferred to his non-public accounts by varied means — to make purchases at luxurious manufacturers together with Hermes, on OnlyFans and for costly meals.

False FEC reviews

No campaign-related fraud is full with out mendacity to the Federal Election Fee, and Mr Santos is accused of doing that too. This stays a problem being performed out publicly in New York courtroom, the place two of his former marketing campaign staffers have now pleaded responsible to finance-related crimes in connection together with his marketing campaign. One pretended to be a staffer for Kevin McCarthy. One other, his treasurer, is accused of submitting false reviews to the FEC detailing the congressman’s fictitious loans and different questionable spending. She has testified in courtroom filings that Mr Santos knew about her actions; he has denied this.

However the Home investigation makes it clear that Mr Santos’s personal marketing campaign employees described their funds as a “black field” managed and considered solely by Mr Santos and the treasurer, Nancy Marks. Regardless of his public statements on the contrary, the subcommittee report described him as “extremely concerned in his marketing campaign’s monetary operations”, and in addition faulted him for ignoring warnings from his personal marketing campaign employees about Ms Marks and monetary irregularities inside the marketing campaign’s spending reviews.

“Even when Consultant Santoswas not conscious of the entire different errors in his marketing campaign reviews referring to different receipts and disbursements, he had his personal issues and was repeatedly suggested by a number of members of his workforce about issues concerning Ms. Marks, however he didn’t take significant motion,” the report discovered.