Long Island (NY)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      George Santos Is Gone. What Happens to His Seat in Congress?

      by

      The expulsion of George Santos from Congress on Friday swept away one major political headache for Republicans, but it immediately set the stage for another: The party will have to defend his vulnerable seat in a special election early next year.The race in New York is expected to be one of the most high-profile and expensive off-year House contests in decades. It has the potential to further shrink Republicans’ paper-thin majority and offer a preview of the broader battle for House control next November.With towering stakes, both parties have been preparing for the possibility for months, as Mr. Santos’s fabricated biography unraveled and federal criminal charges piled up. More than two dozen candidates have already expressed interest in running, and labor unions, super PACs and other groups have begun earmarking millions of dollars for TV ads.“It’s going to be like a presidential election for Congress,” said Steve Israel, a Long Island Democrat who once led his party’s House campaign arm. “It becomes ground zero of American politics.”Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York has 10 days to formally schedule the contest after Friday’s lopsided vote to remove Mr. Santos. But both parties expect the election to take place in mid-to-late February, just over a year after he first took the oath of office.Unlike in a normal election, party leaders in Washington and New York — not primary voters — will choose the Democratic and Republican nominees. They were moving quickly to winnow the field of potential candidates, and could announce their picks in a matter of days.George Santos Lost His Job. The Lies, Charges and Questions Remaining.George Santos, who was expelled from Congress, has told so many stories they can be hard to keep straight. We cataloged them, including major questions about his personal finances and his campaign fund-raising and spending.Democrats were expected to coalesce around Thomas R. Suozzi, a tested centrist who held the seat for six years before Mr. Santos but gave it up for a failed run for governor in 2022. Mr. Suozzi, 61, is a prolific fund-raiser and perhaps the best-known candidate either party could put forward. Anna Kaplan, a former state senator, is also running and has positioned herself to Mr. Suozzi’s left.The Republican field appeared to be more fluid. Party leaders said they planned to interview roughly 15 candidates, though officials privy to the process said they were circling two top contenders, both relative newcomers: Mike Sapraicone, a retired New York Police Department detective, and Mazi Pilip, an Ethiopian-born former member of the Israel Defense Forces.Political analysts rate the district, stretching from the outskirts of New York City into the heart of Nassau County’s affluent suburbs on Long Island, as a tossup. President Biden won the district by eight points in 2020, but it has shifted rightward in three consecutive elections since, as voters fearful about crime and inflation have flocked to Republicans.Democratic strategists said they would continue to use the embarrassment of Mr. Santos to attack Republicans, blaming them for aiding the former congressman’s rise. But recapturing the seat may be more difficult than many Democrats once hoped.Local Republicans moved decisively to distance themselves from Mr. Santos last January, and the strategy has shown signs of working. When Long Island voters went to the polls for local contests last month, they delivered a Republican rout that left Democrats scrambling to figure out how to rehabilitate a tarnished political brand.“Anyone who thinks a special election on Long Island is a slam dunk for Democrats has been living under a rock for the last three years,” said Isaac Goldberg, a strategist who advised the losing Democratic campaign against Mr. Santos in 2022.“Politics is a pendulum,” he added. “Right now, it’s on one side, and it’s unclear when it’s going to swing back.”Republicans face their own challenges, though, particularly in an idiosyncratic contest likely to favor the party that can turn out more voters. Democratic voters in the district have spent months bemoaning their ties to Mr. Santos and are highly motivated to elect an alternative. It is unclear if Republican supporters will feel the same urgency their leaders do.“It’s been a frustrating year,” said Joseph Cairo, the G.O.P. party chairman in Nassau County. “I look at this as just the beginning to right a mistake, to move forward, to elect a Republican to serve the people the proper way, to elect somebody who is for real — not make believe.”The outcome promises to have far-reaching implications for the current Congress and the next.After Mr. Santos’s ouster, Republicans have a razor-thin majority. Thinning it further could hamper their short-term ambitions to pursue an impeachment inquiry into President Biden and negotiate around a major military aid package for Israel.Whoever emerges as the winner in February would also likely become the front-runner for next fall’s elections and lend their party momentum as they prepare to fight over six crucial swing seats in New York alone, including a total of three on Long Island.Democrats believe Mr. Suozzi, who is currently working as a lobbyist, is best positioned to deliver. In his stints as a congressman and Nassau County executive, he took conservative stances on public safety and affordability that are popular among suburban voters. And his combative primary campaign for governor just last year may help him shake the anti-Democratic sentiment that has sunk other candidates.Jay Jacobs, the Democratic leader for the state and Nassau County, said he still intended to screen multiple candidates, including Ms. Kaplan, a more progressive former state senator who remains in the race, even as other candidates dropped out and coalesced behind Mr. Suozzi.Ms. Kaplan could get a boost from Ms. Hochul, who faced Mr. Suozzi in an ugly 2022 primary fight, during which he questioned her husband’s ethics and referred to her as an unqualified “interim governor.”The governor has pushed Mr. Jacobs and Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the House Democratic leader, to reconsider whether Mr. Suozzi was their strongest candidate, particularly given his hesitancy to fully embrace abortion rights in the past, according to four people familiar with the conversations.But it is unclear if the governor would have the power to block Mr. Suozzi. Mr. Jeffries personally worked to lure the former congressman into the race earlier this fall, and Mr. Suozzi is close friends with Mr. Jacobs, who has told associates he is the likely pick.Republicans are proceeding more cautiously. They are wary of repeating their experience with Mr. Santos, who secured the party’s backing in 2020 and 2022 despite presenting them with a fraudulent résumé and other glaring fabrications that they failed to catch.This time, Republicans appear to only be considering candidates already known to party officials, and plan to engage a research firm to more formally vet potential nominees.Campaign strategists in Washington were said to favor Mr. Sapraicone, the former police detective who made a small fortune as the head of a private security company. Mr. Sapraicone, 67, could afford to spend a portion of it in a campaign, but he would also enter a race with almost no name recognition or electoral experience.Local Republicans were pushing Ms. Pilip, a potentially mold-breaking rising star with a remarkable biography. She moved to Israel from Ethiopia as a refugee in the 1990s, later served in the Israel Defense Forces and flipped a legislative seat in Nassau County in her 40s as a mother of seven.Other wild card candidates included Elaine Phillips, the Nassau County comptroller; Kellen Curry, an Air Force veteran and former banker; and Jack Martins, a well-known state senator who has run for the seat before.Mr. Santos himself could theoretically run for the seat as an independent. But the task would be arduous and might jeopardize a more urgent priority: fighting charges that could put him in prison for up to 22 years. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      George Santos Draws Another Democratic Challenger: Tom Suozzi

      by

      The NewsThomas R. Suozzi, the Long Island Democrat whose failed bid for governor in 2022 may have helped clear the way for Representative George Santos to get to Congress, announced on Tuesday that he would run to replace Mr. Santos and take back his seat in the House of Representatives.Tom Suozzi, during a 2022 campaign visit to Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem, left his House seat for an unsuccessful run for governor that year.Amir Hamja for The New York TimesWhy It Matters: Democrats see a major opportunity to flip the district, and the House.Mr. Santos, a Republican, flipped a suburban district covering parts of Long Island and Queens last year that had largely favored Democrats, after Mr. Suozzi chose to run in the Democratic primary for governor instead of defending his seat in Congress. Mr. Santos’s victory helped his party narrowly take control of the House.Democrats were already champing at the bit to win back the seat and others they lost in New York next year, hoping it could help them flip the House. They are already pouring money into the state, and hope to damage other New York Republicans by linking Mr. Santos’s issues — most notably a 13-count federal indictment — to them.Republicans are eager to hold the line. They are also eyeing pickup opportunities. On Tuesday, Alison Esposito, a Republican who lost her bid for lieutenant governor last year, said she would challenge a Democratic incumbent, Representative Pat Ryan, in the Hudson Valley.Before Mr. Santos even took office, he was dogged by scandal. The New York Times and other news outlets reported that he had lied to voters about much of his life. His campaign was found to have engaged in questionable fund-raising and spending, and his personal finances were murky.Lies, Charges and Questions Remaining in the George Santos ScandalGeorge Santos has told so many stories they can be hard to keep straight. We cataloged them, including major questions about his personal finances and his campaign fund-raising and spending.The Background: Santos’s court case is ongoing.In May, Mr. Santos was charged in federal court with 13 felonies in three alleged financial schemes. Prosecutors have accused him of fraud, money laundering, theft of public funds and false statements.Mr. Santos has pleaded not guilty to all charges, and he has insisted he will remain in his race.On Thursday, his former campaign treasurer, Nancy Marks, pleaded guilty in a related case. In court, Ms. Marks said that she and an unnamed co-conspirator agreed to report false campaign donations and a fictional $500,000 loan that Mr. Santos said he made to his campaign.That co-conspirator is understood to be Mr. Santos.Prosecutors have not charged him with falsifying the loan or with other campaign finance violations. But his apparent involvement, which prosecutors documented with text messages and emails, would seem to leave him vulnerable to more charges.Court documents filed last month suggested that Mr. Santos and prosecutors may be discussing a plea deal, though Mr. Santos has denied it. But a guilty plea or further charges would increase the pressure on him to leave or be removed from office.What Happens NextIf Mr. Santos were to leave his seat, there would be a special election to replace him. In that case, local party leaders would pick their nominees.Mr. Suozzi, a centrist Democrat who served six years in Congress, could be a prime choice for his party. Even after redistricting, the district largely resembles the one Mr. Suozzi represented, so he is familiar to voters there and has a track record he could cite against a Republican opponent.If no special election takes place, Mr. Suozzi would have to win what is shaping up to be a crowded Democratic primary next June. Already, seven others have filed statements with the Federal Election Commission saying they were entering the race.Mr. Santos, too, is facing challengers, with at least nine people filing similar documents for the Republican primary. He is expected to face a tough battle. Even before the criminal case, local Republican leaders said they would not back Mr. Santos’s bid.The former House Speaker, Kevin McCarthy, also said that he would not support Mr. Santos’s re-election. It is unclear whether Mr. McCarthy’s successor, once one is chosen, would change course.Mr. Santos is next scheduled to appear in court on Oct. 27. More

    • 150 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      George Santos Used Most of His Campaign Cash to Pay Himself Back

      by

      Mr. Santos brought in $179,000 in the most recent quarter and spent much of it repaying loans he made to his campaign, new filings show.Representative George Santos, the New York Republican facing federal criminal charges, raised about $179,000 for his re-election campaign from April through June — a modest sum that he used in large part to pay back money he had lent to his past congressional bids.Much of the money, which came from an unorthodox network of about 180 donors scattered across the country, arrived after Mr. Santos’s indictment, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission on Friday.Some said they gave as a gag, but others sought to reward Mr. Santos’s stalwart stance against the Chinese Communist Party or his conservative views. The vast majority of donors reported living outside Mr. Santos’s Queens and Long Island district.Mr. Santos used $85,000 of the money on May 30 to repay himself. He had previously reported giving his own campaign more than $700,000 in personal loans.The fund-raising figures, the first since Mr. Santos officially began his re-election bid, were strikingly weak for a candidate in a competitive swing district. They underscored the steep political path before him as both Democrats and leaders of his own party try to remove him next year.One of the Democratic candidates for his seat, Zak Malamed, announced that he had taken in $417,000 in just the first six weeks of his campaign, nearly three times Mr. Santos’s total. Kellen Curry, a Republican primary challenger, reported raising more than $200,000.Mr. Santos’s totals were also dwarfed by those raised by other frontline Republicans in New York, who are gearing up for some of the most closely contested races in the country next year.Lies, Charges and Questions Remaining in the George Santos ScandalGeorge Santos has told so many stories they can be hard to keep straight. We cataloged them, including major questions about his personal finances and his campaign fund-raising and spending.Filings showed that Representative Mike Lawler, a Republican who narrowly flipped a Hudson Valley seat by defeating Sean Patrick Maloney, the powerful head of House Democrats’ campaign arm, raised just over $900,000 during the three-month period, much of it from PACs.The figure made him one of the most successful freshman fund-raisers in the country, and left his campaign with $1.5 million in cash.Other first-term Republicans in New York and New Jersey swing districts — including Representatives Marcus Molinaro, Anthony D’Esposito, Brandon Williams and Tom Kean Jr. — had not yet reported their totals by Friday afternoon.The campaign of Representative Pat Ryan, a Hudson Valley Democrat whom Republicans hope to unseat, said it had raised more than $625,000, down from more than $1 million raised in the previous quarter.The recent contributions to Mr. Santos — $162,031.52 to his campaign and $16,600 to an affiliated committee, Devolder Santos Victory Committee — are almost certain to be scrutinized by federal prosecutors and the House Ethics Committee.(The Santos campaign reported earlier Friday having raised somewhat less money from fewer donors, but the campaign updated its filing on Friday evening, citing incomplete information provided by previous treasurers.)Mr. Santos’s donors included a part-time cashier from Georgia, students from Pennsylvania and California, a masseuse from Texas and a member of a stage crew from New York, who all gave at least $3,300 each.The Times reached out to more than 40 donors listed on Mr. Santos’s filing, few of whom had made large political donations in the past. Many had Chinese or other Asian surnames and donated around two dates, in late May and late June.Mr. Santos has repeatedly linked his fund-raising appeals to his opposition to the Chinese Communist Party, as well as his support for Guo Wengui, the exiled Chinese billionaire and Steve Bannon ally with a global legion of followers.Mr. Santos has directly solicited support on Gettr, a conservative social media site financed by Mr. Guo and used by many of his followers. Mr. Guo, who also goes by the names Miles Guo and Miles Kwok, is facing legal jeopardy of his own, after federal prosecutors say he bilked his supporters out of more than $1 billion.At least two donors said Mr. Santos’s opposition to the Chinese Communist Party had moved them to contribute the legal maximum, and a relative of a third donor indicated that the person was a follower of Mr. Guo.“I see him want to take down C.C.P.,” said Xuehong Zhang of Plano, Texas, who identified herself as a Chinese immigrant and said she had learned about Mr. Santos on Gettr, though she did not mention Mr. Guo. “I just want to take down C.C.P.”Others said they found Mr. Santos’s conservative voting record appealing, and were stirred to support him by what they viewed as hypocritical attacks.“You’ve got the dirtiest of the dirty calling him dirty. That’s hypocrisy,” said Ronald Bucina of Prospect, Tenn., who gave $50. “They’ve stolen more money than George Santos was ever going to dream of stealing.”Charles Scheferston, a retired New York City detective who lives in Rockville Centre, N.Y., and also gave $50, said the congressman was “probably guilty” and had lied “like crazy,” but that he liked his policy stances. “You cannot lie about a voting record,” he said.Not everyone contributed in earnest.Michael Sommer, a 29-year-old teacher in Atlanta, said he spent $32.95 on a Santos for Congress T-shirt “for a joke.”Brad Mason of Pittsburgh, donated $1. “I thought it would be really funny to request the refund,” he said. “And it was amazing for me.”Stockpiling cash could prove unusually important for Republican incumbents this year if New York is forced to redraw its congressional districts. An appeals court on Thursday ordered a redraw that could make a handful of seats virtually unwinnable for Republican incumbents. The case will be appealed.Mr. Santos announced his re-election campaign in April, even as local Republican officials and party committees said they would not support him. The next month, he was indicted on 13 felony counts, including wire fraud, money laundering and theft of public funds.He has pleaded not guilty, but the case further diminished his support from House Republican leadership. Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California told Fox News last month that the party planned to “keep that seat with another Republican.”Mr. Santos’s fund-raising totals were an improvement over what he took in during the first quarter of the year, when his campaign raised just $5,300.His expenses were fairly limited outside of his loan repayment. Though he paid legal and consulting fees, he did not report paying any staff or renting an office. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      George Santos Must Be Held Accountable by Republican Leaders

      by

      George Santos is far from the first member of Congress to be indicted while in office. Both chambers and both parties have endured their share of scandals. In 2005, for instance, F.B.I. agents discovered $90,000 hidden in the freezer of Representative William Jefferson, who was under investigation for bribery. He refused to step down, wound up losing his seat in the 2008 election, and was later sentenced to 13 years in prison. James Traficant was expelled from Congress in 2002 after being convicted of bribery and racketeering. Bob Ney resigned in 2006 because of his involvement in a federal bribery scandal.But in one way, Mr. Santos is different from other members of Congress who have demonstrated moral failures, ethical failures, failures of judgment and blatant corruption and lawbreaking in office. What he did was to deceive the very voters who brought him to office in the first place, undermining the most basic level of trust between an electorate and a representative. These misdeeds erode the faith in the institution of Congress and the electoral system through which American democracy functions.For that reason, House Republican leaders should have acted immediately to protect that system by allowing a vote to expel Mr. Santos and joining Democrats in removing him from office. Instead — not wanting to lose Mr. Santos’s crucial vote — Speaker Kevin McCarthy pushed a measure to refer the matter to the House Ethics Committee, notorious for its glacial pace, and the House voted predictably along party lines on Wednesday afternoon to follow that guidance.If the House doesn’t reverse that vote under public pressure, it’s incumbent on the Ethics Committee to conduct a timely investigation and recommend expulsion to the full House, where a two-thirds vote will be required to send Mr. Santos back to Long Island.Mr. Santos was arrested and arraigned in federal court last week on 13 criminal counts linked primarily to his 2022 House campaign. Mr. McCarthy and other members of the Republican leadership effectively shrugged, indicating that they would let the legal process “play itself out,” as the conference’s chair, Elise Stefanik, put it.In addition to expulsion, the Republican leaders have several official disciplinary measures they could pursue, such as a formal reprimand or censure, but so far, they have done little more than express concern. Mr. McCarthy has several tough legislative fights looming, including negotiations over the federal budget to avoid a government default, and Mr. Santos’s removal might imperil the G.O.P.’s slim majority. In effect, Mr. Santos’s bad faith has made him indispensable.His constituents believed he held certain qualifications and values, only to learn after Election Day that they had been deceived. Now they have no recourse until the next election.The question, then, is whether House Republican leaders and other members are willing to risk their credibility for a con man, someone whose entire way of life — his origin story, résumé, livelihood — is based on a never-ending series of lies. Of course they should not be. They should have demonstrated to the American people that there is a minimum ethical standard for Congress and used the power of expulsion to enforce it. They should have explained to voters that their commitment to democracy and public trust goes beyond their party’s political goals.At least some Republican lawmakers recognize what is at stake and are speaking out. Senator Mitt Romney of Utah reiterated his view that Mr. Santos should do the honorable thing and step aside, saying, “He should have resigned a long time ago. He is an embarrassment to our party. He is an embarrassment to the United States Congress.”Similarly, Anthony D’Esposito and Mike Lawler, both representing districts in New York, are among several House Republicans advocating his resignation. Representative Tony Gonzales of Texas has gone a step further, calling for Mr. Santos’s expulsion and a special election to replace him. “The people of New York’s 3rd district deserve a voice in Congress,” he wrote on Twitter.Mr. Gonzales gets at the heart of the matter. Mr. Santos has shown contempt for his constituents and for the electoral process. Mr. McCarthy and the other Republican House leaders owe Americans more.Source photograph by Elizabeth Frantz/Reuters.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Looking Back at Her World War II Secret

      by

      Ruth Mirsky, who turns 100 today, was a code breaker in the U.S. Navy. “It was very hush-hush,” she remembered.Good morning. It’s Wednesday. We’ll meet a World War II code breaker who turns 100 today. We’ll also look at a filing by Representative George Santos that suggests he is already considering running for another term in Congress.Michelle V. Agins/The New York TimesSomewhere in Rockaway Park, N.Y., is a World War II code breaker who is finally talking.Ruth Mirsky, who turns 100 today, did not say much about breaking codes. She gave almost nothing away, saying things like “it was top-secret work” and “I had a very small part in it.” And “we worked in shifts. We worked around the clock — daytime, nighttime.” Not a word about encryption machines or eureka moments deciphering enemy messages long ago.Mirsky’s birthday comes 80 years after she enlisted in the Navy and became a WAVE, the acronym for Women Accepted for Voluntary Emergency Services. She was promptly sent to Washington, where she became one of several thousand women scrambling to unscramble messages intercepted from the Japanese and German military.She worked in the library unit at what became known as the Naval Annex, typing incoming messages on file cards, categorizing them and noting repetitions — recurring letters or phrases that might have been potential clues to encryption. Others have said it was mind-numbing duty, an excruciating search for patterns and ciphers among monotonous columns of numbers and letters, but Mirsky still sounded fascinated.“It was a whole new thing,” she said. “For me it was, anyway.”Their diligence paid off. “Together, this group of Navy women broke and rebroke the fleet code” and “helped keep track of the movements of the Imperial Japanese Navy,” the author Liza Mundy wrote in her book “Code Girls: The Untold Story of the American Women Code Breakers of World War II.The women were instructed not to talk about their secret wartime lives — “it was very hush-hush,” Mirsky told me. When she visited her former boss in New York, she recalled, “he asked me, ‘What are you doing there? The F.B.I. was asking all kinds of questions to find out what kind of a person you were.’”She added: “I couldn’t even tell my fiancé.”We’ll get to him in a moment. Mirsky worked in an installation in Washington that was just off Ward Circle, “which taxi drivers started calling WAVES Circle,” Mundy wrote.Around the time Mirsky arrived in 1943, that installation was a base of operations for 1,500 women, along with just over 900 male officers and enlisted men, according to Mundy, who wrote that by early the next year, there were almost twice as many women and far fewer men. But, in what the writer Meryl Gordon called a “pre-Betty Friedan moment in American life when institutional discrimination was the norm,” the Navy’s pay scale favored the men.Mirsky did not mention that last week. She talked about two brothers, David, whom she had been dating, and Harry, who had been stationed in South Dakota as a radar specialist. “Harry came to see his brother before David’s unit went overseas,” she said. Harry had been injured when he was thrown from a jeep; at one point he had been in a body cast. With David off to the front lines, “Harry asked me if he could write to me from South Dakota, so that’s how it started,” she said.About six months later, Harry’s unit was transferred to Fort Dix, in New Jersey. He remained stateside when the unit went overseas because of the accident. He managed to go to Washington regularly — once without a pass, for which he was punished when he returned to Fort Dix, she said.You can guess what happened. Harry became the fiancé, then the husband. They were married for 39 years, until his death in 1984.She is a regular at a JASA Older Adult Center not far from her apartment center. It organized a birthday party last week, a few days early. “You can’t put 100 candles on a cake,” Mirsky told me, but she blew out 10 or so on the strawberry shortcake that was served. Assemblywoman Stacey Pheffer Amato, who represents the area, brought a proclamation and tweeted photos.“I’ve had a happy life,” Mirsky told me. “I feel I’ve done what I wanted, actually.” She mentioned her two children, Stuart Mirsky and Debra Aluisio, who had joined her at the JASA center. She mentioned her five grandchildren and 10 great-grandchildren. She double-checked those numbers with her son, counting as they named the names.She talked about playing Scrabble — on an iPad.“It’s a good thing for my mind, I guess,” she said.“Very similar to the codes,” said Aluisio.WeatherIt’s a cloudy, windy day near the mid-40s. The evening is breezy and mostly clear, with temps around the mid-30s.ALTERNATE-SIDE PARKINGIn effect until April 6 (Passover).The latest Metro newsJefferson Siegel for The New York TimesJail supervisor convicted: A jail supervisor who walked away from an inmate after he had hanged himself was convicted of criminally negligent homicide, capping a trial that pointed to the brutal conditions inside New York City’s jails and the persistence of inmate suicides.A city councilman’s apartment hunt: Chi Ossé became the youngest member of the New York City Council when he was sworn in 14 months ago. Now, he faces a challenge: finding an apartment in his district. He called the search “tiring, treacherous, and competitive.”A police department’s troubled history: Najee Seabrooks was shot and killed by police officers in Paterson, N.J., after calling 911 to report that he was experiencing a mental health crisis. A coalition of groups requested a Justice Department inquiry into what it called “widespread unlawful and unconstitutional conduct” by the Paterson police.Santos signals he might run againJonathan Ernst/ReutersLittle more than two months after he assumed office, George Santos signaled that he might want a second term.Santos, the embattled Republican from Long Island who is under scrutiny for lies about his background and questions about his finances, submitted paperwork to the Federal Election Commission suggesting that he may run for re-election in 2024.My colleague Michael Gold writes that the filing does not necessarily mean that Santos will run, but it does allow him to continue to raise money and spend it on campaign-related expenses, including paying back roughly $700,000 that he lent to his campaign last year.He can also use money he raises for any potential legal fees involving some of the investigations he is facing. Federal prosecutors have been examining his campaign finances and personal business dealings, and last month the House Ethics Committee opened its own inquiry.After The New York Times reported that Santos had lied about graduating from college, working for prestigious Wall Street firms and managing an extensive real estate portfolio, Santos acknowledged that he fabricated parts of his résumé and his biography.But he has denied criminal wrongdoing and has resisted calls to resign, even as some Republicans questioned whether he could serve constituents. Republican officials in Nassau County have said they would avoid taking constituent problems to his office whenever they could. Ten House Republicans have called on Santos to resign, and a poll in January by Siena College found that 78 percent of the voters in his district wanted him to give up his seat, including 71 percent of the Republicans who were questioned.METROPOLITAN diaryClocking inDear Diary:When I was in my early 20s, I worked at a cafe in Park Slope. I used to walk to work in the darkness at 4:30 a.m., lacing up my black sneakers in my Clinton Hill apartment and schlepping past halal trucks on my way as they set up for the day.I always bought a grapefruit from the bodega across the street before starting my shift. The man at the counter would greet me with a wide smile, its warmth washing away the tired feelings left over from the morning trek.Clocking out? I’d ask.Yes, he would say. Clocking in?Yes, I’d say.And then each day, like a mantra, he would singsong to me: “You are beginning your day … and I am ending mine!”— Annabelle LewisIllustrated by Agnes Lee. Send submissions here and read more Metropolitan Diary here.Glad we could get together here. See you tomorrow. — J.B.P.S. Here’s today’s Mini Crossword and Spelling Bee. You can find all our puzzles here.Melissa Guerrero and Ed Shanahan contributed to New York Today. You can reach the team at nytoday@nytimes.com.Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. More

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      George Santos Comes to Washington. It Could Be Awkward.

      by

      On the first day of the 118th Congress, the representative-elect, a Republican who has made false claims about his background, education and finances, will bring his saga to Capitol Hill.WASHINGTON — Representative-elect George Santos has been hard to pin down.“No one can find him,” Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York and the incoming minority leader, said at a news conference last week, pressing for answers on the geyser of falsehoods about Mr. Santos’s background that have been revealed since he flipped a Democratic seat on Long Island in November.But beginning on Tuesday, Mr. Santos will not be able to hide anymore.He is to arrive on Capitol Hill for what is shaping up as a chaotic opening day of the 118th Congress, perhaps as the most notorious member of a new House Republican majority that is toiling to overcome deep divisions as it assumes control and the speakership is still up in the air.It will most likely be an awkward moment for Mr. Santos, who will get his first taste of navigating the Capitol and its all-permeating press corps in the midst of a scandal of his own making.He is under the shadow of active investigations by federal and local prosecutors into potential criminal activity during his two congressional campaigns. Prosecutors told The New York Times on Monday that Brazilian law enforcement authorities intended to revive fraud charges against him stemming from an incident in 2008 regarding a stolen checkbook.Democrats are already calling for him to give up his seat, and members of his own party are demanding more detailed explanations of his conduct.That includes making up claims about his résumé, his education, his ties to Wall Street firms and his charitable endeavors — all of which have been revealed as part of a fantasy persona created as the backbone of his pitch to voters.In addition to his background, Mr. Santos has misrepresented parts of his finances and filed incomplete or inaccurate congressional disclosures. He has also claimed that he is Jewish and the descendant of Holocaust survivors. Mr. Santos is Catholic.Federal and local prosecutors are investigating whether he committed crimes involving his finances or misleading statements.Mr. Santos, the first openly gay Republican to win a House seat as a non-incumbent, has yet to offer a full accounting to the voters who elected him based on a largely made-up biography. He has admitted to “embellishing” his résumé and to the fact that he did not graduate from any institution of higher education.He has promised to tell his whole story at some point.Still, it remains unclear what, if anything, Republicans will do to punish him, or how he will choose to comport himself once he is sworn in on Tuesday. Representative Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California and the minority leader, cannot afford to lose a single vote as he labors to win the speakership. He has remained silent about Mr. Santos and his position in the Republican conference.Mr. McCarthy, for now, has more pressing concerns, like his own political future, to contend with.And for now, Mr. Santos appears ready to keep moving forward.“It was an honor to tour the United States Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point today,” he tweeted three days after Christmas, with a photograph of him and a large ship’s wheel. “In Congress, I look forward to working alongside them to fully utilize this amazing resource we have in our own backyard.” More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      A Con Man Is Succeeding Me in Congress Today

      by

      Today is my last day as a member of Congress, and George Santos is about to be sworn in to take the seat I held for six years. He will take an oath to “bear true faith” to the Constitution and take this obligation without any “purpose of evasion.” I’ve lost track of how many evasions and lies Mr. Santos has told about himself, his finances and his history and relationship with our stretch of Long Island and northeastern Queens. When he is seated, it will diminish our Congress, our country and my constituents — soon his constituents. It saddens me that after 30 years of public service rooted in hard work and service to the people of this area, I’m being succeeded by a con man.Yet I’m clinging to my sense of optimism. I believe that as slow and frustrating as it sometimes is, our democracy, our free press and the rule of law work. They have to.I also know the voters of the Third District pretty well; they believe in the rule of law, in playing by the rules. They like authenticity in their leaders and pride themselves on having a good BS detector. The fact is that Mr. Santos’s behavior went beyond BS: He fabricated the basics of his biography to an extent that most voters wouldn’t have thought possible. The shame would be too great, right? I am certain that if the Third District’s voters have an opportunity to weigh in on his political future again, he will be gone.But for now, there is no getting around the fact that Mr. Santos’s con game is a manifestation of a growing political phenomenon of saying or doing anything, with no automatic consequences. Whether it be far-right election deniers, personal attacks that call for violence against opponents, claims of false-flag mass shootings, extremists spouting the first thing that comes to mind and even one politician saying he could “shoot somebody” on Fifth Avenue and still not lose supporters. If we are going to subdue the tyranny of unchecked liars and their lies, then Mr. Santos must be held accountable: He must be removed by Congress or by prosecutors, because there is no indication that he will be moved by conscience to voluntarily resign.I do not say these things lightly. Expelling a member of Congress is no easy task, and the bar is rightly high. Our country’s democracy is based on free and fair elections, the wisdom of the voters and the peaceful transfer of power. Some of my constituents even now are saying that they don’t want their vote overridden and Mr. Santos ousted.But now we know that no one voted for the real George Santos. Sure, some candidates say and do anything to get into office and then abuse the public trust. In Mr. Santos, we have someone who abused the public trust even before he got into office; it’s mind-boggling to think what his actions and conversations will be like in Congress on behalf of his constituents.I know from my experience as a mayor of my hometown, as a county executive and as a member of Congress that you cannot get things done without building trust with your colleagues. How can Mr. Santos be trusted? How could he be effective?Even before Mr. Santos’s lies were exposed in the media, he showed himself to be an avatar of this age of no-consequences impunity. He ran against me in 2020: It was the middle of the Covid pandemic, he did not live in the district, and no one had heard of him. He had little in campaign funds, and during our few joint campaign appearances, all virtual, he came across as a phony. I ignored him, hardly mentioned his name and beat him by 12 points.On election night 2020, Mr. Santos jumped on Donald Trump’s discredited “stop the steal” bandwagon. We knew on Election Day we had won and won big, but he used the Trump movement to raise funds online and attended the orientation for new members before the race was called. I was sworn in on Jan. 3, 2021, without much ado. Then we learned he attended the Jan. 6 Trump rally at the Ellipse. He went on to boast that he had written “a nice check for a law firm” to help defendants who had stormed the Capitol. (He probably didn’t even do that.) His behavior should have alerted us all, but he wasn’t taken seriously, and unfortunately, as Robert Zimmerman, his Democratic opponent in the 2022 election, has said, the press didn’t really grasp the level of his deceit. His actions and comments around Jan. 6 didn’t have the consequences they should have.We now know more about his phony biographical information. We are appalled by his insensitive and fallacious pandering to the Jewish community. His apology tour has been cringeworthy and continues to raise more disturbing questions. We will learn more about his newfound wealth and questionable financial disclosures and campaign financing as the press, law enforcement and, ideally, the House Ethics Committee dig in. But we already know enough.Could he be enjoying all the attention? This inexperienced newcomer who fabricated much of his life story is now better known than most members of Congress, including me. He’s becoming as well known as others who abused trust, like Sam Bankman-Fried and Bernie Madoff. Not unlike them, he appears to have conducted his finances in highly unusual, if not unlawful, ways. But I have to wonder, having seen his delight for attention and his self-regard, if he loves that everyone now knows his name — even though it’s because of yet another big lie.The people of my district are holding rallies, signing petitions and calling on the Republican leadership to act. The district is a model for moderation, seen by most political observers as a 50-50 district with constituents who embrace a get-it-done attitude. They dislike partisanship and value tell-it-like-it-is leadership. They are now being saddled with a slippery, inexperienced liar who tells it like it isn’t. They’ve been reaching out every day to ask, “How could this have happened?” and “What can we do?” We are counting on the press to keep digging in, law enforcement to keep investigating and the political pressure to keep building on the House.But again, I believe we will get this right. So many panicked people came to me during Mr. Trump’s presidency, fearful that his tactics would win a second term — and one with a mandate, no less. He lost. I was one of the last people in the chamber as the Jan. 6 riot intensified, and people legitimately worried that the insurrectionists would succeed. We certified the election that night, and more than 960 people have been charged. The election deniers were decisively turned back.One of my favorite lines from the 2011 film “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” has always stayed with me: “Everything will be all right in the end. So if it is not all right, then it is not yet the end.” That’s how I feel about America right now. It’s not a naïve idea; it’s what keeps us sane and able to keep moving forward in the age of Mr. Santos and Mr. Trump. The system works — if not right away, then ultimately. It has worked throughout our history, and it will work now.Tom Suozzi, a Democrat, has represented New York’s Third Congressional District since 2017. He is a former Nassau County executive and mayor of Glen Cove on Long Island and ran for the Democratic nomination for governor of New York in 2022.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      How George Santos’s Campaign Spent Its Funds: Rent, Flights and Hotels

      by

      Representative-elect George Santos, under scrutiny after fabricating much of his résumé, also spent campaign funds on $40,000 worth of air travel.The company was called Cleaner 123, and over the course of four months, it received nearly $11,000 from the campaign of George Santos, the representative-elect from New York who appears to have invented whole swaths of his life story.The expenditures were listed as “apartment rental for staff” on Mr. Santos’s campaign disclosure forms and gave the address of a modest suburban house on Long Island. But one neighbor said Mr. Santos himself had been living there for months, and two others said that they had seen Mr. Santos and his husband coming and going, a possible violation of the rule prohibiting the use of campaign funds for personal expenses.The payments to Cleaner 123 were among a litany of unusual disbursements documented in Mr. Santos’s campaign filings that experts say could warrant further scrutiny. There are also dozens of expenses pegged at $199.99 — one cent below the threshold at which federal law requires receipts.The travel expenses include more than $40,000 for air travel, a number so exorbitant that it resembles the campaign filings of party leaders in Congress, as opposed to a newly elected congressman who is still introducing himself to local voters.It is not known if the spending was in fact illegal, or merely unusual. Federal and local prosecutors said this week that they would begin inquiries into Mr. Santos’s finances and background.Mr. Santos, a Republican, was elected in the Third Congressional District, a consequential swing district in Queens and Long Island, after a failed bid for the same seat in 2020. He has come under intense scrutiny after a New York Times investigation revealed that he misrepresented details of his education, work history and property ownership, along with a previously undisclosed criminal charge in Brazil.The story also raised questions about Mr. Santos’s financial circumstances, which disclosures show have improved drastically since 2020, when he reported earning just $55,000 a year.Mr. Santos has declined to be interviewed by The Times. But in the 10 days since The Times’s story was published, he has admitted to a stunning string of falsehoods. Earlier this week, he told The New York Post that he denied any criminal conduct, saying: “My sins here are embellishing my résumé.”Late Thursday, Joe Murray, a lawyer for Mr. Santos, said in a statement that there had been some money spent “unwisely” by a firm that had been fired by the campaign more than a year earlier, but he said that all expenditures were legal. The payments to Cleaner 123 were for legitimate expenses on behalf of staffers relocating to the district, he said, as were hotels booked to lodge staff members and people assisting the campaign.“Campaign expenditures for staff members including travel, lodging, and meals are normal expenses of any competent campaign. The suggestion that the Santos campaign engaged in any irresponsible spending of campaign funds is just ludicrous,” Mr. Murray said.The representative-elect is set to be sworn into Congress on Jan. 3, when Republicans begin a new term with a slim four-seat majority in the House. While local Republican leaders have condemned Mr. Santos’s dissembling, those in Washington have been largely silent.Robert Zimmerman, a Democrat who lost a congressional election to Mr. Santos this fall, spoke at a rally on Thursday, in which people criticized Mr. Santos over reports that he lied about his background. Dave Sanders for The New York TimesQuestions arose about Mr. Santos’s residence when a reporter attempted to reach him at the Whitestone, Queens, address listed on his voter registration. Mr. Santos’s former landlord there said that he had moved out in August.Mr. Santos told The Post that he was living in Huntington, on Long Island, at his sister’s home. But court documents, as well as interviews with neighbors and a doorman, show that she resides in Elmhurst, Queens.Campaign disclosures, however, show that Mr. Santos paid Cleaner 123, which lists the house in Huntington as its address, nearly $11,000 in rent and a deposit. When reached by phone, a representative from Cleaner 123 confirmed that it was a cleaning company, but hung up before answering why it had received rent payments from Mr. Santos.Many questions remain about Mr. Santos’s campaign expenditures: It is not clear which expenditures were made on behalf of staff, versus for the candidate himself. The Federal Election Commission regulations say that campaigns are not allowed to pay personal living expenses for their candidates, including rent or utilities. Several campaign finance experts said that paying rent for staff was unusual and could be a violation, though they said that the F.E.C. rarely took action in such cases.Mr. Santos’s campaign filings show other irregularities as well: He had listed a flood of expenses under $200 — more than 800 items in total — a number that far exceeded those of candidates for similar office. More than 30 of those payments came in just below the limit at $199.99, expenses listed for office supplies, restaurants and Ubers, among other things. While F.E.C. rules urge candidates to try to save receipts for purchases below $200, they are required to keep them for all expenditures above that threshold.Paul S. Ryan, an election law expert, said that the expenditures could be an effort to hide illegal use of campaign funds, given the leeway with reporting receipts below $200. If so, he said, Mr. Santos’s attempt to hide the pattern could put him in further legal trouble, adding: “I consider deployment of this tactic strong evidence that the violation of law was knowing and willful — and therefore meeting the requirement for criminal prosecution.”Unusually for a candidate who was relatively new to politics, Mr. Santos also appears to have used his campaign accounts to fund trips across the country, along with local hotel stays, according to a review of his campaign expenditures by The Times.Over the course of his campaign, Mr. Santos spent $30,000 on hotels, $40,000 on airfare and $14,000 on car services — and campaign records suggest he also retained a campaign vehicle.The spending was funded by a campaign war chest of more than $3 million amassed by four fund-raising committees during the 2022 campaign cycle. The money came from small-dollar donors, longtime Republican contributors on Long Island and elsewhere and the campaign committees of other Republican candidates. The biggest givers lavished Mr. Santos with the maximum allowable amounts, in some cases directly, in others via a Republican super PAC or the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee.A hefty chunk of the total came in the form of a $700,000 loan from Mr. Santos himself.The source of Mr. Santos’s wealth has been surrounded by some mystery: He has said on financial disclosure statements that his company, the Devolder Organization, is worth more than a million dollars; the statements also show that he earned millions between salary and dividends over the past two years. But the disclosures do not name any of the clients who helped Mr. Santos earn such a fortune — an omission that could pose legal problems for Mr. Santos, campaign finance experts say.Two former aides, who requested to remain anonymous because they didn’t want to be publicly associated with Mr. Santos, described growing concern during the campaign that the candidate was too focused on spending money frivolously and not focused enough on the nuts and bolts of winning the election.One consultant described the spending as a part of a persona Mr. Santos sought to build: as a man whose success had let him trade his humble beginnings for a life of high-end travel and fine dining.Craig Holman, the government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, said the spending was atypical. “Usually a congressional candidate tries spending as little as possible for their own accommodations and travel, because they need that money for campaign purposes,” he said. “George Santos appears to be just living a lavish lifestyle for himself.”By way of comparison, Nick LaLota, the Republican representative-elect from the First Congressional District, in Long Island’s Suffolk County, spent roughly $900 on hotel stays, $3,000 on airfare and $900 on taxi services, according to his campaign filings. Sean Patrick Maloney, the outgoing head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who lost to a Republican in the Hudson Valley, spent just $8,000 on air travel, according to his filings.The $30,000 Mr. Santos’s campaign spent on hotels and Airbnb expenditures included stays in Tennessee, Virginia, Texas, Florida, California, Kansas, Michigan, Washington, D.C., New Jersey and in New York itself. Records indicate his campaign favored the Hyatt and Hilton hotel brands, expensing stays at Virginia’s Hilton Alexandria Old Town, Florida’s Hilton Melbourne, the Hilton West Palm Beach, the Hyatt Regency Orlando and the Hyatt Place West Palm Beach.In New York, his campaign booked hotel stays at the SoHo Grand in Manhattan and the Garden City Hotel and the Inn at Great Neck, both on Long Island.Mr. Santos’s campaign also paid for dozens of meals, including at high-end restaurants such as the Breakers in Palm Beach and the Capital Grille steakhouse in New York. He spent roughly $14,000 at an upscale Italian restaurant called Il Bacco, in the Little Neck neighborhood of Queens.The restaurant’s owner, Joe Oppedisano, who donated $6,500 to Mr. Santos’s campaign and related PACs and whose 2020 survival in a plane crash made tabloid headlines, was unavailable for comment, according to the woman who answered the phone at the restaurant on Thursday afternoon.Nate Schweber More