Washington DC

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Capitol rioter who assaulted Brian Sicknick gets near-seven year sentence

      by

      Capitol rioter who assaulted Brian Sicknick gets near-seven year sentence Julian Khater pleaded guilty to using chemical spray to attack the Capitol police officer who died on 7 January A man who admitted using chemical spray to assault Brian Sicknick on January 6, a day before the Capitol police officer died, was sentenced to nearly seven years in prison in a Washington court on Friday.US jury convicts man pictured with feet on Pelosi’s desk during Capitol attackRead moreJulian Khater, 33, from Pennsylvania, was also fined $10,000.The judge, Thomas F Hogan, told Khater: “There are officers who lost their lives, there’s officers who committed suicide after this, there’s officers who can’t go back to work. Your actions … are inexcusable.”Sicknick’s death, at 42, is one of nine now linked to the attack on the Capitol on 6 January 2021 by supporters of Donald Trump attempting to block certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 election win.Later that month, Sicknick’s body lay in honor in the Capitol Rotunda. Two months after that, the Washington DC medical examiner ruled that the officer died from natural causes after suffering two strokes.But in March 2022, Khater pleaded guilty to two counts of assaulting officers with a dangerous weapon. He faced a maximum sentence of 20 years. Prosecutors asked for seven and a half. Khater has already served 22 months of his 80-month tariff.A friend of Khater, George Tanios, 41 and from West Virginia, admitted buying bear deterrent and chemical spray and giving some to Khater. Charged with walking on restricted grounds at the Capitol, he faced six months in prison. He also faced sentencing on Friday.Nearly 1,000 people have been charged over the Capitol attack and more than 300 sentenced. The longest sentence yet, of 10 years, went to Thomas Webster, a retired police officer from New York who attacked officers with a flagpole.The House January 6 committee recommended four criminal charges against Trump, for inciting the riot. The Department of Justice has not acted.Sicknick’s partner, Sandra Garza, has filed a $10m wrongful death lawsuit against Khater, Tanios and Trump.In court filings before sentencing, the assistant US attorney Gilead Light said Khater was “visibly incensed” at the Capitol on January 6, and used pepper spray against police for half a minute.“Khater’s tone of voice and his facial expressions … betray his emotion, his anger and his loss of control,” Gilead said. “He [was] incensed at having been personally sprayed by police chemical spray while standing on the front line of a riot, as if he had been an innocent victim.”Attorneys for Khater sought to blame Trump, writing: “A climate of mass hysteria, fueled by the dissemination of misinformation about the 2020 election, originating at the highest level, gave rise to a visceral powder keg waiting to ignited.”But Gladys Sicknick, the officer’s mother, said Khater was “centre stage in our recurring nightmare” and “the reason Brian is dead”.“Lawlessness, misplaced loyalty and hate killed my son,” she said. “I hope you are haunted by your crimes behind bars. Whatever jail time you receive is not enough.”In court on Friday, as around 50 uniformed Capitol police officers looked on, Khater said he wished he “could take it all back”. Rebuked by the judge for not apologising to any officer he assaulted, he said he had been advised not to do so, due to the wrongful death lawsuit.Officer Sicknick’s brother, Kenneth Sicknick, said that when Khater was released, he would “still be younger than Brian was when he died”.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsUS crimeWashington DCnewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Gary Hart: The “New Church Committee” Is an Outrage

      by

      To legitimize otherwise questionable investigations, Congress occasionally labels them after a previous successful effort. Thus, the new Republican-controlled House of Representatives’ proposed select committee, which plans to investigate the “weaponization of government,” is being described as “the new Church committee,” after the group of senators who investigated the F.B.I., the C.I.A. and other groups from 1975-76.As the last surviving member of the original Church committee, named after its chairman, the late Senator Frank Church of Idaho, I have a particular interest in distinguishing what we accomplished then and what authoritarian Republicans seem to have in mind now.The outlines of the committee, which Rep. Jim Jordan will assemble, remain vague. Reading between the rhetorical lines, proponents appear to believe agencies of the national government have targeted, and perhaps are still targeting, right-of-center individuals and groups, possibly including individuals and right-wing militia groups that participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrectionist attack on the Capitol.That is almost completely at odds with the purpose of the original Church committee, which was founded in response to widespread abuses by government intelligence agencies. While we sought to protect the constitutional rights and freedoms of American citizens, we were also bound to protect the integrity of the intelligence and security agencies, which were founded to protect those freedoms, too.Our committee brought U.S. intelligence agencies under congressional scrutiny to prevent the violation of the privacy rights of American citizens, and to halt covert operations abroad that violated our constitutional principles. Rather than strengthening the oversight of federal agencies, the new committee seems designed to prevent law enforcement and intelligence agencies from enforcing the law — specifically, laws against insurrectionist activity in our own democracy.It is one thing to intercept phone calls from people organizing a peaceful civil rights march and quite another to intercept phone calls from people organizing an assault on the Capitol to impede the certification of a national election.Rather than weaken our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, the Church committee sought to restore their original mandates and increase their focus away from partisan or political manipulation. Our committee was bipartisan, leaning neither right nor left, and the conservative senators, including the vice chair, John Tower, Barry Goldwater, Howard Baker and others, took pains to prevent liberal or progressive members, including chairman Church, Philip Hart, Walter Mondale and me, from weakening our national security.They needn’t have bothered. We all understood, including me, the youngest member, that attacks on federal law enforcement and national security would not go down well among our constituents. Unlike in the 1970s, today’s threat to domestic security is less from foreign sources and more from homeland groups seeking to replace the constitutional order with authoritarian practices that challenge historic institutions and democratic practices.Among a rather large number of reforms proposed by the Church committee were permanent congressional oversight committees for the intelligence community, an endorsement of the 1974 requirement that significant clandestine projects be approved by the president in a written “finding,” the notification of the chairs of the oversight committees of certain clandestine projects at the time they are undertaken and the elimination of assassination attempts against foreign leaders.Despite the concern of conservatives at the time, to my knowledge, no significant clandestine activity was compromised and no classified information leaked as a result of these reforms in the almost half-century since they were adopted. In fact, the oversight and notification requirements, by providing political cover, have operated as protection for the C.I.A.Evidence was provided of the effectiveness of these reforms in the so-called Iran-contra controversy in 1985-87. The Reagan administration sold arms to Iran and used the proceeds to finance covert operations in Nicaragua against its socialist government. Assigning accountability for this scheme proved difficult until a document authorizing it was located in the White House. President Reagan did not remember signing it; however, it bore his signature. This kind of accountability would not have been possible before our reforms were adopted.The rules of the Senate and the House establish what standing committees and what special committees each house may create. The House is clearly at liberty within those rules to create a committee to protect what it perceives to be an important element of its base. And if its purposes are ultimately to protect authoritarian interests, it is presumably free to do so and accept criticisms from the press and the public. It is outrageous to call it a new Church committee. Trying to disguise a highly partisan effort to legitimize undemocratic activities by cloaking it in the mantle of a successful bipartisan committee from decades ago is a mockery.Gary Hart is a former United States senator from Colorado and the author of, most recently, “The Republic of Conscience.”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

      Federal prosecutors subpoena Giuliani over Trump campaign payments

      by

      Federal prosecutors subpoena Giuliani over Trump campaign paymentsThe order, issued in November, also asks the former New York mayor to provide testimony Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, who helped to amplify Donald Trump’s false claims about widespread fraud in the 2020 election, has been subpoenaed by federal prosecutors seeking documents about payments he received from Trump or his presidential campaign, a person familiar with the matter said on Monday.Grand jury in Georgia’s Trump 2020 election investigation finishes workRead moreThe subpoena, which was issued in November, also asks Giuliani to provide testimony, said the person, who declined to be identified as they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.The nature of the inquiry by the US attorney in Washington DC, which began before special counsel Jack Smith was appointed to oversee investigations into Trump, remains largely under wraps.Giuliani, who has served as Trump’s personal attorney, did not respond to requests by Reuters for comment.A spokeswoman for the US attorney for the District of Columbia did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The source said the subpoena sought, among other things, copies of any retainer agreements between Trump and Giuliani, or the Trump campaign and Giuliani, and records of payments and who made those payments.In December, a District of Columbia attorney ethics committee said Giuliani violated at least one attorney ethics rule in his work on a failed lawsuit by Trump challenging the 2020 election results.Giuliani’s New York state law license was suspended in June 2021 after a state appeals court found he had made “demonstrably false and misleading” statements that widespread voter fraud undermined the 2020 election won by his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden.TopicsRudy GiulianiDonald TrumpWashington DCNew YorkUS elections 2020newsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      January 6 officer Michael Fanone warns ‘democracy is still in danger’

      by

      January 6 officer Michael Fanone warns ‘democracy is still in danger’The former policeman – who sustained injuries during the US Capitol attack – says January 6 was a ‘wake-up call’ Nearly two years after American democracy was nearly derailed by the January 6 insurrection, a survivor of the attack gathered with Democratic lawmakers outside the US Capitol to warn that the Republican party’s paralysis of Congress is a sign that political violence is as much a threat as ever.‘Devoid of shame’: January 6 cop Michael Fanone on Trump’s Republican partyRead more“The events of that day felt like a wake-up call for me – and many others – that political violence is real. The worst part is that our elected leaders allow this to happen. And yet, this week people who encouraged and even attended the insurrection are now taking their places as leaders in the new House majority,” said Michael Fanone, a former Washington DC police officer who sustained grievous injuries while battling supporters of Donald Trump.As the second anniversary of the unprecedented attack neared, the Capitol was again engulfed in chaos, thanks to a revolt by rightwing lawmakers who have promoted Trump’s lies that the 2020 election was stolen. Their target this time was Kevin McCarthy, the party’s leader in the House of Representatives, who was hoping to be elected as speaker when the chamber’s new Republican majority took their seats last Tuesday.But the GOP’s margin of control is thin enough that the objectors have managed to stop him from winning the post, leading to multiple rounds of voting for the first time since 1923. The deadlock has rendered Congress’s lower chamber dysfunctional, with lawmakers unable to even be formally sworn in.Democrats have meanwhile steadfastly supported their leader in the chamber, Hakeem Jeffries, and shown no interest in helping Republicans resolve their differences, instead pointing to the spectacle as evidence the GOP is in the grips of its most radical members.“I see … forces of extremism on the far right, that are ready to tear down our government at whatever cost,” said Chris Deluzio, a newly elected House representative. “And we’ve seen the consequences of that even in the last couple of days, in the chaos around electing a speaker of the House, blocking us from doing the basic work of the people’s business in the House of Representatives.”The legislative standoff may well be ongoing on Friday when Joe Biden will mark January 6 with a White House ceremony for 12 police officers and election workers who fought off the mob and resisted pressure from Republican officials to stop counting the votes after the 2020 election.The group includes Rusty Bowers, former Republican speaker of Arizona’s lower house who Trump personally pressured to disrupt Biden’s election victory in the state, and Brian Sicknick, a Capitol police officer who died during the insurrection, as well as Fanone.Even if they manage to settle their spat in the House, the day will be an awkward one for Republicans. GOP candidates for offices nationwide in the November midterms promoted Trump’s baseless fraud claim, though many of its loudest proclaimers lost their races. It was an outcome cheered by democracy advocates, but it wasn’t enough to put Fanone’s fears to rest.Kevin McCarthy bid for House speaker enters third day after series of defeatsRead more“Many of the … pro-democracy candidates won by only a fraction of a percentage. So what that tells me is that, you know, democracy is still in danger,” Fanone said following Thursday’s event at the Capitol, which was organized by the anti-Trump organization Courage for America and Common Defense, a veterans group.He has become an outspoken critic of the Republicans since the insurrection, including McCarthy, who he once described as a “weasel”.“It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy,” Fanone said of the Californian’s latest troubles. “That being said, it’s still the legislative body of our government. And as an American, watching this level of dysfunction, is embarrassing.”TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsWashington DCDemocratsRepublicansDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Police quintuple reward for information on pipe bombs planted before Capitol attack

      by

      Police quintuple reward for information on pipe bombs planted before Capitol attackSuspect who planted bombs outside both Republican and Democratic National Committee headquarters is still at large Two years after explosive devices were planted outside the Democratic and Republican headquarters in Washington DC, authorities have quintupled the reward to $500,000 for information that could lead to the would-be bomber’s capture and conviction. The night before the January 6 Capitol attack, when a mob of Donald Trump supporters stormed the building in an effort to prevent Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s win, the suspect placed one pipe bomb in an alley outside the Republican National Committee headquarters around 8pm ET. They put the other bomb on a park bench near the Democratic National Committee headquarters, according to the FBI.The pipe bombs did not detonate; the suspect has remained at large. They were pictured in surveillance footage wearing a face mask, glasses, gloves, light grey Nike Air Max Speed Turf shoes emblazoned with a yellow insignia, and a gray hooded sweatshirt.The bombs were comprised of “threaded galvanized pipes, end caps, kitchen timers, wires, metal clips and homemade black powder”, the FBI said.The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) are offering up to $490,000 of the reward, and Washington DC’s Metropolitan police department the other $10,000, authorities said.“For two years, a dedicated team of FBI agents, analysts and law enforcement partners have been tirelessly reviewing evidence and digital media related to this case,” said David Sundberg, assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, in a press release.As of this week, the FBI and other agencies “have conducted approximately 1,000 interviews, visited more than 1,200 residences and businesses, collected more than 39,000 video files, and assessed nearly 500 tips”, the release said.More than 950 suspects have been arrested in relation to their alleged participation in the Capitol riots, with 284 defendants facing charges involving “resisting, or impeding officers or employees”. Ninety-nine face charges for allegedly “using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury” to a law enforcement officer, the US Department of Justice said.Some 484 of those charged have pleaded guilty to federal charges. Forty people who proceeded to trial were found guilty, justice department officials said.The highest-profile trial related to January 6 started in late December. The former Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio and four others involved in the far-right, often violent militia group, are facing charges of seditious conspiracy and other counts related to the attack.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsWashington DCnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      How Far Right Are the 20 Republicans Who Voted Against McCarthy

      by

      The Republicans who blocked Representative Kevin McCarthy of California from becoming speaker on Tuesday include some of the most hard-right lawmakers in the House; most denied the 2020 election, are members of the Freedom Caucus, or both. Here’s a closer look at the 20 lawmakers. Re-elected representatives Newly elected Andy Biggs Ariz. 5th Dan Bishop […] More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      John Fetterman Got a New Suit for His Senate Swearing-In

      by

      The Pennsylvania lawmaker joins the Washington establishment. Sort of.John Fetterman has a new suit. On Jan. 3, the junior senator from Pennsylvania, whose penchant for Carhartt sweatshirts, Dickies and baggy shorts was as much a part of his political brand as any stump speech, was sworn in as part of the 118th Congress wearing a relatively tailored, previously unseen light gray two-button number. This is a big deal, in part because during his time as lieutenant governor, Mr. Fetterman had made a point of stating that he had only one dark suit. On a day notable for the chaos around the election of Speaker of the House, that suit, as well as the light blue striped tie and polished black lace-ups Mr. Fetterman also wore, may have been the biggest political fashion statement of the incoming class. It was more symbolic even than Nancy Pelosi’s bright pink passing-of-the-baton outfit, or the smattering of suffragist white worn by some women in the House, or even J.D. Vance’s Trumpian uniform of navy suit, white shirt and glowing red tie. And it confirms Mr. Fetterman as one of the more unexpected image makers in Washington. It’s not that he dresses particularly well, though the new suit was a step up. It’s that he dresses with purpose.Indeed, Mr. Fetterman’s new suit was as notable as any of the fashion statements made by various members of Congress since clothes began to play a bigger role in electoral communications. To wit: January 2019, when a large group of women of the newly elected 116th Congress wore white to their swearing-in in honor of their suffragist predecessors (and as a counterstrike to the image-making focus of the Trump administration).Or, for that matter, almost every State of the Union and major public event since then — most recently in December, when a number of lawmakers wore yellow and blue to Volodymyr Zelensky’s congressional speech. If there’s a photo op involved, there’s generally a fashion decision aforethought.The silent communication that comes via clothing has become a standard part of the political toolbox. It’s wielded with increasing dexterity by, for example, elected officials like Kyrsten Sinema, who used her kooky wardrobe of sleeveless tops, colored wigs and the occasional denim vest to telegraph her independence from political norms long before she officially became an independent. Also Jim Jordan, who symbolized his willingness to fight during committee hearings by abandoning his jackets and rolling up his shirt sleeves. The Washington wardrobe is so standardized that any deviation from the norm stands out, especially on TV.Unless, of course, your default position is deviation from the norm — in which case a return to business as usual becomes the surprise. As Mr. Fetterman well knows.Before heading off to the Capitol for his swearing-in, he tweeted, “For those of you asking, yes, there will be a Fetterman in shorts today, but it’s not me.” (It was one of his sons, gamely continuing the family campaign to free the knee.) Rather than deny the idea that he thinks about what he wears, or having his staff deny it for him, Mr. Fetterman long ago turned his wardrobe into an asset: the subject of self-deprecating funny asides, social media jokes and pretty potent public appeal.He has blogged that he can’t roll up his sleeves because he only wears short sleeves. He has tweeted that his outfits are “Western PA business casual” and celebrated his new “Formal Hoodie.” (His wife, Gisele, has made fun of him for it; political couples — they’re just like us.) He was never exactly a working man — he was a mayor with a master’s degree from Harvard — but he dressed like one, and it helped humanize him, get him recognized and make a name for himself that resonated beyond the borders of Pennsylvania and into the realm of late-night TV even before he won his election. Arguably it helped win the election.And it meant that when he showed up on Capitol Hill in November for his orientation in a dark suit and blue tie, he got the sort of excited attention not normally bestowed on a senator-elect making a drive-by visit to his new workplace. Rather he resembled some sort of semi-celebrity, even as his willingness to play by Senate dress code rules and fit into the institution can’t have escaped his new colleagues.Nor, probably, could the sleight of hand that managed to make wearing a conservative suit look like a radical move. And they can expect more where this came from: According to his office, the new suit is one of three Mr. Fetterman has purchased, along with six — count ’em — ties. More

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      George Santos Goes to Washington as His Life of Fantasy Comes Into Focus

      by

      Mr. Santos, under scrutiny for lies about his background, is set to be sworn into Congress on Tuesday even as records, colleagues and friends divulge more about his past.In two years, George Santos went from being a little-known also-ran to a beacon of the Republican Party’s unexpected resurgence in a deep-blue state. But a swirling cloud of suspicion surrounds Mr. Santos, just as he is poised to take the floor of the House of Representatives on Tuesday, to swear to serve Constitution and country.Mr. Santos has admitted that he fabricated key parts of his educational and professional history, after a New York Times investigation uncovered discrepancies in his résumé and questions about his financial dealings. Federal and local prosecutors are investigating whether he committed crimes involving his finances or misleading statements. Now, new reporting shows that his falsehoods began years before he entered politics.Mr. Santos would join Congress facing significant pressure from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.Mr. Santos has been hard to reach. He has not answered telephone calls, text messages or emails asking him to respond to The Times’s reporting. Earlier this week, Mr. Santos’s lawyer responded to an email asking about his campaign’s unusual spending, saying it was “ludicrous” to suggest the funds had been spent irresponsibly. Mr. Santos did not answer an email sent to him and his lawyer on Friday asking for comments about new reporting on the discrepancies in his past.Members of his own party have called for more detailed explanations of his behavior, and Nick LaLota, also a Republican representative-elect from Long Island, has called for a House ethics investigation.Representative James R. Comer of Kentucky, the incoming Republican chair of the House Oversight Committee, told Fox News on Thursday night that he was “pretty confident” that the House Ethics Committee would open an investigation into Mr. Santos. He added, “What Santos has done is a disgrace. He’s lied to the voters.”New York Democrats also made it clear they want to subject Mr. Santos to deeper scrutiny. Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the incoming Democratic leader, has said Mr. Santos is “unfit to serve.” Representative Ritchie Torres said he planned to introduce the Stop Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker Act — the SANTOS Act — that would require House candidates to provide details of their backgrounds under oath.The lawmaker who may have the most significant role in his future in the House, Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, has been silent when asked about The Times’s reporting and Mr. Santos’s interviews supporting it.It remains unclear how the controversy might affect Mr. Santos’s debut in Congress, including his committee assignments. Mr. Santos told NY1 last month that he hoped to serve on the House Financial Services or Foreign Affairs committees, based on his “14-year background in capital markets” and a “multicultural background.” He has since admitted to misrepresenting his work in financial services, while aspects of his heritage have been called into question.New reporting by The Times brings a clearer picture of his earlier life into view, including information about the gaps in his personal history, along with discrepancies in how he described his mother’s life.Mr. Santos has said that he grew up in a basement apartment in Jackson Heights, Queens. Until Wednesday, Mr. Santos’s campaign biography said that his mother, Fatima Devolder, worked her way up to become “the first female executive at a major financial institution.” He has also said that she was in the South Tower of the World Trade Center during the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that she died “a few years later.”In fact, Ms. Devolder died in 2016, and a Brazilian community newspaper at the time described her as a cook. Mr. Santos’s friends and former roommates recalled her as a hardworking, friendly woman who spoke only Portuguese and made her living cleaning homes and selling food. None of those interviewed by The Times could recall any instance of her working in finance, and several chalked the story up to Mr. Santos’s tendency for mythmaking.His apparent fabrications about his own life begin with his claims about his high school. He said he attended Horace Mann School, a prestigious private institution in the Bronx, and said he dropped out in 2006 before graduating and earning an equivalency diploma. A spokesman for Horace Mann said that the school had no record of his attending at all.By 2008, court records show, Mr. Santos and his mother were living in Brazil, just outside Rio de Janeiro in the city of Niterói. Just a month before his 20th birthday, Mr. Santos entered a small clothing store and spent nearly $700 in 2008 dollars using a stolen checkbook and a false name, court records show.Mr. Santos has denied that he committed crimes in the United States or abroad. But the Brazilian record shows that he admitted the fraud to both the police and the shopkeeper.“I know I screwed up, but I want to pay,” he wrote in a message to the store’s owner on Orkut, a popular social media website in Brazil, in August 2009. “It was always my intention to pay, but I messed up.”In November 2010, Mr. Santos and his mother appeared before the police, where they both admitted that he was responsible. On Sept. 13, 2011, a Brazilian judge ordered Mr. Santos to respond to the case. Three months later, a court official tried to subpoena him, but he could not be found.By that time, he was back in New York, working at a Dish Network call center in College Point, Queens, company records show.Interviews with half a dozen former friends and colleagues, several of whom spoke on the condition that they not be identified to avoid being dragged into Mr. Santos’s controversies, suggest that he was reinventing himself when he moved back to New York, and that he would continue to do so in the years to come. They portray Mr. Santos as a striver, whose tendency toward embellishment and one-upsmanship left them with doubts about his many claimed accomplishments.He told some that he had been a journalist at a famous news organization in Brazil, but none could find his name on its website. He said that he was taking classes at Baruch College, but none of his friends remembered him studying. He bragged of Wall Street glory but often seemed to be short on cash, at times borrowing from friends whom he didn’t always repay. When he joined a travel technology company called MetGlobal, Mr. Santos portrayed himself as a man with family money. But two former co-workers said that the pay was modest and the work didn’t square with Mr. Santos’s depiction of himself as a financier passing time after bad bets left him on the outs on Wall Street.Not everything in Mr. Santos’s stated biography was a lie. A LinkBridge document supports his claim that he was a vice president. Several former colleagues confirmed he worked for MetGlobal, for a subsidiary called HotelsPro. And records examined by The Times appeared to corroborate his claim that he received his high school equivalency degree in New York in 2006.In 2016, Mr. Santos left for Florida, public records show, around the time that HotelsPro was opening an office in Orlando. Mr. Santos told Newsday in 2019 that he went there briefly for work. He received a Florida driver’s license and was registered to vote there in the 2016 election.Those who knew him recalled that Mr. Santos had long been a follower of Republican politics, and that he railed against Hillary Clinton and Bill de Blasio, who was then the mayor of New York.One who was close to Mr. Santos was Pedro Vilarva. Mr. Vilarva met Mr. Santos in 2014, when he was 18 and Mr. Santos was 26. Mr. Vilarva found him charming and sweet. They dated for a few months before Mr. Santos suggested they move in together. Mr. Vilarva said he felt on top of the world — even if he said he did find himself footing many of the bills.“He used to say he would get money from Citigroup, he was an investor,” Mr. Vilarva recalled. “One day it’s one thing, one day it’s another thing. He never ever actually went to work,” he said.Things began to unravel between the two men in early 2015, Mr. Vilarva said, after Mr. Santos surprised him with tickets to Hawaii that turned out not to exist. Around the same time, he said he discovered that his cellphone was missing, and believed Mr. Santos had pawned it.The betrayal prompted him to plug Mr. Santos’s name into a search engine, where he found that Mr. Santos was wanted by Brazilian police.“I woke up in the morning, and I packed my stuff all in trash bags, and I called my father and I left,” he said.Looking back, Mr. Vilarva said, he was young and gullible: He wanted to believe Mr. Santos’s many stories and believe in the life that they shared. Today he is worried about the impact Mr. Santos might have as an elected official.“I would be scared to have someone like that in charge — having so much power in his hands,” he said.André Spigariol More