A NEWSLETTER FROM DAVID CORN |
A NEWSLETTER FROM DAVID CORN |
|
|
How We Got That Santos Story…and What Comes Next |
By David Corn February 4, 2023 |
Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) walks to a House vote on January 26, 2023. Francis Chung/AP |
|
|
Do you remember the HUD scandal? In the late 1980s, investigations and news reports revealed that former Reagan administration officials and prominent Republicans made millions as consultants for developers who won contracts through political favoritism from the Department of Housing and Urban Development during the Reagan years. The scandal widened to include disclosure of embezzlement and other abuses. Under Reagan, the department had been a swamp of corruption. And during this scandal, Sen. Alfonse D’Amato, a Long Island Republican who already had a shifty reputation, was implicated for using his influence to steer federal contracts to campaign contributors—an allegation he denied.
Chasing the D’Amato angle, I discovered that people who had low-level jobs for a Colorado consulting firm that was tied to the scandal had made the maximum allowable contribution to D’Amato. So, too, did the husband of a secretary at the company. He was a postal worker in the Rocky Mountain State. I found a number for him and called. Why did you donate to D’Amato, a senator from New York? I asked. The fellow, as I recall, first said he hadn’t made any such contribution. Your wife did the same, I pointed out. He then said he thought that she had arranged for these donations at the urging of her boss and that the boss had paid her back to cover these large contributions that they could not have afforded on their own.
Bingo! If he was telling me the truth, he was describing a crime, for it’s illegal to contribute to a federal campaign through a straw donor. And looking through D’Amato’s campaign finance reports, it seemed as if these were hardly the only instances of such improbity. I wrote a story for the Nation. There was no blowback for D’Amato or the consultants who had apparently funneled money into his campaign improperly to win his favorable influence. This was long before social media could amplify my work. But this episode taught me how a reporter could scour the campaign reports filed by House, Senate, and presidential candidates for evidence of possible wrongdoing and grift.
Which brings me to George Santos. These past two weeks, my colleague Noah Lanard and I used this tactic to break news about the fabulist from Long Island. In two stories, we revealed that more than a dozen donors to his 2020 congressional campaign (which he lost) appear not to exist and that a relative who was recorded donating the maximum allowable amount of $5,800 to Santos’ more recent campaign said that they made no such donation. The latter story raised the possibility that other Santos relatives listed by his 2022 campaign as contributing large donations—though these people were students or held moderate-income jobs—were not the true sources of these funds. During the 2020 campaign, donors whose existence could not be confirmed contributed more than $30,000. In the subsequent campaign, Santos’ relatives kicked in more than $45,000.
Lanard and I nailed these stories because we knocked on doors and made lots of phone calls. It was good old-fashioned shoe-leather work. In several instances, after much effort, we located people who lived at addresses associated with donors listed on Santos’ campaign filings, and these individuals told us nobody with those names lived at these places. We pursued a California ranch owner and prominent GOP donor whose home was recorded as the address for a top donor to Santos’ 2020 campaign named Stephen Berger. It took many calls to reach the rancher. But we finally contacted him, and he informed us that he had never given a buck to Santos, that he knew of no one named Stephen Berger, and that no such person had ever resided at his home. (We searched elsewhere for a Stephen Berger who might have sent money to Santos and came up empty.)
The intrepid Lanard went knocking on doors in Queens to check on people Santos had claimed as major contributors. At one home, he found that relative who said that they were shocked to hear they were listed in Santos’ campaign finance reports as a donor and that they had not contributed to Santos. At another Queens residence, Lanard found Santos’ sister, Tiffany (who worked for a political action committee tied to Santos), and she would not confirm the donations listed under her name or those of other Santos relatives.
Calling and knocking—it’s a mainstay of reporting. Even in the age of the internet. And for us, it paid off. These stories received much attention. (Thank you, Stephen Colbert.) And I am sure they made it to the desks of the many law enforcement officials who are now scrutinizing Santos.
But all this work—and the investigative efforts of a great many other reporters at the New York Times, the Daily Beast, the Washington Post, Talking Points Memo, and other outlets—has yet to resolve the issue of what or who was the source of these questionable contributions. And an even bigger question is, where the hell has Santos gotten all his money from?
In 2020, according to a financial disclosure form he filed, Santos made $55,000 working for a firm that organized investors' conferences. Two years later, he filed a personal disclosure form that said in 2021 and 2022 he pocketed between $3.5 million and $11.5 million from a company he set up in May 2021 after the Florida investment firm where he had worked was accused in a complaint by the Securities and Exchange Commission of operating a Ponzi scheme. And during the 2022 race, he loaned his campaign a whopping $705,000.
Santos has yet to sufficiently explain how he earned those millions—he has offered contradictory and vague explanations of his firm’s business—or disclose the source of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans he provided his campaign. Of course, he has been pressed by reporters (including Lanard and me) to provide answers to what should be easy questions. What did you do to amass millions of dollars in a short time? Where did the loan come from? But for some reason, Santos has refused to clear up these mysteries.
Since Watergate—and All the President’s Men—the mantra for reporters has been, follow the money. That’s what Lanard and I have been trying to do. It sure looks as if funds were improperly—if not illegally—slipped into his campaigns. But who was doing this and with what money is the riddle that enquiring minds want to figure out. The imagination does run wild if we speculate. Who would bank on Santos? We know that for the 2022 campaign, Andrew Intrater, a wealthy New York financier, Republican donor, and cousin of sanctioned Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg, and his domestic partner sent over $67,000 to Santos’ campaign and political committees backing Santos. Intrater also donated $100,000 to Rise NY PAC, a New York state political action committee connected to Santos. But where did the other money come from?
I have my guesses, and we—and other reporters—will keep on looking. But I’m certain that a prosecutor with subpoena power could resolve this relatively quickly. Bank records make good evidence, and the credit card numbers used for donations can be traced. The trail is rather obvious.
Santos has lied about his education, his career, his family history, his volleyball playing, and much else. But the real story is the moolah. Who was paying for what? With local, state, and federal law enforcement—including the FBI—investigating Santos, I would bet that this secret eventually will be revealed. After all, the Justice Department recently ordered the Federal Election Commission to stand down as federal prosecutors pursue a criminal investigation of Santos’ campaign finance practices.
In the meantime, there’s a lot more knocking and calling to do.
Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com. |
|
|
Dumbass Comment of the Week |
The judges don’t approve, but I must cite Donald Trump this week. Yes, he could be a contender every week. But that would not be fair to all the other contestants. At DCotW, we apply a mercy rule and only allow Trump to participate once in a while. And this is one of those whiles. A few days ago, he posted on social media this message: “Remember in Helsinki when a 3rd rate reporter asked me, essentially, who I trusted more, President Putin of Russia, or our 'Intelligence' lowlifes. My instinct at the time was that we had really bad people in the form of James Comey, McCabe (whose wife was being helped out by Crooked Hillary while Crooked was under investigation!), Brennan, Peter Strzok (whose wife is at the SEC) & his lover, Lisa Page. Now add McGonigal & other slime to the list. Who would you choose, Putin or these Misfits?”
|
Take a deep breath. The former president of the United States, who thinks he’s a future president of the United States, just can’t quit Vladimir Putin, even as the tyrannical Russian leader mounts a horrific and genocidal war against Ukraine. In Trump’s hyper-narcissistic view, former FBI officials who investigated the Trump-Russia scandal (meaning him!) are more evil than the man who has launched an unjustified war that has killed or injured about 200,000 soldiers on both sides and taken the lives of between 7,000 and 40,000 Ukrainian civilians. This is how a psychopath sees the world.
While we’re on the subject, allow me to highlight another piece I wrote this week. The Columbia Journalism Review inexplicably published a far-too-long (24,000 words!) critique of the media’s coverage of the Trump-Russia scandal by onetime investigative reporter Jeff Gerth that slammed the New York Times (where he once worked) and other mainstream outlets for reporting errors that, in Gerth’s distorted view, unfairly created a negative environment for Trump. As I point out, Gerth totally misses the forest for branches on a bush. He fixates on the media’s handling of the Steele dossier and on articles that went too far in suggesting Trump directly colluded with Russia, all to portray Trump as a victim of a journalistic witch hunt. To quote myself:
Gerth does probe genuine errors committed by his former employer and others…But here’s where he goes wrong: He misrepresents the scandal that is the subject of the media coverage he is scrutinizing. He defines the Trump-Russia affair by only two elements of the tale: the question of Trump collusion with Moscow and the unconfirmed Steele dossier. This is exactly how Trump and his lieutenants want the scandal to be perceived…Yet the focus on collusion and the Steele material has been a purposeful distraction meant to obscure the basics of the scandal: Vladimir Putin attacked the 2016 election in part to help Trump win, and Trump and his aides aided and abetted this assault on American democracy by denying such an attack was happening…Throughout the thousands and thousands of words Gerth generates, he downplays or ignores these fundamentals and how the media in 2016 covered them (which was shoddily). Instead, he zeroes in on the reporting related to collusion and Steele. In doing so, he offers an examination predicated on a skewed view of reality.
The piece does not explain the true media failure that allowed Trump to get away with it. Instead, it bolsters Trump’s bogus narrative of a media/Deep State crusade trying to take him down with “fake news.” CJR truly screwed the pooch. You can read my full critique here.
Back to stupid comments. The winner this week is Rob Portman, the recently retired GOP senator from Ohio. Portman, who cultivated the reputation as a non-extreme Republican, provided the kicker to a long article in the Atlantic by McKay Coppins about GOP officials—“even the ones with MAGA hats in their closets and Mar-a-Lago selfies in their Twitter avatar”—privately wishing that Trump would move on and leave their party alone. Yet, as Coppins points out, none of these Republicans, who consider Trump a threat to the GOP’s electoral prospects, are willing to take action to bounce the once-upon-a-time failed casino owner. For the Republican establishment, the Trump problem has become like the weather: Everyone talks about it; no one is willing to do anything about. As Coppins writes:
Ask them how they plan to [move on from Trump], and the discussion quickly veers into the realm of hopeful hypotheticals. Maybe he’ll get indicted and his legal problems will overwhelm him. Maybe he’ll flame out early in the primaries, or just get bored with politics and wander away. Maybe the situation will resolve itself naturally: He’s old, after all—how many years can he have left?
In short, they’re waiting for Trump to die—and perhaps yearning for it. This is how Coppins capped off the article: When I asked Rob Portman about his party’s Trump problem, the recently retired Ohio senator confidently predicted that it would all sort itself out soon. The former president, he believed, would study the polling data, realize that other Republicans had a better shot at winning, and graciously bow out of 2024 contention.
“I think at the end of the day,” Portman told me, “he’s unlikely to want to put himself in that position when he could be more of a Republican senior statesman who talks about the policies that were enacted in his administration.”
I let out an involuntary laugh. “Maybe that’s wishful thinking on my part,” Portman conceded. More like magical thinking. Trump leaving the 2024 race to become a “senior statesman” and help his party? Dumb, dumb, and dumb. Portman is gone from the Senate, but he’s in our winner’s circle this week. |
Readers seemed appreciative of my guided tour of the bizarre John Durham investigation—and my observation that Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and his fellow House Republicans who are investigating what they call the “weaponization of government” will not bother with Durham’s (and former Attorney General Bill Barr’s) profound abuse of power. But Bruce Bailey emailed, “Your most recent mailing, about WOG, would have been easier to understand if you'd made it clear what WOG stood for. End of nit.” WOG was my newly coined acronym for “weaponization of government.” Most readers seemed to understand that. Patricia Jaeger wrote:
Thank you for providing links to some great music. I was not familiar with Judith Owen but I'm certainly a fan now. And yes, Jordan's WOG will be a train wreck. Performance governance is tiresome. I mean, how many times can you look at the guy without a jacket, yelling and saying things that are nonsense, meant only for Fox sound bites. I can't wait for the George Clooney documentary to come out.
Jaeger was referencing my recent recommendation of Judith Owen’s new brassy album of double entendre songs made popular by female singers in the 1940s and 1950s called Come On & Get It. She also was referring to an in-the-works documentary on the abuse scandal at Ohio State University when Jordan was an assistant wrestling coach there.
Craig Berrington emailed:
My question isn’t about Durham and Barr; it’s about Durham and Garland. When Biden nominated Garland, I thought it was a terrific appointment, but Garland’s behavior as AG has been so bizarre on so many levels that “disaster” is the best one-word description of it. When it comes to Durham and Garland, why didn’t Garland immediately review Dunham’s behavior and then fire him. There was more than enough evidence to justify it? Why did Garland allow Durham to put innocent people in jeopardy of criminal conviction and jail time, not to mention financial, professional, and reputational ruin?
I’ve heard all the explanations—really hollow excuses—for him. None of them ring true. None of them further the Justice Department’s need for the “non-political” exercise of its authority. Rather Garland’s behavior smells a lot like either a purposeful tilt toward the appeasement of the Republican far right—who will never be appeased—or a truly distorted view of an attorney general’s job. Not to gild the lily here, but why do we still have a special counsel for Biden, and not for Pence? I could go on… but won’t.
I understand the frustration with Attorney General Merrick Garland. Some of his decisions seem too much on the side of caution. Yet I am withholding final judgment until the investigations underway—including that of special counsel Jack Smith—play out. As for Pence, I think he might be heartened by the appointment of a special counsel, for that would signal he is a significant 2024 contender. More seriously, it was probably a mistake to appoint a special counsel for Biden. But now that it’s done, it might be best for Garland to cease appointing special counsels whenever some classified documents are found in the possession of a former US government official, unless there is reason to suspect that person intentionally mishandled the documents and/or did not cooperate with a Justice Department inquiry and a National Archives effort to retrieve the material.
Pat Nevin sent in this observation:
Jim Jordan is uniquely American: a circus carnival barker. Trump is one, too, but Jordan’s pitch is a bit higher and more desperate. Each American carnival barker has his own technique and verbiage to get people into the freak show inside the tent (or trailer). Trump is really good at it. Jordan probably needs to lower his pitch and slow it down a bit to get people to take a peek inside. Thanks for giving me a new word for these clowns: GOPWOGS.
David Roy asked a question: Why has Matt Gaetz not been prosecuted? I don’t get it.
The Washington Post provided an explanation: “Career prosecutors have recommended against charging Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) in a long-running sex-trafficking investigation— telling Justice Department superiors that a conviction is unlikely in part because of credibility questions with the two central witnesses, according to people familiar with the matter.” Remember, prosecutors generally only want to bring cases they believe they can win. Consequently, they assess witness reliability and how a jury might react to testimony and the evidence presented. In this case, they seem to have concluded the prosecution was not a slam-dunk.
Charles Clines emailed:
One of the main reasons, in my opinion, why Trump was elected was because of the media coverage of his every rally and the almost non-existent coverage of the other candidates. Seems like the more controversial his statements were, the more coverage to received. And he still won't go away. I agree that Trump and his demagogic rallies got more live coverage than he deserved in 2015 and 2016. I believe that will not be the case this time around. Even Fox News these days doesn’t broadcast his hate-fests the way it used to. Trump may be unpleasantly surprised when he does not receive all the free media that helped boost him in 2016. Jerry Peace took exception with my recent assertion that Trump is motivated by revenge, spite, and revenge. He wrote: As long as Trump can collect, or steal, money from his sycophants, he'll stay in. Anyone who'll hawk ridiculous NFT superhero nonsense will do, say, slobber, and whine anything for a buck. Revenge, sure, but only as a tool to grift and con more dollars.
Perhaps. I still think bile, as much as greed, propels this guy. |
“I like the country.” “Why, Moxie? The fresh air? The blue sky? The wide-open spaces to run and play? The beautiful panorama?”
“Yes, but also the horse shit. There’s lots and lots of horse shit.” |
Read Recent Issues of Our Land |
January 31, 2023: The bull of John Durham; George Santos: it never stops; nominating Navalny; Judith Owen’s brassy Come On & Get It; and more. January 28, 2023: Remembering Victor Navasky, the unflappable ringmaster of the Nation; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Julie Kelly); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.
January 24, 2023: Tucker Carlson, Glenn Greenwald, the JFK assassination, Watergate, and the MAGA perversion of history; the right-wing disinformation machine and Hunter Biden; David Crosby, RIP; and more.
January 21, 2023: Is it getting harder to enjoy action thrillers?; Santos and a big-money con; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Donald Trump Jr.); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more. January 18, 2023: Trump Derangement Syndrome on the right; nominating Navalny; the weirdness and ghostliness of Tar; and more. January 14, 2023: Why Ron DeSantis shouldn’t—or won’t—run for president; the many faces of the George Santos scandal; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Ryan Zinke); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.
January 10, 2023: Our split-screen America; Wakanda Forever and Babylon (thumbs down) and The Fabelmans and Armageddon Time (thumbs up); and more. January 7, 2023: The other GOP civil war; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Glenn Greenwald); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.
January 4, 2023: The House GOP and a year of hope or horror; a noirish novel of the East Village in the 1990s; Brian Ray and the “coolest” song of 2022; and more. December 23, 2022: The connection between Trump’s taxes and the January 6 report; the weirdest congressional scandal in a long time; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Sen. Josh Hawley)—and Year (Donald Trump); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more. |
|
|
Got suggestions, comments, complaints, tips related to any of the above, or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com. |
| |
|