Rant #3,041: Lies

What do you make of this George Santos character?

Federal and county prosecutors are looking into the Congressman-elect after the Long Island Republican lied on his resume—and later admitted to it.

The New York Times brought out that after its own investigation, it found that Santos lied about his educational background, his work experience, even his religion and his family background.

He might have also lied about his place of residence, and the fact of the matter is that the legislator—who also claims that he is gay—evidently won his election based on this pack of lies, of which he has finally admitted to, calling them “embellishments.”

The problem here is that even though members of his own party have urged him to step down, if Santos does not resign, nothing stands in the way of him being sworn in as scheduled on January 3 … all based on a cataclysm of one untruth after another.

If Santos does step down, the seat would remain empty, and New York State governor Kathy Hochul would have to call a special election, which could include a primary race in the spring.

But Santos is adamant that he will, in fact, take the oath of office on January 3, an oath that will be as hollow as he is if he does what he says he is going to do.

Due to the lies he told, Santos’ very existence is being questioned—is he artfully “George Santos” or someone else—what are his money sources, is he actually an agent of a foreign country, and is he even a citizen of this country—the latter being a necessity for a congressional position.

Look, let’s be honest about it, this is not the first time that a legislator has lied about his background.

Some years ago, Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut claimed that he was a Vietnam war veteran, which he was not, In fact, an earlier New York Times investigation found that he actually got five deferments so he would not have to serve during the war.

And there are dozens of others who have lied, told untruths, and generally told the public stories that were as phony as a $3 bill.

But Santos’ story is perhaps the worst example of this type of behavior, because what he called “embellishments” camouflaged the fact that he not only lied, but lied about EVERYTHING.

He claimed that his educational background includes college attendance at some of the top universities in the country … the truth is that his education might be at the high school level at best, and that is it.

He claimed that his work background included working at Goldman Sachs and Citigroup ... but the truth is that they have no record of his ever being an employee at either organization.

He claimed he had Jewish grandparents that fled Europe during World War II … but more on that later.

He claimed to be gay, and ran against a gay opponent, but he was married at one time … perhaps this is the only one you can give him a pass to, because that does happen, but with his entire pack of lies, who can believe him when he talks about his sexuality?

He claimed that the criminality that the New York Times found in his background—using a stolen credit card when he was a youth in South America—was a lie … but the truth is that this criminal act has not yet been resolved, and might never be resolved, due to the lax court system overseas.

I mean, you could go on and on and on about this guy without ever finding an end.

And what might be the whopper of this whole thing is that he said that his family was a victim of the Holocaust, and that he is Jewish, although The New York Times found that his grandparents were from South America, with absolutely no link to the Holocaust or Judaism.

He later joked that while it is true that he is not Jewish, he was “Jew-ish,” one of the great explanations for a lie I have ever heard. It will certainly go down in the record books as one of the stupidest explanations for justifying a lie in modern recorded history.

OK, the guy lied through his teeth, but the question that I have is how was this guy not properly vetted by the Republicans?

He ran for Congress twice, losing once and being victorious this time around, so he was their choice for this vacant seat.

How could he pull the wool over the eyes of his own party like he has?

I don’t get that at all, and it just feeds into my belief that I will never vote for a Republican or Democrat again, because they are all irresponsible individuals who are out for one thing, and it has nothing to do with the constituents that they are supposed to be representing.

Santos’ story is a sad one, and I feel that the full story has yet to come out.

There is way more to this story than meets the eye, and when the extent of this story finally comes out, we are going to find that the axiom “a sucker is born every minute” will be amplified by this case.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of suckers out there, including those who voted this storyteller into office.

Once again, you get what you pay for.