George Santos And Bethany Hall Long: Separated At Birth?
Does this sound familiar?:
…investigators found evidence that _____ used campaign funds for personal purposes, defrauded donors and filed false or incomplete campaign finance and financial disclosure reports…
Let’s fill in the blank: George Santos. Immediately following the release of the House Ethics Committee report this morning, Santos announced he would not seek reelection in 2024. Oh, and there’s this:
The committee voted unanimously to refer its findings to the Department of Justice, saying that Mr. Santos’s conduct “warrants public condemnation, is beneath the dignity of the office, and has brought severe discredit upon the House.”
And while the panel refrained from recommending any punitive measures, there were already indications that the report could be the catalyst for a third effort to remove Mr. Santos from office. Numerous House members have previously said that they would support his expulsion if the committee found criminal wrongdoing or a severe breach of ethics.
Now, ask yourselves this. Who else allegedly ‘used campaign funds for personal purposes, defrauded donors and filed false or incomplete campaign finance and financial disclosure reports‘?
Now, I’m in no position to judge criminality in matters like these. But I like to think that I can identify unethical behavior when I see it. BHL and her husband appear to have engaged in behavior quite similar to the behavior of George Santos. (Let’s face it, if Santos was born in Suxco, would you blame him for trying to find an alternative identity, or identities? Of course not.)
The House has referred Santos’ actions to the Justice Department, has publicly found ‘substantial evidence’ that Santos has violated the law, and has referred the matter to the entire House for possible further action.
What will anybody do about Bethany? What will Bethany do about Bethany? Will she at least follow Santos’ lead and announce that she will not seek election in 2024?
I went on the Dep’t. Of Elections website to look at BHL’s campaign finance reports.
For 2022 alone, there are 12, count ’em, 12, amended reports. I tried, but I can’t make hide nor hair out of them.
Which, I suspect, is precisely the way it was intended.
I don’t entirely understand these reports either. But I do see one interesting tidbit.
On her *original* 2016 Annual report, which she submitted in Jan 2017, BHL had already reported a couple personal loans to her campaign- one on 09/09/16 and one on 11/01/16, both in the amount of $35,000 each.
So she knew she was supposed to report personal loans on her campaign finance reports, and she knew how to report them. She can’t claim she didn’t know. So why didn’t she report all of these other so-called “loans” until now?
Also, in her amended 2016 report, which she submitted last week, she has removed those two $35k loans, and she replaced them with a bunch of different loans on different dates in different amounts, adding up to a completely different total.
My question is- what happened there? Why would you report 2 loans that were never made? Did you hallucinate them? Or… are you just removing the real loans you made to your campaign and replacing them with a bunch of fake “loans” that are meant to justify your pilfering of hundreds of thousands of dollars from your campaign?
I suppose it’s possible there’s some other explanation. But until she shares the “audit” and receipts, it’s gonna look suspicious to me.
Just came here to post this excerpt from the NYT:
“Santos reported hundreds of thousands of dollars in fictitious loans to his campaign, the report said, then repaid himself with real money.”
…and beaten once again by the quick draw.
Breaking news: Santos says he won’t seek re-election.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/george-santos-ethics-report-reelection_n_65563cdce4b0998d699f3ee1
It’s time for a Special Prosecutor.
BHL’s amended campaign finance statements admit that she and her husband personally took more than $200,000 out of her campaign account without any documentation. She provides no evidence that $300,000 of campaign expenditures were put on credit cards, as she contends now (instead of being paid for out of normal campaign contributions, as the original filings showed).
The new numbers simply don’t add up. If she had used credit cards, her campaign finance statement balances would have been $200,000-$300,000 higher than they were reported at the time, because the expenditures would have not have been paid by the campaign contributions as the filings show.
At a minimum, BHL violated state law by failing to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars of expenses and the sources of funding. At maximum, it’s a criminal felony of embezzlement for removing $200,000+ of campaign fund, which carries a prison sentence of up to 25 years (as a Class B Felony for embezzlement over $100,000).
The fact that the timing of the $200,000 being removed from her campaign account coincides with the formation of her and her husband’s undisclosed housing renovation LLC, raises further questions that require criminal investigation.
The next step is clear: Attorney General Kathy Jennings must appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate. As a close friend and political ally of BHL, Jennings cannot credibly lead the investigation. With all of the evidence that’s already public (even without the “audit”), the failure to initiate an investigation would make Jennings complicit in the cover-up and basically an accomplice after-the-fact.
The precedent for this is crystal clear. In 2011, after it was uncovered that illegal campaign contributions were made to the Markell campaign, then-Attorney General Beau Biden appointed former Chief Justice Norman Veasey as Special Prosecutor. Biden knew he could not credibly investigate a friend and ally—and he knew there was likely illegal activity—so he took the only responsible step of appointing a respected attorney and non-elected official to run the investigation without political interference. Mind you, that investigation was over $25,000, not $200,000-$300,000 (and by comparison the McGuiness corruption trial was largely over $19,000 paid illegally to her daughter).
The only responsible answer is appointing a Special Prosecutor. Every Democrat who cares about good government should be clamoring for one to ensure the truth comes out. We can’t become New Jersey. This is important ethically, but also politically, because the fastest way that Republicans can come back into power in Delaware is to convince voters that Democrats are corrupt—and Exhibit A will be BHL’s finances and Exhibit B will be an AG of the same party refusing to investigate.
Do we know that AG Jennings is a ‘close friend and political ally of BHL’?
Fair point. We do know that they have worked on various policy initiatives together and have campaigned for each other in previous elections. To the public at least, it appears that they are allies. We also know that Jennings rightly did not hesitate to investigate a fellow Democrat (sort of) in McGuiness for something that was arguably of equal or lesser consequence than potentially embezzling $200,000. This warrants a similar investigation and a Special Prosecutor is the cleanest way to avoid any perceived conflicts of interest.
True. My understanding, though, is that Department of Elections does the initial investigation concerning these matters, and they would then pass findings along to the AG’s office.
It’s just that AG Jennings hasn’t hesitated to go after public corruption. Which isn’t to say that she might not view a Special Prosecutor as a viable option.
Man, this Santos ethics report is really something:
“He blatantly stole from his campaign,” the report says, alleging that Santos inappropriately spent money raised for his House campaign on beauty treatments, makeup and designer items, and to pay down his personal credit card debt.”
‘And to pay down his personal credit card debt.’ You don’t suppose–nah, they wouldn’t. Would they??
“The committee alleges that Santos spent thousands of dollars on Botox, an injectable treatment often used for cosmetic purposes to prevent wrinkles, as well as for medical purposes. The report also cites unspecified spa treatments and charges at Sephora.
“Several other expenditures related to spa services and/or cosmetic procedures could not be verified as having a campaign nexus,” the report says.”
“Santos is apparently a fan of Hermès, the luxury designer known for its accessories whose products can be worth upward of $100,000.
The lawmaker didn’t go that far, but he did spend $4,000 in campaign funds at the retailer, the report alleges.
Santos is a frequent flaunter of luxury brands, including Ray-Ban, Ferragamo and Cartier. A former roommate accused him of stealing a Burberry scarf and wearing it to, of all things, a 2021 “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington, D.C.”
Hey, who WOULDN’T wear a Burberry scarf to a Stop The Steal Rally?
“The report does not specify the amount, but it notes that Santos appears to have used a “small” portion of funds to purchase subscriptions on OnlyFans, a website where people can pay creators directly for content. Many creators use the platform to sell porn and adult content.
Elsewhere in the report, Santos is accused of failing to pay a campaign staffer for eight months.
You can read the entire report here:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/house-ethics-committee-releases-report-on-george-santos
WHYY released a really amazing summary of the BHL scandal. Very much worth a read:
https://whyy.org/articles/delaware-lt-gov-bethany-hall-long-campaign-finance-payments-turmoil/