Connect with us

CORRUPTION

Kevin McCarthy’s Long History of Protecting George Santos: Now He Won’t Move to Expel Until ‘Outcome’ of Trial (Video)

Published

on

U.S. Rep. George Santos (R-NY) after six months of revelations of lies and possible fraudulent activity, surrendered to federal authorities Wednesday morning and is facing 13 criminal charges, from wire fraud to money laundering to lying to Congress and more.

How is it he was allowed to remain a member of Congress for so long, given that many of his lies and many of the allegations of possible fraud and other criminal activity were so well known to the nation, and certainly to the Republican Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, who know possibly earlier than most, possibly as early as the summer of 2021.

Even now, after felony charges have been filed, there will be no effort from the Republican majority House of Representatives, and especially from Speaker McCarthy, to remove Santos from Congress.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy at practically every turn has been protecting Congressman George Santos.

Faced with a minuscule majority, Kevin McCarthy was quick to protect Santos even before the New York Republican representative, now facing federal criminal charges, was sworn into Congress and the California Republican was sworn in as Speaker.

Santos, elected in November of 2022 to represent the people of New York’s 3rd district – the wealthiest in the state and fourth-wealthiest in the nation – was quickly exposed as having lied about nearly his entire background, from his education and work history, to his religion, and apparently even his net worth.

(So expansive is the library of Santos’ lies, New York magazine’s Matt Stieb and Margaret Hartmann have maintained an expansive list, updated Wednesday morning: “Here’s Every Single Lie Told by George Santos.”)

McCarthy, whose goal for years has been to become Speaker of the House, refused to turn against Santos once it became clear that the freshman GOP lawmaker had tremendous power: Republicans have just a five-seat majority, meaning Santos is one of just a few protecting the balance of power, which could move to a Democratic House majority, and a Democratic Speaker of the House, should Santos and just a few other members leave Congress.

READ MORE: While Employed and Running for Congress George Santos Allegedly Received Thousands in Unemployment Benefits: Nassau D.A.

In fact, some, like Washington University in St. Louis Professor Timothy McBride note Santos cast the deciding vote that made McCarthy Speaker – on the fifteenth ballot.

Just days after being elected Speaker, McCarthy made clear he would take no action against Santos, as bombshell after bombshell about Santos’ serial lying exploded at McCarthy’s feet.

“It’s the voters who made that decision, and he has to answer to the voters,” McCarthy said in mid-January, refusing calls to expel him, and just “hours after Nassau County Republican Party Chairman Joseph Cairo Jr. said Santos ‘disgraced the House of Representatives,'” as Bloomberg reported.

That same day, January 11, McCarthy said Santos not only would not be expelled, he would be given committee assignments, because as Speaker he “tries to stick to the Constitution,” despite the Constitution not mentioning committee assignments.

McCarthy used the “Constitution” claim as if that were preventing him from expelling Santos, even though the majority of his constituents and the head of Santos’ local party were demanding his expulsion. (Unlike the Speaker of the House in Tennessee, who orchestrated the expulsion of two Black Democrats in violation of what some legal experts say actually were their First Amendment rights.)

NBC News senior Capitol Hill correspondent Garrett Haake at the time also reported that McCarthy “note[d] that Santos hasn’t been charged with a crime,” implying had he been he might move to expel him.

McCarthy’s protection of Santos continued throughout January.

READ MORE: Bombshell Paper Shows Democrats Likely Won’t Regain Majority Control of Supreme Court Until 2065 – Unless They Expand It

Just one week after ensuring the scandal-laden New York Republican would get committee assignments, McCarthy appeared to casually brush off reports over the past week or more that a Santos campaign aide reportedly had impersonated McCarthy’s chief of staff in fundraising efforts over a period of several years.

“Wealthy donors received calls and emails from a man who said he was Dan Meyer, McCarthy’s chief of staff, during the 2020 and 2022 election cycles, according to people familiar with the matter. His name was actually Sam Miele, and he worked for Santos raising money for his campaign, according to one GOP donor who contributed to Santos’ campaign,” CNBC reported in January.

It’s unclear when and how McCarthy first learned of the possibly unlawful impersonation, and it’s also unknown if or when he reported it to law enforcement authorities.

“You know, I didn’t know about that, it happened. They corrected but I was not notified about that until a later date,” McCarthy claimed to reporters when asked. “I didn’t know about it until a later date though, unfortunately,” he said, repeating himself.

Also in January, before McCarthy claimed he had not known about the impersonation but after reports detailing the deception and that it had been known in McCarthy’s office as early as last August, conservative Bill Kristol observed: “McCarthy seems to have known in 2021 a Santos staffer was impersonating McCarthy’s chief of staff, and he did nothing to inform those who were duped or the public. Nor did he stop Santos from running in 2022. The Santos scandal is also a McCarthy scandal.”

By this point, just halfway into January, McCarthy had taken the posture of not only protecting Santos by refusing to take action against him, he had taken the posture of defending him as if he were Santos’ spokesperson.

On January 17, one day after repeatedly insisting he did not know about a Santos staffer impersonating his chief of staff, Speaker McCarthy became even more involved. Rather than directing reporters’ questions to Santos’ office, he offered remarks that appeared to provide protection to the embattled New York congressman.

CNN’s Manu Raju reported: “Asked if he had concerns before the election about Santos, McCarthy said: ‘My staff had concerns when he had a staff member impersonate my chief of staff and that individual was let go when Mr. Santos found out about it.’”

That not only appeared to possibly conflict with the timeline, but gave Santos direct cover.

Of course, McCarthy had little need to worry about Santos being fully investigated by the Ethics Committee, because after becoming Speaker, in the House Republican majority’s “first official vote, they approved a House rules package that effectively gutted the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), the independent body that helps ensure that members of the House don’t abuse their positions,” reported Just Security‘s Gabe Lezra. “It was a striking decision that sent a clear message: the new far-right majority will demand that the other branches of government live up to ethical standards and practices that they themselves have no intention of following.”

By early February it was known that Santos was facing numerous ongoing, pending, or possible investigations, including  from the U.S. Dept. of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Nassau District Attorney, the Queens District Attorney, the New York State Attorney General, and the House Ethics Committee.

READ MORE: George Santos: Drag Queen, Congressman, Yacht Broker – FBI Investigating Role in $19 Million Sale Between Donors

And McCarthy protecting Santos continued into February, when, to the anger and shock of many, the Speaker insisted Rep. Santos – already apparently under multiple state and federal investigations, and even a criminal fraud investigation in Brazil – would be allowed to attend a classified briefing by the Pentagon on threats from China.

Government accountability and national security experts blasted McCarthy’s decision to once again protect Santos – who by that point had already stepped down from the committees McCarthy had allowed him on. One expert, retired U.S. Naval War College professor Tom Nichols, an academic specialist on international affairs including Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security, tweeted in response to McCarthy allowing Santos into a classified briefing: “This is insane.”

One day later, February 9, U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) said McCarthy‘s decision to allow Rep. Santos access to classified intelligence was the “final straw” that moved him and two other freshmen Democratic lawmakers to file a resolution to expel the New York Republican from Congress.

The resolution, HR 114, on Feb. 9 was referred to the House Ethics Committee – which McCarthy and his GOP caucus had gutted. It has sat there, no action taken for the past three months. Not action at all. No action despite, in addition to all the lies Santos has told, some of which he has even admitted, there is one allegation that should have brought an immediate investigation.

The week before the resolution to expel Santos was filed, the week before he was allowed to participate in a classified briefing by the Pentagon, a prospective staffer who says he worked without pay for several days in Santos’ Capitol Hill congressional office, accused him of sexual assault.

Derek Myers filed a formal complaint against Santos, alleging the Congressman invited him to a karaoke club on his second day of work, then “proceeded to take his hand and move it down my leg into my inner-thigh and proceeded to touch my groin.”

Santos denied the allegation, calling it “comical.” One article, last week, claims “George Santos appears to be cleared of charges of sexual harassment,” a claim Myers says is false. There have been no other reports.

On Tuesday, the popular liberal political action committee MeidasTouch posted a video comparing McCarthy’s comments in January about Santos to those earlier that day. They show how McCarthy has shifted positions, from suggesting once criminally charged a member of Congress should be expelled, to saying Santos should be allowed to have a trial before any action is taken.

And now, Wednesday morning, McCarthy dug his heels in even more.

Surrounded by aides, mobbed by reporters, McCarthy extends his protection of Santos even further. The Speaker’s position is now Santos is safe until he is found guilty in a federal trial. And possibly even after.

Santos, McCarthy declares, will “go through his time in trial and we’ll find out how the outcome is.”

McCarthy is now not even committing to expelling Santos if he is found guilty of the criminal charges he is facing.

Watch video from CBS News’ Cristina Corujo below or at this link.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

CORRUPTION

Karoline Leavitt Says Qatar Won’t Expect Anything in Return for Deluxe Jet

Published

1 month ago

on

May 12, 2025

By

The nation of Qatar has reportedly promised to give President Donald Trump a new deluxe jet for use as Air Force One—but White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that it isn’t a quid pro quo situation, as they know not to expect anything in return.

This weekend, ABC News broke the story that Qatar’s royal family is planning to give the Defense Department a Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet. The jet is reportedly so tricked out that it’s been called a “flying palace,” according to ABC News. After Trump leaves office, the ownership of the plane will transfer from the DoD to the Trump presidential library foundation.

Some might see the gift as an attempt by the Qatari government to curry favor with the American president. But on Monday morning, Leavitt denied that the jet would earn the country special privileges.

READ MORE: During Aviation Crisis Trump Is Shopping for Used Luxury Jet to Replace Air Force One

“They know President Trump and they know he only works with the interests of the American public in mind,” told Brian Kilmeade on Fox News, adding saying the Trump administration and DoD had “[committed] ourselves to the utmost transparency and that the gift was fully legal.

Qatar’s gift to Trump has been controversial with many Americans, including some members of Trump’s base. The far-right influencer Laura Loomer—a longtime ally of the president—called the acceptance of the gift “a stain on the admin” in a post to X (formerly Twitter) on Sunday.

Other critics have said the gift violates the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, which requires government officials to reject gifts unless they get explicit approval from Congress. While a president may accept small, token gifts from leaders, a federal law puts a cap on politicians from receiving gifts worth more than $480.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said the gift is in clear violation of the emoluments clause, and called on Trump to seek Congress’ approval to take the gift, according to The Hill.

“The Constitution is perfectly clear: no present ‘of any kind whatever’ from a foreign state without Congressional permission,” Raskin said on X. “A gift you use for four years and then deposit in your library is still a gift (and a grift).”

During President Joe Biden’s administration, Trump pushed a conspiracy theory that Biden had offered loan guarantees to Ukraine in exchange for the dismissal of a prosecutor investigating the Burisma energy company. The then-president’s son, Hunter Biden, was a board member of Burisma.

While Trump’s claims were repeatedly debunked, Trump’s first impeachment was over proven reports that Trump blocked a $400 million military aid package to Ukraine—already approved by Congress—in an attempt to get the country to investigate Joe Biden and damage his presidential campaign.

That is not the only time Trump has been accused of making quid pro quo—latin for “this for that”—deals. Earlier this year, comments made by “border czar” Tom Homan on Fox News implied an agreement was made to drop federal charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams  in exchange for his support.

 

Continue Reading

CORRUPTION

Josh Hawley Says ‘Only’ SCOTUS ‘Issues Rules for Whole Country’, Despite Constitution

Published

3 months ago

on

March 20, 2025

By

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) vowed to file legislation stopping federal district judges from ruling on orders issued by President Donald Trump. He claims it’s outside of their jurisdiction—but the Constitution disagrees.

On Wednesday, Hawley appeared on The Charlie Kirk Show to slam district judges who have issued injunctions against the Trump administration’s acts, including the mass firings of federal workers and the rollback of DEI initiatives.

“These are district courts, local federal courts, that are saying, ‘I’m not just going to issue an order that says what the executive branch can or cannot do in my district, I’m going to issue an order that binds the executive branch for the entire nation,'” Hawley said.

READ MORE: Conservative Rains Hell on ‘Dishonest’ and ‘Scummy’ Josh Hawley

“That is not a power that I think district courts have… what needs to happen is one of two things: Either the Supreme Court needs to intervene and make clear there’s only one court that can issue rules for the whole country, that’s the Supreme Court, that’s why we only have one of them. And or, if they won’t do that, Congress needs to legislate and make clear that district courts do not have the ability to issue these kinds of injunctions.”

On Thursday, Hawley vowed on X (formerly Twitter) to file legislation that would strip power from district court judges, keeping them from issuing these sorts of injunctions.

“District Court judges have issued RECORD numbers of national injunctions against the Trump administration – a dramatic abuse of judicial authority. I will introduce legislation to stop this abuse for good,” he wrote, declining to include any details on what that legislation may look like.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution lays out the American judicial system. While the Supreme Court is the final authority, it is primarily an appellate court—meaning that lower courts make initial rulings which are then appealed up the chain. The Supreme Court can only be the original court in cases involving “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party,” the Constitution reads.

District Courts are the lowest level of federal courts, and there are 94 of them throughout the U.S., with each state getting at least one, as well as the District of Columbia. Much like the state courts, district courts hear criminal cases—when federal crimes have been committed—as well as civil cases. Civil cases deal with legal and constitutional conflicts; the type of cases Hawley is referring to here.

As an example, let’s look at the recent case involving Trump’s attempt to ban transgender people from serving in the military. In a case like this, the judge can issue an injunction, which puts Trump’s order on hold, until it can be heard by the courts.

It all starts with a lawsuit—in this case, Talbott v. Trump. Talbott was initially filed by six active service members and another two people who wanted to enlist. The plaintiffs said that Trump’s executive order would keep them out of the military illegally; the defendant, the Department of Justice, disagrees, saying the order is legal.

Whether or not to issue an injunction is up to the particular judge. If the judge declines to issue an injunction, the government could continue to act on Trump’s EO. In this particular case, U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes put an initial injunction on the order earlier this week. This keeps everything in a holding pattern; transgender people can remain in the military until the case is decided.

Given Reyes’ comments, it’s likely that she will rule that the EO is illegal. If the Justice Department chooses not to appeal the ruling, it will stand just as if the Supreme Court ruled on it. Of course, this is unlikely—the DOJ will almost certainly appeal. The case then heads to one of the 13 appellate courts.

Appellate courts review the original ruling. Often, both sides are given a brief time to argue their case—usually 15 minutes, according to the official U.S. Courts webpage—but not always. Sometimes, appellate courts look only at the written briefs in the case. Unlike district courts, appellate courts are ruled over by a panel of judges rather than just one.

The judicial panel will decide whether or not the original judge made an error in legal reasoning. The appellate court can decide whether to let the decision stand, to overturn it, or to send the case back to the district courts.

In this case, if Reyes rules in favor of the plaintiffs, and the appellate court upholds her ruling, the injunction keeping trans people in the military still stands. If the appellate court overturns the ruling, the injunction may still stand, if the plaintiffs decide to appeal. If the plaintiffs don’t choose to appeal, then the injunction would be lifted and Trump’s EO would be reinstated.

Either party can file a “writ of certiorari”, which asks that the Supreme Court to decide the case. So, in Talbott, it’s likely that either way the appellate court rules, either the DOJ or the plaintiffs would ask the Supreme Court to weigh in. The injunction would still stand until the Supreme Court either declines to take the case, or ultimately rules on it. At that point, whatever the Supreme Court decides would stand.

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

CORRUPTION

Former UnitedHealthcare Employee Says Supervisors Laughed While She Cried About Denying Claims

Published

6 months ago

on

December 30, 2024

By

UnitedHealthcare building via wikimedia commons

A woman who says she used to work at UnitedHealthcare said that her supervisors would laugh when she would cry at her desk about being forced to deny claims.

Natalie Collins appeared on NewsNation Prime on Saturday after a video she made went viral on TikTok. In the original viral video, she talked about her time working as a customer service representative for UMR, a division of UnitedHealthcare. She said the company taught her “so many different ways to deny” claims.

@motherskeeperdoula2023

Replying to @junedoulaservices My medical claim story with UMR. It was horrible working for them. Horrible management that were out for blood and money.

♬ original sound – Mother’s Keeper Doula

In the original viral video, Collins talks about working at UMR for about nine months, with two to three months spent in training. The bulk of the video is about her dealing with a woman who had lost her husband to pancreatic cancer. UnitedHealthcare was refusing to pay her claims and had sued her. Collins said that the claims totaled more than $400,000, and that the company expected the client—a newly single mother with five children—to pay it. Collins said when she finally got approval to apply some funds for this case, she did so and immediately resigned.

READ MORE: Luigi Mangione’s Attorney Blasts Eric Adams: ‘Mayor Should Know More Than Anyone of the Presumption of Innocence’

She went into more detail about her time working at UnitedHealthcare in the Saturday night interview with NewsNation host Natasha Zouves. Collins describes being told to “get the client off the phone as fast as we could.” She also says the company would use ways to reroute claims back into a processing queue to delay payment as long as possible.

“If [the client wasn’t] liking what we were saying from the script, then we would just call a supervisor, and they would stand behind us. And while I was crying, they were laughing,” Collins said.

“You would actually cry on the job sometimes?” Zouves asked.

“Oh my gosh, it was—it was so sad. It was so heartbreaking. I was the bad guy every single day. Does that not feel good to anyone? Like that doesn’t feel good to me,” Collins replied, later saying she didn’t feel like she was there to help people.

“It was just a sad building all around,” she said.

UnitedHealthcare’s business practices have been in the news this month following the December 4 killing of the company’s CEO Brian Thompson. The shooter wrote “Deny, Defend, Depose” on the empty shell casings of the bullets that killed Thompson, in an apparent reference to Delay, Deny, Defend: Why Insurance Companies Don’t Play Claims and What You Can Do About It, a 2010 book by Jay M. Feinman about the healthcare industry. A backpack linked to the shooting was filled with Monopoly money.

The suspect in the shooting, Luigi Mangione, has pled not guilty. He faces 11 charges, including weapons charges, murder and committing a terrorist act. A recent Associated Press/NORC poll showed that 69% of adults believe that health insurance companies’ policies to deny claims while making record profits was at least partially responsible for Thompson’s death.

UnitedHealthcare says Mangione did not have an account with the company, according to NBC News.

Image by Tony Webster via Wikimedia Commons

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.