“Representing parts of Long Island and Queens.”
Couldn’t resist.
George Santos’ Accountant to Plead Guilty in Federal Inquiry (probably paywalled)
The accountant who oversaw the finances of Representative George Santos’s political campaigns has agreed to plead guilty to one or more federal felony charges, according to court papers and an official with the Eastern District of New York.
She is expected to appear in federal court in Central Islip, N.Y., on Thursday to formally enter a guilty plea, according to the court official. That account was backed up by three other people familiar with the case.
It is unclear how the case against Ms. Marks will affect Mr. Santos, who in May was indicted and charged with 13 counts of wire fraud, money laundering, stealing public funds and lying on federal disclosure forms. He has pleaded not guilty.
Notably (and sadly)…
There is no indication that Ms. Marks intends to cooperate with prosecutors.
Huh. Scott MacFarlane hints differently:
Time will tell…
Pleading guilty without a plea deal that includes cooperation to earn a reduced sentence isn’t a smart move. One would hope her attorney has been able to negotiate a good deal and get her to accept it. Acceptance of responsibility and willingness to work with prosecutors against other defendants makes a considerable difference in sentencing. At this point she needs to be looking out for herself as best she can.
Pleading guilty and cooperating against another defendant are two different things. According to the Times, she is doing the former, but the article says there is “no evidence” she is doing the latter. That doesn’t mean she’s not flipping, just that they have no evidence she is - it’s careful wording.
But prosecutors may accept her guilty plea to save themselves the effort of a trial, even without her flipping on Santos. Though IANAL, so what do I know?
Those are good points, but not cooperating diminishes the leverage she has to get her penalties mitigated. On the other hand, agreements to cooperate aren’t always made public until after they’ve been put into practice at a trial.
I’ve proofread the transcripts of federal plea and sentencing hearings that go into sealed proceedings when the matter of cooperation is discussed, to protect the pleading defendant from retaliation/intimidation by codefendants.
Am I the only one who half expects this to be George Santos in an unconvincing disguise?
Now it can be told: where did George Santos get the $500,000 to loan to his campaign? How did he become so fabulously wealthy?
A: these loans never happened presumably because Santos never had the funds. The fake loans, signed off by Marks, were allegedly a gambit to attract support from an unnamed campaign committee (who could that be? ::cough:: National Republican Congressional Committee ::cough:: sorry, just clearing my throat). As Santos aficionados may recall, the candidate used campaign funds to pay down personal debts, buy designer clothing, and generally enjoy the good life of an allegedly successful financier.
My heart reaches out to the contributors to the National Republican Congressional Committee.
Quote from Jan 2023:
Senior House Republicans were apparently aware of the inaccuracies and embellishments in the member-elect’s resume, and the topic became a “running joke,” multiple insiders close to House GOP leadership told The Post over the weekend.
“As far as questions about George in general, that was always something that was brought up whenever we talked about this race,” said one senior GOP leadership aide. “It was a running joke at a certain point. This is the second time he’s run and these issues we assumed would be worked out by the voters.”
Not the greatest source, but you go with what you have. I do seem to recall reading basically the same in the NYT though.
From several of the articles I read, it did say that when she confessed she did so while specifically confirming that she did so at Santos’ request and with his knowledge. Which may have been a contributing factor into why they accept the plea and are only convicting on one of the charges. All such articles did specifically say she wasn’t cooperating -at that time- which was quite the emphasis. So yeah, I suspect there is a lot of stuff not being said, as well as the strong indication to Santos to stop playing around and settle on a plea before it gets more absurd.
Especially since as of last month George was saying that he wasn’t doing a plea, but was working to find a “path forward” with the Feds. Or a plea, just in some sort of face-saving way. With the accountant pointing the finger squarely at him (with or without fed input), it may push him out of his endless delays and denials.
Which pretty well summarizes the attitude of those “senior House Republicans” to the rank and file donors to the RCC: Abject suckers to be fleeced. Ones whose actual interests in governance were immaterial to the leadership.
Hey, if it turns another House district red, it’s all good! 
I’m petty enough to say you get what you pay for, suckers.
New information about Santos’ controversial fundraising practices. I know it’s not the most important case, but I would like this brazen grifter to do real time.
Superseding indictment just dropped:
I was going to ask the thread, with Santos’ accountant pleading GUILTY and pointing the finger right at Santos, would the GOP now consider that sufficient evidence of serious ethics violations reasonably proven and act to remove him.
But I couldn’t ask that question with the proverbial straight face. Of course (especially with what’s going on in the house) they won’t. I just wonder what flavor of excuse they’re going to cling to this time.
Has the House ever expelled someone because they have been charged with a criminal offence? Because if it’s not been done in the past, that’s a pretty straightforward answer: the House respects the presumption of innocence, and will only act if a member is convicted of a criminal offence.
(Apologies if this has been asked before; it’s getting hard to keep track of everything going on in Washington.)
Only from conviction, not charges.
Only 5 members of the House have ever been expelled. (Many more Senators have been expelled.) 3 of those House members were expelled for supporting the Confederacy during the Civil War. The other 2 members were expelled somewhat recently. Michael Myers was expelled in 1980 after being convicted on bribery charges, and Jim Traficant was expelled in 2002 for being convicted of bribery, racketeering, and tax evasion.
Interesting fact… A Republican has never been expelled from Congress. Only Democrats. (Well, William Blount was expelled from the Senate in 1797 and he was a Democratic-Republican, but that’s the party that became the Democratic Party later.)
But bottom line, no, you are not expelled for anything other than conviction, and it’s extremely rare for anyone to be expelled for anything. Usually members are punished with censure for wrongdoing.
This is serious. *Potentially expelling the current Speaker of the House, George Santos, will cause absolute chaos in the Republicant ranks.
*ₙₒₜ ₛₑᵣᵢₒᵤₛ
Fake news, witch hunt. Or just ignore it, not bring it up. The Republican playbook is like 2 pages long. The first page is that blank one that teases the rest.
One of the reasons for this is the difference in terms. A two-year-term House member will usually face the punishment of the voters much more quickly than a six-year-term Senator.