Yep, that was brought up in the original iteration of the thread.
But yeah, where we fail is that we keep expecting normal-person style of cheating.
Not many know it, but George was a key advisor for Obama’s campaign for President. Barak owes a lot to his suggested slogan of “Yes We San-tos” from that time.
Makes me think of Gary Hart’s “Hey, if you think I’m doing something wrong, just follow me around!”
Do you mean “[I] find it…”?
So if a politician committed an apparent offense - and has proven themself grotequely unfit for office, are you suggesting there ought to be no prosecution because they will potentially lose re-election before the suit is concluded? Should they face any legal consequences from actions such as GS’s?
I think a suit such as this is a fine public expenditure as yet one more indication that “anything goes” ought not be tolerated/rewarded in electoral politics.
Santos has said he will not resign, but will “fight this witch hunt”. He has learned well.
My post was about him allegedly stealing campaign contributions his GOP donors were told would go for television advertisements. Morally, this would be an offense against his contributors and the GOP, not the public generally.
According the full indictment text, he "allegedly applied for and received unemployment benefits while he was employed . . . " As a taxpayer, that is taking money from me, and I think it is worth deterring.
You might be surprised to learn that his contributors are members of the public, and deserving of protection. I mean, lots of crimes could be labeled as “it hurt this person but not the general public” under that rubric.
Most forms of fraud are only offenses against those who, say, unknowingly invested in a con scheme (or whatever), rather than the public at large, and yet they are still, rightly, crimes.
I wonder if the three individuals know who they are.
Probably there are some people who put the interests of their political party above morals, ethics or the fair application of the law.
Luckily, most people are not that bad.
I think employment benefits are paid through the employer, not a public fund. I wonder which employer he is sticking the tab to? Goldmans Sachs? Or some other fictional company?
As I understand it, there is a fund, which is paid into by companies when they let employees go. It’s not directly from the companies to the former employees; you can collect unemployment compensation without ever having worked at a private company.
You’re correct that unemployment is paid out of a public fund. But employers pay into that fund regularly through a payroll tax, not only when they let someone go. And the amount of the tax is based on (among other factors) how many unemployment claims have been filed against the company.
So there is a direct monetary impact to the company.
I may be missing your drift here, but perhaps this is relevant:
Most Democrats here, glad Santos was indicted, are NOT thinking the following:
The indictment is going to help the GOP by forcing a weak candidate out of a swing distinct congressional race. But I still like it because the principle of rule of law is more important than a house seat.
I do see the attraction of that kind of idealism, and it exists. But hope that the indictment will set the GOP back a bit seems more common – despite strong evidence, over the past decade, that bad publicity has no such effect.
My own idealism, if I can call it that, is more along of the lines of – punishment rarely helps, so any reasonable excuse to avoid it is worth grasping. I do suspect most posters will find my excuse unreasonable.
why have a criminal code?
Yes, count me as one of the unconvinced. I don’t think that we can move to a philosophy of “let’s find a reasonable excuse not to even charge someone with crimes, let alone have a trial or punish them, because punishment rarely helps.”
I’m particularly sceptical when this is being applied to a sitting politician. It seems… an interesting philosophy.
If this guy wasn’t a Representative, I’d want him brought to justice, because crime is bad.
Why should the fact that he is a Representative change that?
If the internet had been invented in 1800, we’d be Great-Debating common law vs. statutes a lot. But in a George Santos thread, I’d be starting a hijack 
That a Democrat might win.
Explain how this is good for the GOP. They probably can’t hold the seat in a special election.