Top Republican officially files motion to EXPEL George Santos over blistering ethics report laying out his spending on Botox and OnlyFans -Long Island Liar’s days in Congress look numbered

The top Republican on the Ethics Committee has formally introduced a resolution to expel embattled Rep. George Santos.

Rep. Michael Guest, R-Miss., said the evidence uncovered by his committee is “more than sufficient to warrant punishment and the most appropriate punishment, deportation.”

The resolution is expected to be voted on next week after the Thanksgiving recess.

A defiant Santos, R-N.Y., stormed into the Ethics Commission but announced he would not run for re-election after the report was released.

‘My year from hell. Running for office was never a dream or goal, but when the opportunity came, I felt now was the time to serve my country,” Santos wrote on X.

“As I look back today, I know one thing: Politics is indeed dirty, dirty from the bottom up,” he said, accusing the Ethics Commission of “poisoning the jury pool in my ongoing investigation at the DOJ.” ‘

On Thursday, Congress found that Santos used campaign money and donations to finance a lavish lifestyle, engaged in fraud, filed false election reports and “intentionally” violated ethics.

Earlier this month, the House of Representatives voted handily against expelling the congressman, with 213 against Santos’ expulsion, 179 in favor and 19 voting “present.”

Some members had insinuated that they wanted to wait for the Ethics Committee’s report before voting to expel him. They are expected to change their vote in favor of expulsion after Thursday.

At least a dozen Republicans said they would change their vote after the report came out, as did Jamie Raskin, Md.

Surprising findings from the long-awaited House Ethics Committee report released Thursday show that the so-called “Long Island Liar” stole from his campaign and spent thousands on handbags, designer goods, Botox, vacations, OnlyFans and Sephora makeup up.

Lawmakers on the committee voted unanimously to refer Santos to the Justice Department for possible further prosecution.

The panel concluded that there was “substantial evidence” that the Republican lawmaker — who embellished nearly his entire resume — blatantly violated ethics and “fraudulently sought to exploit every aspect of his candidacy for the House of Representatives for his own benefit.” personal financial gain.”

Congress has found that Republican Rep. George Santos used campaign money and donations to finance a lavish lifestyle, engaged in fraud, filed false election reports and ‘intentionally’ violated ethics

The bipartisan stated in its report: “Representative Santos fraudulently attempted to exploit every aspect of his candidacy for the House of Representatives for his own personal financial gain. He shamelessly stole from his campaign.

“He deceived donors by providing them with what they thought was a contribution to his campaign but was actually a payment for his personal benefit.”

The stunning dossier also states that the congressman reported bogus loans to his political committees so that donors and party committees would make further contributions to him.

The report made no recommendation on whether the House should take action to protect Santos, RN.Y.

It found that Santos had tricked people into donating to RedStone Strategies, which was listed in 2022 as a committee dedicated to supporting his candidacy, and then transferred that money to his personal account, using Sephora’s money , OnlyFans and a $4,000 purchase from Hermes. .

It was also discovered that he spent campaign funds on Botox treatments and lavish trips to Atlantic City with his husband.

“Representative Santos continues to flout his statutory financial disclosure obligations and has failed to correct numerous errors and omissions,” the committee said.

“Despite his efforts to blame others for much of the misconduct, Representative Santos was a conscious and active participant in the misconduct. Particularly troubling was Representative Santos’ lack of candor during the investigation itself.”

In addition, Santos has already pleaded not guilty in federal court to 23 charges, including identity theft, charging his donors’ credit cards without their consent and filing false campaign reports.

He is not expected to appear in court until September next year.

The Ethics Commission said two charges of $1,500 and one $1,400 on the congressman’s debit card, which were not submitted to the FEC, were listed as “Botox.”

A former aide to Santos told the committee that the then-candidate once took him to a Botox appointment near a campaign event.

An additional $2,300 was spent at Atlantic City resorts on July 24 and 25, 2022, and no campaign goal could be identified.

One employee recalled that “Santos told him that he liked to visit casinos to play roulette, often with his husband,” the commission said.

On July 7, 2022, another Airbnb expense of $3,300 was reported as a “hotel stay” – according to a weekend calendar from Santos, he was “free for a weekend in Hamptons.”

Ethics reports the most important conclusions:

• HThe ethics committee found that Santos “fraudulently sought to exploit every aspect of his candidacy for the House of Representatives for his own personal financial gain.”
• Says Long Island lawmaker was ‘willing participant’ in ‘complex web of unlawful activities’
• Santos spent thousands in campaign funds on Botox treatments and trips to Atlantic City with his husband
• The Republican used $3,000 in campaign money for an Airbnb in the Hamptons
• The transfer to his company was used for $6,000 in luxury Ferragamo goods, to pay his rent and for $800 in a casino
• Santos made a purchase on his campaign payment card bill as ‘Botox’
• Santos told his campaign staff that he had a Maserati, despite there being no evidence that he had ever owned one
• He has blown six personal loans for his campaign. He claimed they were worth $80,000 when they were only $3,500
• Santos has pleaded not guilty in federal court to 23 charges, including identity theft, charging donors’ credit cards without authorization and filing false campaign finance reports.

The report notes another $20,000 from the campaign went to Santos’ company Devolder, whose account had a negative balance at the time. From there, the money was used to make $6,000 worth of purchases in Ferragamo, withdraw $800 in cash at a casino, withdraw another $1,000 in cash near Santos’ apartment and pay his rent.

The report found that Santos also received refunds to his personal account for money he never loaned to the campaign.

He increased the six personal loans he had made for the campaign – which actually amounted to $3,500, but he said would amount to as much as $80,000.

Announcing that he would not run for re-election but would remain in Congress until the end of his term, Santos wrote on X: “My family deserves better than to be under constant fire from the press.”

Although Santos often bragged about being wealthy, in reality he was “often in debt, had a dismal credit score and relied on an ever-growing wallet of high-interest credit cards to finance his lavish spending habits,” the report said.

It added: “At no point does Rep. Santos appear to have owned a Maserati, despite telling campaign staff otherwise.”

The inflated loans misled donors about how bankrupt his campaign really was, and a former staffer told the committee they had gone eight months without pay.

Santos has often blamed his staff, including his former campaign treasurer Nancy Marks, who recently pleaded guilty to fraud and other crimes, for the spending mistakes. But a repeating message in the report is that Santos was “deeply involved in his campaign’s financial activities.”

The report also found that Santos did not provide “100 percent compliance” as he had promised.

“Santos’ claim that he would cooperate with the investigation was just another lie,” the report said.

It said he offered few documents and delayed the process of responding to the committee.

When he did offer information, it turned out to be full of untruths, the report said.

The committee had also investigated allegations of sexual harassment against a prospective employee, but could not substantiate them.

It turned out that Santos was much more responsive in defending himself against these accusations.

The panel said he gave a “strong response to the allegations of sexual misconduct” and suggested his compliance with their work “depended on whether he believed it was in his personal interests, rather than fulfilling his duty to cooperate.’