There’s also the matter of a large campaign donation from a relative who says they never gave Santos any money.

Less than two months after first learning that newly elected congressman George Santos lied about, conservatively, 97% of his biography, it’s basically become a full-time job to keep up with the twists, turns, investigations, and insane revelations concerning the GOP lawmaker. Last week alone, for instance, it emerged that he’d baselessly:

• Claimed to have been the target of an assassination attempt


• Claimed to have been mugged in broad daylight on the corner of Fifth Avenue and 55th Street


• Told a roommate he was a male model who’d be appearing in Vogue


• Told the same roommate that as a result of his work during Fashion Week, he’d palled around with Victoria’s Secret models


• Told would-be investors in the firm he worked at—which was accused by the SEC of operating a Ponzi scheme—that he did deals with some of the richest and most powerful people in finance

Again, all of this came to light just last week! And that’s on top of the unearthed lies that came before, including the ones about having grandparents who fled the Holocaust and having been a star player on the Baruch College volleyball team!

So you’d think, given all we know, that there’d be very little left to come out about the guy, or few new avenues to probe. And yet, apparently, you’d think wrong.

Here’s what’s emerged in just the last few days.

The alleged scamming of a disabled veteran and his dying service dog is getting the FBI treatment

On Wednesday, Politico reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had launched a probe of an alleged GoFundMe scheme by Santos. That scheme, according to disabled veteran Richard Osthoff, involved Santos setting up a GoFundMe to solicit money to pay for surgery for Osthoff’s service dog, Sapphire, raising $3,000, and then absconding with the cash. Sapphire died in 2017, and Osthoff says he contemplated suicide over the experience with Santos. According to the veteran, he was contacted this week by two agents on behalf of the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York. And it’s possible the case could result in criminal charges for Santos sooner rather than later.

Per Politico:

Joshua Schiller, a senior trial lawyer who has practiced in the Eastern District, said the veteran’s encounter with Santos could offer prosecutors a quick way to hit the Republican congressman with criminal charges even though they’re also investigating heftier possible financial crimes. “I think there is an urgency here because Santos is currently in a position to make laws,” Schiller said. “I can think of examples where the government used a lesser indictment to seize assets and try to cause the defendant to plea to a deal before bringing a second or third indictment on more serious charges, and I bet that is the case here.”

Is Sapphire looking down at all of this with glee, and maybe also haunting Santos as he walks the halls of Congress? Seems likely.

(Santos has denied Osthoff’s claims, calling them “fake.”)

Relative who Santos claimed made a top dollar donation to his campaign has no idea what he’s talking about

Bold lies about the Holocaust and male-modeling jobs aside, one major source of potential trouble for Santos involves campaign finance laws. In addition to questions about the source of large campaign loans, and dozens of expenditures that all came in just one cent below the amount for which Santos would have to provide receipts, new reporting suggests a donation made in a relative’s name was not on the up-and-up.

Per Mother Jones:

According to Santos’s campaign filings with the Federal Election Commission, his recent campaign pulled in more than $45,000 from relatives who lived in Queens. This included a mail handler who gave more than $4,000, a painter who donated the maximum of $5,800, and a student who also contributed $5,800. One of Santos’s relatives, who was recorded as giving $5,800, says that they did not make any donation to Santos.

On Tuesday, a Mother Jones reporter visited the Queens home of this relative. Informed that two donations of $2,900 each were listed under this person’s name and address in Santos’s campaign finance reports, the relative, who asked not to be identified, said, “I’m dumbfounded.” The relative had no idea where the money for these donations came from and remarked, “It’s all news to me.” This person added, “I don’t have that money to throw around!” The relative’s account raises the possibility that money was improperly donated to Santos’s most recent campaign.

As Mother Jones notes, it’s against the law to make a contribution under a false name or someone else’s name. “It’s called a contribution in the name of another,” Saurav Ghosh, a campaign finance expert, told the outlet. “It’s something that is explicitly prohibited under federal law.” Santos and his lawyer did not respond to Mother Jones’s requests for comment.

A top aide dealing with his money matters up and quit

On Tuesday, The New York Times reported that Nancy Marks, Santos’s longtime campaign treasurer and “trusted aide,” had resigned. Maybe the move had nothing to do with Santos being a serial liar who has potentially committed crimes! Maybe she’s just looking to try a new career path! Maybe…uh, yeah, we can‘t think of any other reason she’d quit besides the obvious.

He hired a guy who did time for a gang execution to be his lawyer

Why did Santos hire a man who served time in prison for his role in an execution to defend him in his fraud case in Brazil back in the day? No, really, we’re asking.

Per the Daily Beast:

The lawyer Rep. George Santos (R-NY) chose to defend him in his fraud case in Brazil was convicted and jailed in connection with a gang execution, according to a report. Jonymar Vasconcelos, 47, was sentenced to 18 years in prison in 2007 for his role in the fatal shooting of a mechanic three years earlier, São Paulo’s Folha newspaper reported Wednesday…. It’s unclear how Santos found Vasconcelos to defend him in his fraud case—in which it’s alleged the congressman paid for goods with a stolen checkbook in 2008—given that Vasconcelos is reportedly not affiliated with any law firm and does not list contact information online.

Approached by the outlet about the matter, Santos reportedly said that he couldn’t understand Portuguese—despite clearly speaking it fluently—and then failed to answer questions sent to him in English.

(Santos admitted to the alleged crime years ago, yet insisted in a recent interview: “I am not a criminal. Not here, not abroad, in any jurisdiction in the world have I ever committed any crimes.”)

Pleading the Fifth…to a reporter

Invoking one’s Fifth Amendment rights is generally reserved for legal matters, when one is under oath. And yet:

Santos is now refusing to answer questions. “I have a constitutional right to not answer questions,” he told me.

— Kate Santaliz (@kate_santaliz) February 1, 2023