My former congressman in New York’s third district, George Santos, copped a plea because what else could he do?
“I accept full responsibility for my actions,” he told the judge as he admitted to participating in a scheme to “artificially inflate” the number of contributions to his campaign to win support from the National Republican Congressional Committee.
Speaking to reporters outside the courthouse, Mr. Santos was more voluble. His voice thick with emotion, he said that his plea was an effort to make amends for misrepresentations to supporters and the government, as well as “the lies I told myself over these past years.”
Yeah, he’s remorseful. He’s sorry, not that he did it but that he got snagged. Anyway, there is a mandatory minimum of two years, but that’s not the end of the road.
Mr. Santos’s sentencing is scheduled for Feb. 7, meaning he will not have to report to prison for at least six months. Guidelines call for him to serve between six and eight years in prison, though a judge could decide to be more lenient.
Mr. Santos also agreed to pay a total of $373,749.97 in restitution to a variety of entities, including donors whose credit cards he used without authorization and the state unemployment fund he fraudulently received benefits from.
He will be required to forfeit another $205,002.97 before his sentencing. Mr. Santos will need to come up with the money for his final plea deal to go through, and if he is unable to do so his property may be seized.
What makes this case unusual isn’t that Santos scammed for money and lied for ambition. That’s hardly unusual among people being sentenced for fraud. Rather, what’s unusual is that Santos did much, though not all, of his criminal conduct in the course of seeking a congressional seat. Sure, Santos is an extreme case but is lying or scamming for money not part of the job requirements of politician?
Prosecutors painted Mr. Santos’s campaign as so desperate for cash that it turned to lying, cheating and stealing to finance its operations. But they also asserted a pattern of self-dealing, which saw Mr. Santos repeatedly using his campaign account as a personal piggy bank.
How many years is that worth? Say two in the House, six in the Senate? Snark aside, federal sentencing is guided by 18 USC § 3553(a), which provides the purposes for which sentence may be imposed with the caveat of the parsimony clause, that a sentence shall be no longer than necessary to satisfy the statutory purposes.
(2)the need for the sentence imposed—
(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and
(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;
Does a sentence of incarceration serve these purposes? Is being expelled from the House not a sufficient deterrent? Is Santos likely to run again, thus subjecting the public to potential future victimhood? Is retribution enough of a reason to “lock him up”?
What sentence should be imposed on someone so disgraced as George Santos? What sentence should be imposed on someone so arrogant as George Santos?
*Tuesday Talk rules apply.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Is “life, plus cancer” off the table?
Asking for a friend.
Since my job was intake, not adjudication, the following is given from twenty plus years of watching results from the street as courts dealt with similar situations:
If he is a first offender.
If the court is satisfied that there is remorse at least partly motivated by genuine acceptance of guilt.
If the first payment toward restitution is paid to the court in full prior to sentencing.
If he has a clear financial means to pay the balance of restitution after sentencing even if in agreed payments over time and with the employment burdens of a felony conviction.
Then I would lean toward a short incarceration to get his full attention followed by a lengthy probation tied firmly to his ability to both act in a lawful manner and complete payment of restitution during that probation.
1. Should we balance his “remorse” at sentencing against all of the public statements he has made since the allegations came to light? Those statements do not indicate remorse, and so his saying he’s sorry now is merely a convenience for sentencing and has no value added.
2. If we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that his public statements are not indicative of remorse, could they be seen as a sign of a lack of potential for rehabilitation? In my jurisdiction, this is one of the five sentencing factors. A low potential for rehabilitation tends to support longer confinement.
3. In the right case, I like to argue Dr. Laura’s “Four Rs.”
a. Responsibility. How sincere is the acceptance of responsibility?
b. Regret. Is there regret for the harm done to people, faith in the electoral process, and faith in legislators? As opposed to the regret of getting caught.
c. Resolve. How resolved is the person to not re-offend? Here, we want evidence. Saying, “I won’t do that again,” may not be enough. For example, in a recent CP case of ours, he “qualified” under a—b. He qualified under c because upon being caught, he immediately self-enrolled at his own expense in sex offender classes and counseling. We think that helped him get the mandatory minimum and no more.
d. Repair. Restitution goes some way toward repair.
4. So far, Santos is not doing well on what I’d recommend for a sentence. A last factor for me says go high. Again, where I practice, we call it general deterrence of others. Society has become inured to “lying or scamming for money” in the business of getting elected to public office. If someone will lie, scam, or steal to get elected, what will they do when elected. So for me, the message to be sent requires the sentence to go high.
“If someone will lie, scam, or steal to get elected, what will they do when elected”
This probably explains the trouble we’re in.
If Santos were a private citizen first offender the two year minimum plus about 5 years probation would be right. But I remember Jack Weinstein rebuking Mario Biaggi’s plea for clemency despite acknowledging sympathy for the aged and ill defendant. Unlke Santos, Biaggi had a history of decades of public service as a hero cop, a dedicated pro-bono lawyer and an effective congress member. For Weinstein that was outweighed by his recognition that crimes by elected officials related to their positions justify enhanced penalties, not leniency. Given that Santos’ lies and frauds were committed as part of his successful campaign for public office and an attempt to mislead his colleagues investigating him, I find it hard to justify a downward departure from the guidelines. Although I believe the sentencing guidelines generally are unduly harsh, Santos’ case does not justify making an exception.
Nonetheless, Santos’ expulsion from Congress.before being convicted of a crime was premature.
I also draw a distinction between lying about his background and lying to steal from his contributors. Political speech by candidates and elected officials is the most protected form of free speech. In other words, lying to persuade voters to vote for you is no crime. But lying to get people to give you their money is a crime. Congress and the courts should not apply truth tests to candidates’ claims or resumes. Santos’ political opponents have the right to tell their version of the truth. The voters ultimately decide which version they believe, or whether they want Santos to represent them anyway, despite his lies.
Finally, in my sentencing paradigm, restitution should be given little weight, especially in nonviolent crimes.. Like bail, people who are the most egregious offenders can raise the most money. While people who lie to get food stamps or welfare benefits usually can’t afford to make restitution.
My gut says that three years sounds sufficient, given that this is his first offense.
$374000 in restitution? There is zero chance that will be paid.