Raising A Question of the Privileges of the House

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GUEST. Mr. Speaker, George Santos has built his persona, his personal and his political life, on a foundation of lies. Many of those lies are well-documented. We know that Mr. Santos lied about his education, both graduate and postgraduate, claiming that he attended universities where he was never enrolled and claiming that he obtained degrees that he did not earn.

We know that Mr. Santos lied about his employment when he claimed that he worked for two prestigious financial institutions, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.

We know that Mr. Santos lied about his religious faith when he said he was Jewish and then later, when called out, said he meant to say he was Jew-ish.

We know Mr. Santos lied when he said that he had four employees who were killed in a mass shooting in Florida.

Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, those lies, while troubling, did not justify his removal from this body. However, these and other misleading statements reflect directly on Mr. Santos' credibility.

In May, Mr. Speaker, George Santos said that he looked forward to seeing the ethics process play out and that if the committee finds reason to remove him, then that is the process.

Today, Mr. Speaker, George Santos would have you believe that the process that he endorsed in May is fatally flawed and that he, instead, is the subject of a political witch hunt.

Mr. Santos has described the report issued by the Ethics Committee as slanderous. He said that if there was a single ounce of ethics in the Ethics Committee then they would not have released the biased report. He referred to the report as a political hit piece.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind you that in March of this year, George Santos promised to fully cooperate with the ethics investigation. Just weeks ago, Mr. Santos said: I have been very cooperative since the investigation started, and I have no plans to change that.

Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, the record of the investigation reveals otherwise. The report of the Ethics Committee noted these things, Mr. Speaker: first, that Mr. Santos failed to submit a written response to the allegations filed by his fellow Members; that Mr. Santos failed to provide many of the documents requested by the investigative subcommittee; that when given an opportunity to provide a statement under oath that Mr. Santos declined to do so; and that when asked to voluntarily testify, Mr. Santos refused.

The committee learned through his counsel that if the investigative subcommittee were to subpoena Mr. Santos that he would plead the Fifth Amendment and not give any testimony for fear that it may incriminate him.

So while Mr. Santos has failed to speak with the committee, Mr. Speaker, he has spoken freely to the media. Just this past weekend, he was participating in a 3-hour X Livestream Podcast with Monica Matthews.

In that 3-hour interview, he said:

I have made it very clear, I am not running for reelection, not because this was a damning report. I am not running for reelection because I don't want to work with a bunch of hypocrites. It is gross. I have colleagues who are more worried about getting drunk every night with the next lobbyist that they are going to screw and pretend none of us know what is going on, and sell off the American people, not show up to vote because they are too hungover or whatever the reason is or not show up to vote at all and just give their card out like candy for someone else to vote for them.

He went on to say regarding the Ethics report:

It is flawed. It was designed to smear me. It was designed to force me from my seat. That was the intention of the report. This wasn't a finding of fact.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a few minutes about the report of the investigative subcommittee and the report of the Ethics Committee and the work that they did over an 8-month period. I will tell you that the findings of the committee were shocking.

We know that the Ethics Committee authorized 37 subpoenas, they issued 43 requests for information, they interviewed 40 witnesses, they reviewed 172,000 pages of documents, and they issued a 56-page investigation report.

In addition to this 56-page investigation report, Mr. Speaker, these are the exhibits that they attached to the investigative report. The 50-plus page report goes into great detail, and it paints a picture of the fraud committed by Mr. Santos. In many cases it also tracks the allegations for which Mr. Santos has been indicted in the Eastern District of New York.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at the language of the report, the language of the report says, the investigative subcommittee revealed a complex web of unlawful activity involving Representative Santos' campaign, personal, and business finances.

It says that Representative Santos sought to fraudulently exploit every aspect of his House candidacy for his own personal profit.

The report says that he blatantly stole from his campaign and that he deceived donors into providing what they thought were contributions to his campaign, but they were, in fact, payments for his personal benefit.

The report goes on to say that he reported fictitious loans to his political committees to induce donors and party committees to make further contributions to his campaign.

Then later the report said that despite Santos' efforts to blame his former treasurer for the numerous campaign violations, the ISC's record demonstrates that Representative Santos knowingly and actively participated in the misconduct.

Mr. Speaker, through records that were subpoenaed by the Ethics Committee, we learned that Mr. Santos spent campaign-related funds on personal rent, on personal credit card payments, and on ATM withdrawals. We know that he made luxury designer purchases at at least two high-end stores, that he spent money on payments made at OnlyFans, and that Mr. Santos spent almost $3,000 on Botox treatments, in addition to questionable expenses involving travel expenses for trips to Atlantic City; Las Vegas, Nevada; and The Hamptons.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to this, there was additional fraud that was uncovered and contained in this report issued by the Ethics Committee.

The Ethics Committee found in 2020 that bank records indicate that Mr. Santos was repaid over $29,000 for fictitious loans that he never made to his campaign.

The report goes on to say that in 2021 he falsely reported loaning his campaign $580,000, and he falsely reported loaning an additional $25,000 to his leadership PAC.

The report goes on to document that the committee found, according to bank records, that Mr. Santos transferred $200,000 from RedStone Strategies and they were found to be an unregistered super PAC controlled by Mr. Santos, and that he transferred in 2022 alone over $200,000 into his personal account.

Mr. Speaker, I know that some Members of this body have expressed concern about due process. They believe that Mr. Santos was not given due process, therefore that this should not go forward.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the argument of due process. Mr. Speaker, you are well aware that due process was referred to in the Fifth and 14th Amendments. In the Fifth Amendment it says no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

We know the 14th Amendment then applies the Fifth Amendment to the States where it says no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Then as you are also well aware, Mr. Speaker, the Sixth Amendment talks about criminal proceedings and the rights that attach to a criminal proceeding.

Mr. Speaker, we are not here today on a criminal proceeding. The rights of the Sixth Amendment do not apply, but due process under the Fifth and 14th Amendments do apply here at these proceedings, and so it is important to talk about due process.

The due process that is contained in the Fifth and 14th Amendments, if you study due process, Mr. Speaker, you will know that there are two subsections; two components, if you will; two legs upon which due process must stand.

That first subsection, that first leg, is substantive due process.

What is substantive due process?

Substantive due process asks this question: Is there a right to bring the action in question?

Mr. Speaker, I say that there is. We know that that right exists because that right is found in the United States Constitution. The expulsion clause, which is found in Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution says this, Mr. Speaker: Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of a two-thirds vote, expel a Member.

So, Mr. Speaker, I tell you that as it relates to substantive due process, clearly substantive due process applies in this case. Nonetheless, that second leg of the stool of due process, is procedural due process.

Procedural due process is a process that governs the fairness of the proceedings.

There are three primary requirements, three primary tenets of procedural due process.

Those requirements are, first, was adequate notice given?

Mr. Speaker, I hold in this case that adequate notice was given. Adequate notice was given by the fact that the investigative subcommittee notified Mr. Santos in February that the investigation was going to be ongoing. It actually had contact with him and his office well before that in January shortly after he was sworn in.

I would argue that Mr. Santos had notice of this hearing because the motion was filed 2 weeks ago, the resolution was filed to expel him from this body. So, clearly, Mr. Santos has been given proper notice.

The second requirement of due process says: Did Mr. Santos have an opportunity to be heard?

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that he has had an opportunity to be heard. He had an opportunity repeatedly to be heard by the Ethics Committee. He had the opportunity to submit a written statement, but he refused to do so. He had an opportunity to submit a statement under oath. He refused to do so. He had an opportunity to come in and testify, and he declined to do so.

Even when faced with a subpoena, he was planning to come in before the Ethics Committee and exercise his Fifth Amendment right not to testify.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hold that he has had ample opportunity to be heard by the investigative subcommittee, and he has been, once again, presented the opportunity here today, before this body and before the American people, he has the opportunity today to rebut the findings of the Ethics Committee. He has the opportunity to point out any errors or omissions that he claims are in the report.

So, clearly, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Santos has had the opportunity to be heard.

Then finally, the third and final point is the opportunity to have a fair tribunal. We are following the Constitution which says that the body of other elected Members, this body as a whole, must be the body that conducts a vote in this case.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind you of a statement I earlier referenced, that statement made by Mr. Santos in May, that statement where he said that he looked forward to seeing the ethics process play out and that if the Ethics Committee finds a reason to remove him, then that is the process.

Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Committee found substantial evidence--this is language taken directly from the report: Substantial evidence that Representative Santos knowingly caused his campaign to file false or incomplete reports with the Federal Election Commission.

The Investigative Subcommittee found substantial evidence that he used campaign funds for personal purposes. It found substantial evidence that he engaged in fraudulent conduct in connections with RedStone Strategies, LLC. It found substantial evidence that Mr. Santos did knowingly and willfully engage in violations of the Ethics and Government Act.

Mr. Speaker, I ask in accordance with Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, that all Members vote to support the expulsion of Representative Santos.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source