>

This fella isn't nearly smart enough to not have left a ridiculous paper trail. They'll call it a "weaponized" prosecution but he's going to get destroyed. In the past the GOP would have run him out on day one. I miss the days when principles and accountability existed (even in small quantities). They're gone today. 
The Fletch of the current timeline.
Oh, it's not an "impossible position."
The position is - Santos broke campaign finance law, and should be removed from Congress and prosecuted.
That is - if the Republican Party had any principles other than power. >

While everything leads to Santos breaking campaign finance laws, the facts need to prove it and show that he knew he was breaking the law.  McCarthy and the GOP will look for a every possible explanation no matter how farcical to explain this away.  I honestly don’t have much faith that the GOP will remove him even if it’s proven he’s broken the law.  They’ll deflect and distract hoping that people just lose interest.  While Michael Cohen went to prison for violating campaign finance laws over the Stormy Daniels affair, he did so only after admitting that he knew it was a crime and did it anyway.  Even then, Trump skated on the issue because he had Cohen as a fall-guy.  Prior to that, Obama’s campaign admitted to campaign finance violations and paid a fine but nothing else happened.
In short, don’t expect the GOP to remove Santos even if he’s found to have broken campaign finance laws.  McCarthy needs all the votes he can get. >

Serious question: Is ignorance of the law a defense in campaign finance cases? Also, money laundering is surely part of this (purposely obscuring the source of the money). I have a feeling he will be indicted before his term expires, it's just too high profile to let slide. >


Is ignorance of the law a defense in campaign finance cases?

Not under any circumstances is it a legal defense. >

Key statement (emphasis mine):

Ignorance of the law is ordinarily not an excuse for criminal law violations, except when a person makes a mistake of law because of a reasonable reliance upon an official interpretation of the law. 

Unless he was relying on the advice of counsel, than simple ignorance of the law is not a defense. >

I totally agree. >

Let me get this straight, George Santos put the Republicans in an impossible position? But Donald Trump never did, I don't believe it. >

it's just harder to defend the lgbt drag performer immigrant with their base...  literally they have hate machines built around this; and they get little leeway even if they are promoted for optic reasons >

Anyone have “First Drag Queen in US Congress is a Republican” on their 2023 bingo card? I sure as hell didn’t. >

I kinda did, everything is a projection with them. With the amount of vitriol being lobbied by them at the LGBTQ lately, it was obviously going to come out that one of them did something like this... >

So what you are telling me is that Rob DeSantis is having an affair with queer woke black people? >

Follow the money...

In total, Santos said he lent his campaign more than $700,000, telling WABC radio he used "the money I paid myself through the Devolder Organization" to fund it. The Devolder Organization was run by Santos, who claimed it provided "specialty consulting" for rich individuals, though there are few details about its business activities in the public domain.

I cannot wait until we find out where this money came from. These mysterious "rich individuals" are going to be revealed to be one very wealthy man. >

He's gonna wind up being one of those weird Russian sleeper agents, isn't he? >

Should have had a "Russian mafia" checkbox. >

It's under "Party Affiliation - Republican" >

That was good!