>

Will be halfway through his 6th or 7th term before the appeals are all used up.
Jokes on them, it's not his real name! >

Joke's on us, you can serve in Congress from prison. So conviction would still leave us with the House having to vote to expel him, and, well... >

Even better, he'd be unable to be present for House votes and his seat wouldn't just be filled with some other scum. >

Even even better, as part of the new House rules package the GOP crafted, they eliminated virtual and proxy voting (because covid backlash requires idiotic steps backward) so he couldn't vote if not present! 
"Checkmate Kevin!" - Also Kevin 🤦‍♂️ >

I’ll believe it when I see it. >

Seeing as how he has not yet been CHARGED (in the US, for this specific crime), or INDICTED, seems premature to talk about convictions. Or sentencing.  Someone needs to get the authors a flow chart of this process. >

As of yet, Brazil hasn't submitted an extradition request. Following that, US authorities would make a determination as to whether to arrest him, then a judge reviews whether the extradition request is lawful, then the Secretary of State makes the final determination as to whether to extradite him. Notably, arrest does not require being charged/indicted in the US, & most extraditions don't include that... as indictments require crimes be committed within US jurisdiction.
I will say, though, that it's unlikely that he would be arrested without permission from the Secretary of State, due to his elected position...and I find it highly unlikely that the SoS would grant an extradition request for a sitting member of Congress for a 15yr old $700 check fraud case. The US regularly rejects around 20% of extradition requests for US citizens, & this would definitely fall in that category.
He'll be tried in absentia, if anything, & possibly convicted in absentia...but that won't change his daily life. >

He will just get a book deal. >

That will likely win him another Pulitzer. >

NY Times Bestseller >

to be fair, these guys get on the best seller list very easily by buying their own damn books with campaign funds. >

Wait…. I’m confused… you can do that? I’m not ironically asking either, like that seems hella illegal lol >

yeah. so let's say he writes a book, his campaign can then take money from their funds/war chest and say they're buying copies of the book for "events" (like hosting a fund raiser where top donors get a signed copy of the book). but these events never need to be realized so they can sit on boxes upon boxes of these books collecting dust while they still count as books sold, making them a best seller. as long as they bought a ton of books one time to be on the best seller list for one week, they can still claim to be a best seller! 
I'm sure it's illegal to some degree, it's pretty unethical (since the books are bought with campaign finances but counts as sales so the author pockets some of it as a cut of the sales), but has pesky rules for us normal folks stopped the ruling class from being shitty? >

The NYT will put a little marker next to Bestsellers that they suspect have achieved their sales through such shady means. >

Interviewer: How do you explain this 4 year gap on your resume? 
Santos: That’s when I went to Yale... 
Interviewer: That’s impressive. You are hired.
Santos: Thanks. I really need this Yob. >

I'm worried this will go over people's heads.  You are an artist. >

Parent poster may be an artist, but not for this - that's a very old joke I remember reading in the 80s. >

I mean, seven years at least. >

Each time he lied should be a separate count in the indictment.
They overcharge if it's black kid accused of shoplifting.  But a Republican Member of Congress gets the most white glove treatment. >

White Supremacist Republican Member of Congress >

Idk if he’s even that anymore, with how much he lies >

He is ish about everything. >

Member of Congrish >

Tony Soprano voice >

You mean Sean Connery >

McCarthy will scream that Santos is being persecuted while demanding that Liz Warren be arrested for exaggerating her Native American heritage >


McCarthy needs Santos to preserve his paper-thin GOP majority in the House. Right now, McCarthy can afford to lose four members of his caucus per vote and still pass bills without Democratic support.
If Santos were to resign or get expelled from Congress, it would trigger a special election to fill his seat in New York’s 3rd District. An open race to succeed Santos would likely be competitive, raising the prospect that the GEO could lose a seat.
McCarthy’s slim margin was on public view last week. Hardline conservative holdouts demanded major concessions before dropping their opposition to electing him as speaker, which they did only after first blocking him in 14 separate votes.
McCarthy also appeared to bristle when asked Wednesday if he planned to discipline Santos.
“What are the charges against him? Is there a charge against him?” McCarthy asked. “You know, in America today, you’re innocent till proven guilty.”

We know exactly where McCarthy and the thugs stand on ethics and holding their criminals accountable. Power at all costs. >

I'm sure if it were more like the 40 or so which should be criminally accountable for federal crimes ^(such as aiding and abetting insurrection) and egregious state crimes ^(such as covering up sex crimes), he would be so inundated, he couldn't possibly try to be mum on having to keep legal hot potato Santos. >

I'm sure there will be some loop hole since he is a politician that exempts him from any wrongdoing. >

It's in Brazil so who knows (no way for Republicans to intervene to help him) but I am doubtful it'll amount to anything due to his age at the time and the amount, $700, especially if he already repaid it (article doesn't say). I can't stand this guy and hope he gets kicked out of congress but I'm also wary about locking people up over money matters on the small scale since it overwhelmingly hurts the poorest and most desperate. "You stole $700 15 years ago when you were 19, time to go to jail for 5 years." I think fines over the amount stolen (the amount stolen to be repaid to the person + an additional fine) are more fair in cases like this, but with a lenient repayment option if they're not able to pay the amount immediately, factoring in their debt-to-income ratio. >

Well the Brazilian authorities will handle as they may.  He seems to have skipped out on it all and now they found him.  If it is true that he admitted to it in the past could they extradite him for his court appearance?  It was check fraud because he stole a checkbook from a boss.  Wouldn't check fraud be even worse than just the stolen 700$ >

I think it'll be up to the US to decide if they think it's worth sending him there for that case, if they go through with it. Not sure how it is in Brazil, but check fraud is more serious than stealing the same in cash but I imagine, at least in the US, they would consider other factors. Him being young, happened once and 15 years ago, him admitting to it, and possibly already repaying would likely work in his favor, in the US. >

Well we will see if the US protects him if the Brazilian authorities find him guilty. >

I swear to dog I wouldn’t be surprised if kevin just let him keep his seat from prison, not that justice would move that fast.