George Santos Sentenced to Over 7 Years in Prison for Fraud and Identity Theft
Disgraced former U.S. Rep. George Santos, who lied about his life story and defrauded donors, was sentenced Friday to over seven years in prison, sobbing as he heard his punishment.
Santos, who pleaded guilty last summer to federal wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, appealed for mercy, telling a court through tears that he was 'humbled' and 'chastised' and realized he had betrayed his constituents' trust.
More from The Hollywood Reporter
Jimmy Kimmel Reacts to "Preposterous" George Santos Lawsuit
George Santos Talks Donald Trump, Hermès and Political Future in Interview With Ziwe: "I'll Be Back"
Jimmy Kimmel Says George Santos Is Demanding $20,000 for Showing Cameos on Late Night Show
'I offer my deepest apologies,' he said, adding: 'I cannot rewrite the past, but I can control the road ahead.'
U.S. District Court Judge Joanna Seybert evidently wasn't convinced.
'Where is your remorse? Where do I see it?' she asked as she sentenced him to 87 months behind bars. She said the former politician appeared to feel that 'it's always someone else's fault.'
The New York Republican served in Congress barely a year before his House colleagues ousted him in 2023.
He admitted to deceiving donors and stealing the identities of nearly a dozen people, including his family members, to fund his winning campaign. As part of a plea deal, Santos has agreed to pay roughly $580,000 in penalties in addition to prison time.
The 36-year-old didn't respond to reporters' shouted questions as he walked into a Long Island courthouse, but he told The Associated Press on Thursday that he was resigned to his fate.
'I'm doing as well as any human being would be doing given the circumstances,' Santos wrote in a text message, adding that he was 'ready to face the music.'
Prosecutors sought the 87-month sentence, questioning Santos' remorse in light of his recent social media posts casting himself as a victim of prosecutorial overreach.
Prosecutor Ryan Harris said some of Santos' victims were 'extremely vulnerable,' including a woman with brain damage and two octogenarian men who have dementia. Santos has said in recent days that he has no intention of paying back victims promptly, Harris noted.
'People think of this as a victimless crime because it's about money. There are many victims in this crime,' added New York Labor Commissioner Roberta Reardon.
She addressed the court as a victim because Santos collected unemployment benefits while employed by a Florida company.
Santos' lawyers had called for a two-year prison stint, the mandatory minimum sentence for aggravated identity theft.
Defense lawyer Andrew Mancilla portrayed the ex-congressman as a troubled figure forged by adversity. Santos, who has no prior criminal record, grew up in a 'broken house' and was subjected to bullying throughout his life, the attorney said.
As a result, 'he built the man he wanted to be, not who he was,' Mancilla said. 'He did that because he believed that the world would not accept him for who he was.'
'Deep down, he is warm, kind, caring, and thoughtful,' Mancilla said.
But, the lawyer said, now 'everyone hates George Santos.'
Santos was elected in 2022, flipping a wealthy district representing parts of Queens and Long Island for the GOP.
Soon after, it was revealed that the political unknown had fabricated much of his life story, painting himself as a successful business owner who worked at prestigious Wall Street firms and held a valuable real estate portfolio.
In reality, Santos was struggling financially and even faced eviction. The revelations led to congressional and criminal inquiries into how he had funded his campaign.
As his sentencing approached, Santos was reflective in social media posts, thanking his supporters and detractors alike.
'I learned that no matter left, right or, center we are all humans and for the most part Americans (LOL) and we have one super power that I cherish and that is compassion,' he wrote Thursday on the social platform X. 'To the trolls… well you guys are an impactful part of how people shape themselves, and y'all made me much stronger and made my skin thicker!'
He also made one final plug for his Cameo account, where he records personalized video messages for $100.
'Think ahead and of any celebration or event coming up later this year. Book them today,' Santos wrote, ending the post with a series of heart emojis.
Best of The Hollywood Reporter
Most Anticipated Concert Tours of 2025: Beyoncé, Billie Eilish, Kendrick Lamar & SZA, Sabrina Carpenter and More
Hollywood's Highest-Profile Harris Endorsements: Taylor Swift, George Clooney, Bruce Springsteen and More
Most Anticipated Concert Tours of 2024: Taylor Swift, Bad Bunny, Olivia Rodrigo and More
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
34 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump is unsuitable for office. But he was right to bomb Iran.
Do you think Trump was right to bomb Iran? Do you think he should have waited for approval from Congress? Are you concerned about the threat of nuclear war? Here's what readers told us. It's been more than a week since the United States entered the conflict between Iran and Israel on June 21, dropping more than a dozen 30,000-pound "bunker buster" bombs on Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Iran retaliated on June 23 with an attack on a U.S. military base in Qatar. The days that followed have brought with them a fragile ceasefire, first announced on Truth Social – and seemingly without the approval of Iran and Israel – by President Donald Trump. Since then, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and others in the Trump administration have been engaged in a back-and-forth about how much damage those bombs really did to Iran's nuclear capabilities – and while the world is breathing a little easier than it was nine days ago, tensions in the Middle East remain high. We wanted to know what you thought about all this. So, we asked. Do you think Trump was right to bomb Iran? Do you think he should have waited for approval from Congress? Are you concerned about the threat of nuclear war? Hundreds of readers wrote in for this installment of USA TODAY's Opinion Forum, sharing their opinions from across the country and political spectrum. Here's what they said. Trump is immoral and unsuitable for office. But bombing Iran was right. The air strikes were the right decision. Iran cannot be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. We should believe its leaders when they say 'Death to America." I should also mention that I normally vote Republican, but I've never voted for Donald Trump. I believe him to be an immoral, intemperate man unsuited for any public office. Presidents have been ordering military actions without congressional authorization for some time. However, that doesn't make it right. Still, as divided as Congress is, I don't believe he would have gotten the green light and we very much needed to act. Further retaliation by Iran is always a possibility. One has to know that once the act is completed, the other side may retaliate. Sometimes, however, the risk must be taken. While the U.S. intelligence community said Iran was not close to developing a nuclear weapon, the intelligence community has been wrong before. Trump is going to do whatever he wants to do. He is a bit of a loose cannon. — Kevin O'Grady, Columbus, Ohio Trump said he'd think about it for 2 weeks, then bombs! I do not think Trump made the right decision in bombing three Iranian nuclear sites. There was no emergency and no reason to do it. He said on June 19 he was going to consider it for two weeks and then, two days later, bombs! He has no idea what that little stunt costs – to deploy those types of weapons. He did it to show that he was powerful enough to do it. He has no idea what could result from it. He is an ignoramus! I think the fact that he acted on his own, without authorization from Congress, is a good reason to impeach him. He has already walked all over Congress and the court systems, doing things he does not have the authority to do. He should be impeached. In terms of him saying Iran was close to developing a nuclear weapon, the U.S. intelligence community said otherwise. I think Trump is dumb and has no idea what the truth is. I am slightly concerned about Iran's nuclear capabilities or the possibility of them receiving nuclear weapons from an ally. And I am slightly concerned about the threat of nuclear war. — Diane Whitlock, Waynesville, North Carolina Iran strikes are better than kumbaya attitudes in Congress I absolutely think Trump made the right decision in bombing the Iranian nuclear sites. Iran and many other bad state actors, and their proxies, represent existential threats to the U.S. Bad behavior must not be tolerated. We are neither empire building, nor are we regime changing in our defensive actions. I'm not in the least concerned about Trump ordering the strikes without congressional authorization. He was elected by a majority of American voters to stop the passive, kumbaya attitudes prevailing in the White House and Congress. Congress needs term limits, because the polarization is cause and effect of lobbyists being catalysts for wealth and power acquisition through longer seniority. As for the intelligence community's different assessment than Trump about how close Iran was to developing a nuclear weapon, who cares? When your public posture and oft-stated goals are the destruction of America, the degree of 'close to having' is a euphemism for panty waists to wring their hands and experience angst until it's not close, but NOW. — Robert Jarrard, Shrewsbury, Massachusetts Israel goaded Trump into military action This administration is the least equipped to make complex foreign policy decisions than any other one in this history of the U.S. At least in the first Trump administration there were some competent Cabinet officers and advisers, but now there is nobody to stop him from his worst impulses. Israel very effectively goaded Trump into this war action and it helped Trump domestically, at least in the short run, by taking attention away from his low approval ratings, the unlawful immigration raids, the protests and the lack of any tariff deals. It concerns me that Trump did not get congressional approval before the strikes. There was no urgency or exigency to having to make this decision. Even though the GOP Congress might well have rubber-stamped his decision, Trump is taking every avenue to consolidate his executive power, and Congress is aiding and abetting this by not asserting its constitutional rights. Iran has already performatively fired missiles at U.S. military installations in Qatar, with pre-warning. The supreme leader of Iran has to save face, and this might well be enough for him. I am more concerned that Trump is a loose cannon, and if he feels that his power is slipping he will escalate this to try to get a "rally round the flag" approval bump. In short, I simply do not trust him to act in the best interest of anyone but himself, certainly not in the interest of the American people. Israel has a vested interest in making it seem like a nuclear weapon is imminent. I believe the U.S. intelligence community on this. Trump notoriously refuses to hear briefings or pay any attention to actual facts, but instead relies on "his instincts," which are basically messages from Fox News. — Patricia Gotschalk, Wailuku, Hawaii Limits on bombing helped make it acceptable I do think President Trump made the right decision in bombing the three Iranian nuclear sites. It seems like it was limited in scope to only neutralizing the nuclear threats. And I'm not concerned about him acting on his own presidential authority, without authorization from Congress. There's a long history of presidents launching attacks like this one. As for additional retaliation by Iran, I'm not concerned because it's too far away and it's not a military power. With Trump's disagreement with the the U.S. intelligence community about whether Iran was close to developing a nuclear weapon, I think its nuclear program exceeds civilian use. Why have it secluded in the mountains unless it's to weaponize it? And while I'm slightly concerned about Iran's nuclear capabilities and the possibility it could receive nuclear weapons from an ally, I'm not at all concerned about the threat of nuclear war. — Scott Forrester, Phoenix, Arizona
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
I'm Not the Person You'd Expect to Oppose a Ban on Transgender Troops
I enlisted in the United States Army in 2006 and have been an officer since 2013, serving in a variety of leadership positions. I am proud of my service and I care deeply about the Army. But this month I began the process of resigning in protest of President Trump's executive order barring transgender people from the military. The president issued the order in January and the Supreme Court last month allowed the administration to start enforcing it. The order may be legally sound, but it is neither moral nor ethical. I believe that it is my duty as an officer to dissent when faced with such an order. I may not be the sort of person you would expect to oppose a ban on transgender troops. I am a conservative evangelical Christian and a Republican. Though I have deep compassion for people who feel they are in the wrong body, I do not think that transitioning — as opposed to learning to love and accept the body God gave you — is the right thing to do in that predicament. But my views are irrelevant to the issue of transgender troops. Having served under several presidential administrations, I understand that new leadership often entails changes to military policy. Some changes, such as the repeal in 2011 of 'don't ask, don't tell,' I have disagreed with. But I have never before concluded that I need to resign. This situation is different. The ban on transgender troops is blatantly discriminatory. It has nothing to do with the policy's stated justification of military readiness. The Department of Defense, when imposing the ban in February, claimed that the 'medical, surgical and mental health constraints' on transgender people 'are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.' This is untrue, and the department should know it. A study from 2016 conducted by the RAND Corporation for the Department of Defense found that military policies in other countries that permit transgender people to serve openly have 'no significant effect on cohesion, operational effectiveness or readiness.' The American Psychological Association noted in 2018 that 'substantial psychological research' demonstrates that gender dysphoria does not itself prevent people from working at a high level, 'including in military service.' Indeed, since 2016, when the Pentagon announced that transgender Americans could serve openly, transgender troops have been deployed to combat zones, provided vital support to combat operations and filled critical roles in the armed forces. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
Republican Tells Zohran Mamdani: 'Go Back to the Third World'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Republican Representative Brandon Gill has told New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani to "go back to the Third World" in response to a video of him eating with his hands. A brief clip of Mamdani eating rice with his hands and talking about how growing up in Uganda shaped his understanding of the struggle of Palestinians went viral on X, formerly Twitter, on Sunday. The clip prompted a backlash from right-wing figures including Gill, who wrote that "civilized people in America don't eat like this," and that "if you refuse to adopt Western customs, go back to the Third World." However, others hit back at Gill's comments, noting that many Americans eat food like pizza, burgers and tacos with their hands. Mamdani, a state lawmaker, declared victory in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary last week after former governor Andrew Cuomo conceded the race. He would be the city's first Muslim and Indian American mayor if elected in November. Mamdani was born in Kampala, Uganda, to Indian parents and lived briefly in South Africa before moving to New York City when he was seven. He became an American citizen in 2018, shortly after graduating college. Representative Brandon Gill speaking in Washington D.C. in February, and Zohran Mamdani speaking at his primary election party in New York last week. Representative Brandon Gill speaking in Washington D.C. in February, and Zohran Mamdani speaking at his primary election party in New York last week. Aaron Schwartz/Sipa USA//Heather Khalifa/AP This is a developing story. Updates to follow.
