logo
‘If You Can Survive the Hill, You Can Survive in Prison'

‘If You Can Survive the Hill, You Can Survive in Prison'

Yahoo10-05-2025
Barring a last-minute presidential pardon, former Rep. George Santos is about to join the relatively exclusive group of Americans who have spent time in both Congress and federal prison.
There are some similarities between the two locales. Both involve taxpayer subsidies and include individuals of questionable character, but the lifestyles are quite different. Members of Congress have private dining rooms and private elevators; prisoners have no privacy at all.
For a sense of what life will be like for Santos, a New York Republican who wassentenced to more than seven years in prison for his con artist ways, POLITICO Magazine talked to former Rep. Bob Ney, who, before Santos, was perhaps the most well-known member of Congress to serve time in prison in recent decades. A former chairman of the House Administration Committee, Ney served 17 months in federal prison for his role in theJack Abramoff lobbying scandal.
The Ohio Republican also had some advice for Santos, including what lessons from politics are applicable in prison. And Ney noted that Santos, who was expelled by his colleagues, has some experience navigating such a cold-blooded and adversarial environment.
'If you can survive the Hill, you can survive in prison,' he said. 'The Hill can be a treacherous place, no question about it.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
What does it feel like knowing that you're going from being a member of Congress to being a prisoner?
It depends on the person. But let's face it, if you've been in Congress, you have led a different type of life, a different type of schedule and a different type of give and take with people, obviously. I had never spent an hour, ever in my lifetime, in a jail.
I'd dealt with prison issues, but never spent time in a prison. So when you finally realize that's going to happen, it's quite stunning.
How anxious were you about going behind bars?
Your world's falling apart.
You go from being chairman of a committee, member of the House, to you're going to prison. And you hear all these stories that it's a little country club and all that nonsense. Then you hear other stories where you're probably going to be shanked the first day you're in there. You hear everything. I kind of woke up to the fact that when you were a congressman, you voted for the laws that sent people who do drugs to prison
How did you prepare for it?
I met with Webb Hubbell for four hours, and he walked me through everything. [Editor's note: Hubbell was a close friend and ally of Bill and Hillary Clinton in Arkansas who went to federal prison after getting caught up in the Whitewater scandal.]
I learned everything under the sun from him, everything. The four hours with him was a blessing. He taught me what to do. When you go into prison and you're a member of Congress, they don't have a special place for you or someone to call if somebody is harassing you. My life would have been completely different without him.
Did people know who you were coming into prison?
Everyone knew, because it had been on CNN. There are TV rooms in prison, and everybody knew I was coming.
And here's the worst part. After dinner, they have a movie that can be watched. You can request movies, and they have a lottery to see what movie they will play. What I found out later on is that they had shut the entire prison down on a lockdown because I was coming in. After a while being in there, if they shut the movie off, you're not happy.
Did being a politician teach you anything useful for prison life?
Webb Hubbell had told me, 'Use your political skills. Use humor. And avoid certain things.' After 24 years in office, 11 in Congress, you deal with the public, you deal with some hot situations, people who are angry. He said, 'It's no different in there. It's a community. Use those skills.' And being around people all those years in politics, the tens of thousands of people you meet and work with, it helped.
How did prison compare to Capitol Hill?
I loved the Hill, but the Hill could be a vicious place. It could be a blood sport. If you can survive the Hill, you can survive in prison, because people are people, and the Hill can be a treacherous place, no question about it.
One day in rehab, I'm standing there and said, 'When I get out of here, I'm going to talk about all the thieves and liars and vicious people that I've had to be around. Maniacs! You can't trust them.' And they're looking at me, and one guy's laughing. He goes, 'We're not that bad.' I said, 'No, I'm talking about Congress. I'm not talking about you guys.'
How were you regarded in prison?
I made a lot of friends, I really did. I mean, you had some people that weren't friendly, but I made a lot of friends, and people were pretty nice to me. Ed Mezvinsky, Chelsea Clinton's father-in-law, was in there with me. He was pretty well-liked, and we used to joke about running for governor of the prison, me versus Ed.
I was kind of always a congressman. People would come to me and they would say, 'Can you talk to me?' Or they would say, 'Hey, tell me the secrets. Are there aliens?' Stuff like that. But I had a lot of guys that would come to me, and I used to walk around the yard every night. I walked off 68 pounds in a year. And if people wanted to talk to me, I would say, 'Come down, walk with me.' And they would ask me, 'How do I start a business? Do you know anything about that?' 'What about becoming a realtor?' So I did that. I also tutored guys in prison. We helped them with their resumes, and we did mock interviews for when they got out, when they had to interview with a company.
Then you get people like one guy who told me 'You're the reason I'm eating this shitty food. Yes, you did this. Yeah, you did that.' And another friend of mine is like, 'Shut the hell up. You're in here because you sold drugs.'
Were you always viewed as a member of Congress or just as another prisoner?
The thing about going in as a congressman, you're going to be labeled because you are going to be looked at as privileged. So when you go in there, you've really got to open yourself up, open your mind up and keep some humility to yourself and realize that you've just got to take it one day at a time.
What advice would you give to George Santos as he goes into prison?
First of all, there's no internet in the prison, but they have relatives that visit them, and the system knows where George is going to go eventually, and so when I went in, they knew everything about me, what bills I had co-authored, it was amazing. So he should go in understanding they're going to have read about him and know about him.
Number two, it won't carry any weight that he was a former congressman. In fact, again, it will look like somebody of privilege didn't use the privileges they should have. And a lot of people in prison feel that they don't have that privilege. They weren't given that chance to be in the United States Congress, so that's how he'll be looked at. I would say, go in, be low-key but friendly, be real with people and don't make up stories. And also give back. They need volunteers for people that don't have GEDs. There are some people that don't know how to read and write. There's all kinds of things that can be done.
The other thing I would advise him is this: You can go in there and you can come out having a real problem mentally. It can happen to anybody. So you need to go in and focus on self help. There are books in these facilities that people can read and keep busy. One of the main problems in these systems is keeping busy — boredom — there's not a lot out there to focus on. You need to create that type of environment for yourself, where you're reading and learning and giving back to fellow inmates. And he has to remember that he is a fellow inmate. He's one of them.
Santos said in an interview that he was concerned he'd be targeted by gangs like MS-13 because he'd voted for law enforcement to go after them in Congress. Is that an issue?
When I walked in prison the first day, a guy stopped me. He said, 'You co-authored the bill that put me in here.' I think it was dealing with stealing Sudafed to make methamphetamine. I said, 'I didn't do that.' I supported the bill, but I can't remember what it was, an amendment or bill or something. But I said, 'We all put ourselves in here.' And then I walked away, because you want to defuse things.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trade Deadline
Trade Deadline

New York Times

time16 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Trade Deadline

President Trump has a big deadline this week. He announced tariffs in April, suspended them, and plans to reimpose them tomorrow. In the meantime, he has been trying to bend trade partners to his will with sweeteners, threats and the occasional ultimatum. After months of chaos and hype, he notched much-needed victories this week when he announced trade deals with the European Union and South Korea. But the saga isn't over yet. Today, I'll walk through where Trump's trade agenda has succeeded, where it hasn't and what we still don't know. The wins Trump has already delivered on some of his central trade promises. Raising tariffs: The president loves tariffs and has made them a totem of his second term. He has earned a reputation for bluffing, but overall duties have increased. America spent generations building — and benefiting from — a global free-trade consensus. Now, Trump has coaxed major players, including the European Union, South Korea and Japan, to accept 15 percent tariffs, the highest in decades. This piece by Ana Swanson, who covers trade, explains the shift. Boosting businesses: Trump has pushed several nations to buy more from American companies as part of their trade deals. The European Union and South Korea agreed to purchase hundreds of billions in U.S. fossil fuels before the end of Trump's term. Deals with half a dozen countries include orders for hundreds of Boeing jets. (This week, Boeing reported its strongest revenue in six years.) The losses Trump's tariff war has also meant some pain. Shuffling trade alliances: Nations have started seeking trade partners that are more reliable than the United States, writes Jeanna Smialek, who covers Europe. The E.U. is pulling closer to Britain, Canada, India and South Africa. Canada is courting Southeast Asia. Brazil and Mexico are building a rapport. They're redrawing the global trade map — minus the U.S. Roiling industries: Carmakers including Volkswagen and General Motors said import duties erased billions from their profits in the first half of the year. American farmers may have to splurge on fertilizers imported from Russia. Trump's E.U. tariffs may cost pharmaceutical companies billions, making drugs more expensive for Americans. Sydney Ember, who covers the U.S. economy, wrote about a Maine coffee company that raised prices after tariffs eroded its profits. The TBDs As my colleague Ben Casselman explained, economic growth has wobbled this year as tariff uncertainty upended business plans and scrambled consumer spending. With nations racing to negotiate new trade deals, there's still so much up in the air. Finalizing deals: Trump wants to win concessions, but trade talks aren't finished yet. Canada and Mexico remain empty-handed; as does China, which got a later deadline. Trump said yesterday that he would hit India with tariffs partly because it imports oil from Russia. He also punished Brazil with a tariff for prosecuting its former leader, his ally. (Here's a map tracking tariffs for every country.) And any new pact will likely be just a blueprint, since Trump's trade deals don't get into the nitty-gritty details that usually make up formal trade agreements. Lowering prices: Trump hopes that tariffs will boost the economy with lower prices and more jobs. But it's unclear whether that will work, Ana explains in a new story. Tariffs have a cost — borne by the businesses exporting goods or the consumers buying them. Although some businesses choose to absorb costs for a while, research shows that Americans eventually bear the brunt. Last month, inflation inched up as tariffs started to bite. More on the economy Trump ended a rule that exempted imports worth under $800 from tariffs. Small imports have ballooned in recent years because of online shopping. The Federal Reserve held interest rates steady, despite Trump's demand to cut them. Two Fed governors voted against the decision. That's very unusual, as this chart shows: Canada's prime minister said yesterday that his country would recognize Palestine as a state this fall. The move echoed similar ones by Britain and France over the past week. These are the first close allies of Israel and the United States to take such a step. So while this recognition is symbolic, it's a sign of a shift in global sentiment. Timeline: The Palestine Liberation Organization officially declared a Palestinian state in 1988, but the U.S. has consistently blocked the U.N. from granting it full member status. In 2012 Palestine got 'nonmember observer state status,' which allowed it to join various U.N. bodies and the International Criminal Court. Today, most nations recognize Palestine. Two states: Canada, Britain and France, like the United States, have long supported a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But they had resisted recognition while the two sides continued to disagree on some basics, such as security, borders and the status of Jerusalem. What changed? Leaders are outraged by the mass starvation gripping Gaza. Instead of seeing recognition as a carrot to encourage Palestinians to participate in a peace deal, the three nations will try to use it as a stick to pressure Israel to end the war. For more Gaza's looming famine is a familiar challenge for a U.S. president. Crises in the Balkans, Rwanda, Darfur and Syria, to name a few, haunted presidents' consciences — sometimes moving them to act, but often leading to excuses, Michael Crowley writes. A sack of flour costs $300 in Gaza. Read the latest on the food crisis. Trump Administration Brown University struck a $50 million deal with the government to restore research funding. The school promised to comply with President Trump's position on transgender athletes. Senate Democrats have slowed the confirmation process for presidential appointments to a trickle, creating a bottleneck by insisting that every vote be recorded. While running for president, Trump promised oil executives a windfall. Six months into his presidency, they're getting one. Senate Democrats invoked an obscure law to try to force the release of the Epstein files. More on Politics Texas Republicans unveiled a new gerrymandered map for the state's House districts. They're proposing to carve up five Democratic seats so that Republicans would be likely to win them in 2026. Former Vice President Kamala Harris will not run for California governor next year. A Senate committee advanced legislation that would bar members of Congress, the president and the vice president from trading stocks. House Democrats sued ICE for barring them from entering detention centers. Brazil The U.S. imposed sanctions on the Brazilian Supreme Court justice presiding over the prosecution of Jair Bolsonaro, the former Brazilian president. Bolsonaro is accused of orchestrating a coup attempt; Trump has called the case a 'witch hunt.' Brazil's president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, spoke with The Times about his outrage over what he says is Trump's meddling in his country's politics. Click the video below to watch. Public Health Measles cases in Canada have far surpassed those in the United States. The Food and Drug Administration's top vaccine and gene therapy official resigned after a public campaign against him led by the right-wing influencer Laura Loomer. Other Big Stories Russian missiles and drones struck Kyiv, killing at least seven people. An instrument issue may have misled the pilots of a Black Hawk helicopter about their altitude before it collided with a passenger jet near Washington in January. The gunman who killed four people in a Manhattan office building bought his assault rifle from his boss at a Las Vegas casino. Why did the big undersea earthquake yesterday produce a relatively small tsunami? 'There's big,' said one expert. 'And then there's really, really big.' Israel bears the greatest responsibility for starvation in Gaza. It needs to let Palestinians eat, the Editorial Board writes. Here's a column by Michelle Cottle on redistricting. Summer streets: New Yorkers are looking cool despite the heat. Our photographer captured their style. Always late? It may be a part of your personality, scientists say. Ultrarich Pac-Man: Palm Beach billionaires keep demolishing perfectly good beachfront mansions. Your pick: The most-clicked story in The Morning yesterday was about the spread of hand, foot and mouth disease. Taboo breaker: Rose Leiman Goldemberg wrote the screenplay for 'The Burning Bed,' which starred Farrah Fawcett as a wife exonerated for killing her husband. The TV movie helped start a national conversation around domestic abuse. Goldemberg has died at 97. Trending: People online were searching for the former N.B.A. star Gilbert Arenas after he and five others were arrested in Los Angeles, accused of illegally hosting high-stakes poker games at his home. He denies the charge. N.C.A.A.: Troy Taylor, Stanford's former head football coach, filed a defamation lawsuit against ESPN and one of its reporters over an investigative story that alleged Taylor 'bullied and belittled female athletic staffers.' Swimming: Ryan Lochte's record in the 200-meter individual medley fell after 14 years. Léon Marchand of France beat Lochte's time by 1.31 seconds. Jason Momoa knows what he looks like. But he prefers to think of himself as a 'sensitive alpha male' — not a hunky bruiser. No matter how you spin it, he's a bona fide action star, having played a warlord in 'Game of Thrones,' a sword master in 'Dune' and an amphibious superhero in 'Aquaman.' Momoa recently returned to Hawaii for a different kind of project, the Apple TV+ series 'Chief of War.' Alexis Soloski, a Times culture reporter, went to the beach with him in Honolulu to learn why he pushed so hard to make a serious-minded period drama about his home. More on culture A procession fit for the prince of darkness: Birmingham sent off Ozzy Osbourne with a brass band and a regal hearse. Here are some of the most anticipated books coming in August, including new novels by R.F. Kuang and Louis Sachar. Late night hosts are still joking about Trump and Epstein. Make your own pesto with five ingredients. Perfect your plank. Prepare for a natural disaster with these items that survivors said were crucial for them. Read this profile of Liam Neeson, who is on a mission to make you laugh. Here is today's Spelling Bee. Yesterday's pangrams were cognate and cotangent. And here are today's Mini Crossword, Wordle, Connections, Sports Connections and Strands. Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow. Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. Reach our team at themorning@

What Really Happened to Liberal Men? Why Are They Leaving the Democratic Party?
What Really Happened to Liberal Men? Why Are They Leaving the Democratic Party?

Newsweek

time16 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

What Really Happened to Liberal Men? Why Are They Leaving the Democratic Party?

Something is quietly happening in American politics: a noticeable number of traditional liberal men are drifting away from the Democratic Party. These aren't far-right converts or angry trolls online. They're everyday guys—teachers, tech workers, dads, artists—who once voted blue without hesitation. And now, many of them are either sitting elections out or reluctantly voting Republican. What changed? At the heart of this shift is a growing discomfort with how masculinity is talked about on the left. For a while now, terms like "toxic masculinity" have dominated progressive conversations. The original idea behind it—critiquing aggressive or harmful male behavior—was fair and necessary. But somewhere along the line, the term morphed into a broader cultural critique that often paints masculinity itself as dangerous or outdated. Horizontal photo of a Democratic Party flag with a stylized donkey on top of the U.S. flag. Horizontal photo of a Democratic Party flag with a stylized donkey on top of the U.S. flag. Getty Images Many men who've identified with liberal values for years now feel like they're being told that being male is an obstacle. Traits like confidence, competitiveness, risk-taking, or wanting to provide for a family—things that used to be seen as strengths—are now viewed by some progressive voices as relics of the patriarchy. Furthermore, liberal men often feel unfairly generalized by prominent liberal women. Blanket statements like "Men are the problem," ignore that many men face real financial, emotional, and social struggles. It's left a lot of men asking: "If my identity and values are unwelcome here, why am I still voting for this party?" Another major reason for the shift is the rise of lawfare—the use of legal tools and institutions to target individuals, especially men, in ways that feel more political or ideological than fair. Whether it's family court systems that feel stacked against fathers or highly publicized sexual assault cases where guilt is assumed before facts are in, many liberal men feel like due process is being replaced by social punishment. That creates a lot of unease. The #MeToo movement was an important and overdue reckoning. No one should downplay how necessary it was to hold abusers accountable. But many men now feel like the pendulum has swung too far. They're afraid of being falsely accused, of having a clumsy date or a poorly worded joke ruin their career or social standing. That fear is real, and it's impacting how men relate to women in professional and personal settings. Ironically, it's also hurting women, who are finding men more hesitant to engage, hire, mentor, or even speak freely with. Cancel culture adds to the anxiety. In a world where a single misstep—or even a misunderstood comment from years ago—can get you publicly shamed or fired, a lot of men have chosen to simply opt out of certain conversations, workplaces, dating rituals, or social groups. They're pulling back, not because they hate progress, but because they're tired of feeling like they're always one sentence away from disaster. So how do Democrats win these men back? First, it starts by making room for positive masculinity again. That doesn't mean turning back the clock to some 1950s ideal. It means recognizing that men and women are different—and that's a good thing. Men have their own strengths, just like women do. We should be able to celebrate courage, protection, responsibility, and leadership without suspicion or shame. The party also needs to move toward a fairer legal culture. Men need to know they'll get a fair hearing in courtrooms, HR departments, and public opinion. That doesn't mean ignoring victims or softening on accountability—it means making sure that justice is based on evidence, not assumptions. And instead of constantly attacking each other online, Democrats could encourage more honest conversations about dating, relationships, and gender dynamics in general. A lot of people are confused about how to interact in today's social climate, and men especially feel like they're navigating a minefield. Giving people room to ask questions and make mistakes without ruining their lives is a sign of a mature, compassionate society—not a regressive one. Most importantly, Democrats need to realize that losing liberal men isn't just a cultural issue—it's a political one. These men are still out there, still voting, still caring about big-picture issues like climate change and economic justice. But if they feel dismissed or disrespected, they'll take their votes elsewhere—or just stay home. Neither outcome helps liberals. Rebuilding that trust doesn't require giving up on feminism or equality. It just requires a shift in tone and approach. It means treating men not as threats, but as partners in building a better world. If the Democratic Party can do that—if it can speak to men not just as a voting bloc, but as human beings with complex identities and real concerns—then a lot of those lost voters might just come home. Zoltan Istvan writes and speaks on transhumanism, artificial intelligence, and the future. He is raising two young daughters with his wife in San Francisco. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

A majority of North Carolinians oppose cutting federal funding for research, poll finds
A majority of North Carolinians oppose cutting federal funding for research, poll finds

Axios

time17 minutes ago

  • Axios

A majority of North Carolinians oppose cutting federal funding for research, poll finds

Nearly 60% of North Carolinians oppose large-scale federal funding cuts to medical research, a new survey has found. Why it matters: The Trump administration has proposed sweeping cuts to federal research funding, including $20 billion from the National Institutes of Health. That could have significant ramifications in North Carolina, where Duke University and UNC-Chapel Hill are among the largest recipients of research funding from the NIH. Already, the Trump administration has tried to change how the federal government covers indirect costs for research, which could lead to large funding decreases in the Triangle. However, that decision has been stopped in the courts. Between the lines: The poll was commissioned by United for Cures, a group backed by UsAgainstAlzheimer's, which opposes the Trump administration's cuts to the NIH. The poll was conducted by the firm Public Opinion Strategies, which surveyed 500 registered voters in North Carolina between June 23-26. Zoom in: Of the survey respondents who said they oppose cutting medical research, 48% said they strongly opposed it, according to Public Opinion Strategies. A large majority of those opposed to the cuts say they are worried about research being cut for cancer treatments and prevention. Many of the respondents said the cuts could affect how they vote, with 56% saying they would be less likely to vote for a member of Congress who voted for the cuts. Among self-described moderate voters, that share reaches 63%. On the other side, 33% of respondents said they favored cutting funding for medical research, and 25% said they would be more likely to vote for a member of Congress who voted for the cuts.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store