George Santos Caught Lying About Voting on Something He Wasn’t in Congress For?

George Santos just had his first day in Washington yesterday. Repeat—yesterday. But as of Wednesday, one day after his first day, Santos’s website claimed he voted “nay” on the House omnibus bill, a vote that took place on December 23, 2022.

It’s not impossible for there to be clerical errors while keeping track of members’ votes. However, that is slightly less likely when the error is published on the particular website of a specific member of Congress. It is unclear why a newly elected member of Congress would choose to do this. Then again, you could say the same with regard to most of the brazen lies Santos has already told.

The bold-faced lie comes after Santos also posted a press release Tuesday evening announcing his swearing in to Congress—something that actually hadn’t happened given that the House has yet to select a speaker.

The misannouncement could readily be chalked to an accidental posting or staffer mistake. Actively marking down a vote that simply never happened is also erroneous, but much less likely to be an honest mistake. But after all, if you’re looking for honesty, Santos is not the first place you might go.

This post has been updated.

While far-right Republicans continue to block Kevin McCarthy’s bid to become the speaker of the House, they have rallied behind one man as their preferred alternative: Jim Jordan, or as Representatives Lauren Boebert and Scott Perry say, the George Washington of our generation.

“Our candidate is Jim Jordan,” Boebert said Tuesday on Fox. “He may not want it right now, but George Washington did not want to be president. He did what was right for his country.”

Perry echoed the same point a day later on Fox Business.

Representative Matt Gaetz has helped lead the House Republican defectors’ charge to keep the gavel out of McCarthy’s hands and to instead put it in Jordan’s hands. Meanwhile, Jordan purports not to want the job, having even endorsed McCarthy himself. As a result, Gaetz and company cite Jordan’s hesitancy as proof of why Jordan would be a good leader. Just as Washington didn’t really want to be president and did anyhow, the thinking goes, so this moment calls for Jordan to rise to the occasion.

Perry’s comments comparing Jordan to the first president of the United States notably came the same morning that twice-impeached former president and target of numerous investigations Donald Trump announced his full-throated support for McCarthy.

“Sad!” Gaetz told Fox News after Trump’s endorsement. “This changes neither my view of McCarthy nor Trump nor my vote.”

“Supporting McCarthy is the worst Human Resources decision President Trump has ever made,” Gaetz tweeted.

Not for nothing, John Trumbull’s painting General George Washington Resigning His Commission is on display just down the hall from congressional hijinks, in the Capitol Rotunda. The painting depicts the moment when Washington resigned from his position as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, signifying his—and America’s—step away from militant autocracy and toward some semblance of a republic. “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world,” King George III is thought to have said upon learning of Washington’s resignation.

That is the kind of virtue Boebert and company are now trying to ascribe to Jordan.

Representative Matt Gaetz is livid that Kevin McCarthy has “occupied” the speaker of the House office—and he’s making a bigger deal about it than he did when rioters actually occupied the Capitol.

McCarthy has made no secret of his desire to be speaker, and he clearly thought he had the role on lock, going so far as to move his things into the speaker’s office Tuesday morning. But after three consecutive votes, not only did he lose every time, but he also lost votes as the session dragged on.

Gaetz, who has been staunchly opposed to a McCarthy speakership, demanded to know Tuesday night why McCarthy was still in the speaker’s office considering he had not yet won the gavel.

He was joined by Andy Biggs, who not only voted against McCarthy every time but also ran as a long-shot challenger in the first round.

Gaetz’s outrage seems particularly ironic when compared to his reaction the last time the Capitol was occupied: on January 6, 2021, when it was overrun by supporters of former President Donald Trump trying to stop Joe Biden’s election win from being certified.

Gaetz had already been involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. A loyal Trump toady, he has repeatedly downplayed the January 6 riot, including insisting that the FBI was involved in the attack.

On the one-year anniversary of the insurrection, Gaetz referred to the rioters as “patriotic Americans … who had no intent of breaking the law and doing violence.”

“We’re ashamed of nothing,” he said on a podcast hosted by former Trump adviser and extremist Steve Bannon.

Gaetz’s animosity toward McCarthy actually stems in part from the latter’s response to January 6. McCarthy considered Gaetz to be one of the chief offenders during the riot, The New York Times reported.

McCarthy said Gaetz was acting recklessly, such as by attacking Republican leaders who opposed Trump on television. McCarthy’s number two, Republican Whip Steve Scalise, accused Gaetz of “potentially illegal” behavior.

At the time, Gaetz slammed both McCarthy and Scalise as “weak men.” And now he’s one of the main obstacles to McCarthy becoming speaker.

The House will reconvene at noon Tuesday to try again to elect a speaker for the new Congress, and here’s what could happen:

1. Somehow, Kevin McCarthy will prevail. This seems unlikely. Consider: During Monday’s three votes, his people were surely begging, pleading with at least some of the 19, then 20 Republicans voting against McCarthy  to switch back to supporting him or at least to vote “present.” They would have wanted to see that 19 go down to 17 on round two and 15 on round three. Instead, it went slightly up, to 20.

One never knows what goes on behind closed doors, and maybe there are some setup carrots McCarthy can offer the hard-liners to win enough of them over. But look at the math. At a minimum, he needs to flip 10 deniers to vote for him and nine to vote “present.” The nine voting “present” would reduce the overall number of votes to 425 from 434 (there is one vacant district, Virginia’s 4th, where Democratic incumbent Donald McEachin died and which, by the way, is a D+10 seat). Half plus one of 425 is 213, 10 more than McCarthy won yesterday. 

Looking down the list, it’s awfully hard to see 10 who’ll flip to McCarthy. Nothing’s impossible. But the reward-and-punishment system that exists on today’s radical right will reward continued resistance and punish capitulation. They bring McCarthy down, they’re heroes to Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon and the rest; they cave, they’re ninnies. Anger and dissension on the far right just deepen.

2. Steve Scalise or someone else emerges. Jim Jordan? Maybe, but he’s just not a good fit for the job. Well, none of them is a good fit for the job, but Jordan especially—he’s a pit bull, period. Can you picture him corralling votes, doing all that hard work that Nancy Pelosi has done so well over the years? Impossible.

Scalise raises an interesting set of mostly unexplored questions. He once told a Louisiana reporter, explaining his broad philosophy, that he was “David Duke without the baggage.” That quote is making the rounds in the liberal media right now. It’s time for the Democrats to pick it up. How will that sit with the moderate Republicans—and there are a few now, the several new members who helped the GOP get this majority? Will they want to go back to their voters in two years and explain their vote for that man? It’s possible that Scalise loses some support from the middle, if Democrats raise the issue properly.

The third idea floating around, that some consensus candidate will emerge, is the fantasy of people who think Aaron Sorkin is writing this. There are only two outcomes: McCarthy, or a non-McCarthy acceptable to the hard right that is running this show. However it ends, it’s a GOP disaster 30 years in the making and will hang over the entire two-year session.

It was George Santos’s first day in Washington Tuesday, and it seems like his reliable political chops and gravitational charm are not working quite yet. While the serial liar, and now representative, has apparently enjoyed some allyship from Marjorie Taylor Greene, he wasn’t otherwise seen doing much socializing.

As members of Congress steered clear of fraternizing with the guy whose identity we just can’t be sure of, he didn’t seem keen to talk to the people giving him the most attention: members of the press.

Appearing less like a man trying to make a splash on his first day on the hill, and more like a man advised by his lawyer to remain silent, Santos certainly isn’t projecting confidence to voters, or even to people wondering if he deserves to be in Congress at all.

After being royally exposed for lie after lie during the past few weeks, Santos has shown no intention of resigning, and the Republican caucus overall hasn’t made any substantial indication of what they will do. It’s a bit concerning for such an unflappable liar to just be sitting in Congress like a bored middle schooler.

Meanwhile, Santos is facing reopened criminal charges in Brazil for allegedly stealing the checkbook of an elderly man his mother was taking care of as a nurse, and using it to buy some $1,300 worth of clothes and shoes.

Santos also faces legal scrutiny stateside. The congressman-elect recently came into an irregularly quick and massive fortune, and loaned more than $700,000 to his campaign. As a result, both federal and local authorities are probing into Santos’s campaign and financial dealings. So while we can’t seem to address Santos’s almost-criminal level of lying, he may be charged with actual gross criminality.