Santos Sentenced for Wire Fraud and Identity Theft—Obama Did Worse

"Former New York Republican Rep. George Santos was sentenced to more than seven years in prison on Friday for wire fraud and identity theft.” — Townhill News

Susan Daniels Apr 26, 2025 @ Susan's Newsletter

Santos pleaded guilty to stealing the identities of others and wire fraud. He was sentenced to seven years in prison and ordered to pay over $373,000 in restitution. What Santos did was child’s play compared to the avaricious Barack Obama.

Obama used someone else’s identity starting in his mid-20s, when he stole the Social Security number of a Connecticut resident born in 1890. The number, which started with 042, was originally issued on March 28, 1977, to a resident of that state. When the Social Security system went into effect in 1936, those numbers were assigned for the exclusive use of Connecticut residents.

The first three letters identify the state of the card owner. A “0” began numbers on the East Coast and increased westward. On June 25, 2011, the Obama administration changed that method, after seventy-five years, to one of randomization when assigning numbers. There was no reason to do that other than to muddy the waters of Obama’s action.

Obama originally had a Hawaii number, starting with 575 or 576, since he claimed he worked at Baskin-Robbins when he was fifteen, and having a Social Security number would have been mandatory.

Whoever had the original Connecticut number likely applied for it at eighty-seven years of age, and it was probably a woman. Few elderly women worked outside the home, and they used their husbands’ numbers. Upon the death of a spouse, a woman needed her own number, especially to access government help of any kind.

Obama is guilty of far more than the charges against Santos. Everything Obama did after the age of twenty-six was illegal, including any payments he received as Senator or President. Any credit cards he used, loans he took out, contracts he signed, and wire transactions would all have been illegal because he was using someone else's number.

His law license would have been obtained under false pretenses. Additionally, he lied on his application when he said he had never used another name. From ages six to ten, he was registered in school in Indonesia as Barry Soetoro.

Michelle Obama’s law license is on “court-ordered inactive status.” Sources claim that she was caught in an insurance scheme she was running for her husband.

During the eight years that Barack Obama was president, everything he signed and every dollar he spent would have been illegal. He was using a stolen number, and it even appears on his 2009 tax filing.

In one of my other Substack articles, I wrote about how Obama incurred unnecessary costs to the taxpayers of $105 million for non-essential travel. We will never really know how much he stole from us; it could be in the hundreds of millions, but it is time that all his assets, which he obtained illegally, were forfeited to the government.

It’s time for Pam Bondi or Kash Patel to go after the easiest takedown of a criminal in our country. And I have all the receipts they need. 

Susan Daniels is a private investigator and the author of The Rubbish Hauler’s Wife versus Barack Obama: A True Story which is available on Amazon.com.

Politics like we have never seen.  Recommend Susan’s Newsletter to your friends.

 

 

George Santos: The House Has Rules

By Rich Kozlovich

Okay, I've managed to offend more people over the course of my life than the vast majority of people, and I have to admit, I'm really quite good at it.  So, I'm going to surprise a bunch more and most likely to offend a few more now.  How?  I'll be doing what I always do.  Define things properly!

There's been a lot of talk about kicking George Santos out of the House, and let's face it, most conservatives, including me,  will find him extremely easy to dislike.  He's gay, he's played the gender transition role, he's lied to get elected beyond anything anyone has seen...probably ever.....and that got him elected, and he's not the least bit repentant of it all.  He's being investigated for financial irregularities, and who knows what all, by just about every authority in the nation, and there's discussion of an ethics hearing in the House.  

I wonder if he'd been elected as a Democrat would he be investigated for anything, and makes you wonder why the Democrats want him kicked out since for all practical purposes, he's one with them, except he's been elected as a Republican.  

It turns out Republicans don't like that he's a Republican and wonder why, "can't we get rid of this guy?"  Which bodes well the question:  Why didn't the Republicans vet him properly in the first place?   Is it possible the Republican party is filled with incompetents?  Wow!  Now that's a shocker, whoddathunkit? 

Can the House expel a member?  Yes, and the Constitution gives them the right to make up their own rules for doing that.  Here's what the Constitution says in Article 1, Section 5 says:

 

 "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."

 

That's all the Constitution says, which means the House determines the grounds for expulsion.

 

Side Bar: I wonder how many of Biden's nominees for the federal judiciary would know that? Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana humiliated a Biden judicial nominee, Charnelle Bjelkengren, by asking her: “Tell me what Article V of the Constitution does,” Kennedy asked as he began his round of questioning. “Article V is not coming to mind at the moment,” Bjelkengren replied. “How about Article II?” Kennedy asked. Bjelkengren replied that didn’t come to mind for her either.

 

Expulsion has happened to five members.  Three for joining the Confederate Army, and two for criminal behavior, for which they were eventually convicted, one in 1980 and one in 2002.  So the question that needs to be asked is what has he done illegally or immorally since being elected?  Nothing I'm aware of.  And no violation is being offered by those demanding McCarthy just kick him out, which would be setting the dangerous precedent of:  

 

"We don't like you so we're going to ignore the voters and kick you out of your legally elected office."

Okay, I'm all for that, just as long as it applies to every member of the House whose lied....while in office.... officially lied.... like Adam Schiff, and those who promoted violence like Maxine Waters.  Why aren't Republican hypocrites demanding they be expelled from the Congress?  They're guilty of easily proven violations of integrity, and in my opinion serious violations of integrity!  All while in office! 

Who knows where that would lead to under a Democrat controlled House?  Be careful what you wish for, you might get it. If he's found guilty of some crime or immoral act, then the House can act in complete harmony with the reasonable and rational precedents set by the history of the House.   If he's not, let the elective process take it's course and let the electorate judge him. 

The point is there is a process involved in expulsion. It is a serious matter, and it requires a process to determine whether it is warranted, since voters chose the member and, in Santos' case, the same voters will have a chance to elect another representative in 21 months. A vote to expel Santos now would be a vote to throw out 200 years of experience and process in the House of Representatives. While it might make some members, and some in the media, happy, it could lead to a lowering of standards for expulsion that could consume both parties in the future. So justice for George Santos will involve process as well as possible punishment. It will not give the instant gratification some in Washington want. But it will be the right thing to do.

There are times I say things that need to be said, that I hate saying, but truth, justice and the America way comes in first and foremost.  Pandering to the mob and their narrative of the moment is neither truth, justice nor the American way, and doesn't even come in a far second.  Get over it!

 

George Santos and Joe Biden

Daniel Greenfield  January 04, 2023 @ Sultan Knish Blog 

 In December, Biden told an entire story about awarding his own uncle a purple heart for fighting in the Battle of the Bulge.  His uncle died ten years before Biden became vice president.

Biden began his story by saying, “My dad, when I got elected vice president.” His father died during Bush’s second year in office.

The only possible explanation for this entire story is that Biden is crazy, senile or a liar so shameless that he makes Hillary Clinton look like the love child of Honest Abe and George Washington.

And that was just another day of Biden telling crazy lies and the media letting him do it.

Had Trump told a story about his dead father telling him to give a medal to his dead uncle, we would still be hearing about it, there would be memes, SNL skits, at least two books, one written by Michael Wolff, and probably a congressional investigation. But for Biden, it’s just Thursday.

Biden claimed that his son, Beau Biden, “lost his life in Iraq” when he died of cancer in Maryland. Then he said it again, “I’m thinking about Iraq because that’s where my son died.”

He claimed that, “I know, having had a house burn down with my wife in it — she got out safely” and “we didn’t lose our whole home, but lightning struck and we lost an awful lot of it.”

There was actually a small kitchen fire that was quickly brought under control.

The New York Times tried to spin this under the headline, “Biden, Storyteller in Chief, Spins Yarns That Often Unravel”. That’s the nicest way of saying “con artist’s pathological lies keep falling apart” ever.

Biden has claimed that he “came out of the civil rights movement”, that he was arrested as a 14-year-old at a civil rights protest, and arrested trying to see Nelson Mandela. He claimed to have been desegregating restaurants and movie theaters.

None of it, not a single word, was true.

Biden lied, claiming that he came out of a black college. “I got started out of a HBCU, Delaware State.” The college confirmed he was never a student.

When Biden isn’t black, he’s Puerto Rican.

“I was sort of raised in the Puerto Rican community at home, politically,” he claimed. That sounds familiar, he also lied that, “I was raised in the black church, politically, not a joke,”

When he wasn’t in the black church, he was Jewish.

“I probably went to shul more than many of you did,” he lied to Jews in October, “I’m a practicing Catholic, but I’d go to services on Saturday and on Sunday.”

You can blame some of this on his age, but the truth is that he’s always been a compulsive liar.

In the eighties, Biden claimed to have graduated in the top of his class and that he went to school on an academic scholarship.

None of that was true.

Neither is his more recent claim that he was put forward to the Naval Academy. Or that his first job offer was from a lumber company that had never heard of him. Or that his ancestors “worked in the coal mines of Northeast Pennsylvania.”

“I became a teacher. I became a professor,” Biden lied. “I used to drive an 18-wheeler, man,” he lied again. A White House spokesperson explained that he had once been inside one in 1973.

There could and probably should be an entire book of Biden lies. But it would have to be digital so that it could be updated every hour on the hour.

It would be nice to think that Biden is unique. He’s not. Democrats suddenly claim to care about truth. The truth is they’re all liars. Lying, like socialism, is a basic qualifier for the Democrat nomination. 

Obama’s autobiography was admitted to be heavily fictionalized. Hillary claimed that she had tried to join the Marines and NASA. Senator Elizabeth Warren claimed to be Cherokee, Senator Richard Blumenthal claimed that he served in Vietnam, and Kamala Harris claimed that she grew up under racial segregation and listened to Tupac five years before he released an album.

Democrats and the media are very interested in George Santos. They’re outraged that he lied about claiming to be Jewish. They’re much less interested in New York State Senator Julia Salazar who lied about being Jewish to justify her role in the antisemitic BDS movement.

Senator Salazar also claimed that she was a poor Colombian immigrant when she was actually born in Florida and had a trust fund worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Some of the same New York Democrat politicians fuming about Santos endorsed and campaigned with Salazar. The official Bernie Sanders site continues to promote the antisemitic con artist as evidence that his revolution of supporting extremists for higher office works.

The truth about George Santos appears to be that he has the same shaky relationship with truth as the leadership of the Democratic Party. Just ask Joe Biden, if you can catch him in between desegregating movie theaters with the black and Puerto Rican communities, visiting synagogues, battling gang members, being forced down in Afghanistan, joining the Naval academy, getting a tryout for the NFL, graduating in the top half of his class, losing his first wife to a drunk driver, nearly losing his second wife to lightning, his son in Iraq and then awarding a medal to his dead uncle on the advice of his dead dad.

It would be wonderful if all the lying stopped. It would be a good start if the party of liars stopped acting like they care about a fake biography when all of their biographies are fake.

Why does Biden lie so much? The easy answer is because he gets away with it.

Lying, like most political crimes, has become politically selective, allowing leftists to get away with anything while throwing the book at non-leftists. There was a time when Biden’s compulsive lies killed his presidential aspirations. In the Obama era, lying stopped mattering. And Biden has responded by Cloward-Pivening the very concept of truth into oblivion by deliberately telling crazy lies. Accusing Biden of lying has no sting because no one expects him to tell the truth.

Democrats suddenly claim to care about fake biographies. They can start with the lies of the most powerful man in the land, rather than just another congressional freshman no one cared about before they decided to make him famous as the face of the Republican House.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

Comments

 

Democrats and Their "Santos Epiphany"!

  By Rich Kozlovich 

Epiphanies, one after another abound these days!  In politics!  Imagine that.  Outgoing Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) called his successor, Rep.-elect George Santos (R-NY), a "con man" amid reports Santos was dishonest about his resume.  

So, what we have here is a lying con artist is replacing a morally bankrupt socialist, who voted in line with everything Biden proposed.....100% of the time!  I'm sorry folks, I think that's an excellent definition of a socialist, all of whom are working diligently to destroy America.    Imagine that, a communist is upset a con man is taking his place.  Is that what we're seeing?  That seems like what I'm seeing.  Are you seeing that?   And....get this....now the Democrats are shocked, shocked I tell you...... to find politicians lie!  Lie I tell you.  Imagine that.  Clearly that must be an epiphany!!!

  

Now, it's clear this guy has no boundaries when comes to lying, and he has no affection for the truth. He misrepresented himself as Jew-ish, and when New York Jews found that out, they condemned that.  His education and work history are right out of literature, fiction literature, and Democrats with some seriously questionable behavior, like Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., who while sitting on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was allegedly playing kissy face huggy bear with a Chinese Communist spy, are outraged!  Outraged I tell you, saying "Santos should be banned from taking the oath for Congress."  Apparently Swalwell is now a paragon of virtue!  Another epiphany!

Rep. Ted Lieu, another Democrat from California with some alleged corruption issues insists "McCarthy should call for a vote to expel Santos in the next Congress, assuming that the Republican leader is elected speaker of the House in the new GOP majority".  Another moral epiphany!

 

Now, there's a whole list of things being found out about him, and I think each and every one of them is true.  Imagine lying about one's background for personal advancement, say like ....well .....Senator Elizabeth Warren!  Commonly referred to as Pocahontas for claiming untruthfully she was Native America, and apparently "checked the Native American box when she 'applied' to Harvard and Penn". but that was okay because:

Regardless of whether Warren’s self-proclaimed Native American background helped her win coveted jobs with UPenn and Harvard, she had some notable accomplishments going for her. For example, she did groundbreaking research while teaching at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law on how the nation’s bankruptcy code was affecting average families.

Remember Senator Blumenthal and his amazing record of service in Vietnam?  No?   That's because he lied, he never served in Vietnam and did everything in his power to make sure he never went to Vietnam.  What do we hear from the left?  Crickets!

Now, let's take Joe Biden.   

After all, there was Senator Joe Biden (D-Del.) and his lies.  And Vice President Joe Biden (D) and his lies.  And finally President Joe Biden (D) and his lies.  Surprisingly — not! — no Democrat outrage, fist-pounding demands that Biden be removed, is unfit for office.  Lies be damned, he was elected.  And re-elected.  And re-elected again.  And again.

 What do we hear from the left?  Crickets.  And the Democrats are not insisting he resign, or even be impeached for his lies.  His press secretaries lie. His appointees lie. Crickets!

Daniel Greenfield says, If George Santos Should Resign, So Should Biden, after all the Democrats have had an epiphany! A truth is everything epiphany! Really!!!  Or maybe?  Daniel notes:

Democrats suddenly claim to care about truth.......... Putting aside the issue of all the Democrats who have lied and were not forced to resign (Biden, Warren, Blumenthal,etc.) ... someone who lies about simple things that can easily be discovered has mental health issues. It's quite a difference between "embellishing" your resume............ and outright lying and making up stories that are so impossible,........The truth is they’re all liars

He goes on to say:

 

The Supreme Court ruled in the 1960s that they cannot toss out an ELECTED official (Rep. Adam Clayton Powell of Harlem, New York). He will be sworn in and then it will get interesting ... but of course, Democrats can lie, lie and lie and no one asks any of them to resign.

 

So, truth is only for Republicans?  Of course, Democrats have far more important things to worry about than truth, at least until one of those vile Republicans lie, then the nation is in danger of extinction!  Extinction I tell you!

Welllll, maybe extinction is a bit over blown here when you consider the devastating lies by Fauci and the whole Pandemic mandates crowd regarding vaccinations, masks, social distancing and business shutdowns, not to mention their lies regarding alternative treatments such as Ivermectin, which has been shown to be remarkably effective, all of which really was devastating to the nation and the world.  His avalanche of lies is nothing compared to the tornadoes, hurricanes and, earthquakes of lies these misfits have perpetrated on the world, and they've had no consequences for them....yet. 

In Roger Kimball's article, Lies for Me But Not for Thee, he notes Santos lied about his work history, his mother's death, his personal life, his religion, and in fact, the person he described, based on his lies,  doesn't even exist.  But no one died as a result of his lies.  However, unlike Obama and DeBlasio, he did get his name right.

So, what's the solution?

December 30, 2022 American Thinker writer, Olivia Murray, published this piece,  SANTOS Act: Stop Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker saying: 

In honor of the “Long Island Liar”, New York Democrat Ritchie Torres declared his intent to introduce a bill which would compel candidates to “disclose under oath” certain aspects of their background:  As a conservative very upset with the dilution of the Republican Party into a diet version of the Democrats, I have absolutely no problem with this......the SANTOS Act would include punishment — this law is set to have “teeth.” So when Democrats violate the law, which they inevitably will, the law will demand “punishment.”

And if the Democrats propose it, I'll be all in on it.  But, then again, they just might have another epiphany telling them it might not be such a good idea to pass a punitive law making it illegal for politicians to lie.  Imagine that.  

Conclusion, Santos Can’t Touch the Democrats’ Duplicity By Paul Gottfried:

I am not a fan of George Santos and find his mendacity a bit distasteful. But I fully understand, as Roger Kimball, Victor Davis Hanson, and scores of other columnists have pointed out, that Santos cannot reach the toenails of his Democratic opponents in the matter of bending truth for political gain.

One more point.  I think this misfit is going to be a RINO, so if they don't sit him, no loss.

One Of The All Time Worst Political Liars

December 31, 2022 Francis Menton @ Manhattan Contrarian

 The big news in political lies at the moment comes from a guy named George Santos. Santos has been newly-elected to Congress from New York’s 3rd District, a competitive seat covering parts of Queens and Nassau Counties. Although the districts got re-drawn for this election, most of Santos’s district was previously held by Democrats, Tom Suozzi and Steve Israel, for the last decade. So Santos became part of the mini-wave of Republican pickups that will lead to the takeover of Congress by a thin margin come January 3.

On December 19, several weeks after the election, the New York Times published a story exposing Santos as having lied extensively about his background during the campaign. The headline was “Who Is Rep.-Elect George Santos? His Résumé May Be Largely Fiction.” Among the main issues identified by the Times were that Santos had never worked, as he claimed, at Citibank and Goldman Sachs, and had not graduated, as he claimed, from Baruch College. Also, a pet-welfare charity that he claimed to run, Friends of Pets United, could not be found in IRS records. Also, he is not Jewish as he had claimed. The Times did not challenge Santos’s claim that he is the first openly-gay Republican elected to Congress as a non-incumbent.

Over the past few days, Santos submitted to extensive interviews by, among others, the New York Post and Tulsi Gabbard (guest-hosting the Tucker Carlson show on Fox News), where he was forced to concede his fabrications. He referred to them as “résumé enhancement.”

Plenty of Democrats immediately came forward to demand that Santos resign, or that the Congress decline to seat him. In an article on December 26, the Hill quoted, for example, Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro of Texas as saying that allowing Santos to take office “would set a dangerous precedent”; and quoted Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell (!) of California as saying that Santos had “confessed to defrauding the voters of Long Island.” Slate on December 27 described Santos as “disgraced” and called the situation “truly unprecedented.” Peggy Noonan devotes her entire lead op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal to the Santos matter, calling him “a stone cold liar who effectively committed election fraud.”

Let’s face it — Santos’s fabrications are pretty bad. But are they really “unprecedented,” or even unusual, among the lies told by politicians to advance their careers and gain office, including among current office-holders?

I’ve got a bunch I think are worse. The funny thing about these, though, is that not a single Democrat seems to care about them. All involve current officeholders, who are not subject to any widespread demands that they resign. Let’s consider.

Ilhan Omar. Ms. Omar is the current Congressperson representing Minnesota’s 5th District (Minneapolis). Rumors that Omar had married her biological brother as part of an immigration fraud scheme had surfaced even before she was initially elected to Congress in 2016; but during her first re-election campaign in 2018 the rumors were replaced with detailed and damning research. A guy named David Steinberg did a meticulously-researched series of articles from August 13 to November 5, 2018, that as far as I can see definitively prove the allegations. Scott Johnson of PowerLine has followed the story extensively, and in this summary post from July 18, 2019 not only summarizes the facts, but also provides links to all of Steinberg’s articles.

Incredibly, Omar is almost never asked about this situation by the press, and has almost entirely avoided even addressing it. No “mainstream” news source has subjected Omar to anything like the examination that Santos got from the Post or Gabbard. Omar has never even had to answer a direct question as to whether her ex-husband Ahmed Nur Said Elmi is related to her. However, in this October 17, 2018 article from the St. Paul Pioneer Press, Omar is quoted as saying that the allegations that she had married her brother are “disgusting lies.” So, if the allegations are true, that one is an affirmative misrepresentation.

Richard Blumenthal. Blumenthal is a sitting Senator from Connecticut, just re-elected in the November 2022 election. He was first elected to the Senate in 2010. In the run-up to that campaign, Blumenthal made numerous statements that he had served “in Vietnam” during the Vietnam War. On May 17, 2010, the New York Times (to its credit) ran a big article on Blumenthal’s false statements about his Vietnam service. For example, the Times quotes Blumenthal from a 2008 appearance before a veterans’ group in Norwalk:

“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008.

There are several other such direct quotes. But, according to the Times, Blumenthal’s history of military service is somewhat different:

Mr. Blumenthal . . . never served in Vietnam. He obtained at least five military deferments from 1965 to 1970 and took repeated steps that enabled him to avoid going to war, according to records. The deferments allowed Mr. Blumenthal to complete his studies at Harvard; pursue a graduate fellowship in England; serve as a special assistant to The Washington Post’s publisher, Katharine Graham; and ultimately take a job in the Nixon White House. In 1970, with his last deferment in jeopardy, he landed a coveted spot in the Marine Reserve, which virtually guaranteed that he would not be sent to Vietnam.

Elizabeth Warren. Ms. Warren claimed “Native American” ancestry going all the way back before her first getting hired to teach at Harvard Law School in 1992. Warren first ran for the Senate from Massachusetts in 2012. According to an article at Boston.com from May 31, 2012, Warren admitted at that point in her campaign that she had told Harvard (and before that her prior employer the University of Pennsylvania) about her claimed ethnic status. But she maintained that the claim had nothing to do with her getting hired:

Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren acknowledged for the first time late Wednesday night that she told Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania that she was Native American, but she continued to insist that race played no role in her recruitment.

In September 2018 the Boston Globe did a big investigation, and determined that even though Warren claimed Native American ethnic status on each occasion, that claim had nothing to do with Warren getting hired either at Harvard or any of four prior academic employers. The Boston Globe article is behind paywall, but here is a summary from CBS News, September 2, 2018:

The newspaper [Boston Globe] reports that interviews and documents show the issue [of Warren’s Native American ancestry] was not considered by Harvard Law faculty or those who admitted the now U.S. senator from Massachusetts to law school at Rutgers or to jobs at The University of Houston, The University of Texas, and the University of Pennsylvania.

All five of those academic institutions are completely obsessessed with race and ethnicity, and were equally so obsessessed in the 80s and 90s when Warren was hired. The quoted statement is one of the most preposterous lies I have ever seen from the American mainstream press, and that’s really saying something.

President Joe Biden. And finally, how about our current President? Santos is not remotely at Biden’s level as a political liar. As Douglas Murray recounts in the New York Post from December 29, Biden has variously claimed that he got three undergraduate degrees from the University of Delaware, had a full academic scholarship, and finished at the top of his class. But the truth:

Turned out he’d been at the bottom of the class and scraped a single degree.

But, out of a universe of dozens of candidates for Biden’s most egregious lie, I pick the claim that he never spoke to his son Hunter about his business dealings. From USA Today, September 21, 2019:

“I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings,” Biden said. “Here’s what I know. Trump should be investigated.”

That’s an attempt to avoid responsibility for what would be criminal activity. The statement has been definitively disproven by eyewitness accounts of Biden business-associate Tony Bobulinski, and by emails that Bobulinski has produced. No lie of Santos comes close to that level of significance.

I’m certainly not trying to stand up here for Republicans as being pure on this issue. If you’d like to read about some notable political lies by Republicans, check out this article from The New York Times from December 28 (a broad survey of political liars covering both Republicans and Democrats). But the remarkable thing is the extent to which the media protect and cover for conduct of Democrats that is far more egregious than what Santos has done, including criminal conduct in the case of our current President. In case you were wondering, the title of this post refers to Biden, not Santos.