Noting that 78% of his constituents want George Santos, or whatever his name is, to resign, Caroline Mimbs Nyce wondered yesterday how a politician decides whether to cling to office or let go. Santis is, first and foremost a sociopath and a grifter and is just playing the role of a politician at the moment. She called an actual politician— or a former one— ex-state Senator Jeff Smith (D) who resigned when he got caught lying to investigators in a campaign-finance-related inquiry, having been entrapped by a sleazy right-wing outfit, and spent a year in prison for it.
Smith told her important for these people to realize there’s more to life than holding public office. That doesn’t really relate to a hustler like Santos. His life has always been about fleecing everyone he knows. He’s lived an outlaw lifestyle. And now he has a prestigious and remunerative job— for the first time in his miserable life. For Santos— who is likely to go to prison for far more than a year— there really is nothing more to life— at least nothing that anyone would willingly embrace— than what he’s got now.
Here, in part, is the interview she did with Smith, who represented the western part of St Louis from 2007 to 2009. He wrote an acclaimed book about the injustices faced by those incarcerated, Mr. Smith Goes to Prison. He noted that resigning in his case wasn’t a voluntary decision. “I resigned because I had pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice. And once I made that decision, there was no decision about resigning, because, legally, I wouldn’t be allowed to serve. I definitely hear from a lot of elected officials who are going through challenges not unlike the one that I went through.” When asked, he tells other politicians who solicit his advise that “if what they’re alleging is true, how you go down determines whether or not you can get back up. If you go down saying, ‘The Feds framed me; my political opponents framed me; everybody was out to get me,’ then, in most cases, it’s going to be very difficult for you to come back from that, because you went down lashing out at everybody else instead of taking responsibility for your mistakes. If you drag all the people who backed you into a fight and then information emerges that portrays you in a negative light, then you’ve used up that reservoir of goodwill.”
As may be crossing your mind, none of this has anything to do with Santos who has no reservoir of goodwill from anyone but fellow sociopaths Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Traitor Greene and Lauren Boebert. Everyone else basically hopes he gets hit by a truck.
Nyce: If Santos came to you today, what would you advise him?
Smith: I would say, “As a human being, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you decided to get into this to help people and make a difference and stand up for the things you believe in. But if you’re honest with yourself, you know that you’re not effective in doing that right now. And I don’t envision that changing.”
Nyce: How do you think about the duty to constituents in these situations?
Smith: No one’s going to take you seriously when you go into their office and say, “I’ve got a bill to help the survivors of 9/11. And I’m wondering if you’ll co-sponsor it.” No, they’re not going to co-sponsor your bill right now, because you’re a national embarrassment.
That’s what the legislative process is. It’s going around and saying, “Mr. Speaker, can you refer my bill to a committee? Mr. Chairman, can you give my bill a hearing?” All you’re doing is asking all these people for these things, and you can’t do it with any effectiveness if you’re a laughingstock.
Santos can’t represent his constituents in the way they deserve to be represented. But I understand from a legal perspective why someone would be loath to resign at this juncture. It’s very simple: If you decide to negotiate a plea deal, that’s something you can give them— the resignation of your office. And so a lot of people will cling to the office. There’s an element of selfishness to it, but it’s probably a wise legal strategy— to hold on to that office so you have something to bargain with.
…Nyce: Do you think the resignation calculus has changed in the Trump era?
Smith: Sure. You see a guy that does a dozen things that would have been career-ending for any politician in modern American political history. And he is just like Houdini. Trump changed the rules, and people continue to try to test the boundaries to see if the new boundaries apply to them too. Some people have survived things that nobody thought survivable before Trump. But I’m not persuaded that we’ve seen a permanent change.
I agree with what Mitt Romney said about Santos. What he’s done has shown him to be totally beneath the standards of being in Congress. But what do those standards even mean? Like, Marjorie Taylor Greene is in Congress. What standards do we have? Every standard of qualifications and decorum and civility has been thrown out the window.
Nyce: I’m not a psychologist by any means, but, just reading Santos’s tweets, he doesn’t necessarily seem to be behaving like a politician under siege. What do you make of his cavalier attitude?
Smith: His attitude is nothing like what I encounter. Most people who reach out to me are distraught. They’re like, “How did I make this mistake, and how can I put the pieces back together? And can I save my career? Can I save my marriage? Can I save my freedom?” I try to help people see that there’s a lot more to life, and that there’s not necessarily redemption— it depends on your case— but there’s satisfaction and happiness on the other side, even though it’s hard to see that in the moment.
Nyce: Do you have any sympathy or empathy for Santos?
Smith: Not much. Because there’s no discernible evidence of a core belief in anything other than his own destiny to be famous. When I hear folks tell me their story, it’s like, “Okay, well, you got into this because you cared so much about X, Y, Z, and then you went astray.” When I see Santos, all I see is a lust for stardom and prominence.
And now you might want to watch this new interview in which Santos spent 40 minutes lying his ass off to Piers Morgan. He paints himself as a victim who “just wanted to give back” and is now being targeted by “desperate journalists trying to make a career for themselves off of my name.” He insisted that his travail is now a “witch hunt.” He also insisted that he attended the Horace Mann School in the Bronx for 6 months but isn’t sure under what name. The school says they’ve checked all of his aliases and he never set foot in the school. He did admit he never went to college though and that he made up all the lies about his various degrees. He still says he's Jewish and that he never claimed he was Jewish! Anyway, it’s worth watching just to see how his sociopathic mind is working.
Comments