Big Trouble for Long Island Grifter

Milli Brazilli

“I swear on any one of my mother’s many graves that I am telling the truth.”

Well, if true, here’s a crime:

More than a dozen top donors listed in George Santos’s failed 2020 campaign were attributed to addresses that don’t exist or to names that could not be verified, according to a Mother Jones report published Friday.

His campaign raised $338,000 that year. But an investigation by Mother Jones reports that at least more than $30,000 came from donors whose identities can’t be confirmed, raising concerns of possible violations of federal campaign finance laws.

Under federal campaign finance law, it is illegal to donate money using a false name or the name of someone else. This is how idiotic D’vorce D’spousa—documentarian fabulist, fired Y’all Qaeda business school dean, serial adulterer, would-be bigamist, self-proclaimed political prisoner of the Kenyan Usurper, and convicted election fraud felon (pardoned)— ended up in prison. D’Stupid and Spurious George have a lot in common, actually, but I digest.

And in related news:

Justice Department asks FEC to stand down as prosecutors probe Santos

The key point here:

“Basically they don’t want two sets of investigators tripping over each other,” said David M. Mason, a former FEC commissioner. “And they don’t want anything that the FEC, which is a civil agency, does to potentially complicate their criminal case.”


This entry was posted in D’vorce D’spousa, George Santos, Grifters Gotta Grift, Liars, Lying Liars Who Lie. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Big Trouble for Long Island Grifter

  1. Jimmy T says:

    The Mother Jones article is quite good. I would recommend everyone to read it…

    Liked by 2 people

  2. w3ski4me says:

    So it was cool that he lied about everything, up to his campaign financing. That was a step too far. I don’t think the government is going to laugh this off. I hope not at least.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I fully believe that he never intended to win, because who ever bothers to examine the campaign finances of losing candidates?

      It was all a grift, ruined by the fact that he won. It will be fascinating to find out whose money was actually laundered through this scheme.

      If he’d lost, we still wouldn’t know who he is, and this time around he’d have made out even better than he did losing in 2020.

      Given the huge amounts of money sloshing around in US politics, I’m honestly surprised we haven’t had more examples than this one

      (Well, there was Trump, who I still maintain was the single most surprised person on the planet when he was declared the winner in 2016…I believe he always intended to parlay his losing campaign into a lucrative Trump TV venture for the MAGA faithful, which really explains the shambolic nature of his entire presidency)

      Liked by 3 people

      • Redhand says:

        It was all a grift, ruined by the fact that he won. It will be fascinating to find out whose [Russian] money was actually laundered through this scheme.

        And here’s a meme-worthy “fixed” for ya.

        I want this fat cockroach crushed under DOJ’s heel.

        Liked by 3 people

      • ali redford says:

        Doesn’t mean he’s not a criminal, but exactly what you write.


  3. sos says:

    Impressive, keeping his $199.99 expenses and $2,800 donations straight. Vice versa would have been quite embarrassing.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Stony Pillow says:

    My quatloos are on a quick indictment, because Garland needs to help out the Rs.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Richard says:

    Well, i voted for Spurious George, but Milli Brazilli might have been the better choice.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mike B. says:

      I didn’t see a winner announced, but both Milli Brazilli (and variations of this) and Spurious George are being used, so maybe we have co-winners (some other people have multiple nicknames).


Comments are closed.