Justice Department evidence points to illegality in Santos campaign
Rep. George Santos announced he will not seek reelection as House lawmakers released a report to Justice Department officials Nov. 16 detailing “overwhelming evidence” he acted illegally during his first campaign.
Santos, a republican from New York’s Third district, railed against the report on X, formerly known as Twitter, shortly after its release.
“It is a disgusting politicized smear that shows the depths of how low our federal government has sunk. Everyone who participated in this grave miscarriage of Justice should all be ashamed of themselves,” Santos posted on X.
The 56-page report by the House Ethics Committee found Santos knowingly caused campaign officials to falsify financial records sent to the Federal Election Commission, used funds designated for his campaign on personal purchases and violated the Ethics in Government Act through House financial forms, according to The Boston Globe.
“Representative Santos sought to fraudulently exploit every aspect of his House candidacy for his own personal financial profit,” the report said.
The Globe reported the legitimacy of some items could not be confirmed due to Santo’s lack of cooperation with the investigation. However, expenses highlighted by the report included $2,281 spent at resorts in Atlantic City and $1,400 on a skincare spa that one spreadsheet described as “botox.”
Santos also spent campaign funds on an OnlyFans subscription, a trip to the Hamptons and purchases from Hermes, according to the report.
The congressman “used his connections to high-value donors and other political campaigns” for his own benefit, and “he sustained all of this through a constant series of lies to his constituents, donors and staff about his background and experience,” the report said.
Aside from the House Ethics report, Santos also faces a 23-count federal indictment relating to allegations of identity theft of campaign donors.
There is a growing movement among House members to expel Santos before his term ends, according to the Globe.
Potential HIV, Hepatitis B and C exposures impact 500 Salem Hospital patients
Just under 500 patients at Salem Hospital may have been exposed to HIV, Hepatitis B and C over the course of two years after staff used contaminated medical equipment when delivering medications intravenously, according to The Boston Globe.
A statement shared Nov. 16 said patients that were exposed have been notified and there have not been any reports of infections.
The Department of Public Health said in a statement an onsite investigation into the hospital was performed, according to the Globe.
“Once identified, the practice was immediately corrected, and the hospital’s quality and infection control teams were notified,” the hospital said in a statement.
The hospital says the chances of infection are very small.
“The hospital said that earlier this year officials discovered ‘an isolated practice’ by some staff was delivering ‘intravenous medication in a manner not consistent with our best practice’ to patients,” according to the Globe.
Supreme Court adopts code of conduct
The United States Supreme Court announced that it formally adopted a code of conduct Nov. 13, following criticism and allegations of Justices acting unethically.
The highest court of the U.S. has been operating without a proper code of ethics for judges to uphold. The recent call for the establishment of the ethics code stemmed from concerns regarding Justices’ undisclosed meetings and accepting bribes from Republican donors.
Justice Clarence Thomas received gifts from Harlow Crow, according to NPR. Justice Samuel Alito attended a fishing trip with Paul Singer, who currently has cases before the Supreme Court.
The code is similar to other ethics codes established in lower courts. The Supreme Court’s ethics code focused on the actions Justices must take to disclose certain financial transactions, as well as outlining the situations where a judge’s recusal would be in order. However, critics of the Court allege the code is unlikely to make any substantial changes, as Justices are left to enforce it themselves.
The establishment of the ethics code intends to decrease corrupt behavior of Justices, although organizations are concerned this will not reap these intended results.
“With 53 uses of the word ‘should’ and only 6 of the word ‘must,’ the court’s new ‘code of ethics’ reads a lot more like a friendly suggestion than a binding, enforceable guideline,” said Take Back the Court in a statement.
