George Santos is human feces? Whaaaat? I'm shocked.
this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2026
241 points (99.6% liked)
politics
29964 readers
3014 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I thought you wrote George Soros first, and was a bit confused...
George Santos is probably one of the least intimidating pieces of shit I know of. Threats without gravitas is nothing more than comedy.
Santos is now offering 55% off his Cameo videos, meaning for $150, he will record himself saying just about anything.
Really tempting to have him do some 'Trump lost in 2020' videos.
I expect him to just take the money and send audio of him gargling insteas5
Santos is now offering 55% off his Cameo videos, meaning for $150, he will record himself saying just about anything.
I wonder if you could pay him $150 to admit he threatened a reporter.
This is why I record all my phone calls.
As we were talking, I asked if I could record the call. He said no. I was in front of a keyboard, though, furiously jotting down every word.
Depends on the jurisdiction if you need two-party consent to record.
Who cares, do it anyway. They lie and cheat, so can we.
Yeah, I don't think all these big tech companies with their telemetry and ~~adware~~ spyware are following those laws, so why should we?
You have millions of dollars to try fighting the case? They do.
The punishment for recording will be insignificant compared to the punishment for the person you recorded. That is unless illegal recordings are inadmissible in court.
Fun fact, law enforcement is bound by the fourth amendment against performing illegal searches or seizures. Any evidence gained from "the fruit of the poisonous tree" is generally inadmissible unless they can prove they could have found it through other legal means. This in no way prevents them from using evidence gained through illegal means and provided to them outside of direct law enforcement action!
As an aside, the fruit from the poisoned tree has long been admitted into evidence through several pathways. One such end run is called parallel construction, they get illegal information, then find a legal way they can use it in court.
But they often don't have to, long long ago the scotus said the evidence could be admitted if the police thought they were following the law. So they can plead stupid.
Nevermind the requirements that warrants, if they even bother with them, specify what they are looking for, before the 80s if they were looking for guns but found drugs that were not listed on the warrant, it was inadmissible, but now anything they find they can use.
If you are rich and have a lot of money you might be able to fight some of that, but for almost everyone, you are fucked.
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse... unless you are the law... then you can be as ignorant of the law as you want!"
Some states (California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington) have two-party consent laws, making it illegal to record a conversation without consent from all parties in the recording. At the very least, a recording w/o consent would be inadmissible in court, but it could also land you in prison (up to 5 years in Maryland and Massachusetts).
What if you simply announce that you are recording and remind them they have the option to hang up if they don’t like it
That's the legal method to go about it, yes. So long as you make clear indication first that you're recording, its all on the other end to make the choice to continue.
Answer every call with "calls may be recorded for quality assistance purposes". They can hang up.
They have had cases of people recording the police that dropped the evidence after the police lied about that interaction to convict them, and the people catching the police in a lie by recording get charged with that felony charge.
Recording police is different and usually considered protected by the first amendment as long as it is an on-duty officer and you are lawfully present in a public space.
It's protected until it isn't. There are a great many examples of this happening. All quite rage inducing I can assure you, and going back decades.
What a sad, pathetic man. He's like Trump: all lies and boasts and threats. Why not build something, do some good in the world...
Temu Trump
George Santos? Is that the guy who built the empire state building by himself with bo tools?
I’d love to know who’s willing to lift a gun for this piece of shit.
😂 he thinks he’s important enough to defend. Yeah nobody gives a shit about Santos lol.