Select Page

Santos lied in his resume … but who else?

Santos lied in his resume … but who else?

Let us first agree that lying in one’s resume is an awfully bad thing to do.  It rightfully calls into question the character of the individual.

New York Congressman-elect George Santos bas admitted that elements of his resume were not true.  We are not talking about an exaggeration here and there.  Santos had quite a few resume claims that have not borne scrutiny.  He claimed employment at Goldman Sachs and Citigroup.  According to the companies, there is no record of such employment.

Santos also listed claimed to have graduated from Baruch College and attended New York University.  Neither institution has records of his attendance.   And there were more.

Santos is getting a lot of media coverage for his fictional resume.  There are even calls for him to resign the seat in Congress upon which he has not yet sat.  He says he is not going to do that – so he has two years to repair any damage to his reputation with the voters.  But Democrat prosecutors are chaffing at the bit to investigate Santos.  

As I saw the various reports on Santos, I thought surely someone in the media would connect his misbehavior with similar examples in the past. But noooo.

I raise that question because I know of three very prominent examples of resume enhancing.  Is it because they are all Democrats beloved by the media?  You can answer that for yourself.

My three examples are … (drum roll here) … President Joe Biden, Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal, and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.

President Biden

Some of you may recall that Biden repeatedly claimed that he was an honor-winning political science student.  He was not.  He also clamed he graduated in the top of law school class.  He was actually near the bottom.  He claimed to have won a full scholarship.  He was awarded a fairly small partial scholarship.

Biden is also the guy who pumped up is oratorical reputation through plagiarism.  When that was exposed, he was forced to withdraw from the 1988 presidential race.  (Yep!  Biden has been seeking the presidency since he entered the Senate at age 30.)

Senator Blumenthal

Senator Blumenthal padded his resume with combat experience in Vietnam. He made the claim in many speeches.  But … he never served in Vietnam.  When confronted with the truth, The Senator admitted that he had misrepresented his military career, claiming to have merely misspoken.  Sure, it is easy to forget that you did NOT serve in Vietnam … you were never in the country … never in any of those battles you spoke about.

I find Blumenthal’s lies particularly reprehensible because he was faking military action in which thousands of real American soldiers died – and he did it for selfish political benefit.  We have laws against such claims.  It is called “theft of valor.”  But he was never brought to justice.  He later said that he had a modest military experience latter on.  If I recall, I think he was in the military reserves

Senator Warren 

Most folks must remember Warren’s invention of Native American heritage – even to the point of claiming membership in the Cherokee and later Delaware Tribe.

The lie proved extremely helpful in her academic career.  She was even awarded a position at Yale University based on her minority status.  Yale proudly advertised her claim.

According to the Washington Post, Warren declared herself to be “American Indian” on her Texas Bar registration.

While the lie worked to her advantage throughout most of her academic and political career, it did not endure the bright spotlight of a presidential campaign.  The leaders of the Delaware Tribe demanded she stop claiming membership – because she was not a member.

For a long time, Warren refused to take a DNA test, and when she did – she claimed an unspecified distant ancestor as a Native American.  She would not allow peer review of that claim, but a later story said it was likely Mexican ancestry.  Warren’s fraudulent claim made it possible for candidate Donald Trump to effectively stick her with the nickname “Pocahontas.”


It is interesting that Democrats would go after a gay Republican.  (Santos is gay, if you did not know).  I brought this up because of the cases of Massachusetts Congressmen Gerry Studds who had a sexual relationship with an underage male page.  It was said to be consensual even though it is legally defined as statutory rape. Then there was Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank, whose male hooker lover was running a prostitution operation out of the Congressman’s apartment.  Both continued in Congress to the warm praise of their Democrat colleagues. 


If the Biden/Blumenthal/Warren whoppers did not end their political careers – far from it – Santos may be okay.  But then again, he is a Republican.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.


  1. Upsidedownjack1

    Seems like that Any Democrat SocialCommunist Can and DO SAY ANYTHING They want to “LIE” to the American People. BUT, That is only (MIS SPEEKING) Not Telling a FUCKEN LIE!

  2. Bubba Love

    Democrats are the biggest liars and vote thieves on planet earth.

  3. Chuck

    Apparently you clowns never listen to the crap spouted by Repugs,, especially your hero mr 30K+ lies Trump. You can tell how shitty he is as the listed website is his so nobody an use it againsthim

    • Mik

      Don has made lying a matter of fact. And wants to define lies by how bad the lie is.
      He loves to lie, mainly about his wealth and his influence. He is no where close to being worth a billion dollars. He is worth about what his father, illegally, gave him. Maybe less. Sure he has nice cash flow.
      He even tried to lie about attendance at his inauguration. He lied about his loss in 2020. Don’s delusion is that what he believes, he believes is the truth. Facts are irrelevant.

      • larry Horist

        Mik … There are two issues … one is Trump and the other is not Trump. But no matter if the discussion is not about Trump, you — and others — always go there. This commentary is about others who lied about their resumes. You did not address that issue at all. What do you think about the Biden, Blumenthal and Warren lies about their resumes?

  4. Joan Perkins

    A lie is one thinbg, but when it affects the safety of the nation, it should be proseuted. Biden doesn’t are who he hurts with his lies; he’s got his escape all planned out when the war comes

  5. frank stetson

    Well, if someone else got away with it, I guess it’s OK. Especially if they were from “the other side.”

    A lie that someone profits from is the same as a lie no one hears.

    They would be removed from any business in the land, legally, that’s pretty sure bet.
    Santos has apologized, but has also said it was just a resume enhancement, no big deal. Matter of fact, it’s the other guys, the guys pointing the fingers when he said: “”I’m gonna look through and see everything, and just like they nitpicked at me, now it’s gonna be my time to nitpick at both journalists who made it their mission to slander me across this country and across the world, and let’s see what happens at the end.” Hardly an apology if he feels he needs to go after the journalists who printed his lies, that he admits to.

    Point is this guy lied big time to get into office. Good chance he’s lying about his criminal exposure in Brazil, the NYT is holding pat to their reporting, the Fed is investigating on campaign finance irregularities, and Santos’ own income reporting shows huge influxes of millions from a guy who was making 50k just a few years ago. Time will tell, but it really looks like it is all downhill for this guy. Then again Matt Gatz was not charged…….

    As to the whatabout dem Democrat liars making Santos lies OK, IMO:

    Blumenthal should go. He lied big time, he lied often, he probably profited. Start by stripping his Congressional assignments and then if he won’t resign, expulse.
    Biden and Warren should be made examples of, but not so serious as to go. Censure for sure. They lied about resume, they did it in limited circumstances. They probably did not profit; Joe actually lost. They both took full blame, just a little justification, and apologized on the record. They admitted wrongdoing, took full blame, just a little justify, apologized and have not repeated resume enhancement.

    For Biden, you go back to 1987, 45 years ago. There is no proof that he did it throughout the campaign or at any other time. It’s a q&a at a train stop in New Hampshire.

    “I went to law school on a full academic scholarship, the only one in my class who had a full academic scholarship,” Biden said. “The first year in law school, I decided I didn’t want to be in law school and ended up in the bottom two-thirds of my class. And then decided I wanted to stay, went back to law school and, in fact, ended up in the top half of my class.” Biden also claimed he “graduated with three degrees from undergraduate school.”

    That’s an egregious aggrandizing lie, told one time, in New Hampshire. Basically, all he got right was the school which is still much less than Santos. But here’s the difference: unlike Santos who basically says “everyone does it, and I told the truth about my platform,” Biden said, on the record: “”At a small campaign event in Claremont, N.H., I lost it. I shouldn’t have been there in the first place,” Biden wrote. “I didn’t feel any better afterward; what I’d said was a quick and stupid rant that I wished I’d never said. Worse than that, without realizing it I’d exaggerated my academic record.” “Thank God, I thought as I left the event, there weren’t many people in the room to see my outburst.”

    While he blamed the flu, he admitted it was quick and stupid and said in anger because of his fear of looking stupid. He explained, apologized, and lost the election. IMO, he is redeemable and should not even be censured. Statue of limitations and all that.

    Warren is a little tougher; she lied, in writing, is what just has to appear as a ploy to gain employment. Even if the employer says, and they do, that it didn’t come into play, it was a big lie, in writing, for more than one application, and she should be censured, and perhaps stripped of committee assignments for a period of time. Since it is claimed she did not profit from said lie, was never elected based on said lie, pretty hard to suggest more than that.

    Santos lied to be elected, in writing, multiple times and multiple lies. There’s a odds-on chance he’s a criminal in Brazil. Since he practices lies on a regular basis, and his finances are really hinky, the Fed is investigating campaign finances as well. Any company would walk him out, immediately, for due cause. Congress does not seem to have that option, but IMO, Republicans better really think about expulsion options if this guy is to sit. Heck, take Blumenthal at the same time if you must have equivalency.

    I just don’t see the downside of letting this liar go. I only see upside for Republicans. Same process: don’t give him any Congressional appointments or duties, see if he resigns. If not, 2/3rd votes to expulse and they have 50% of the votes, just need another 16%.

    But Biden and Warren, these are different and lesser lies which profited neither of them, probably caused more harm than profit. Both have taken credit, apologized, and never repeated. I am pretty sure the lies of Santos will just keep growing.

    Time will tell, but think you are backing the wrong horse for the wrong reasons.

  6. Tom

    The problem is that embellishing and lying about yourself, your experience, your resume is baked into the game – there is no law against it that I can find after hours of research. All of the laws and proposed laws I could find criminalize lying about the “institution”, or “the process:; none of them say anything about lying about yourself. I suspect the reason there is an absence of law in this area is that those responsible to write and pass a law would be the first ensnared by their own law. So our elections become a “buyer beware” situation. Perhaps Musk and Twitter might change this scenario if they fact check and use their social media clout to call out these liars earlier.

    I am going to agree with Frank on this one that if a law was broken, then the result should be a prosecution regardless of party, sexual orientation, gender, race, etc.

    Biden: His lies seem to be all about himself and his actions, what is often referred to as “political BSing_ He has not lied about receiving medals for military service which would be against the “Stolen Valor Act of 2013” which only refers to lying about receiving medals, does not cover lying about battles you were in. He has not received any federal funding as a result of lying nor is there any evidence of forging federal financial forms and disclosures which would be prosecutable. So as disgusting as I find his BSing, it is not prosecutable, period.

    Blumenthal: Any lies that Blumenthal may have spoken, seem to have been about his person, i.e. military service and places he served, not about receiving any medals for military service or engagements. According to “” much of what the media claims he said is not true. And in the instance or two that he “misspoke” during an election speech, he seems to have corrected it within the speech but media did not record the correction. – So Blumenthal is not prosecutable.

    Warren: The rumor that Warren lied about her American Indian heritage was a rumor baked by Trump. Trump often lied (like he did about Warren) or told an almost lie, and then relied on his opponent to prove him wrong. If the opponent could not do so, then Trump claimed he was right. In the case of Warren, according to NPR, ” In a rather unusual campaign move, Sen. Elizabeth Warren has released the results of a DNA test that says there is “strong evidence” of Native American ancestry dating back six to 10 generations, addressing a controversy that has followed her for years. ” verifies NPR’s claim but also says what liberal NPR did not say, “The new findings support Warren’s claim that she has at least one Native American ancestor, although they cannot reveal whether that individual was a member of any specific tribe. ” So Warren did not lie about her American Indian heritage, but did assert an un-provable assertion associated with the Cherokee and later Delaware Tribe. Warren’s only error was to not state how far back that heritage American Indian DNA was introduced into her DNA strands. So Warren is not prosecutable. Any issues with her Yale scholarship are private issues, not federal funding issues – so no federally prosecutable offenses here either.

    Santos: The media hype about him being a “wanted criminal in Brazil” right now seems to be media hype encouraged by disappointed Democrats. I can not find any evidence of Brazilian arrest warrants against him. I can find an extradition treaty between the USA and Brazil for activities mutually considered criminal by both countries. Again. like in Biden and Blumenthal, (I am excluding Warren) , Santos embellished and lied just like the aforementioned – but they were lies about his person, not lies about the election process, nor military medals won. He does not appear at this point to have received any federal funding based on these embellishments and lies. His lies are morally reprehensible, we all agree on that! But they are not federally prosecutable. What might be prosecutable is if he lied on his campaign federal declarations and any lies that translated to forms required by the election process. Also, income is prosecutable under tax law if there was any criminality involved in his receipt of the income. But lets be clear, Stacey Abrams has a very similar rise in wealth story, and I think it is being investigated right now.

    So with Santos, it is a wait and see game to see what can be proven against federal and state laws. Unfortunately, our First Amendment that protects our speech also protects our free lies – and this has essentially been the ruling of the Supreme Court, the Sate of Washington’s Court, and Ohio’s court where I could find failed prosecuted cases.

    And “So,there‘tis…”

  7. jboo7

    Please help me here, if you are better informed, but I tend to remember that President Obama (or was it still the Barry with the Indonesian surname?) claimed to have been in a range of highly regarded courses in Harvard (or was it Yale?) – but no one of those who had proof of having been on those course could remember ever seeing him (and his face is, by no means, so forgettable!).

  8. frank stetson

    Well, besides having the wrong name, country of birth urban lie origin, college, and something about an unforgettable face…..we can guess what you are targeting there, I think you are spot on with this soft fact supported by hot air. Born in Hawaii, growing up at age 6 in Indonesia, he went to Occidental on a full scholarship, jobbbot drank beer in excess. At least unless you are better informed. Then it was Columbia graduating with a 3.7, jobobo had a 4F from what some people have said. And the, Obama went Harvard Law unlike jboo who, rumor has it, is still going in his training pants :>) Offered a full ride at Northwestern, jobit was offered a ride by a stranger, Obama opted for Harvard. In Harvard, Obama was editor of the Review at the end of his first year. Then, first black President of the Harvard Law Review, jobo stll learning to spell his name. He was a researcher for Lawrence Tribe and graduated magna cum laude. He then got a two year fellowship at University of Chicago.

    What’s in your educational wallet, jboo7? Envy?

    I really wish people would jfgi, at least for the ragged right blogosphere of lies, before they just toss these lie-burgers at the wall.

    This one don’t stick, but it sure smells.

    • Tom

      I agree Frank. If people would engage their brain before putting their mouths/fingers in gear and just google things first, we would curtail many stupid debates. I am more than happy to discuss and debate known facts that can be referenced. But these people that scratch their butt, then scratch their head, and then think they might remember something but unsure about it and are too lazy to check it are useless to any intelligent discussion and just a waste of time. Unfortunately, 1st Amendment protects stupid speech.

      • frank stetson

        I’m not sure why you are stuck on Federal Law when there’s a whole flotilla of actions that can take place. Rather than excuse him based on bad actions by other actors as long as they are on “the other side,” why wouldn’t call for what’s right based on this man’s actions. Why treat him like Turnip as an untouchable? Was that a winning strategy?

        Yes, it’s not illegal to lie on a resume, ask Trump.

        For most private concerns, they will fire you instantly, for cause, and totally legal. They might blackball you as well, good luck suing. In many states, if you listed a fake degree, then your former employer can sue you for fraud if they can prove that your lie hurt their business.

        Congress is apparently stupid not to do what business does as a matter of course. But there is an easy answer for the future: The Federal Resume: if you lie on that, it is illegal as in lying to a federal agent. Many states have similar laws about lying to state officials, so fill one of those out too. Problem solved.

        But wait, there’s more: Article I, section 5 of the United States Constitution states that: “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.” For this case, this time, this is probably the best path once previous precedents and SCOTUS decisions are examined for viability under the law and the Constitution.

        I am pretty sure you have 50% already just based on the Dems and would need only 16% more to seal the deal. In the interim, boycott all Congressional committee assignments, give this guy a desk, and hint that he should resign. Here’s the rub: filling the seat in NY would be the governor’s selection; that would have to be agreed-upon before any vote I am sure :>)
        Not that this step will be needed; I am pretty sure his campaign financing is just as lie filled as his resume and the Fed investigation will be the end of this. He also went from a $50K salary to being a multi-millionaire in just a couple of years before becoming a Representative. Between that, the Brazilian legal issues, and the next shoe to drop —- good luck backing this guy for the full two years.

        • Tom

          Frank, I am not backing this guy at all. I am merely saying that according to our laws as written, the prosecutor would have nothing to prosecute him against. You must have a law in order to prosecute, otherwise the case is surely lost. I agree with you, lets rewrite the laws! And I agree with you to let the congress decide to expel him if 1) You can get McCarthy to agree, and 2) I think you are wise that there will have to be governor-GOP agreement on a replacement. Otherwise it will be another partisan vote – but I may be wrong. Another route which I favor most would be a recall petition and election. Dems can start that tomorrow without GOP agreement!!! Where are the Dem balls on this!!!

          • frank stetson

            I tire of excusing bad acts because they are legal. Yes, we are a nation of laws and need to abide by such laws until changed. But we are also a Christian nation and we need to get back to those standards. Words used to matter. Values were important. Character mattered..

            Often desire is the root of all action. We need to desire freedom and liberty, that’s for sure, but we need to desire character, values, and Christian ethics (which probably fit Jewish, Muslim, etc. for the most part).

            You say it’s the law and therefore prosecutors won’t touch it. Good point, but not the point. You say the Dems should fix it. Why? It’s a Republican and Independent issue; we didn’t even vote for the guy so why would it be required for us to clean up his vomit? Why would we need to issue the recall? So they can vote another liar in?

            We all know the root cause of the issue: Republicans have put up a lot of really bad, sometimes criminal, candidates in 2022.

            Not to worry, McCarthy needs his vote, he’s in. After all, look what Pelosi did. It’s legal. If the Democrats won’t fix it , it don’t need fixing. It’s legal.

            Long term, like I said, the fix is easy. Make all candidates fill out a Federal Resume. Now it’s a criminal offense to lie on said document. Done.

            And for this guy, for Republicans and Independents voting for him: great job, you own it. You fix it. Oh wait, you need his vote to win and winning is the only priority. Never mind.

            Think we found a great example of voter fraud. Where’s DeSanctimonious?

      • larry Horist

        Tom … I do not recall saying that any of the lies were criminally prosecutable. I do not believe they are. However, Blumenthal’s might be prosecutable. At least there is an argument to be made. Soldiers receive special medals for serving in combat zones. Claiming to have fought in Vietnam would have earned him a medal whether he specifically lied about the medal, itself. The implication could be prosecutable — but I doubt any prosecutor would to there. The First Amendment protects stupid speech … vulgar speech … hate speech (although that had social responses) … misstatements … and lies. The limits are generally in malicious slander (have to prove malice) and inciting violent unrest (riots, revolution, insurrection). There is also a special business category of malicious business slander for lying about a competitors products or services. So far, I have not seen the criminality threshold with Santos. It may be coming, but I see potential congressional censure as the most likely punishment — and maybe that will not happen. Not sure they will go so far as remove him from Congress — as was the case with New York Congressman Adam Clayton Powell. In his case the voters returned him in the next election. Santos has Democrat prosecutors on his tail, but I have not heard what the possible crimes might be.

        • larry Horist

          Tom …. Oops. Relied on a memory of an old story. Frank is correct. Obama did use an alias, but never claimed to be a foreign born student. I stand corrected.

        • larry Horist

          Tom … For the reccord, I as never a birther. I did the research at the time and wrote several times that Obama was born in Hawaii as an American citizen, My error was thinking he had use an alias… not that he was not an American.

        • Tom

          Larry, you said, “But he was never brought to justice. ” which I interpreted as you wanting him to be “prosecuted””. My apologies if I misinterpreted your statement. To me, when we call for someone to be brought to justice, we are saying that we wish them to be prosecuted, which to me implies that there is something “criminally prosecutable.

          Now, on the “Stolen Valor Act of 2013”, it says, “Public Law No: 113-12 (06/03/2013)

          Stolen Valor Act of 2013 – Amends the federal criminal code to rewrite provisions relating to fraudulent claims about military service to subject to a fine, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both an individual who, with intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit, fraudulently holds himself or herself out to be a recipient of:

          a Congressional Medal of Honor,
          a distinguished-service cross,
          a Navy cross,
          an Air Force cross,
          a silver star,
          a Purple Heart,
          a Combat Infantryman’s Badge,
          a Combat Action Badge,
          a Combat Medical Badge,
          a Combat Action Ribbon,
          a Combat Action Medal, or
          any replacement or duplicate medal for such medal as authorized by law.

          Ref: “”

          I could not find anywhere that Blumenthal said specifically that he was a recipient of one of these medals. Furthermore, according to the records of his speech, he did correct his misstatement at the end of his speech. Media did not tell us this.

          Now if we amend the law to include claims of military service and/or claims of survivor-ship of military engagement in a theater of war, then yes, he should be prosecuted. But right now, the Stolen Valor Act of 2013 confines itself to those claiming to have received medals for military engagements. At least that is the way I read it. I am open to hear your interpretation.

          Regarding who received medals, To be eligible service members must have completed 30 consecutive days or 60 non-consecutive days of service relating to direct support of ground operations or maritime service directly aiding military operations within specific regions of the Republic of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand.

          I could not find anywhere that he said how long he served in Vietnam.

          Larry, we say we are a country of laws. Conservatives pride themselves on us being a “country of laws”. So all I am saying is that whether we like the law as written or not, we must abide by what those laws actually say. Seems to me like many people want to bend and shape their interpretation of the laws to fit their sense of justice. I am simply reading the law as written and doing my best to understand the words that are written. In so doing, I am not expressing the way I feel about what Blumenthal said. By saying that if he says he served in Vietnam he would have received a medal also is not necessarily true.

          • larry Horist

            Tom … I guess Blumenthal is off the hook criminally. I never expected he would be prosecuted — or any or the others. Also, Blumenthal repeated his Vietnam claim several times on the campaign trail.

            I can understand why you interpreted my us of justice in the criminal sense. I was think of censures, etc. Perhaps instead of justice, i could have used “held accountable.”

        • Sam

          Frank if America is a Christian nation then that leaves the democrats out. Christian people don’t believe in being queer and murdering babies

          • Frank

            Ok if Sam does not think the US is a Christian nation. Free speech I guess. But stupid.

            He is so fixated on being gay. Enough, we don’t care about your personal habits. Be gay, don’t be Christian. It’s ok, son of sam. We understand.

      • Sam

        Obama lied about his citizenship too. But that’s ok. He’s the majic negro. Not my words. That came from a black boy serving in the news media. Later I’ll post the boys name

  9. larry Horist

    Tom … I just remembered another one. Obama applied for admission and special scholarships as a foreign born student. It was one of the facts that fueled the birth issue. As I recall, he also shortened Barack to Barry and took on the last name of an uncle or step father ???? Not sure the source of the other name.

    • Frank stetson

      Larry, that’s Fake news, debunked forcyears. Jfgi.

    • Tom

      Larry, here I make a distinction between private money and public money. I think anyone who changes their information to receive public money of any type, should be prosecuted for fraud because they have deceived the public for personal gain. With regard to private institution scholarship money, it is up to the private institution to determine they have been deceived and present their case to a DA for prosecution if they so choose to do so. At least that is my understanding of the system. My memory seems to tell me that this whole birther issue was fueled by a lie spoken by Trump that he was foreign born in Africa somewhere (maybe Kenya) but the facts (as I recall them) indicated he was born in Hawaii, and in the end did produce such a birth certificate. See “”. The whole “Occidental College as a foreign student” was a hoax most likely tracing back to Trump or one of his associates. It was debunked many moons ago. See “”

      • larry Horist

        Joseph S Bruder … Not only not a lie, but if you can read and comprehend, I did a public mea culpa for the error (read above) –and you are late to the game since Frank already pointed out my error. Did you miss all that, or are you just lying?

        • Joseph S. Bruder

          Just showing that it’s easy to go on line and shoot down an unsubstantiated lie, something you didn’t bother to do before you stated it to the whole world.

  10. Joseph S. Bruder

    What, no mention of “billionaire” Trump? Who probably is so far in the hole that a homeless guy on the street has more assets? Or “of course I’ll show my tax records”… or the 10’s of thousands of lies told during his tenure as President? Lies about crowd size and even rainfall during his inauguration? Drawing a fake storm path on a map with a sharpie? His so-called charities? His so-called university? The constant grifts for money… telling MAGAs that he’s running for office and needs money (which he shovels into his own pockets). And then the Big Lie, which he still tells with a straight face… IT JUST NEVER STOPPED with Trump.

    • frank stetson

      The theory is Democrats lie, so why not I. Trump, Nixon, Bush/Cheney, they all don’t fit the model.

      • Joseph S. Bruder

        And Larry – lying by omission.

        • larry Horist

          Joseph S Bruder … Just another cheap shot insult without any foundation. You seem to be operating at the intellectual level of a fifth grader. At least it was short — unlike your insipid harangues.

          • Joseph S. Bruder

            Oh, come on Larry, quit your cryin’… You wrote an article about politicians lying about their resume, and left out the biggest liar in the history of politicians in order to take cheap shots at Democrats. The sin of omission is the equivalent of lying to your readers. And then you take cheap shots at me? Time to take a look at your own shortcomings.

          • Joe Gilbertson

            The biggest liar in history is in office now.

          • larry Horist

            Joseph S. Bruder … More of the same childish insults. lol. Maybe you just like the attention. I am not one to give folks pejorative nicknames, but the way you debate I think maybe Baby Bruder would be appropriate.

          • frank stetson

            That’s easy to say Joe, your website has little moderation of the truth, little moderation of bald-faced lies. Hell, you even let derivations of the n-word fly, you think that’s freedom of speech. Some things you just can’t fix, you have to stamp them out.

            BUSTED —- did not show his work :>)

          • Joseph S. Bruder

            I don’t see an active count of Biden’s lies… By this time in Trump’s term, he was at, what, 15000? At the rate McCarthy’s going, he could surpass Trump’s lie count – except it would be number of votes for speaker that he lost…

          • Joe Gilbertson

            That is because you refuse to see it. When you come across an article critical of a Democrat you are physically unable to read it.

          • frank stetson

            It’s Ron DeSantis, right Joe G?

  11. Tom

    Frank, I agree with you when you say, “Long term, like I said, the fix is easy. Make all candidates fill out a Federal Resume.” I like this approach because it works with existing laws and does not need a new law. I also like it because that resume would hopefully be accessible to the voters. And lets face the facts that when you are in an elected position, you are an employee of the people! Power to the people!!! Regarding why ask the Dems to fix this Santos issue. Well, mostly my answer is based on the fact that most of the ardent objections on Santos have come from the Dems and their media outlets. We have federal toxic waste funds that are contributed to by taxes. You and I did not specifically cause that waste, nor do the criminal dumping of that waste, but we do pay taxes to clean up those dumps. I do think you are correct in that McCarthy will not do anything on Santos that he is not forced to do. So like it or not, the ball is in the Dem court. Sorry if that upsets you. If I were an independent in NY I would sign the petition as long as I new he was to be replaced by another GOP person whom will carry out the platform of the original candidate – I would not want the hidden agenda of gaining another Dem seat in congress. And lets just be honest, its all about gaining another seat. Honesty and character are just being used as the galvanizing issues.

  12. Tom

    Larry, Yes I can agree with holding him accountable. Much better wording! IT would seem that holding him accountable will have to be the job of the voters since I think Blumenthal is an Independent. I also think Frank has a great idea that every candidate for a federal office (and maybe state offices where the state wants to do this) should complete a federal resume under penalty of law if they lie or embellish, and embellishment will have to be defined. This way, they can be prosecuted under existing laws, and it will IMO give the honest candidates a leg up!

  13. Tom

    Larry, Congressman Ritchie Torres (D-NY) is introducing a bill to require candidates to disclose under oath their employment, educational, & military history so we can punish candidates who lie to voters about their qualifications. This combined with Frank’s federal resume idea would be a great one-two punch to combat dishonesty of our candidates.

    It will be called the Stop Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker (SANTOS) ACT.

    Lets all hope it passes! Ya gotta love the name of this act!!!

    • larry Horist

      Tom … First, you give Frank to much credit for the idea of a biographical filing with Congress. That is an old idea that’s time may have come. Currently, there is a financial disclosure requirement s– which, if done correctly could negate the need for revealing tax returns, which tend to reveal less than the financial reports. The problem is that the media does not pay attention to the financial reports even as they myopically focus on the tax returns. The idea of biographical information being included with the financial information goes back to the 1970s post-Watergate era. It was discussed, but never implement. Many have floated it from time to time. It was not “Frank’s idea” — although he seems to suggest it is. Since he did not note previous recommendations, Frank is either unwire of them or he is simply plagiarizing by not giving credit. And as a guy who claims to do a lot of research, i am sure he dmust know that he got the idea from somewhere in the past.

      • frank stetson

        ” First, you give Frank to much credit for the idea of a biographical filing with Congress. That is an old idea that’s time may have come.” I don’t know what you are talking about. Biography? I was talking about the Federal Resume. Resumes are not biographies. It is indeed an old thing, but not as old as you :>) Created during Clinton in the 1990’s, it’s even been updated many times, and some forms have been replaced. If you misrepresent your experience or education, or provide false or fraudulent information in or with your application, it may be grounds for not hiring you or for firing you after you begin work. Making false or fraudulent statements also may be punishable by fine or imprisonment. It’s like lying to Congress.

        If they had done that, he would be gone as fast as in the private sector.

        It may be an old idea, but being old is not a measure of the man. After all, you are old and you didn’t mention it as the easiest solution to solve this issue going forward. I wonder why? I smell an failure of omission :>)

  14. frank stetson

    Probably will be a bi-partisan supported failure, cutesy name not withstanding.

    Like I said, the form and process exists for all Federal Jobs already. Just use it.

    Had Kevin lost his voice? Let the games begin! Bring on the investigations! Good time to be a TV producer!

  15. Tom

    Larry and Frank, I was not aware that the idea of a Federal Resume was first contemplated and floated back in the 1970’s after Watergate. I was in the Navy then and probably missed it. But no matter who suggested it and when, I think it is a good idea. My apologies for assigning the idea to Frank, that was my error. I should have said the “resurgence of discussion on and about the idea of a Federal Resume” is by Frank. Either way, great discussion. I hope someday we do get a Federal Resume and term limits.

  16. Frank stetson

    I just said it existed for Federal Employees, why not use it when you run for Congress. That’s the beauty of it. It exists, lies are lies to Congress so it’s already got teeth. Not hard to do.

    Larry said something about biographies…