This isn’t the kind of question I’d normally imagine myself asking. I’m not a “let’s see the birth certificate” kind of guy. But given the mounting evidence that the Rep.-elect George Santos is a perfidious and pathological lying weasel, I think we need to ask.

And I’m not asking just because …. Here’s the specific reason this comes up.

TPM Reader LC asks the following and I’ll try to answer …

I’m loving your coverage of George Santos in NY-3, and I’m wondering: Why are we only hearing about all this now? Don’t political candidates do oppo research? Obviously none of that was done, not even a little bit, since George Santos’s entire identity would collapse in the face of a not particularly vigorous sneeze. My question for you or your readers who may know – who is normally responsible for making sure oppo research happens? Is that the candidates themselves (Robert Zimmerman in this case), or DNC/RNC.

The first thing I would say is that contrary to what some readers are telling me, this part of the story is hardly being ignored. It’s almost the first part of every discussion I hear about this. For some it’s a failure of the Democratic Party; for others it’s a failure of journalism, gutted local news and so forth. But I want to start on the question itself: who is responsible for making sure the oppo research happens?

Yesterday I joked — well, maybe half-joked? — that with all we’ve learned about Rep.-Elect George Santos, is he even gay? Being an “openly gay” Latino Republican has been a central part of his campaign pitch. He doesn’t fit the mold of a Trumper and that, he argues, “scares the left.” Now, it’s a fairly complicated and inevitably subjective and personal matter whether someone is gay or straight. But The Daily Beast managed to dig up the fact that until just two weeks prior to announcing his run for office he was married to a woman.

One additional fact about this reinstatement filing Rep-Elect George Santos (R-NY?) filed today for his Florida-registered company. When he registered the company in May 2021 he listed a company called D&D International Investments as his registered agent in the state. When he refiled today he listed himself as the registered agent.

That’s significant.

This morning we noted that incoming congressman and apparent flimflam artist George Santos (R-NY) has a rather sketchy background with numerous false claims in his bio and a company which dissolved for failure to file an annual report just three months ago. The story was first reported yesterday in a gobsmacking exposé in The New York Times.

Rep-Elect Santos had registered the Devolder Organization LLC in Florida back in May 2021. On his congressional disclosure form he reported $750,000 in income from the company and between $1 million and $5 million in dividends. This compares with $55,000 in income he reported two years earlier from a different employer when he ran for the same seat in 2020. But the company was dissolved in September 2022, the same month as the disclosure form was filed, because the company never filed an annual report. Just today, Florida records show that Santos has filed documents to have his company reinstated. You can see the filing below the fold.

I thought I’d take a brief moment to whet your expectations about the story of Mr. George Santos, soon to be Representative George Santos (R-NY), possibly soon to be former Representative George Santos (R-NY). This is mainly just elaborating on points made in the Times piece from yesterday with a few tidbits from my digging last year.

Let’s consider the timeline.

Santos’ biography turns on a purported family real-estate business which owns 13 properties. He made news during the pandemic grousing about how his tenants were taking advantage of eviction holidays. That family real-estate firm appears to the Devolder Organization LLC, maybe, which we’ll come back to in a moment.

This morning The New York Times published an exposé on incoming New York Representative George Santos (R) who will soon represent a district covering western Long Island and a part of Queens. Put simply, this is one of those stories where the reporters check on the various elements of Santos’ inspiring American story and basically none of it checks out. There are the colleges he claimed to attend with no record of him, the investment banks he claimed to have worked at who have no record of his employment. Along the way there’s the criminal record in Brazil and the family real estate company that doesn’t appear to own any real estate. It just goes on and on. As I said, it’s one of those stories.

When I saw the headline I thought, wait, don’t I remember that name? Sure enough, almost exactly a year ago I wrote a couple posts about Santos’ pack of nonsensical tall tales. To be fair, the Times went into infinitely more depth. I was mainly focused on a gas price tale of woe he was pitching on social media. Santos explained how he was paying an insane amount of money putting gas in his car because of Joe Biden’s inflation. The problem was that his claimed spending required him to be logging at least 1,000 miles a week on a 15-mile commute. Needless to say, I found running those numbers irresistible and went to town on it.

I know we’ve been a bit Elon-centric here of late, but the latest developments should prompt us to look to some of the core challenges behind what we now call social media. The Musk saga is comparatively simple: a middle-aged buffoon on one-half midlife crisis, one-half power trip running roughshod over everything. But outside such extreme cases there are more basic challenges. The essence of the social media business proposition is to be the venue for literally everyone talking about everything while managing the venue through automated processes which keep the staff capacity and costs low. Put a different way, success means scale: revenues growing exponentially while costs grow arithmetically.

A minor point. But TPM Reader BR points out that that the private jet at the center of the latest Twitter fracas is not precisely Elon Musk’s. It appears to be a corporate jet owned by SpaceX, the space launch company which along with Tesla is one of two companies on which Musk’s fortune is based. (Unlike Tesla, SpaceX remains a private company.)

BR flagged this Business Insider article that notes that Musk’s fleet of three Gulfstream jets is owned and registered to a company called Falcon Landing LLC, which BI says is “a shell company with ties to SpaceX’s Hawthorne, California headquarters.” The corporate listing for the shell corporation says it’s located at the same address as SpaceX and it’s agent and manager are also SpaceX. Among the corporation’s inactive directors and officers are SpaceX, Elon Musk and Gwynne Shotwell (president and COO of SpaceX), along with the corporate service company.

You’ve likely seen a lot of write-ups about Elon Musk having a temper tantrum last night and banning a group of journalists. It’s gotten a lot of attention in part because he banned ones that were in some sense covering him and his acquisition of Twitter, and because he banned reporters from some of the most prominent news organizations in the country, including CNN, the Times and the Post. In most cases (it’s hard to know because there’s been no clear explanation of why any of this happened) the bans were based on tortured readings of a new rule Twitter put in place the night before based on a different temper tantrum on Wednesday. Perhaps fittingly enough for a neo-Gilded Age tale, the episode starts with Musk’s private jet, a 2015 Gulfstream G650.