George Santos Decides Suing Jimmy Kimmel Is Better Way To Get Attention Than Running For Congress

This is your TPM evening briefing.
WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 01: Rep. George Santos (R-NY) is interviewed by FOX News in the rotunda of the Cannon House Office Building before a vote to expel him from the House of Representatives on December 01, 2023 ... WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 01: Rep. George Santos (R-NY) is interviewed by FOX News in the rotunda of the Cannon House Office Building before a vote to expel him from the House of Representatives on December 01, 2023 in Washington, DC. Charged by the U.S. Department of Justice with 23 felonies in New York including fraud and campaign finance violations, Santos, 35, is facing expulsion from the House of Representatives after the Ethics Committee reported that it found “substantial evidence” that he had violated the law. If expelled, Santos would be just the sixth person in U.S. history to be expelled from the House of Representatives. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

When expelled-Rep. George Santos’ (R-NY) campaign committee reported no fundraising and no expenditures in March, the former congressman — who had launched a new, long shot bid for the First Congressional District in New York — offered up a very Santosian excuse for why exactly his campaign was broke: he didn’t want people to think that he, a notorious fabulist and admitted liar, was scamming everyone again.

“I will not be raising a single dime until I’m confirmed on the ballot, unlike many in the media speculating I’m only running to ‘grift’ I’m setting the standard that only confirmed ballot access candidates should raise money,” Santos told The Daily Beast at the time.

At the start of last month, Santos sought to piggyback on Biden’s fiery State of the Union speech by announcing his plans to run as an Independent against his former colleague and lingering foe Rep. Nick LaLota (R-NY).

The bid was largely viewed as a frivolous ploy for attention after the ex-congressman lost his political relevance and was hit with 23 federal counts for allegations including fraud. And even though he had spoken previously about his personal dislike of LaLota, he claimed to the Daily Beast that the only reason he was running in a new district, further from New York City, was so that he and his “husband” could have chickens in their yard. (I put husband in quotes because Santos used the late-Sen. Diane Feinstein’s (D-CA) death to soft launch a relationship that he had never previously mentioned.) Per the Beast:

“My husband and I both enjoy that kind of life. We’re dying to have a chicken coop and stuff like that, and in Suffolk County, it’s much easier to get that,” Santos told The Daily Beast earlier this month. “In Nassau County, it’s full of restrictions on where and how much, and can you get chickens and can you get roosters because of neighbors and noise and that stuff.”

But whether he was running against LaLota as payback for his expulsion from Congress or to enter a new farmstead era with his alleged husband, his candidacy clearly wasn’t garnering the headlines he was hoping for. Santos announced Tuesday that he is no longer running for Congress.

“It’s only goodbye for now, I’ll be back,” he announced on Twitter. His motivation for dropping the charade was simple: “I don’t want to split the ticket and be responsible for handing the house to Dems.”

In his tweet Santos went on to explain that “with the rise of antisemitism in our country” he didn’t want to be responsible for handing the House back to Democrats who, he claims, “have a very large issue with antisemitism in their ranks.”

(This is of course all coming from someone who lied about being Jewish and having family members murdered in the Holocaust, only to backtrack when he got caught lying to claim he meant he was “Jew-ish.”)

But the grifter’s true motivation for dropping out of the race may be as simple as the fact that he is more focused on his other ploy for attention. After Santos was expelled from Congress he created a Cameo account to earn a few extra bucks. It was a lucrative move for the former congressman — the account quickly attracted trolls far and wide, including late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, who ordered up some Cameos which he then aired on his show. Santos is now suing Kimmel, ABC and Walt Disney, accusing Kimmel of fraud and copyright infringement for allegedly tricking Santos into making the videos, and using them in a way that he was not permitted to — as part of a segment on his show called, “Will Santos Say It?” Santos filed the suit in Manhattan federal court in February and is seeking $150,000 in statutory damages per video.

Kimmel, for his part, has mostly laughed off the suit. Before Santos filed suit in December, Kimmel mocked his threats on his show.

“Could you imagine if I get sued by George Santos for fraud? I mean, how good would that be? It would be like a dream come true,” he said.

The Best Of TPM Today

Catch up on Kate Riga live coverage of of today’s SCOTUS oral arguments here: Case Highlighting The Cruelty Of Anti-Abortion Regimes Hits The Supreme Court

And takeaways here: Conservatives Weave Anti-Abortion Fantasyland To Allow Emergency Room Abortion Bans

Yesterday’s Most Read Story

Former Tabloid Exec David Pecker Back On Stand After Trump Contempt Hearing — Josh Kovensky

What We Are Reading

Gov. Gavin Newsom wants to let Arizona doctors provide abortions in California — Seattle Pi

New York governor to Mike Johnson: Stay in Washington — Politico

Former Republican mayoral candidate gets 10 days in prison in Jan. 6 case — NBC News

Latest Where Things Stand

Notable Replies

  1. “Santosian”
    Not to be confused with Sanstoesian MTG.

  2. Is he trying to give Kimmel more material? $150,000 per video? And how is he going to prove he was damaged?

    @txlawyer?

  3. Santos really dropped his bid to free up his time when the big guy gives him the nod as his running mate.

  4. Would abiding by Mr Devolder’s assertion that a Cameo patron should refrain from “using them in a way that he was not permitted to” be the same as believing in a Santos Clause?

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

25 more replies

Participants

Avatar for discobot Avatar for lestatdelc Avatar for eggrollian Avatar for tigersharktoo Avatar for inversion Avatar for mch Avatar for lastroth Avatar for alyoshakaramazov1 Avatar for darcy Avatar for dlnyc Avatar for darrtown Avatar for benthere Avatar for not_so_fluffy Avatar for grack Avatar for taylor Avatar for justruss Avatar for evave2 Avatar for txlawyer Avatar for ClutchCargo Avatar for geographyjones Avatar for RodHOff29 Avatar for Paniq Avatar for plymster

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: