I know
for the speaker, obviously
this is a significant thing to say.
You will not support
Sanders for reelection.
What else did McCarthy tell you
Yeah, that's right.
Because
typically the leadership will support
any incumbent member
who is running, even incumbent members
who are facing primary challenges.
McCarthy making clear to me
just moments ago that he will not support
George Santos running for reelection.
Santos,
of course,
at that defiant press conference
after he did plead
not guilty to those charges, federal
charges said that he would
in fact,
run for reelection, but McCarthy said
that he would not support him
if he did it.
I asked McCarthy
Will you try to defeat him?
And then he sort of primary campaign
because already
there are primary challengers
who are lining up against Santos.
And he said he said
Santos has a lot of things going on.
I think he has other things
to focus on, on his lot in his life
other than running for reelection.
I went on to ask him about calling on him
to resign.
McCarthy has not gone
as far
as calling on him to resign, saying
that there is a process
that plays out here.
And he says that
there have been members
who've been
indicted, cleared
and still continue to serve.
So his bar has been different
on that issue.
But he did say that
he would call on Santos to resign
if the House Ethics Committee,
which is also launching
an investigation to Santos,
comes back and finds that Santos
broke the law.
I asked McCarthy directly.
I said
if there is
if the if the Ethics Committee
comes back and finds
that Santos
broke the law, alleges that he did.
Would you call him to resign?
McCarthy said, quote, Yes.
So that is the speaker's bar
in trying to push Santos out
now, there is a serious
political consideration here as well,
because if you were not told
if you were to resign right now,
that would set up a special election
in his district,
potentially could swing to the Democrats.
The Democrats
have an advantage in that district.
McCarthy has only
it can only afford
to lose four Republican votes
in any close vote.
If that became a Democratic seat,
he could only afford to lose three
Republican votes,
narrowing his already very tight
margin in the House.
So he would rather see
Santos serve out
and not run for reelection.
But if you run for reelection,
the concern is, Erin,
that could harm their chances
of holding on
to that very important seat in New York.
So New York,
Kevin McCarthy is saying
he will not support that effort
by Santos to run again.
All right.
That is significant.
Obviously, the Ethics Committee thing
also signaling
that he would then, you know,
is formally giving a line of what
what would it take for him to call on
for a resignation for Santos?
All right, Minor, thank you so much.
Breaking all that news, Wolf.
And that is a development
and a real move for the speaker.
Yeah, that is a major,
major development indeed
that as Manu just mentioned,
Santos is clearly very defiant right now,
speaking to reporters on his way
out of the courthouse earlier today.
Listen to this.
We have an indictment.
We have all
we have the information
that the government
wants to come after me on
and I'm going to comply.
The reality is, is it's a witch hunt.
Santos could face up to 20 years
in prison if convicted.
CNN's Paula Reid has the details
New York Republican Congressman Jorge
Santos adopting the Trump playbook
after being indicted on 13
criminal counts
The reality is, is it's a witch hunt
surrounded by reporters
after his initial court appearance.
Santos was pressed about allegations
he fraudulently received
more than $24,000
in unemployment benefits
during the COVID 19 pandemic
while he was working at a Florida
based firm.
This is part of my defense.
This is an accurate information,
and I will get to clear my name
on this during the pandemic.
It wasn't very clear.
I don't understand where the government's
getting their information,
but I will present my fact.
The indictment,
spanning 20 pages, details allegations
that Santos
illegally solicited
campaign contributions
which were then
funneled into his personal bank
accounts
and used for various personal expenses,
including credit card and car payments,
personal bills and even designer clothes.
And federal prosecutors allege
he made false statements on multiple
financial disclosure
statements filed with the House
of Representatives.
Prior to being elected in 2022.
Taken together,
the allegations in the indictment
charge Santos
with relying on repeated
dishonesty and deception
and to ascend to the halls of Congress
and enrich himself, the U.S.
attorney said in a statement.
Santos pleaded not guilty to all charges
and was released on $500,000 bond
after his successful 2022 election.
He was exposed for a series of lies
about his personal history.
He lied about attending college,
working for powerhouse financial firms,
and his mother being present at the World
Trade Center during the nine 11 attacks.
Did I embellished my resume?
Yes, I did. And I'm sorry.
Two veterans
accused Santos of raising funds
for life saving surgery for their dog
only to keep the money for himself,
which Santos denied.
It's an open wound,
and every time I see him,
it's like pouring salt into it again.
But I'm not in that
bad place I was six years ago.
Oh, good morning.
Shabbat shalom to everybody.
He even lied about being Jewish
and having grandparents
who survive the Holocaust.
So as I've said many times,
and I think you've heard me say this,
I always joke
I'm Catholic, but I'm also Jew ish.
And then, yes,
as a condition
of the congressman's release,
he can only travel to New York
and Washington.
And tomorrow
he'll head back to Washington
to vote on a border bill
and then ask to be back here
in New York on
June 30th for his next court hearing.
But if he wants to go
anywhere else in the interim,
he needs to get permission from the court
Wolf.
All right.
Very dramatic developments indeed.
Paula, thank you very, very much.
Aaron, over to you.
All right.
And so let's bring in our panel here now.
Scott Jennings is with me,
former senior adviser to Mitch
McConnell, Karen Finney,
former senior spokesperson
for Hillary Clinton's
presidential campaign.
Scott Brown is with me, former U.S.
ambassador during the Trump
administration
and the former Republican senator
from Massachusetts,
along with Ryan Goodman,
former special counsel,
the Defense Department.
Okay, so we've got this breaking news,
Scott.
Here it comes out.
McCarthy is saying
not backing
the reelection
campaign for Santos and saying
if the House Ethics Committee,
I'm sorry, comes
with a guilty
conclusion, then then I'll ask
for his resignation.
How significant is that at this point?
Well, pretty significant
because all the processes
that are in place right
now, the legal process,
which is obviously under threat,
the ethics process
and the political process
by which he would return to the Congress
and the next election,
all of these things, he's under siege.
McCarthy saying he would back
and for reelection.
Obviously, their primary candidates
lining up to run against him
if the Republican Party
wants to support someone else there.
They can.
They should
and I suspect
now that the voters know
who this charlatan really is,
they will want someone else. So he.
All the doors
that he could
possibly escape out of this room
are being closed.
In his face today.
Ambassador, you know,
people think about the DOJ.
They don't generally think,
certainly in the context of recent
broader conversations,
they don't generally think of speed
Okay.
But this was fast.
This was fast.
But that doesn't surprise you.
No, not at all.
Because a lot of what they're relying on
are his personal filings.
As you know,
as a former senator,
ambassador, you have the FEC filings,
you have ethics filings,
and that's you
you've submitted these documents.
So they have
what's called the paper case.
And if if they're just saying,
hey, did you or did you not?
You said you did.
How do you explain it?
Those move pretty quickly
and they're fairly easy to prosecute.
But he could face 20 years
as you read through this,
all these charges Ryan,
how solid is this case?
You know, is
it is as the ambassador's
indicating, a black and white paper
case, basically.
I think it's super solid.
As the ambassador
says, it's all based on documentation
they don't really need testimony
from witnesses or things like that.
For example,
either he did
or did not receive over
$100,000 in salary
while he was claiming unemployment
insurance did or didn't either.
He did
or did not tell the House
in his disclosure forms
that he received
the unemployment insurance checks
and he apparently didn't
either he did or did
not communicate with donors and say,
Oh, you give me $25,000.
I put it into political advertising,
but instead he funnels it through
and then pays for luxury goods.
So.
So, Karen,
what is this thing
that I mean, McCarthy in a sense.
In a sense,
he doesn't really have a choice.
If the Ethics Committee
was going to come out and say guilty,
he was going to have to probably call
for resignation anyway.
But he comes out and says this.
That, of course, would
then force a special election
his money was laying out.
This is a swing district.
It's a predominantly Democratic
district that for various reasons right.
It was
it was more about the policies
they wanted than it was about George
Santos himself.
It's a risky, special election.
McCarthy only has, as many said,
four seats he can afford to lose.
That's right.
It would be incredibly risky.
And I do think actually
a Democrat would win.
It's as you mentioned, it's
a heavily Democratic district.
I think many in the district
just really weren't taking it
very seriously, if I'm being honest.
So but now the stakes are much higher.
It's not surprising.
It's you know, it's
relatively easy
for McCarthy to come out and say
that he wouldn't
support him for reelection
because the truth is he needs him now.
I mean, you heard Santos
when he left the courtroom
to talk about how he wanted
to get back to vote on the border, Bill.
So it's
that those pieces of legislation
that McCarthy is trying to get through,
that he is
using as part of his negotiations
or, you know, messaging against Biden,
he needs them and needs those votes.
But it puts the urgency of this
front and center, Scott,
over vote margin.
And this is something that could play out
again, as the ambassador was saying
before we came to air
The Ethics Committee is very secretive.
You don't know where they are
in their process,
but that could come relatively quickly
and then all of a sudden,
boom, special election. Yeah.
And it would be very competitive
I don't know
who the Democrats would nominate
or who the Republicans would put up,
but I suspect
both parties would be all in on it.
I mean, a Republican did win here,
even though people weren't
paying a ton of attention
and I don't think Biden is getting any
more popular by the day.
So I think it would be
a very competitive race.
But this is the wages,
by the way,
of not doing as well in the midterm
as we should have
you know, the margins shouldn't be that
you don't have margin.
You don't have the margin. That's right.
And that's something
this should come to
no surprise to anyone.
The policy is, Scott said,
and the attorneys, the professor said
they're spot on that legals
playing its role.
Obviously,
the Ethics Committee is playing its role.
But listen,
there's plenty of blame to go around
the Democrats.
Biden won this by ten points.
The Democrats
didn't take it seriously,
as you referenced, and they didn't.
And as a result, one, the Republicans
didn't do the vetting
and needed the media
because this stuff was out there.
I mean, everybody knew.
And yet they said,
oh, this is a great guy.
Let's go, let's go, let's go.
So shame on everybody.