Santos Pleads Not Guilty to New Charges, but House May Yet Expel ...

Supported by

Five months ago, as he made his first appearance in federal court after his criminal indictment, George Santos, the embattled first-term Republican congressman from New York, was in full George Santos mode — denying wrongdoing, chastising his critics and pledging to prove his innocence.

But on Friday, as Mr. Santos returned to Federal District Court in Central Islip, N.Y., to plead not guilty to 10 new felony counts, he seemed less interested in courting attention, leaving without addressing the throng of reporters assembled outside.

Then again, much has changed since May.

Since then, Mr. Santos has seen two of his former campaign aides be indicted; his Republican colleagues in the House have pushed to expel him from Congress; and he now faces a new raft of felony charges that illuminate a broad pattern of criminal behavior spanning his 2022 congressional campaign.

The latest charges were filed earlier this month in a revised indictment that lays out additional schemes, including a fraudulent $500,000 personal loan to his campaign and tens of thousands of dollars in unauthorized charges to donors’ credit cards.

The new indictment also raises the stakes for Mr. Santos in another way: Two of the charges of aggravated identity theft each carry a two-year mandatory minimum sentence.

At the hearing, Judge Joanna Seybert approved a litany of minor issues related to discovery and scheduling, and set a tentative trial date: Sept. 9, 2024.

Prosecutors had pushed for an earlier date, suggesting May or June, given Mr. Santos’s status as a congressman and the “enormous public interest in the case.” The judge held firm, however, noting that she had a slate of other cases.

The announced court date was met with audible groans from a small group of constituents in the gallery. After the hearing, the group, many of them members of Concerned Citizens of NY-03, which has been vocal in calling for Mr. Santos’s resignation, said that they deserved a more immediate resolution.

“That he will not face justice till next fall — that is disgusting. I mean, where’s justice for us?” said Susan Naftol, a member of the steering committee for the group. Ms. Naftol, who did not vote for Mr. Santos, added, “We’re paying his salary!”

Mr. Santos’s fate in the House, however, may well be decided outside the courts. On Thursday, one of his Republican colleagues from Long Island, Representative Anthony D’Esposito, introduced a resolution to expel Mr. Santos; that effort could come to the floor as early as next week.

The resolution, which mentions both the 23-count indictment against Mr. Santos and his voluminous biographical lies, is not the first attempt to remove him from the House, but it is the first to be carried by members of his own party.

Even so, its outcome is uncertain. To expel Mr. Santos requires a two-thirds majority; for that to happen, every Democrat would have to vote to expel and dozens of Republicans would have to turn on their colleague.

It is unclear how Republican leadership will regard the bid to expel Mr. Santos. His district, which includes parts of Long Island and Queens, was already a target for Democrats, and the Republican majority in the House is slim.

The recently elected House speaker, Mike Johnson, has not commented on the matter, despite Mr. Santos’s vocal support of his candidacy.

Mr. Santos has remained resolute in his own defense, rejecting the charges against him and declaring his intent to seek re-election in 2024. Shortly after his colleague’s motion was read into the record on Thursday, Mr. Santos declared on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, that he was not resigning and was “entitled to due process and not a predetermined outcome as some are seeking.”

On Friday, that due process was largely procedural. Mr. Santos — his familiar sweater-and-blazer uniform augmented by a pair of stylish red loafers — requested that his bond conditions be changed to allow him to be in contact with several relatives who are identified as witnesses in the case. A judge agreed. Discovery was exchanged.

Much of the hearing was spent on the question of whether Mr. Santos would keep his lawyer, Joseph Murray, whose ties to other witnesses in the case, including Nancy Marks, Mr. Santos’s former campaign treasurer, had created the potential for a conflict of interest.

Mr. Murray had raised the issue to prosecutors, also disclosing that he had been consulted by another person involved in the case, identified in documents as “Person #1,” a Queens-based political operative who prosecutors say helped Mr. Santos solicit $50,000 in phony donations through a fake nonprofit.

Mr. Murray on Friday announced his intent to bring two new lawyers onto the defense team, and wall himself off from potential conflicts.

Mr. Santos and the government approved of the arrangement, meaning that Mr. Santos will continue to be represented by Mr. Murray. The decision also means that Mr. Santos has waived the right to raise the issue on appeal.

The congressman is next due in court on Dec. 12.

Michael Gold contributed reporting.