Shortly after perpetually truth-challenged New York Republican Congressman George Santos was arrested on multiple counts of fraud, a few unnamed persons put up a half-million dollar bond for his bail. The anonymous nature of the process raised many questions, particularly given Santos’ shady reputation and his own history of dodgy financial dealings. (Allegedly.) A consortium of media outlets quickly filed a motion with Judge Anne Shields to release the names of the suretors in the public interest. The judge hasn’t ruled on the motion yet, but Santos’ lawyer sent a letter to the judge yesterday pleading to keep the names secret and saying that Santos would sooner forfeit his bail and go to jail until the trial rather than have the names exposed to the public. (Business Insider)
Rep. George Santos has begged a judge not to reveal the names of the anonymous people who agreed to pony up a $500,000 bond to keep him out of jail as he fights criminal fraud charges.
And if the judge mandates that his guarantors be identified, Santos said he’d forfeit his bond and remain jailed until his trial, according to court documents obtained by Insider.
In a letter to US Judge Anne Shields late Monday, Santos, through his lawyer Joseph Murray, argued that divulging their names would subject them to a media frenzy, public ridicule, harassment, job loss, and potential violence.
The basis for the request that Santos’ attorney submitted was a fear that the people who put up the bail money would be in danger if their identities were to be revealed to the public. He said that they fear becoming part of a media spectacle leading to “ridicule, harassment, job loss, and potential violence.” He bolstered his argument by claiming that both Santos and the attorney had already been targets of abuse and even death threats since the indictment.
The judge already knows the identity of the suretors because she met with them at the time of the indictment. She would prefer that the defense work the issue out with the media groups, but she may still have to rule on the matter.
Far be it from me to agree with George Santos about anything, but I’ll admit that I’m not really seeing what compelling public interest the public would have in knowing who posted his bail. Granted, being something of a “celebrity” as an elected official, there is clearly a heightened level of interest, particularly on the part of the media. And it might be compelling to see what sort of other connections exist between the individuals in question and other public figures.
But the people might also simply be friends or relatives who wanted to help him out. And posting bail for someone isn’t a crime. It’s baked into the system. Santos himself may wind up being guilty as sin, and in fact, I’ll be shocked if he isn’t. But that doesn’t mean that the suretors deserve any sort of punishment for springing him.
There is precedent for this, however. When Sam Bankman-Fried was first arraigned, he similarly requested that the names of the people posting his bail be kept secret. The judge in that case ruled against him, saying that the public only had a “weak” right to know the names, but it outweighed the concerns raised by the defendant. That ruling was placed on hold while his attorneys filed an appeal. But the appeal was rejected the following month and the identities of the suretors were released to the press.
If Santos’ case follows a similar pattern, perhaps we’ll know who his friends are as well. And if they turn out to have political connections they may regret coming to his aid. Alternately, if Santos is serious about his threat, perhaps he’ll forfeit the bail as his attorney claimed and go check into a jail cell for a significant period of time. Then one headache will be out of the way for Speaker McCarthy, but it will come at the cost of yet another vote going forward.
