News that Representative George Santos, who has thus far defied political and legal gravity for his legion of lies, faces criminal indictment in federal court brings into focus an escalating and multi-front clash between President Biden’s Department of Justice and his political opponents ahead of the 2024 election.

It also heightens scrutiny of the DOJ’s investigation into the president’s son, Hunter Biden. That inquiry is being led by the United States Attorney at Delaware, David Weiss. Mr. Weiss is reportedly investigating Mr. Biden fils’s tax filings and representations on a firearm purchase form. 

Mr. Santos will be the second Republican candidate for federal office in 2024 to be indicted by Democratic prosecutors. The first was President Trump, by District Attorney Alvin Bragg. A special counsel, Jack Smith, is mulling whether to add his own charges relating to the documents found at Mar-a-Lago and to January 6.

Reports indicate that Mr. Smith is also contemplating wire fraud charges against Mr. Trump relating to fundraising efforts following the 2020 election. Mr. Bragg’s inquest likewise scrutinizes campaign violations. Mr. Trump has moved to relocate his case to federal court from New York County, because he held federal office. Mr. Santos’s case is already there.   

While the DOJ has held that the “indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions, found in the Constitution’s “take care clause,” no such guidance is in place for congressmen, or former presidents. 

Other guidance, titled “Election Year Sensitivities,” ordains that federal prosecutors  “may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”

Mr. Santos, like Mr. Trump, is likely to allege that his prosecution is politically motivated, considering it comes from Mr. Biden’s DOJ and as Mr. Santos is preparing to run for a second term in a House that is almost equally divided.   

The precise nature of the charges against Mr. Santos is not known, as the indictment is likely to stay under seal until the Long Islander’s arraignment, which could happen as early as today at the Eastern District of New York, at Brooklyn. 

Mr. Santos has come under criticism for everything from misrepresenting his Jewish identity to claiming he is descended from Holocaust survivors to the nature of his schooling and work experience.

Those lies are not illegal, though, and it’s as yet unclear of what Mr. Santos has been indicted. Speaker McCarthy, whose party holds a slender majority, has thus far resisted calls to discipline Mr. Santos. He now says, “I’ll look at the charges.”

Mr. Santos has also been accused of lying about his sexuality and pocketing cash meant for an Iraq War veteran’s dying dog. There is also the matter of a $19 million yacht deal that he brokered between two of his donors. His claim that his mother died as a result of the attacks of September 11, 2001, appears to be untrue.   

While telling tall tales to win an election is a practice as old as the Republic, prosecutors will likely look to alleged campaign finance law violations, financial fraud, and other instances of fiscal impropriety. He is alleged to have committed check fraud in Brazil. He is being investigated by the House Ethics Committee.

Representative Santos has said in relation to running in 2024: “You’re going to have to drag my dead, cold body out of this institution.” In one sense he is correct. The Constitution does not bar indicted — or convicted — felons from serving in Congress. 

That determination is up to Congress itself and, eventually, the voters. Article I ordains, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”

One doesn’t want to make light of any of this. Then again, too, Mark Twain’s Pudd’nhead Wilson did aver that “it could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.”