EXCLUSIVE: Rep. George Santos to Hacking, but Legal: “Your Question is the Most Intelligent I've Heard Ever Since I've Gotten Elected for Congress”
EXCLUSIVE: Rep. George Santos to Hacking, but Legal: “Your Question is the Most Intelligent I've Heard Ever Since I've Gotten Elected for Congress”
My discussion with an embattled Congressman in which he plied me with flattery and avoided straight answers
In the world of high-stakes cybersecurity, especially within the walls of Fortune-ranked companies, the game changes drastically as you climb the ranks.
I’ve seen it first hand.
Starting off, you’re likely to be in the trenches and in the weeds, consumed with the daily hands-on work of threat detection and digital forensics, identifying malicious or risky behavior, and finding effective ways to manage it for your organization. But as you ascend to positions like Director or VP, overseeing security incident response groups, the role morphs and becomes about more than just tech wizardry or strong collaborative skills.
At this level, you're part strategist, part communicator, and a hefty part crisis manager. You're not just fixing tech issues; you're playing the role of a 'fixer'. You’re the one they call when shit hits the fan, not just to plug a security hole, but to manage the fallout that could implode the company’s reputation or stock price.
This ascendance involves both role and mindset shifts from deep tech towards deep strategy.
Sure, the technical aspects are crucial as the foundation of everything we do in professional cybersecurity. But when you're leading at that level, the operational nuts and bolts of the job are less about knowing every technical detail with immediacy, and more about steering the ship through stormy waters. Your goal is to successfully manage that larger process, while also trying to keep a target off your own back–to avoid the organization believing your team is a source of the problem. Of course, your team did detect the bad guy because you recently beefed up that detection stack, which did cost the company a fair amount of money.
Had you not done so, you would not have found the problem, leading to this disaster!! If you happen to be a woman or other minority in tech, you’re dealing with this type of backwards thinking at an even higher level of difficulty for the simple fact that you are are implicitly less credible to many of the people around you–yet your goal is to keep that ship steady.
Your tools? Procedure, strategy, and, most importantly, communication.
You become an integral part of a larger network–crisis PR, lawyers, risk management–with whom you have worked closely to create plans for dealing with cyber related situations that could spell disaster for the company.
And that is why, dear Reader, as I recently spoke with embattled Congressman George Santos (R-NY) as he engaged in one of his notorious crisis PR maneuvers on the heels of a disastrous House Ethics Committee report, it all struck a familiar chord.
The way he handled his situation, the strategy, the choice of words, the timing… it was all too familiar.
This wasn’t about addressing the immediate issues surrounding him at all.
Instead, George Santos’ recent Twitter (X) Space, hosted by conservative commentator Monica Matthews, was about managing perception and mitigating damage: classic crisis management tactics. It was fascinating to observe these methods first hand, especially considering the backdrop of serious fraud allegations against him.
Here is my discussion with Rep. Santos until around the moment when I was removed from speaking further:
👉 Scroll down (past this transcript) for a broader analysis of Rep. Santos’ statements throughout the 3-hour long live recording.
Monica Matthews 00:00 And then I'm going to go to Ms. Jackie. Jackie, welcome.
Jackie Singh 00:04 Oh, good evening, everyone. And hello, Congressman Santos. Thank you so much for having me on.
Monica Matthews 00:12 Go ahead, did you have a question for the Congressman?
Jackie Singh 00:15 I do. So my name is Jackie Singh. I'm a New Yorker who previously worked as a senior cybersecurity staffer on the Biden-Harris campaign, and I currently write on Substack at my blog, which is at hackingbutlegal dot com. Within context of your prior comment about the Twitter account, "Unusual Whales", which I'm aware tracks stock trades made by elected officials based on official filings, my question is specifically about compensation for members of Congress.
Congressman Santos, do you believe members of Congress are sufficiently directly compensated by our government for the work that you all do on behalf of the American people? Given the lucrative jobs which exist elsewhere for professionals and the asymmetry which exists with regards to wealthy individuals attempting to exert influence or even foreign countries, nation-states attempting to exert influence, do you believe that there could be changes made to compensation structures to make congressmen and congresswomen a bit more resistant to bribery and corruption? Thank you.
Rep. George Santos 01:15 Yes, you're right, members of Congress are underpaid. But nobody wants to hear that because people think they are inefficient. If Congress changes its perception and starts actually delivering results, the American people wouldn't jump in up in arms against a pay raise, an actual real pay raise. Matter of fact, I think the President of the United States is under compensated. Matter of fact, I think every single, and this is unpopular, but I would never vote for a pay raise unless we straighten out some really base lines. We need to ban lobbying in the United States. Many countries across the world have done it.
So Jackie, I think you bring up probably one of the most intelligent questions I've heard ever since I've gotten elected for Congress for sure, but I think in my entire life, I commend you. Why are you not with the Biden-Harris administration? They need people like you right now. If you were in a campaign, it was a loss that they did not convert you full time because it's people like you that this administration is missing. People who are actually thinking outside the box and seeing the issues in our country, you are part of the people who would probably make their administration more successful, which would make our country more successful. Well, Jackie, I implore you, please come back into government or if you've never been in government, just come into government.
Jackie Singh 02:33 Hey, I appreciate that. I do think that we need to see more people for more walks of life come into government. And I do think that people need to be able to support themselves once they get in there. I don't think that the current structure, as a cybersecurity professional myself, I don't think that the current structure incentivizes people who are really qualified to step into those roles. And I think it makes a big question about campaign finance and where the funds are actually supposed to come from in order to mount a successful campaign.
Rep. George Santos 03:05 Here's what I'll say to Jackie.
Hacking but legal is actually funny too, by the way.
Jackie Singh 03:11 Thank you.
Rep. George Santos 03:13 Here's what I'll say is, we have qualified people. Here's what a qualified person to serve our country is. You have undoubted loyalty for this country. That's the one qualification I think every member of Congress has to have. And I believe every last one of them have that qualification. I know that we can get into political nuance here and rhetoric and say, now they know. This one's more allegiance to that or that. I think every person who is in Congress is in Congress for the betterment of our country. We might disagree what that betterment looks like and the ways and means to get there and how much money we're gonna blow up in order to get there and how we're responsibly or responsibly we're gonna get there. But the reality is, I don't think there's a single one of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that don't fundamentally love this country and want to make it a better place. They might have different views and whatnot. So here's what I'll say very quickly is, compensation for members of Congress is insane.
Rep. Santos 04:18 So I'm gonna, out in the open for you guys, we make $174,000, okay? I'm in the state of New York, so I pay all New York taxes. My gross pay monthly is $14,500. My net pay after all my deductions in the People's Republic of New York is raw. It lands anywhere around and it's funny, it varies for some reason. I don't know what the variation is, but it lands around $8 ,100 a month. Now, bear in mind that you're upkeeping a whole lot as a person and then you're barred from earning outside income, right? For good cause. There's like some exceptions there. You can earn, I think up to like 40 or $37,000.
Rep. Santos 05:05 It's a weird number. You can supplement it, but it's very limited ways that you can do it, okay? Case in point, Speaker of the House has a teaching job. I don't know if he's gonna keep it now that he's speaker, but he had a teaching job up until he became speaker. So these are all things that, for a New Yorker, right? Myself, and I know it's changed since last Congress because Nancy Pelosi on her way out, she authorized a congressional stipend for members. A lot of the general public doesn't know this, but on December, I think 26 or 27 last year, Nancy Pelosi changed House rules with the admin committee on her way out, which essentially means that members of Congress now can use money from their MRA, which is the member representational allowance, which is the budget we get annually to run our offices.
Rep. Santos 06:03 We can actually use some of that money to offset the expense of our lodging in DC, whether it be an apartment, whether it be hotels, whether it be Airbnb, whatever, whatever choice you choose. However, it only covers the days you're in session, right? Or that you're on assignment in DC, that you need to be here. So if in a month, there's no session days or there's no committee assignment work, you're responsible for that entire rent out of pocket.
Rep. Santos 06:33 And then there's different ways that the scale does on the GSA. So on average, most members of Congress, if you're staying in hotels, you're to wash for you. If you have an apartment like I do, I wanna say I get compensated across the board for the year for about 60% of my expenses just for the lodging, right? And that's public information is reported. So that was a change that was positive and it helped a lot of members of Congress. But still, here's a caveat. You pay out of pocket for your expenses and then you get reimbursed the next month. But that reimbursement, because it's considered additional income gets taxed. So you're essentially double taxed on your income because of the way the reimbursement works. So it's something, but it's still for a lot of members, it's a lot, man. Some of these people have kids and they're single spouses or widowed or whatever the case is.
Rep. Santos 07:34 So it does open the room for corruption and for violation of all sorts of campaign finances, like you just said, Jackie.
Rep. Santos 07:42 So I really wanna, and I'm not trying to kiss anybody's behind here, but Jackie, that question is a question that should be imposed to elected officials, more often than just here on this space. I think it was very intelligent the way you articulated it because it is a chronic problem in government.
Rep. Santos 08:02 A lot of times we see the amount of corruption and decay in government because the compensation is me, especially for people with families. I don't have kids, so it's easy for me to do this job. It's just me, my husband and dogs. So it's like, we nail it, even, you know, with like it's fine, we do just fine. But some people really can't afford to become members of Congress. I've actually heard that from some of my colleagues. Like, you know, oh, my predecessor told me like, hey, you sure you could afford this? Because understand ABC.
Rep. Santos 08:37 But Jackie, do you think I'm gonna go ahead and say, hey, we should raise our salaries? Absolutely not.
Rep. Santos 08:45 The American people set me on fire because we have lacked to show them that we're worth getting a pay raise. And we've been unable to explain to the American people pretty much anything from anything. So it's a catch 22. It's like, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. But I do believe that in order to get that raise, we need to have lobbying reforms in the United States.
Jackie Singh 09:14 We do need lobbying reforms, we do need uh... reforms in terms of all what uh... stock trades can be executed, and what...
Host 09:21 Jackie, are you sure you're not a conservative, like America First person?
Jackie Singh 09:26 I'm not. I started out in a world where I was very fiscally conservative and very socially liberal and over time I've come to realize that that's a little bit of a fantasy. We need to have a strong social safety net in order to protect people in America. Too many people are falling to the margins, right? And I'm just not with it. I'm not with it.
Rep. Santos 09:44 I agree with you there that we do have social issues in our country, but we're not going to fix our social issues until we put our books in order. Because in order to fix our social issues, we need to afford it.
Jackie Singh 10:00 I think that's the same process. I think that's the same process. When you put your books in order, you're making budgetary decisions about what the priorities are. What are the things that really matter to this country? Right? In terms of healthcare, right? We're still having the same conversation. We're solving the same problem. Yeah, you know, we're still having the same conversations about healthcare, right? We can't agree on how to fix the problems. We can agree that we have fundamental issues that we need to fix and everyone agrees on what those are. I don't think that we're going to get there by avoiding putting money into it, right?
When you look at the list of countries ordered by how much they put into their citizens, right? How much money, you know, from the GDP is actually put back into the government. You don't see countries that are doing very well at the bottom of that list. So our goal should be to rise towards the top of that list further and further so that we can make things better for all of us. And so from a conservative perspective, I don't think that fiscal conservatism makes very sense. It makes a lot of sense when you're looking at the United States and attempting to stay at the top of the heap and trying to stay, you know, at the top of the perception at least that we are the greatest country on earth. I think that we've slipped in those rankings and I think that all of us as Americans are feeling that.
And I totally disagree that Project 2025 and this Project Heritage plan to essentially divest the American people of the agencies that have been built to support them and the infrastructure that's been developed very competently, I think, you know, bureaucratically, because it's big, but competently to support the American people, I think it's crazy to think about divesting us of those initiatives.
Host 11:41 I know one second really quick though. I don't, Jackie, I think that the points you're making, obviously folks that support your point of view and folks who are neutral in the point of view would love to hear a little bit more about it. I just don't want to divert off of this topic because I guess I can rail it back into you, representative Santos.
Do you feel like this Congress is the most ineffective Congress in modern history?
Rep. Santos 12:07 Yes, 100%.
👉 A glutton for punishment? Here is the full audio of the Space:
Rep. Santos’ tendency to deflect and evade direct questions was notable.
He adeptly framed his narrative, positioning himself as a victim rather than the subject of legitimate inquiries, and as an individual who is “less bad” than many of his other colleagues–classic deflection techniques. Santos often circumvented inquiries about specific allegations and repeatedly attempted to establish a counter-narrative of broader systemic issues rather than addressing his own individual conduct. His communication style was heavily reliant on emotional appeals, aiming to garner sympathy, appeal to shared values like due process and fairness, and establish a connection with the audience.
A lack of directness and transparency was another hallmark of Santos' communication throughout the Space. His generalities and focus on peripheral issues rather than the specific allegations speak to a strategic choice to avoid potentially damaging admissions. The hosts of the Space can be heard corraling Rep. Santos at various points when the discussion veered towards a direction which appeared unfavorable to his narrative.
His evasiveness against the latest backdrop of accusations (not to mention longer-standing accusations of having accepted “donations” from shady sources such as Putin-friendly oligarch Viktor Vekselberg’s cousin, Andrew Intrater) only adds to the cloud of doubt surrounding his credibility.
With all that said, the Twitter Space was clearly less about genuine engagement with citizens and more about Rep. Santos’ desperate attempts to successfully navigate a highly precarious legal and political situation. These tactics were obviously an attempt to divert attention away from the gravity of the accusations he faces.
My question was a bit of a tar pit, wasn’t it? 😉
Why is this an Exclusive?
My discussion with Rep. Santos (and the effect my line of questioning had on the remainder of the discussion) was considered irrelevant by the many outlets which covered said Twitter Space.
Their loss!
Associated Press: Rep. George Santos says he expects to be kicked out of Congress as expulsion vote looms
Reuters: Indicted Republican lawmaker George Santos faces new US House move to oust him
CBS News: George Santos says he expects he'll be expelled from Congress
ABC News: Santos says he expects to be kicked out of Congress
Vanity Fair: Representative George Santos, Facing Likely Expulsion, Says Congress Is Filled With “Felons Galore”
Axios: Santos lashes out at colleagues as he stares down expulsion
Business Insider: George Santos says he'll treat expulsion as a 'badge of honor' as he claims his colleagues are drunkenly having sex with lobbyists 'every night'
The Daily Beast: George Santos Calls Congressman a ‘P*ssy’ in Scorched Earth Tirade
Mother Jones: George Santos, Calling Himself Mary Magdalene of Congress, Knows He’s Done
HuffPo: George Santos Says House Expulsion Will Be ‘Badge Of Honor’ In 3-Hour Rant
Later in the discussion, Santos referred to me as a “powerful woman” for having shifted the narrative towards congressional salaries within context of the risk of bribery and corruption:
Rep. George Santos 02:05:40 I've never seen so many people making an argument to give members of Congress a raise. I'm sorry, I don't agree with it. And I've said why. So I'm actually spooked that I have a bunch of Americans here arguing to give members of Congress more money.
I gotta tell you, Jackie is one powerful woman. She's managed to stir this whole conversation, wow, it's amazing.
Yet truthfully, dear Reader, I believe anyone could have managed it, because my involvement–or any involvement for that matter–ultimately only serves George Santos' interests.