In a bizarre twist that only George Santos could deliver, the former Congressman from New York’s 3rd District is reportedly set to plead guilty to federal charges today. But there’s a catch—Santos has informed prosecutors that they might have a tough time seeing him in court. Why? Because, according to him, he’s now invisible.

Yes, you read that right. The same George Santos who once claimed to have graduated from universities he never attended, worked at companies that never employed him, and even concocted an entire life story that would make a Hollywood screenwriter blush, is now adding a new chapter to his fantastical tale: invisibility.

“How can they prosecute someone they can’t see?” Santos reportedly said in a statement released by his office, which is still somehow operational despite his dramatic expulsion from Congress last year. “I’ve always been transparent—literally, as of now.”

The expected plea would mark the end of a nearly two-year saga that began with Santos’s successful bid for Congress, where he managed to convince voters he was the perfect candidate for New York’s 3rd Congressional District. It wasn’t until after he won the seat that the truth—or lack thereof—about his resume started to unravel, leading to federal charges including wire fraud, money laundering, and making false statements.

After his removal from Congress, Santos maintained his innocence, at least until recently when rumors began circulating that he would be changing his plea. However, this latest claim of invisibility has thrown the legal community into a tailspin.

Legal experts are scratching their heads over how to handle the situation. “If Santos is indeed invisible, it presents a unique challenge for the judicial process,” said one baffled attorney. “We’ve never had to question a defendant who could be standing right in front of us—or not.”

Meanwhile, US District Judge Joanna Seybert, who is presiding over the case in the Eastern District of New York, has reportedly ordered a full investigation into the claim. Sources close to the court say that a team of top scientists is being assembled to determine the veracity of Santos’s newfound invisibility—an assignment they’re approaching with a mix of skepticism and sheer bewilderment.

As for Santos, he’s sticking to his story. “They can’t convict what they can’t see,” he added in his statement, with what one can only imagine was a wink—or at least the ghost of one. “I’ve always been one step ahead of the game, and now I’m out of sight.”

Prosecutors, for their part, are not amused. “This is just another attempt by Mr. Santos to evade justice,” one source close to the case remarked. “Whether he’s visible or not, we’re determined to hold him accountable.”

As the nation waits for the next chapter in the George Santos saga, one thing is clear: in the world of George Santos, the line between reality and fiction has long since disappeared—much like, apparently, the man himself.

In a recent press conference that left the nation scratching its collective head, Senator J.D. Vance made an impassioned plea for the American public to stop comparing him to himself. The Ohio senator, known for his ever-shifting positions and baffling public statements, expressed frustration that the media and the public insist on holding him accountable for the words and actions of “a past version of me.”

“Look, everyone knows J.D. Vance is a bit of a loon,” Vance declared, pounding the podium for emphasis. “But that doesn’t mean I should be constantly compared to the guy who said or did those things! It’s unfair and frankly, it’s starting to feel like a witch hunt.”

Vance went on to explain that while he respects J.D. Vance, he’s grown weary of the constant comparisons. “Sure, I share his name, his face, and his penchant for contradictory statements, but that doesn’t mean we’re the same person. People evolve! Just because I said something ridiculous last year—or last week—doesn’t mean I would say the exact same thing today.”

When asked to clarify how, exactly, he differs from the J.D. Vance everyone remembers, the senator was quick to point out the nuances. “That J.D. Vance had different priorities. He was more concerned with, I don’t know, whatever it was he was saying back then. Today’s J.D. Vance is focused on what’s important now, and it’s time people started recognizing that distinction.”

Vance’s complaints have garnered mixed reactions. Some supporters have praised his courage in standing up to, well, himself, while others are just as confused as ever. “It’s like trying to figure out which Spider-Man is the real one,” said one bewildered voter. “But with less web-slinging and more head-scratching.”

Notably, the senator has also started a petition to officially separate himself from his past self, proposing a “Statute of Limitations on Self-Comparison” that would prevent the media from bringing up any statements he made before last Thursday.

“It’s time to let J.D. Vance be the J.D. Vance of today, not the J.D. Vance of yesterday,” he concluded, before adding, “And for the record, that’s not something the old J.D. Vance would say. I think.”

In response to this newfound identity crisis, J.D. Vance’s former self was unavailable for comment, presumably because he was too busy being J.D. Vance.

Former President Donald Trump took aim at Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for what he described as a “glaring lack of commitment to presidential aesthetics.”

“Look at Tim Walz. Have you ever seen a more unprepared candidate?” Trump said, gesturing to a blown-up image of Walz’s makeup-free face. “No foundation, no eyeliner, not even a touch of concealer. How does he expect to lead a nation when he can’t even lead a makeup brush to his face?”

Trump, who is rumored to spend between three and four hours each morning applying his signature industrial-strength orange foundation, didn’t stop there. “A good president needs to look their best—everyone knows that! Kamala Harris, she’s got that makeup down. JD Vance? I hear he’s using eyeliner now, very smart move. But Walz? He wakes up, splashes some water on his face, and thinks he’s ready to make the world better. Sad!”

The former president went on to praise his own dedication to daily preparation. “I’ve always said it takes time to achieve greatness. That’s why I spend hours every day getting my look just right. It’s not just about being president, it’s about looking presidential. The American people deserve someone who’s willing to put in the time.”

Walz, who has built his campaign around competence and results rather than cosmetics, could not be reached for comment. Insiders, however, suggest he was likely too busy, you know, working on actual policies and engaging with constituents.

When asked if he thought Walz might reconsider his stance on makeup, Trump was doubtful. “I don’t think he gets it. He probably thinks he can just roll out of bed and start fixing things. But that’s not how it works, folks. A great leader needs a great look, and that takes effort. I’ve got the best effort, believe me.”

As the 2024 election looms, it’s clear that for Trump, the path to the Oval Office isn’t just paved with policies—it’s also lined with lip gloss and contour kits.

Columbus, OH – In a surprising twist, JD Vance’s wife has stepped forward to clarify her husband’s recent controversial comments about women who don’t have children. According to her, Vance’s remarks were not aimed at women who are unable to have children, but rather a specific subset of women he believes are deserving of criticism.

“When JD was talking about women who don’t have children, he didn’t mean to offend those who can’t have children due to medical reasons,” she explained. “He only meant to insult those who are too ugly to have children, those who are weird lesbians, or those dumb women who choose to have careers instead of raising a family.”

Vance, who has a history of making provocative statements, found himself in hot water once again after suggesting that women who don’t have children are somehow failing society. The backlash was swift and fierce, with many accusing him of being insensitive to the struggles of women facing infertility.

However, his wife was quick to defend him. “People are always so quick to judge JD,” she lamented. “They don’t understand his true intentions. He wasn’t talking about women who physically can’t have children. He was talking about those who are, well, just undesirable or making poor life choices.”

In a follow-up statement, Vance doubled down on his wife’s clarification. “I stand by what I said. Women who choose not to have children because they’re too focused on their careers or because they have alternative lifestyles are the real problem. We need to get back to traditional values,” he said, looking sternly into the camera.

Social media erupted with reactions to Vance’s comments, with many pointing out the absurdity of his wife’s “clarification.” Twitter user @FeministWarrior wrote, “So according to JD Vance, if you’re a woman who doesn’t have children, you’re either too ugly, a lesbian, or stupid? This is 2024, not 1924!”

Meanwhile, others attempted to find humor in the situation. “I’m just relieved to know that my childless state is because I’m a successful career woman and not because of my looks. Thanks, JD!” tweeted @BossLady123.

Political analysts are divided on whether this latest controversy will hurt Vance’s career or simply add to his already colorful reputation. Some believe his base will rally around him, appreciating his “no-nonsense” approach to societal issues.

“It’s classic Vance,” said political commentator Jane Doe. “He says what he thinks, regardless of how offensive or outlandish it might be. And for some voters, that’s exactly what they love about him.”

As the dust settles, one thing is clear: JD Vance’s unique brand of commentary isn’t going anywhere, and neither is the backlash that inevitably follows.