Reps. Bryan Steil, Jim Jordan, James Comer Issue Subpoenas to ActBlue Lawyers as Foreign Donation Probe Picks Up

Representatives  Bryan Steil, Jim Jordan, and James Comer have issued subpoenas to a current ActBlue attorney, as well as two former attorneys for the Democrat fundraising powerhouse, according to the New York Post.

Former ActBlue  general counsel Darrin Hurwitz, ex-director and associate general counsel Aaron Ting, and an unnamed counsel for ActBlue will be required to sit before House investigators for formal depositions.

According to the New York Post:

Records uncovered by the committees showed that Hurwitz, Ting and the unidentified counsel worked with the platform’s fraud prevention team as it implemented “more lenient” standards during the 2024 campaign.

ActBlue let debit or credit transactions occur without requiring a card verification value (CVV) until January 2024 — around halfway through the election cycle — and newer standards published last year still instructed employees to “look for reasons to accept contributions.”

In April 2024 and again in September of that year, ActBlue further relaxed guidelines, permitting between 14 and 28 more fraudulent contributions per month — meaning up to 6.4% of total donations that should have been rejected for fraud were accepted.

In June, the congressional trio issued subpoenas to former Vice President of  Customer Service Alyssa Twomey and a Senior WorkFlow Specialist “regarding allegations that online fundraising platforms, including ActBlue, have accepted fraudulent donations from domestic and foreign sources.”

Initially, the duo had agreed to give their depositions to Congress, however, President Trump’s executive order on straw donor donations targeting ActBlue led their counsel to withdraw their offers, forcing the congressmen to issue subpoenas.

Keep reading

DOJ Opens Grand Jury Criminal Investigation Fed Governor Lisa Cook Over Mortgage Fraud Allegations

The Department of Justice has opened a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook – and has issued multiple subpoenas as part of the inquiry into whether she committed mortgage fraud, according to the Wall Street Journal, citing ‘officials familiar with the matter.’

The probe – for which a grand jury has been assembled, will begin by looking at Cook’s properties in Ann Arbor, Michigan and Atlanta. It comes on the heels of two criminal investigations from Federal Housing Finance Agency director Bill Pulte, who has been dropping receipts for weeks with evidence that Cook committed fraud – including claiming two properties as her “primary residence” – as well as claiming that a rented out third property was her ‘second home’ – all things that would qualify her for better rates and tax treatment. 

Pulte accused Cook of misleading banks on multiple mortgage applications to receive favorable lending terms, such as lower interest rates, typically given to a buyer who intends to occupy the home they purchase. 

A judge is considering Cook’s request for an emergency order stopping her from being removed from the Fed board while the case proceeds. The Fed’s next meeting is set to begin Sept. 16. -WSJ

Last Thursday, Cook filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration after President Donald Trump fired her that Monday ‘for cause.’ Among the excuses contained in the lawsuit for alleged mortgage fraud was a possible clerical error. 

Except, Cook described herself in her 2023 nomination hearing as having “significant experience in banking and finance, as is evidenced by my service on the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and of a Community Development Financial Institution in Michigan, in addition to my employment at an investment bank and a large commercial bank.” 

What’s more, the Federal Reserve Act allows the president to fire Fed governors ‘for cause’ – which the Trump administration claims applies. In a Tuesday court filing, Cook’s lawyers said she “did not ever commit mortgage fraud.”

Pulte shot down any notion that the fed wasn’t political in a Thursday appearance on CNBC, saying “I don’t believe for the last 4 years that the Fed has been independent.” 

Keep reading

Trump Administration Looking at Ways to Ban Transgender People from Purchasing Firearms Following Recent School Shootings

The Trump Administration is considering a bold action that will undoubtedly spark a significant debate about public safety and the Second Amendment in the wake of recent school shootings by transgender individuals.

As The Daily Wire reported, the Trump Department of Justice is looking at potentially barring those who identify as transgender from purchasing firearms.

“Individuals within the DOJ are reviewing ways to ensure that mentally ill individuals suffering from gender dysphoria are unable to obtain firearms while they are unstable and unwell,” a Justice Department official explained to The Daily Wire.

A DOJ source told CNN that one way this could work is for Trump to issue a declaration that people who identify as transgender are mentally ill and thus cannot possess firearms.

The outlet notes that current federal law says that a judge must declare a person to be mentally “defective” before being stripped of their right to own guns.

The New York Post reports that members of the Department of Justice DOJ) think the move can be approved as a follow-up on Trump’s executive order preventing trans folks from serving in the military.

The far-left advocacy group GLAAD lashed out upon hearing the trans individuals may be declared mentally ill and no longer allowed to own guns.

“Instead of actual solutions, the administration is again choosing to scapegoat and target a small and vulnerable population,” a GLAAD spokesperson whined. “Everyone deserves to be themselves, be safe, and be free from violence and discrimination.”

Statistics show that the transgender community indeed has a mental health crisis, providing the Trump Administration ammunition for pursuing a potential ban of sorts. For example, statistics show more than 40% of transgender people have attempted suicide, while 56% have engaged in self-harm over their lifetimes.

Keep reading

RFK Jr. vs. “The Science”: The Untold Story of Corporate Capture

The “scientist” on the left pushed COVID shots for babies, pregnant women, and backed mandates. RFK Jr. vs. “The Science”

The man on the right is trying to Make America Healthy Again.

The CDC has a corruption problem, and it’s been this way for decades.

And it all traces back to one quiet change that took place in 1983.

This information comes from the work of medical researcher A Midwestern Doctor. For all the sources and details, read the full report below.

Unmasking CDC Corruption: RFK’s Battle to Reform Public Health

RFK Jr. wants to Make America Healthy Again.

But don’t think his confirmation as HHS Secretary flipped a switch. What some people fail to realize is that he wasn’t suddenly given the power to do what he wants.

For one thing, the bureaucrats under him didn’t suddenly embrace MAHA.

In fact, the opposite happened.

And no agency has fought harder against reform than the CDC.

Keep reading

Did the Atomic Bombs End World War II?

On September 2, it marked 80 years since Japan signed the Instrument of Surrender, formally ending hostilities with the Allied powers. In 1945, Emperor Shōwa decided to surrender on August 14. Why did Japan choose to accept defeat at that moment? The United States had dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. As a result, many claim that these bombings brought the war to an end. This past June, U.S. President Donald Trump compared American strikes on Iran to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, stating, “That hit ended the war.” But did the atomic bombs truly end World War II?

To explore this question, we must consider two perspectives: how the Japanese government perceived the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and whether the United States intended to use them specifically to force Japan’s surrender.

What was the Japanese government’s response to the atomic bombings?

To begin, let us examine this first question. Experts have pointed out that the role of the Soviet Union’s entry into the war is often underestimated. While many believe that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought the war to an end, another perspective holds that the Soviet declaration of war was the decisive factor. The Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8 – two days after the bombing of Hiroshima – and launched an invasion of Manchuria on August 9.

On June 22, 1945, Japanese leaders convened a conference in which Emperor Shōwa urged peace negotiations through Soviet mediation. This was despite the fact that, back in April, the Soviet Union had formally notified Japan of its intention to terminate the Neutrality Pact. Yet Japan continued to pin its hopes on Soviet goodwill, reasoning that the pact remained legally valid until April 1946. The Soviets, for their part, offered no clear response, leaving Japan to wait in vain for a gesture that was never likely to come.

Japan had come to recognize that it could not defeat the United States and the United Kingdom on its own. The Imperial Japanese Army’s plan for a decisive mainland battle would be rendered impossible if the Soviets joined the conflict. Thus, Japan placed its hopes on Soviet mediation, aiming to secure favorable terms for peace – most importantly, the preservation of the Emperor’s position.

Yasuaki Chijiwa, Director of the Department of International Conflict History at the National Institute for Defense Studies, notes that Japanese leaders continued to await a response from the Soviets even after the bombing of Hiroshima. It took two days to assess the devastation in Hiroshima, but once the Soviets entered the war, Japan acted swiftly. Just six hours after the Soviet invasion began, Japanese leaders convened to discuss surrender terms.

Emperor Shōwa stated, “Now that we are at war with the Soviets, it is imperative to bring the conflict to a swift conclusion.” Foreign Minister Shigenori Tōgō echoed this urgency: “We must end the war immediately.” Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki declared, “I have decided to accept the Potsdam Declaration in order to end the war.”

Although the Army continued to insist that a mainland battle could inflict significant damage on the enemy and strengthen Japan’s negotiating position, Emperor Shōwa expressed growing distrust toward the military. He had been informed as early as June 1945 that Japan’s forces lacked the capacity to sustain such a campaign, and this realization is believed to have shifted his stance toward seeking an early peace. He resolved to accept the Potsdam Declaration, provided that the Emperor’s position would be maintained.

The Byrnes Note – a diplomatic reply issued by U.S. Secretary of State James Byrnes on August 11 – did not explicitly guarantee the continuation of the Japanese monarchy. Nevertheless, despite resistance from factions within the military, Emperor Shōwa accepted the terms of the declaration on August 14.

In summary, the two atomic bombs were not the sole or decisive factor in Japan’s decision to surrender. Japanese leaders referred to so-called “new-type bombs,” yet they struggled to comprehend the full extent of their impact in such a short time. Moreover, by that point, roughly 60 Japanese cities had already suffered catastrophic damage from large-scale incendiary bombing campaigns targeting urban populations.

A 1946 report by the United States Strategic Bombing Survey – commissioned by the U.S. military to assess the impact of aerial bombardment during World War II – concluded:

“Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

Keep reading

Trump to reinterpret 1987 missile treaty to sell heavy attack drones abroad

U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to unilaterally reinterpret a 38-year-old arms control treaty to sell sophisticated “Reaper” style and other advanced military drones abroad, according to a U.S. official and four people familiar with the plan.

The new interpretation would unlock the sale of more than 100 MQ-9 drones to Saudi Arabia, which the kingdom requested in the spring of this year and could be part of a US$142 billion arms deal announced in May. U.S. allies in the Pacific and Europe have also expressed interest.

By designating drones as aircraft like the F-16 rather than missile systems, the United States will sidestep the 35-nation Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) agreement it signed in 1987, propelling drone sales to countries like UAE and in Eastern European nations that have struggled to get their hands on America’s best unmanned aerial vehicles.

The new policy will allow General Atomics, Kratos, and Anduril, which manufacture large drones, to have their products treated as “Foreign Military Sales” by the State Department, allowing them to be easily sold internationally, according to a U.S. official speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity.

This effort is the first part of a planned “major” review of the U.S. Foreign Military Sales program, the official said.

A U.S. Department of State spokesperson declined to comment.

Under the current interpretation of the MTCR, the sale of many military drones is subject to a “strong presumption of denial” unless a compelling security reason is given and the buyer agrees to use the weapons in strict accordance with international law.

The MTCR was originally meant to curb the sale of long-range missiles that can deliver weapons of mass destruction. Though drones were invented many years later they were considered within the scope of the MTCR due to their ability to fly long distances and carry weapons.

U.S. drone manufacturers are facing stiff competition overseas, especially from Israeli, Chinese and Turkish rivals who often sell under lighter restrictions.

Keep reading

Company Owned by Ilhan Omar’s Multimillionaire Husband Owes IRS Over $200,000 in Unpaid Taxes

A company owned by Tim Mynett, the multimillionaire husband of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.), failed to pay its fair share of taxes in 2021, according to a tax lien obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Mynett’s company, EStreetCo, accumulated nearly $206,000 in unpaid income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes in 2021, the IRS charged in a tax lien filed against the company in Sonoma County, Calif., in January 2023. Omar, who introduced legislation in February to “make corporations pay their fair share,” was married to Mynett when the IRS says the company failed to pay its taxes.

In her 2021 financial disclosure, the Minnesota Democrat described EStreetCo as a “creative agency” and said Mynett’s share of the company was worth no more than $1,000.

EStreetCo provided advertising, design, and public relations services, and boasted a staff of at least 17 people, according to an archived version of its website. Mynett’s business partner, former DNC adviser Will Hailer, formed EStreetCo in October 2020, and business records show the pair owned the firm until its dissolution in June 2022, about seven months before the IRS filed the lien.

Keep reading

Blockbuster sea level study may turn climate change orthodoxy on its head

Global sea levels have not continued to rise at the rates predicted by many scientists — and there is no evidence that climate change has contributed to any such acceleration, a new first-of-its-kind study has claimed.

The research found that the average sea level rise in 2020 was only around 1.5mm per year, or 6 inches per century, according to the paper’s authors, Dutch engineering consultant Hessel Voortman and independent researcher Rob de Vos.

“This is significantly lower than the 3 to 4 mm/year often reported by climate scientists in scientific literature and the media,” Voortman told independent journalist Michael Shellenberger.

Voortman was shocked that no researcher before had performed an analysis of real-world local data.

“It is crazy that it had not been done. I started doing this research in 2021 by doing the literature review. ‘Who has done the comparison of the projections with the observations?’ And there were none,” he told Shellenberger.

Keep reading

RFK Jr. Says CDC Ordered Scientist to DESTROY Autism Data Linking Measles Vaccine to Black Children in 2002

During a stunning Senate hearing, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. revealed that in the early 2000s, a senior CDC scientist was ordered to destroy data from an internal study that showed a staggering link between the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine and autism risk in young Black boys.

In 2004, a CDC-backed case-control study in Atlanta compared 624 children with autism to 1,824 without, assessing whether timing of MMR vaccination (before vs. after 18 or 24 months) was linked to autism risk. It found no significant association.

While the 2004 study did not find a causal link, a later re-analysis of the same data received significant attention.

A 2014 study published in Translational Neurodegeneration re-examined the CDC’s dataset and claimed to find an increased autism risk among African American boys who received the MMR vaccine before 36 months of age.

According to the 2014 study, “The present study provides new epidemiologic evidence showing that African American males receiving the MMR vaccine prior to 24 months of age or 36 months of age are more likely to receive an autism diagnosis.”

According to RFK Jr., the findings were explosive:

“The data from that study showed that black boys who got the vaccine on time had a 260% greater chance of getting an autism diagnosis than children who waited,” Kennedy testified.

“The chief scientist on that, Dr. William Thompson, the Senior Vaccine Safety Scientist at CDC, was ordered to come into a room with four other co-authors by his boss, Frank DeStefano, who’s the head of the safety press, and ordered to destroy that data. Then they published it without that fact.”

Keep reading

Trump and Biden Tried To Break Up Google. Now, They’ve Both Failed.

The federal government’s five-year-long antitrust case against Google has ended. Instead of forcing the tech giant to divest from Chrome, a federal judge on Tuesday opted “to allow market forces to do the work.”

The suit was first brought against Google in October 2020 by President Donald Trump’s Justice Department (DOJ) and 11 states, who complained that the company had violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by monopolizing the general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising markets in the United States. Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia—the same judge who issued Tuesday’s decision—ruled in favor of then-President Joseph Biden’s DOJ in August 2024.

In November 2024, the Justice Department proposed wide-reaching actions that the federal government said were necessary to address Google’s monopolization of the search market: divestiture from Chrome; conditional divestiture from Android; termination of its paid partnerships with Apple and Android; forced sharing of its search, user, and advertisement data with competitors; and prohibition on “query-based AI product” investments. In March, the Justice Department submitted its revised proposal, which largely maintained these remedies but eliminated the AI-investment prohibition.

On Tuesday, Mehta rejected the proposed Chrome divestiture, saying it “cannot reasonably be described as a remedy ‘tailored to fit the wrong'” and characterized the contingent Android divestiture as suffering “from similar legal infirmities.” Mehta declined to forbid Google from paying distributors like Apple for default placement of its search engine on its iPhones in light of the “GenAI products that pose a threat to the primacy of traditional internet.” Doing so would disadvantage “Google in this highly competitive space.”

Geoffrey Manne, president of the International Center for Law and Economics, says that Mehta’s refusal to enjoin Google from making payments for search access is “entirely borne out of adherence to a consumer-welfare-focused antitrust and rejection of the ‘big is bad’ vision underlying the [Justice Department’s] proposed remedies.” Likewise, Mehta’s rejection of the choice screen remedy, which would’ve required users to choose their device’s default search engine on first use and again every year thereafter, “recognized that judicial micromanagement of product design would not be beneficial for innovation or consumer welfare in the long run,” says Manne.

Mehta did prohibit Google from maintaining exclusive distribution agreements that condition access to the “Play Store or any other Google application on the distribution, preloading, or placement of Google Search.” He also sided with the plaintiffs on some search-index data-sharing provisions but opted for a narrow definition of search index, which excludes user-side data and only includes information about websites. Qualified competitors will only receive a one-time snapshot of this search index data, not the ongoing, periodic disclosure proposed by plaintiffs.

Keep reading