Tag: corruption

Mortgage Fraud Alert: Did Letitia James Marry Her Father?

My recent revelations in The Gateway Pundit demonstrated that New York Attorney General Letitia James obtained a federal government HAMP loan in 2011 to refinance her apartment building based on false unit information and a highly questionable hardship claim.

In her loan documents, James claimed her multi-family apartment building at Lafayette Avenue in Brooklyn had only four units, even though the official Certificate of Occupancy indicates five apartments.

This may seem a minor point, but James’s false claim helped her obtain a 2.7% government-backed HAMP loan unavailable to landlords with more than four apartments in a given building. James also claimed financial hardship to qualify for the loan, despite an income of over $126,390 in 2011.

There seems to be a pattern of possible mortgage fraud in regard to Letitia James. New questions have now arisen about a home Letitia James purchased with her father, Robert James.

In the Spring of 1983, Letitia James was 24 and living in Brooklyn with her parents. She had graduated from CUNY’s Lehman College in 1981. She would not begin law school at Howard University in Washington, DC, until the fall of 1984.

According to New York City Department of Finance records, on May 20, 1983, Letitia James and her father, Robert James, took out a real estate loan from Kadilac Funding Ltd. for $30,300 as “husband and wife.” For the record, Letitia James’ mother is Nellie James.

Keep reading

Anti-Trump FBI Agent Caught Red-Handed with Classified Docs, Trying To Flee

In a stunning turn of events, Johnathan Buma, an anti-Trump FBI agent, was arrested on charges of disclosing classified information. Buma, a 15-year veteran of the bureau, was apprehended just as he was about to board an international flight on Monday, according to ABC News. The arrest underscores the deep-seated political bias within certain factions of the FBI, a bias that has been a recurring theme since President Donald Trump’s first administration. Buma’s actions reveal not only a breach of trust but also a troubling pattern of anti-Trump sentiment within the bureau, which has often been downplayed or ignored by the liberal media.

Court documents reveal that Buma printed approximately 130 files from the FBI’s internal network, many of which were marked as confidential. He also shared a draft of a book he was writing about his career in the FBI, which contained sensitive information about the bureau’s investigations into a foreign country’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program. This reckless behavior raises serious questions about the integrity of individuals within the FBI who have been vocal critics of President Trump. Buma’s arrest is a stark reminder of the dangers posed by those who prioritize their political agendas over national security.

Buma’s history of anti-Trump sentiment is well-documented. Last year, he told Business Insider that political bias during Trump’s first administration pushed him to become a “whistleblower.” He claimed that the FBI ignored his leads linking Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to Russian intelligence. “Rudy Giuliani may have been compromised by individuals suspected of being involved in Russian counterintelligence influence operations,” Buma said. “I saw important intelligence information being suppressed.” These allegations, which were never substantiated, were eagerly picked up by the liberal media, which has consistently sought to undermine President Trump and his administration.

Buma also dismissed the Hunter Biden-Burisma scandal and the infamous laptop from hell as part of a disinformation campaign. This narrative, pushed by Buma and echoed by the liberal media, has been thoroughly debunked. The laptop, which contained damning evidence of corruption involving Hunter Biden and his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, was authentic. Yet, the liberal media chose to ignore this, instead promoting the false narrative that it was Russian disinformation. Buma’s arrest exposes the lengths to which some within the FBI and the media have gone to protect the Biden family and discredit President Trump.

The arrest of Johnathan Buma is a victory for those who have long argued that the FBI has been weaponized against President Trump. It also highlights the hypocrisy of the liberal media, which has consistently turned a blind eye to the misconduct of anti-Trump figures while relentlessly attacking the president and his allies. The media’s refusal to hold individuals like Buma accountable for their actions is a clear indication of their bias.

Keep reading

Gangsters, Terrorists, And Deep State Judicial Tyranny

The primary purpose of the federal judiciary is to make sure that anything the federal government does is almost never, ever, ruled to be unconstitutional. This is Hamilton’s constitutional regime. A believer in unlimited government, Alexander Hamilton’s constitutional belief was that the constitution can and should be used as a rubber stamp on unlimited government — as long as the government is run by “well behaved” politicians like himself, he insisted. His political nemesis, Thomas Jefferson, took the opposite view that the government needed to be “bound by the chains of the Constitution.”

Andrew Napolitano pointed out in his book, The Constitution in Exile, that the federal government’s “supreme” court did not rule a single federal law to be unconstitutional from 1935 to 1997. The eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Jeffersonians warned that if the day ever arrived that the federal government, through its judiciary, would be the sole arbiter of constitutionality Americans would then live under a tyranny. That judicial tyranny was cemented into place in April of 1865 with the destruction of the rights of nullification and secession and the evisceration of the Tenth Amendment – the real purposes of the “Civil War.” 

The latest example of our bullying and tyrannical federal judiciary is Chief Justice John Roberts’ nasty rebuke of President Trump’s recommendation of impeaching a federal judge who issued one of those Stalinist-sounding federal judicial “decrees” saying that the president has no authority to deport illegal aliens who have committed such felonies as rape and murder, as he did with over 200 members of a notorious El Salvadoran criminal gang. 

Americans – and American presidents – were not always bullied by black-robed totalitarians. They once understood that there are three branches of the federal government, not just the judicial branch, and that federal judges are not black-robed deities. President Andrew Jackson, who President Trump apparently reveres, is a good example of such a president. After Chief Justice John Marshall “ruled” in 1819 (McCulloch v. Maryland) that the Second Bank of the United States (BUS), a precursor of the Fed, was constitutional despite not being one of the delegate powers in Article 1, Section 8, and despite its being voted down during the constitutional convention, Jackson voiced his disagreement by vetoing the recharter of the BUS in 1832. 

Keep reading

White House Promotes 2 IRS Whistleblowers Who Exposed Tax Agency’s Favoritism For Hunter Biden

Two IRS agents who risked their careers by blowing the whistle on the tax agency’s treatment of former President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, are being promoted to top jobs in the Treasury Department, according to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

Supervisory Special Agent Gary Shapley is being promoted to deputy chief of IRS Criminal Investigations, while Special Agent Joseph Ziegler is promoted to senior adviser for IRS reform. Both men will work from the office of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

“Gary Shapley and Joe Ziegler put their entire careers on the line to stand up for the truth, and instead of being thanked, the Biden administration treated them like skunks at a picnic,” Grassley said in a statement announcing the promotions.

“Far too many whistleblowers share a similar experience of retaliation. I hope today is the first of many redemption stories for whistleblowers who’ve been mistreated.”

Grassley’s announcement comes during Sunshine Week, a period during which many members of the news media celebrate the birthday of Bill of Rights author and former President James Madison, the passage of the federal Freedom of Information Act in 1966, and the Whistleblower Protection Act in 1989.

In a statement released by Empower Oversight, the nonprofit government watchdog that defended Shapley, the two whistleblowers thanked Grassley and Bessent for coming to their aid following their public disclosures of information about IRS leniency for Hunter Biden during a tax-evasion investigation.

“We are enormously grateful to Secretary Bessent and Senator Grassley and all of the members of Congress for their leadership. We have been motivated by one singular mantra: Do what’s right,” Shapley and Ziegler said.

“It’s never been easy, and there have been more pitfalls than one would hope, but we appreciate the opportunity Secretary Bessent is giving us to utilize our skills and firsthand knowledge of the agency to further the work of the administration to root out waste and fraud from the federal government and make a difference.”

After coming across evidence that he and Shapley would later disclose to Congress, Ziegler opened an official criminal tax investigation. He believed the evidence pointed to tax evasion and possible links to prostitution rings. When he requested documents and interviews, he encountered increasing resistance from IRS higher-ups and the Department of Justice.

After Shapley became Ziegler’s supervisor in the IRS, they reported that the case was being slow-walked, especially by avoiding charging decisions in jurisdictions overseen by Biden administration DOJ appointees. In several cases, they determined that Hunter Biden’s name had been removed from search warrants.

As the evidence of tax evasion and related offenses connected to Hunter Biden grew without any prosecutorial actions, the whistleblowers turned their evidence over to Congress, including Grassley’s judiciary panel and the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). The two whistleblowers also appealed to the Inspector General for Tax Administration and the Department of Justice inspector general.

Things then went rapidly downhill for both men.

Keep reading

Blue Privilege: Courts Give Police The Right To Lie And Slander

To serve and protect, police are allowed to slander and destroy. Cops in many states and localities have acquired the right to lie about their shootings, searches, and practically anything else. Police have routinely planted drugs, guns, and other evidence to incriminate innocent people, while police labs have engaged in wholesale fraud blighting tens of thousands of lives.

From a trickle to a torrent

Supreme Court rulings turned a trickle of police perjury into a torrent. In 1967, the Supreme Court, in the case of McCray v. Illinois, gave policemen the right to keep secret the name of their “reliable informant” they used to get search warrants or target people for arrest. Law professor Irving Younger observed at the time: “The McCray case almost guarantees wholesale police perjury. When his conduct is challenged as constituting an unreasonable search and seizure … every policeman will have a genie-like informer to legalize his master’s arrests.” The Supreme Court created a judicial playing field on which police were the only witnesses who can safely lie.

In 1983, the Supreme Court ruled that government officials are immune from lawsuits even when their brazen lies in court testimony resulted in the conviction of innocent people. The court fretted that “the alternative of limiting the official’s immunity would disserve the broader public interest.” Honest government was not one of the “broader public interests” the court recognized that day.

In 1992, Myron Orfield, a Minnesota state representative and University of Minnesota law professor, conducted a confidential survey of Chicago judges, prosecutors, narcotics agents, and public defenders on Fourth Amendment issues. One Chicago prosecuting attorney observed that “in fifty percent of small drug cases [police] don’t accurately state what happens.” Twenty-two percent of Chicago judges surveyed reported that they believed that police are lying in court more than half of the time they testify in relation to Fourth Amendment issues; 92 percent of the judges said they believed that police lie at least “some of the time.” Thirty-eight percent of the Chicago judges said they believed that police superiors encourage policemen to lie in court. One judge did not even know how perjury was defined under the Illinois Criminal Code. After Orfield read him the technical definition, the judge replied: “Then there is sure a hell of a lot of perjury going on in this courtroom.”

In 1994, the Mollen Commission reported that “the practice of [NYPD] police falsification in connection with such arrests is so common in certain precincts that it has spawned its own word: ‘testilying.’” Federal appeals court chief judge Alex Kozinski observed in 1995: “It is an open secret long shared by prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges that perjury is widespread among law enforcement officers.” Former San Jose, California, police chief Joseph McNamara observed that “hundreds of thousands of law-enforcement officers commit felony perjury every year testifying about drug arrests.”

Keep reading

Trump Is Right To Push Back Against Judicial Supremacy

Did President Trump ignore an order from U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C., to halt the deportation of hundreds of alleged terrorists and gang members this weekend? No.

Would it have been constitutional if he had? Yes.

For too long, we have accepted without question the fallacious notion that the federal judiciary has the exclusive power of constitutional interpretation, and that the states and the other branches of the federal government are bound to accept whatever the courts decide. This myth of “judicial supremacy” has thrown the constitutional system devised by our Founders out of balance, and it needs to be rejected.

The current case, which concerns whether a federal judge can prevent the removal of foreigners whom the Executive Branch has determined are part of a terrorist organization, is the perfect opportunity to reassert the Founders’ view of the power of constitutional interpretation — a view that was shared, and acted upon, by presidents Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln. It now seems the Trump administration is reviving this long-lost view, and it’s about time.

Here’s what happened. Over the weekend, the Department of Homeland Security deported scores of alleged members of the violent Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which the Trump administration designated a terrorist organization in January. On Saturday, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) and declared an “invasion” by members of Tren de Aragua, ordering their immediate removal in accordance with the AEA. They were arrested, along with other alleged gang members in the country illegally, and flown to El Salvador, where El Salvador President Nayib Bukele has agreed to imprison them on behalf of the United States.

Judge Boasberg, a virulently anti-Trump judge with a long history of questionable judicial activism, acting on a request from the ACLU and the Marc Elias-led lawfare firm Democracy Forward, issued a temporary restraining order in hopes of stopping the deportations. There was no hearing, just a blunt command from Boasberg to halt these deportations for two weeks and prepare for a hearing — as if Executive Branch policy, even on sensitive matters of national security, can simply be dictated by an inferior court judge.

Unfortunately for Boasberg and the ACLU, two of the deportation flights had already taken off and were outside U.S. territory by the time the judge’s written order was issued on Saturday evening. (A third flight departed later that night but it carried foreign nationals that were deported on grounds other than Trump’s designation of Tren de Aragua as a terrorist organization, so Boasberg’s order was irrelevant.) 

Keep reading

The Israeli-American Trump mega-donor behind speech crackdowns

The Trump administration’s effort to deport a Columbia University graduate student, Mahmoud Khalil, in retaliation for Khalil’s role in campus protests opposing Israel’s war in Gaza, showed the lengths the White House is prepared to go to police speech about Israel.

The administration’s unprecedented decision to seek the deportation of a U.S. permanent resident without bringing any criminal charges has an overlooked ally, however: the largest financier of Trump’s three presidential campaigns, Israeli-American billionaire Miriam Adelson.

Adelson’s support for the administration’s campaign to stifle criticism of Israel on college campuses isn’t a new focus but her alignment with the levers of state powers to implement her vision are unprecedented. In fact, tax documents reveal that she is directly overseeing a social media campaign targeting Khalil and Columbia University.

In 2015, Adelson, alongside her husband Sheldon, who died in 2021, funded the newly formed Maccabee Task Force (MTF) with $2.28 million, according to IRS filings from the couple’s foundation. MTF claims to “combat the disturbing spread of Antisemitism on college campuses” but in practice spends much of its efforts attacking the boycott, divest and sanctions campaign against Israel, which MTF characterizes as “an Antisemitic movement that crosses the line from legitimate criticism of Israel into the dangerous demonization of Israel and its supporters.”

The Adelsons’ support for the group has ballooned since 2015, totalling nearly $70 million in funds flowing from the couple’s family foundation to MTF between 2016 and 2023.

At the same time, the couple served as the largest donors to Trump’s presidential campaigns and to the Republican Party, sending approximately $600 million in reported political contributions to support Trump’s three presidential campaigns as well as other Republican congressional and gubernatorial races since 2015.

Trump’s decision to target Khalil wades into murky waters. His attempt to deport a U.S. permanent resident for protesting Israel’s war in Gaza is polarizing and raises questions about why the president is so determined to protect the largest recipient of U.S. foreign assistance — a recipient of U.S. tax dollars proven exempt from Trump’s blitz against foreign aid — from criticism on college campuses. But one doesn’t have to look far to see he has an ally in this fight.

While Maccabee Task Force’s website makes no mention of Miriam Adelson, the group’s most recent IRS filing reveals she is far more than just its major funder. The Israeli-American billionaire is also MTF’s president. And under her leadership the group — with its sizable social media presence, particularly on Facebook where it has over 317,000 followers — came out swinging against Khalil and Columbia University with vitriolic and profane attacks.

Keep reading

California’s Gavin Newsom is quietly giving rich residents secret cell phones to call him whenever they want

Governor Gavin Newsom has sent major California business owners secret cell phones with his direct number programmed on them.

Approximately 100 leaders of state-headquartered companies received packages containing the phones and personal notes from the Democrat governor in recent months.

‘If you ever need anything, I’m a phone call away,’ said one note received by an unnamed tech CEO obtained by Politico.

Newsom’s office confirmed they sent out the phones, but did not specify who has received them.

‘This was the governor’s idea to connect more directly with business leaders in the state. The feedback has been positive, and it’s led to valuable interactions,’ Izzy Gardon, the governor’s communications director, told KCRA.

Gardon claimed the gift is meant to show Newsom’s support of the California business community, maintaining the state’s global economic dominance, creating jobs and expanding industries. 

The California State Protocol Foundation, a non-profit organization that has helped cover costs for the governor’s ceremonial events, paid for the phones.

The Golden State has been hemorrhaging its prized millionaires amid soaring living costs, unrelenting wildfires and a bitter political climate.

Keep reading

Big Development: Is Letitia James Guilty of Mortgage Fraud?

For over two decades, Letitia James repeatedly claimed her Brooklyn apartment building was a four-unit property on mortgage applications—despite official records proving it had five.

This may seem a minor discrepancy, but misrepresenting the unit count enabled her to secure more favorable loans, including a 2011 Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) loan that saved her tens of thousands of dollars annually.

Now, the same legal principles she used to prosecute others may be turning against her.

It all began in 2001 when Letitia James purchased a four-story multi-family apartment building with five apartments in Brooklyn for $550,000.

In 2005, James refinanced the building with an adjustable loan from Aegis that started at an interest rate of 7.2% with a ceiling of 10.2%.

For the next two decades, James took out refinancing mortgages and always listed the number of units as four.

Keep reading

Conservative Republican Rep. Harriet Hageman on Waste Uncovered by DOGE at Education Department: ‘Money Laundering at its Absolute Best’

Conservative Republican Rep. Harriet Hageman of Wyoming recently appeared on Winston Marshall’s podcast and talked about the waste, fraud and abuse that’s being uncovered by DOGE.

Using the Education Department as one example, Hageman pointed out that while the department gets billions in tax dollars, very little of that money actually goes towards educating students. Where does the rest of it go?

Hageman suggests that it goes to consultants and then gets funneled back to politicians. She comes right out and calls this a form of money-laundering.

From Real Clear Politics:

WINSTON MARSHALL: So, is the DOGE program targeted at these bureaucrats? And so, how — what can you expect?

REP. HARRIET HAGEMAN: Well, let’s look at the Department of Education. The Federal Department of Education spends — has a budget of about $280 billion a year. Less than 25% goes to educating our students.

So where does the other $220 billion go? It goes to a bureaucracy. It goes to a consultant, and that consultant then donates money back to the Democrats. And then it goes to a different consultant, and then it goes to an NGO, and then it goes to—I mean, it is money laundering and money churning at its absolute best. And you can look at almost every single agency, and you will find it.

So, the brilliance of DOGE isn’t that he’s going in and cutting spending—he doesn’t have the authority to do that. We’re the ones that have the authority to do that. What I want him to do is come up with a report, go through agency by agency by agency, identify every single program that we should not be funding, put a number attached to it.

Keep reading