Tag: democrats

Massachusetts Dems join Pelosi school of get-rich-quick schemes

A growing number of Democratic lawmakers – including several in Massachusetts – are following the Nancy Pelosi school of get-rich-quick schemes, a sure-fire way of seeing your family wealth skyrocket while serving in Congress.

Ayanna Pressley, Elizabeth Warren, Katherine Clark, Ilhan Omar have all become richer – some astonishingly so – after stepping in the cash-lined halls of the Capitol, whether it’s from their husband’s businesses, their stock portfolios or their book deals.

Far left “Squad” member Pressley’s rise from nearly zero to up to $8 million in net worth, fattened by her and her husband’s four rental properties in Mattapan, Boston, Fort Lauderdale and Martha’s Vineyard, is drawing increasing scrutiny, as she bristles at questions about her newly-acquired wealth. Pressley and hubby Conan Harris sold the half-million-dollar Florida pad for a $67,000 profit in 2024.

“I wish you people would stop reporting fake news,” a heated Pressley, surrounded by a team of security in black SUVs, said in Washington when confronted by a reporter recently. “You don’t know anything about me and my life. I was raised in a single-parent home. Every single thing my family and I have we have earned. And you are reporting fake news. Do your homework.”

Pressley, who makes $174,000 a year and like Warren has railed against tax breaks for the wealthy, also told Fox News “there’s nothing to see here” about her financial rise.

“Sir, I submit a financial disclosure, just like everybody else,” she said.

Squad member Omar and her husband, Tim Mynett, who owns several businesses, had almost nothing when she was first elected, but her net worth reportedly exploded in just a few years to $25 million.

The Republican-led House Oversight Committee is now investigating Omar’s mysterious rise to wealth, which comes amid a federal social services fraud probe in her home district in Minnesota.

“We’re going to get answers, whether it’s through the Ethics Committee or the Oversight Committee, one of the two, “ Oversight chair James Comer (R-Ky.) told the New York Post. “There are a lot of questions as to how her husband accumulated so much wealth over the past two years. It’s not possible. It’s not. I’m a money guy, it’s not possible.”

Warren’s net worth has risen to a reported $10 million from book deals and her Senate salary. Known for her rants against billionaires and standing up for the little guy, she holds mutual funds worth an estimated $1.76 million. The Cambridge Democrat and her husband, Bruce Mann, reported earning more than $912,000 in 2024, according to their tax forms.

Clark and her husband, Rodney Dowell, are worth more than $14 million, making a cool $458,000 in the stock market last year before stopping trading, according to reports.

She was estimated to be worth $6.8 million in 2018, before her rise to Democratic House Whip, which is second in command to the House Minority Leader.

The STOCK Act, signed into law by Barack Obama in April 2012, prohibits members of Congress from using private information given to them because of their positions for personal gain, such as stock trades.

Former House Speaker Pelosi, 85, and her husband Paul have an estimated net worth of more than $278 million, making her one of the richest members of Congress. Her investment moves in the stock market while serving in Congress have added millions to her net worth.

Keep reading

213 Democrats Vote Against Requiring Voter ID And Proof Of Citizenship To Vote

Nearly every single Democrat voted against legislation that would require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote and photo ID for voting in federal elections.

The House passed the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act 218-213. Just Democrat Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas voted to pass the legislation alongside his Republican colleagues. A similar version, known as the SAVE Act, passed the House last year with the support of four Democrats.

The legislation now heads to the Senate, though it would need 60 votes to reach cloture. Self-described “Republican” Lisa Murkowski has already stated she would oppose the election integrity legislation, while Democrat Chuck Schumer has suggested the legislation is “dead on arrival.”

But as The Federalist’s Matt Kittle reported, Republicans — who control the Senate — could invoke the “talking filibuster,” which would force Democrats to keep talking to stall a vote on the legislation. Legislators would have no opportunity for a break and, as Kittle points out, would have to “explain to the 80 percent of Americans (including a significant number of Democrats) who support citizenship and ID requirements, why they so vehemently oppose basic election integrity.”

Some Republicans, however, don’t want to force a vote on the popular legislation, as Kittle reported — but they should.

Keep reading

Democrat Rep. Nadler Has to be Woken Up by Staffer During Bondi Hearing – Not the First Time! 

Democrat Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY) had to be woken up by a staffer on Wednesday morning during a congressional hearing.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi testified at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Epstein files, fatal shootings of two anti-ICE agitators and more.

Nadler fell asleep just minutes into Wednesday’s hearing.

A staffer walked over to Nadler and woke him up.

Later on during the hearing, Nadler and Bondi got into a shouting match over Jeffrey Epstein’s co-conspirators.

“How many [co-conspirators] have you indicted?” Nadler asked Bondi.

“Excuse me! I’m going to answer!” Bondi said.

“Answer my question!” Nadler demanded.

“I’m gonna answer the question the way I want to answer the question. Your theatrics are ridiculous,” Bondi said.

“Chairman Jordan, I’m not gonna get into the gutter with these people,” Bondi said.

Bondi and Nadler continued to talk over each other until Chairman Jim Jordan intervened.

Keep reading

DC Grand Jury Declines to Indict ‘Seditious Six’ Democrat Lawmakers Who Urged Members of the Military to Defy Trump’s Orders

A federal grand jury in Washington DC declined to indict the seditious six Democrat lawmakers who called on members of military to defy President Trump’s orders.

In November, without offering any specifics, Senators Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ), along with Democrat Reps. Maggie Goodlander (NH), Jason Crow (CO), Chris Deluzio (PA), and Chrissy Houlahan (PA) repeatedly stated, “You can refuse illegal orders,” or “You must refuse illegal orders,” in a viral video.

CBS News and The New York Times reported that a grand jury declined to indict the ‘Seditious Six.’

CBS News reported:

A federal grand jury on Tuesday refused to indict six congressional Democrats who drew President Trump’s ire last year by taping a video telling members of the military that they must reject “illegal orders,” according to three sources familiar with the matter, including one within the Justice Department.

The Democratic lawmakers are the latest Trump foes that the Justice Department has sought criminal charges against, following former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. After the lawmakers’ video was posted in November, the president called their comments “seditious” and demanded that they be “arrested and put on trial.”

The news of the declined indictment was first reported by The New York Times.

CBS News has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.

Two sources who were briefed on the matter told CBS News the Justice Department sought to charge the lawmakers under a criminal statute known as 18 U.S.C. § 2387.

Democrat Rep. Jason Crown lashed out the Trump Administration after a grand jury declined to return an indictment.

Keep reading

Eric Swalwell’s Effort to Get ICE Director Todd Lyons to Resign During Hearing Backfires Spectacularly When Lyons Catches the Leftist Spreading a Vile Hoax

Rep. Eric “Fang Fang” Swalwell (D-China) was left humiliated today after trying to con the director of ICE into throwing in the towel when an inconvenient fact was pointed out to him.

As CBS News reported, the House Homeland Security Committee held a hearing focused on the activities of ICE in the wake of last month’s fatal shooting involving two leftist activists and the partial drawdown of immigration enforcement in Minneapolis.

ICE Director Todd Lyons and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Rodney Scott, and Joseph Edlow, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), all appeared at the hearing to testify.

When it was his turn to question Lyons, Swalwell had 5-year-old Liam Ramos in the background as a prop. As TGP readers know, Swalwell, his fellow Democrats, and the media amplified a wicked hoax story alleging that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “detained” the child during an arrest operation in Minnesota.

In reality, his illegal alien father abandoned him on the street as he fled immigration enforcement.

The father, Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias, had been ordered deported by a federal judge back to Ecuador, his country of origin.

The congressman started off the interrogation by complimenting Lyons’ career before rattling off a series of what he considered abuses by ICE and misconduct by Lyons’ bosses at DHS.

Swalwell then demanded to know whether Lyons would fall on his sword and quit ICE over the hoax. Not surprisingly, Lyons said no.

When Swalwell asked why, Lyons left the congressman red-faced after pointing out the facts of the Ramos case.

Keep reading

Jasmine Crockett Shows Just How Low Democrats Are Willing to Go to Attack Trump

Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett (TX-30) slammed President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers over the handling of the Epstein Files. But, as always, there’s a problem.

Crockett posted a video on Monday in which she addressed reporters about the matter. She referred to recent reports suggesting that Epstein’s accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, would refuse to give answers to Congress about Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking operation unless she received clemency. 

“Basically, Ghislaine was like, I’m not going to participate, but we’re not going to stop,” Crockett said. “There were those that thought we would stop when we were able to get the discharge petition done. There were those that thought we were going to stop when it didn’t seem like we had the votes once we finally got that done.”

The lawmaker said the Trump administration violated a law passed in December compelling the White House to release all of the files pertaining to Epstein and his possible collaborators. It released the last tranche of the files last week.

“Now that they have violated the law because this is actually in law, we are not stopping. So I want people to understand that House US Democrats, we are going to be on their as**s. That’s just the reality,” she said.

The reporter asked Crockett what her message would be to President Trump. “Same thing,” she answered. “We’re going to be on his a**. I mean, it is so… I don’t really know where we are in this country. Why are we even having this conversation? The United States has fallen apart right now, partially because he’s going out and randomly allowing for the killings of people in the middle of the street.”

Keep reading

North Carolina Democrat Sheriff Left Completely Humiliated After Repeatedly Botching a Simple U.S. Civics Question During Hearing

An elected official sworn to protect his county failed the most basic of civics questions in humiliating fashion on Monday.

As Axios reported, the North Carolina General Assembly interrogated Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry McFadden, a Democrat, on a wide range of issues, including immigration and the deaths that occurred in county jails under his watch.

His handling of immigration received the most scrutiny, with many lawmakers blasting him for his handling of the murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska last August. Blood is on McFadden’s hands because a career criminal who had no business on the streets to begin with committed the offense.

The hearing then took a rough turn for McFadden when North Carolina Republican State Rep. Allen Chesser decided to test his constitutional knowledge with a very basic question: What branch of government does McFadden operate under?

The correct answer, of course, is the executive branch, given a sheriff’s role in enforcing laws. But a clueless McFadden instead repeatedly gave the wrong answer, saying “Mecklenberg County” and “the U.S. Constitution.”

Chesser then asked McFadden how many branches of government exist (three). Unsurprisingly, the sheriff had no clue.

The Republican lawmaker went on to name the three branches (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial) to save time and asked McFadden again which branch he operated under.

Even with a multiple-choice version of the question, McFadden still got it wrong. He told Chesser his department fell under the judicial branch.

Then Chesser finally broke the truth to him.

Keep reading

New Mexico Dems Could Pass Broadest Gun Ban in U.S. This Week

For the past several years, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has been demanding the Democrat-controlled legislature deliver an “assault weapon” ban to her desk, and each and every session her fellow Democrats have declined to do so. In Grisham’s last year in office, though, Democrats are poised to deliver exactly what she wants; a bill that would take almost every semi-automatic long gun off the market in the Land of Enchantment.

New Mexico is in the middle of a 30-day session that’s supposed to be limited to budgetary issues only. Instead, Democrats are pushing a number of policy proposals, including SB 17, which would ban the sale and transfer of every gas-operated centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine (along with those guns that have fixed magazine capacity of more than ten rounds), detachable magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition, and .50 BMG rifles, along with imposing a host of new regulations and restrictions on federally licensed firearms retailers. 

On Saturday afternoon the state Senate approved SB 17 along mostly party lines and sent the constitutional abomination on to the House, where it could come up for a vote as early as this week. 

“We have data that shows a lot of the gun crime in New Mexico is coming from guns sold at our local dealers, and we want the state to be able to also regulate and ensure those sales at our gun dealers here are responsible, are not straw purchases, and are happening as they should,” said state Sen. Heather Berghmans.

She says it would require gun shops to have more security measures, more training, keep thorough reports of sales and inventory, and their employees must be 21 years or older.

Yes, most guns used in crimes were originally sold by an FFL. That doesn’t mean, however, that New Mexico gun stores are doing anything wrong. That figure accounts for guns that are stolen or given to criminals by family and friends, along with straw purchases (which also can and do take place without the willing involvement of FFLs). 

Imposting these new requirements on FFL’s isn’t about stopping criminals from getting ahold of guns. It’s about making the process of being a gun store owner more difficult to navigate, more expensive to conduct business, and more legally dangerous to help people exercise a fundamental civil right. 

Keep reading

Arizona AG suggests state’s self-defense laws allow residents to shoot masked ICE agents

Arizona Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes said during an interview that residents could fire upon ICE agents who are masked if they feel they are in danger due to the state’s laws on self-defense.

Mayes explained that Arizona has a “Stand Your Ground” law that allows people to use lethal force if they believe their life is in danger.

“It’s kind of a recipe for disaster because you have these masked federal officers with very little identification, sometimes no identification, wearing plain clothes and masks,” Mayes said during an interview with 12News.

She said that the “Stand Your Ground” law in Arizona allows residents to use lethal force if they feel like their life is in jeopardy.

“And we have a Stand Your Ground law that says that if you reasonably believe that your life is in danger and you’re in your house or your car or on your property, that you can defend yourself with lethal force,” Mayes said.

Keep reading

Senator John Fetterman Weighs in on the SAVE Act – “I Do Not Believe That it’s Unreasonable to Show ID Just to Vote”

Senator John Fetterman was on “Sunday Morning Futures” with host Maria Bartiromo to discuss the SAVE Act, which, if passed, would require voters to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections.

“Are you gonna vote to fund DHS?” Bartiromo asked.

“I’ve always been, you know, just secure our border, deport all the criminals,” Fetterman said.

“I hope it doesn’t shut down cause we could all agree to focus on those things, and that’s where I’m gonna be and where my vote is gonna be,” Fetterman said.

“That’s going to impact TSA, people’s travel, certainly under the Department of Homeland Security. It’s gonna impact FEMA,” Bartiromo commented.

“What I don’t understand, Senator, is why it is so difficult to get the SAVE Act into the portfolio and onto the floor. What’s wrong with having an ID to vote?” Bartiromo said.

“Chuck Schumer last week said if the SAVE Act even attempts to get to the Senate, it is dead on arrival. Why?” Bartiromo asked.

“I’m going to see a lot of TSA people, and they are not gonna get paid. Now I can’t have an answer for them other than it’s just basic politics right now. I think every American deserves to be paid for the work that they have done,” Fetterman said.

“I’ve been a Democrat that refused to shut our government down last year. I mean, that’s real lives, and they are not wealthy if they are TSA folks. They are allowing us to fly safe here in America,” Fetterman continued.

Senator Fetterman stated that showing ID is a reasonable standard to be able to vote in federal elections.

“As a Democrat, I do not believe that it’s unreasonable to show ID just to vote,” Fetterman continued.

“Less than a year ago in Wisconsin, you know, they added that to the Constitution by a 63 percent, you know, passing,” Fetterman said of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

“It’s not a radical idea for regular Americans to show your ID to vote, and it’s absolutely those things are not Jim Crow or anything,” Fetterman continued.

“I don’t ever want to vote to shut our government down again,” Fetterman said.

“You are very much where the people are,” Bartiromo commented.

Keep reading