Southern Poverty Law Center didn't just fund white supremacists

Jon Ossoff

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) is already in a precarious position when it comes to keeping his seat in the upcoming midterm elections. His relationship with the Southern Poverty Law Center might make things even worse.

Federal Election Commission filings revealed that the SPLC contributed over $700,000 to his campaign during the 2020 race, according to Fox News. Oddly enough, this places Ossoff in the same category as the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups whose leaders have received oodles of cash from the organization.

Ossoff and the SPLC have a longstanding relationship. The organization was so zealous in their advocacy for the guy that it even dedicated a page on its website to him.

The Justice Department brought an 11-count indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center in April, alleging that it secretly used donor money to pay informants inside potentially violent extremist organizations. The DOJ claims the organization concealed those payments and lied to financial institutions.

The organization faces charges of wire fraud, making false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering. Investigators claim the group opened bank accounts in the names of fictitious entities so it could pay the informants without anyone knowing where the money was really coming from. 

The SPLC then allegedly used the accounts to route more than $3 million in contributions to informants between 2014 and 2023 who occupied leadership roles in groups that the SPLC publicly labeled as dangerous hate groups.

Aside from all this, the SPLC is above board and doing a great job supporting Democrats.

Prosecutors allege that at least nine informants tied to the Ku Klux Klan, the National Alliance, the Aryan Nations, and other white supremacist groups were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars each. One informant allegedly received over $1 million over several years.

While the SPLC was paying these individuals, it told donors they were using their funds to dismantle these extremist organizations. Prosecutors said the organization defrauded donors by not telling them about the informant program.

This comes as polling continues to show Ossoff is fighting for his political life against his Republican challengers. 

An Emerson College Polling/Nexstar survey shows him narrowly defeating Rep. Buddy Carter 47 percent to 44 percent, Rep. Mike Collins 48 to 42 percent, and Derek Dooley 49 percent to 41 percent. He does not have enough of a lead to make victory certain over any candidate. These revelations will not exactly benefit Ossoff's bid to remain as senator.

Thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. Finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

BREAKING: Eric Swalwell outed by the FEC on possible campaign funds misuse

Eric Swalwell (D-CA) has been exposed for using Campaign Funds to pay his wife for babysitting their kids, ages 8, 7, and 4.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings and reporting on Eric "Gasman" Swalwell show that his use of campaign funds for childcare: reimbursed him for at least $200,000 (some reports cite over $244,000) for childcare expenses between 2019 and 2025.

This is the highest amount spent on childcare by any House member in that period, which may imply expenses that may have included kids designer clothes, silk diapers, a lot of dining out at high-end restaurants, multiple trips to Disney Land, and three Lamborghini kiddy cars. 

In recent gubernatorial campaign filings, the committee made three payments totaling $6,068 directly to his wife, Brittany Swalwell, labeled for "childcare." Uh-huh, sure. This is what campaign donors paid for and we're to believe Swalwell, and many other Capitol Hill dwellers, are as honest as the day is long?

The campaign has also made substantial payments to third-party babysitters/nannies (e.g., over $102,000 to one longtime nanny) and daycare providers, with some reimbursements going back to Swalwell himself.

Nannies are lining up everywhere in California for a job with Gasman.

FEC rules (established via advisory opinions, including one sought by Swalwell) allow campaign funds for childcare only when expenses are a "direct result of campaign activity,"  meaning they would not have been incurred otherwise (e.g., when the candidate travels for their own campaign and the spouse is unavailable). 

The FEC has explicitly barred using funds for childcare during travel for other candidates' campaigns or at the request of foreign governments.

Critics, including campaign finance experts, have called the scale of spending (including post-election payments and reimbursements to himself or family) a "slippery slope" or potentially personal use of donor money, noting that childcare is inherently a personal expense. Watchdogs have filed complaints over post-election babysitter payments (e.g., ~$17,000 in late 2022).

 
Swalwell and his wife have a combined household income averaging over $444,000 annually (2021–2024), placing them in the top 5% of D.C.-area households. He earns a congressional salary of ~$184,000, and his wife has earned $200,000–$250,000 in various roles, such as babysitting and taking in wash. [She works her fingers to the bone.]

Swalwell has defended the practice as a "pro-family" policy enabled by FEC precedents that apply to other candidates as well (e.g., some Democrats like the execrable Ilhan Omar (MN) have also used campaign funds for childcare). 

His campaign has stated the expenses tie to his schedule and that he is not a billionaire unlike some rivals.  These payments are disclosed in public FEC filings and have been the subject of multiple news reports and past complaints, though no final determination of illegality has been universally confirmed across all instances. The core controversy centers on whether all claimed "campaign-related" childcare truly qualifies under FEC standards versus routine family needs.

Thank you for following Brain Flushings. You can support my work by checking out the sponsors on this page. It really helps. You can even click on Buy Me A Coffee in the sidebar if you want to show your appreciation. It helps to keep me going, but really, there's  no pressure.

Tweet

'Squad' Star Ilhan Omar's Campaign Forks Over Cash to Anti-Israel Outfit Linked to 'Terrorist U'

Oh, Ilhan Omar. The gift that keeps on giving to conservative bloggers everywhere. Just when you think the Minnesota congresswoman –, you know, the one who once quipped that "some people did something" about 9/11, couldn't top her greatest hits of controversy, here she comes again, playing sugar mama to a group that's basically Hamas's D.C. hype squad.

According to fresh Federal Election Commission filings dug up by Fox News Digital (shoutout to CB Cotton for keeping tabs on these campus clown shows), Omar's reelection war chest, Ilhan for Congress, dropped $1,559.25 on "event tickets" back in September to the Palestine House of Freedom. That's the snappily named "Dar Alhurriya" in Arabic, a nonprofit squatting just a stone's throw from the Capitol Dome. Good grief, nothing says "bipartisan outreach" like bankrolling outfits dedicated to Israel's demise from your campaign slush fund.

Their website is a real charmer. 

The group bills itself as "dedicated to the liberation of Palestine" and "the dismantling of apartheid in Palestine and the establishment of a free, democratic state from the river to the sea." (Yeah, that oldie-but-goodie slogan that somehow always skips the part about Israel's right to exist.) They hammer home that Israel is "operating as an apartheid state." Their big mission is to "embark on an aggressive educational campaign targeting everyone from lawmakers, staffers, the media, to the general public" to "show how dismantling apartheid and establishing a free democratic Palestine from the River to the Sea with equal rights, is the path to peace and will benefit all parties involved." 

Peace through... everyone you don't like dead? Got it.

But wait, there's more! This outfit made waves earlier this year by throwing a June gala fundraiser for none other than Birzeit University, the Palestinian school that's earned the oh-so-flattering nickname "Terrorist University" thanks to its student council being a Hamas love-in.

Proceeds from the shindig, cheekily titled "From Birzeit and Beyond: How academia shapes resistance and resilience," all funneled straight to Birzeit, per the event flyer. And Omar's crew all chipped in for tickets to... something. Details fuzzy, but hey, it's the thought that counts, right?

Birzeit's student elections? A Hamas sweepstakes since the '90s, with the terror group's Al-Wafaa bloc racking up wins in 2022 and 2023. Post-2023 triumph, none other than Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas's bigwig politico until the IDF turned him into a Tehran footnote last year, got all moist and couldn't contain his glee. Chatting with the Middle East Monitor, he gushed: "The second message is that the bloc has proven its ability to adapt to changes, overcome complexities, and fill the void created by arrests, martyrdom, or deportation." He tacked on that Hamas is "unbreakable" in its homeland and that it will confront the "occupier, oppression and terrorism." 

Not Haniyeh's first rodeo either.  In 2017, another Hamasshole mouthpiece sent congrats to the Birzeit kiddos for their electoral enthusiasm.

Campus vibes at Birzeit had parades with terrorist fans strutting in fake suicide vests and rocket props, courtesy of Memri TV footage. Charming stuff. No wonder Reps. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) and Tim Walberg (R-MI), the Education and Workforce Committee chair, fired off a scathing letter to Harvard on Sept. 29, blasting the Ivy League eggheads for dragging their feet on ditching their old Birzeit partnership. They nailed it: Birzeit is "an institution whose student body overwhelmingly supports Hamas" and a school that "explicitly endorses a U.S. designated terrorist organization." Harvard, in a rare flash of spine this spring, vowed not to renew the deal after an "internal review," per The Harvard Crimson. About time.

Look, Omar's no stranger to the hot seat. She was the first Muslima in Congress back in 2018. But she's also the queen of cringeworthy zingers, like claiming Israel "has hypnotized the world" or shrugging off 9/11 as "some people did something." Just last month, a House censure push over her digs at Charlie Kirk fizzled out. And now this? 

Campaign cash is flowing to a group cozying up to a Hamas petri dish because, you know, 'those Jews' and stuff.

The Squad's main anti-Semite keeps proving she's more interested in "resistance" rallies than, say, actual constituent service. If this is the path to "peace," count me out, I'll stick with the side that doesn't high-five terrorists. Your move, Ilhan.

If you like Brain Flushings and want to Buy Me a Coffee, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work. Obviously, there is no pressure but I certainly wouldn't stop you. 

Tweet

FEC Drops a $68K Hammer on Maxine Waters for Shady Campaign Cash Shenanigans

Progressive firebrand Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) just got her campaign’s knuckles rapped by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to the tune of $68,000 for playing fast and loose with campaign cash during her 2020 re-election romp. 

The FEC caught “Citizens for Waters” with their hands in the cookie jar, accusing them of “failing to accurately report receipts and disbursements” and “knowingly accepting excessive contributions” while tossing out “prohibited cash disbursements” like they were handing out candy at a gay pride parade.

Here’s the dirt: Waters’ campaign vacuumed up $19,000 in illegal contributions from seven big spenders between 2019 and 2020, blowing past the $2,800 individual donation limit like it was a speed bump. On top of that, they made four cash payouts, each over $100, totaling $7,000, that were straight-up against the rules. 

The FEC wasn’t having it, and now the campaign has to send its treasurer to what sounds like the world’s most boring detention: a “commission-sponsored training program for political committees.” Good luck staying awake through that one.

The campaign’s trying to play it cool, saying they’ve lawyered up and put “procedures” in place to keep their disbursements squeaky clean. Their attorney, Leilani Beaver, is out here calling the violations “errors” that were “not willful or purposeful.” Sure, Beav, sounds like someone just tripped over a calculator and accidentally broke federal law.

This ain’t Maxine’s first rodeo in the ethics hot seat. 

From January 2021 to December 2022, her campaign funneled over $1.2 million to her daughter for some sketchy “slate mailer operation” that’s about as common in modern elections as a flip phone. And back in 2010, the House Ethics Committee had her in their sights for allegedly pulling strings to help a bank tied to her husband. That case got tossed, but her chief of staff caught a formal slap on the wrist.

Maybe it's time for real justice and rule of law, as the kids like to say.

Hey guys, if you like my blog,  feel free to toss a virtual coffee my way on Buy Me a Coffee  It’s like a high-five with caffeine, and coffee keeps me focused, albeit somewhat hyper. No pressure, it's your call.

Tweet

AOC Caught Twirling Taxpayer Dollars Away on Dance Lessons: Ethics Complaint Claims

AOC: the woman every American male wants to date

In a shocking turn of events that has left the nation clutching its pearls, Rep. Alexandria Obviously-Commie (D-NY) has been slapped with an ethics complaint faster than you can say "cha-cha-cha." The government watchdog group Americans for Public Trust is demanding the House investigate whether AOC dipped into her taxpayer-funded Member Representational Allowance (MRA) to fund what they’re calling “troubling expenses”—namely, a $3,700 payment to a mysterious “Juan D. Gonzalez” and an $850 check to “Bombazo Dance Co. Inc.,” both listed as “training.”

According to the Congressional Research Service, the MRA is supposed to cover official duties, not personal salsa lessons or campaign cha-ching. But the “Squad” superstar allegedly waltzed right past those rules, prompting the nonprofit to cry foul in a letter to the Office of Congressional Ethics on Tuesday. “This is in contravention of federal law and the dignity of the House,” the filing huffed, probably while adjusting its monocle.

AOC, never one to miss a beat, twirled onto X to defend herself. “100% wrong,” she tweeted, dismissing claims she’s wasting taxpayer cash. “None of this is taxpayer money, this is an FEC filing. Be loud and wrong somewhere else, haters.” Unfortunately for her, the filing shot back with a mic drop: “Either she doesn’t know campaign funds from her MRA, or she’s just hoping we don’t notice she’s been tangoing with the truth.”

Caitlin Sutherland, head honcho at Americans for Public Trust, didn’t mince words in a statement to Fox News Digital: “In an era of tightening the government’s belt, AOC’s using taxpayer money for dance classes is a pirouette too far. The American people deserve lawmakers who don’t treat their tax dollars like a dance floor.”

If you would like to support my work, you can Buy Me A Coffee. Thank you.

This isn’t AOC’s first spin through the ethics wringer. In 2023, the Heritage Foundation accused her of “defaming” the Libs of TikTok creator, and she faced heat for allegedly accepting fancy Met Gala gifts in 2021—proving once again that when it comes to controversy, AOC’s got all the moves. Whether this latest complaint will have her tap-dancing out of Congress remains to be seen.

Tweet

Was MSNBC's Al Sharpton's NAN in compliance with election law

Now that we know that the Kamala Harris campaign paid both HARPO and NAN, owned by Oprah Winfree and the very right "Reverend" Al Sharpton, respectively, I wondered just how legal the payments were in terms of election law. 

In the Oprah [HARPO] case, a million dollars was paid for her endorsement, and in the National Action Network [NAN] case, the very incredibly Reverend Sharptongue did a powderpuff interview [see below if you have a strong stomach] to make Harris appear lucid and NAN received $500 thousand in two installments of $250 thousand.

Oprah said that she didn't take any payment for kissing up to Harris, but we all know her company did, so there's that.

On the other hand, the very incredible right, race baiter Reverend Al Sharptongue did a media interview with Harris and was able to pull off the idea to the public that Harris is a political genius with ideas that go beyond the burden of time. Is that really legal since his company received payment for it?

Well, I went to Grok and asked it this question: is it legal for a campaign to pay a member of the media who has their own company, money for an interview?

The answer Grok gave me was this:

In the United States, the legality of a political campaign paying a member of the media for an interview can be a nuanced issue due to several factors:

Disclosure Requirements: If a campaign pays for an interview, this payment must be disclosed. [My italics.] According to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), any public communication that is paid for by a campaign, political party, or political action committee (PAC) requires a disclaimer identifying who paid for it. This means the media member or their company would need to reveal that the interview was paid for by the campaign.

Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA): Contributions from corporations are prohibited, which could extend to payments for interviews if they're considered contributions rather than payments for services. However, if the media member's company is not incorporated or falls under a different legal structure like an LLC treated as a partnership, different rules might apply.

Personal Use of Campaign Funds:Campaign funds can be used for campaign-related expenses, but not for personal use. Paying for an interview might be seen as a campaign expense if it's clearly for the purpose of promoting the candidacy or discussing campaign issues.

Journalistic Ethics:Even if legal, accepting payment for interviews by journalists or media members can be ethically questionable. Many journalistic codes of ethics prohibit such payments to maintain impartiality and avoid conflicts of interest.

Independent Expenditures: If the media member's company is making an independent expenditure (not coordinated with the campaign), they could spend money on communications supporting or opposing candidates without violating contribution limits, as long as there's no coordination with the campaign.

Regulatory and Public Perception: While there might not be a direct legal prohibition against paying for an interview, the practice could attract scrutiny from regulatory bodies like the FEC or lead to public outcry if perceived as an attempt to buy media coverage or influence editorial content.

Conclusion: Legally, if the payment is disclosed and the media member's company complies with campaign finance laws (like not being a corporation that can't contribute directly to campaigns), it could be argued that it's permissible. However, this practice would be highly scrutinized for both legal compliance and ethical considerations. Campaigns often look for ways to engage with media, but direct payments for interviews might cross ethical lines for many in the journalism community, potentially affecting the credibility of both the journalist and the campaign.

So what do you think? 

It's incredible that the money NAN/Sharpton got from the Harris campaign was not disclosed and MSNBC needs to be held accountable. 

House GOP file resolution to expel lying George Santos from Congress

House Republicans from New York have made it official--they've filed a privileged resolution on Thursday to kick Rep. George Santos (R-NY) out of Congress.

The resolution was introduced by Rep. Anthony D’Esposito (R-NY) and co-sponsored by New York Republican Reps. Brandon Williams, Nick LaLota and Marc Molinaro. 

This drastic move came following a number of scandals involving Santos in which, for example, he allegedly lied to voters about his personal life and background, and was also indicted for several federal offenses in May and charge with additional crimes earlier this month. 

The guy even lied about his college education [or lack thereof].

"Today on the House floor, I introduced a privileged resolution to expel George Santos from Congress," D’Esposito said in a statement after introducing the resolution.

"While George Santos is entitled to his day in court to plead his innocence, the people of New York's 3rd Congressional District deserve a representative who is solely focused on serving the public and not spending the majority of their time combating 23 federal charges such as wire fraud, money laundering and theft of public funds," he continued. "We must remove this conman from Congress."

Amen.

The resolution was first announced on Oct. 11 — one day after the latest slate of federal charges against Santos were announced — but the action Thursday paves the way for the House to hold a floor vote on it within two legislative days.

In response to D’Esposito's action, Santos said he was entitled to due process, which is actually true.

"Three points of clarification: 1. I have not cleared out my office. 2. I’m not resigning. 3. I’m entitled to due process and not a predetermined outcome as some are seeking. God bless!" lying Santos tweeted.

"As alleged, Santos is charged with stealing people’s identities and making charges on his own donors’ credit cards without their authorization, lying to the FEC and, by extension, the public about the financial state of his campaign," U.S. Attorney Breon Peace said in a statement in May.

"Santos falsely inflated the campaign’s reported receipts with non-existent loans and contributions that were either fabricated or stolen. This Office will relentlessly pursue criminal charges against anyone who uses the electoral process as an opportunity to defraud the public and our government institutions."

So maybe he should not only be booted from Congress. Maybe he needs to get his toothbrush ready and packed for a stint in the clink. 

Tweet

George Santos charged with stealing donor IDs and racking up credit card charges

When his lips move, be careful

It's a shame that Rep. George "Fish-lips" Santos (R-NY) is a Republican. Due to the way the media reports on political issues, you can imagine how gleeful they are that this liar is not a Democrat--they have enough of their own.

The Long Island liar has been handed another batch of allegations last Tuesday, including that he stole the identities of campaign donors and racked up thousands upon thousands of dollars on their credit cards without authorization. Like many politicians on the Hill, it appears that Santos belongs in the slammer.

Santos now has ten additional counts not including accusations of embezzling money from his campaign and lying to Congress [although it seems like everybody does that].

“As alleged, Santos is charged with stealing people’s identities and making charges on his own donors’ credit cards without their authorization, lying to the FEC and, by extension, the public about the financial state of his campaign,” US Attorney Breon Peace said in a statement Tuesday.

“Santos falsely inflated the campaign’s reported receipts with non-existent loans and contributions that were either fabricated or stolen.”

Holy crap, Batman! This is serious.

Santos, 35, is alleged to have covertly used donors' credit cards and charged more than  $44,000 to his campaign over a period of months, the superseding indictment states.

In one instance, he charged $12,000 — the “vast majority” of which was funneled into his personal account.

George Santos has maintained his innocence because he doesn't think he'll do well in prison.

George Santos in drag

The new indictment brings the total counts Santos faces to 23, and comes after his former campaign treasurer Nancy Marks pleaded guilty last week to a fraud conspiracy charge for allegedly colluding with the congressman to cook the books, as reported by The New York Post.

Prosecutors also allege that Santos and Marks conspired to ensure that he qualified for a national party committee program that offered logistical support and financial resources to campaigns that raised at least $250,000 from donors in one quarter.

As part of the scheme, the not so dynamic duo allegedly falsely indicated in finance reports that at least 10 Santos family members had made considerable donations to the campaign, despite knowing they didn’t, according to prosecutors. 

Then they went on to allegedly claim that Santos loaned his campaign around $500,000 – despite him having less than $8,000 in his personal and business accounts, prosecutors claimed.

Remember, Marks, his former campaign treasurer pleaded guilty in federal court two weeks ago.

Santos, not very chivalrously, had previously tried to pin the blame for irregularities in his finances on Marks, claiming she “went rogue.” But it was pointed out by observers that when Santos made that claim, his lips were moving. He's so bad that he only makes headlines when he tells the truth and the public is still waiting.

Marks was a close confidant of Santos during his two bids for Congress and he was quick to throw her under the bus, if I may coin a new phrase.

So the new charges against Santos include one count of conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States, two counts of wire fraud, two counts of making materially false statements to the Federal Election Commission, two counts of aggravated identity theft, one count of access device fraud and two counts of falsifying records submitted to obstruct the FEC.

These latest counts are on top of the 13 counts he was slapped with earlier this year featuring seven counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, one count of theft of public funds and two counts of making materially false statements to the House of Representatives.Santos now faces a total of 23 counts.

Santos previously pleaded not guilty to the original 13 counts.

He is next slated to appear in Long Island federal court on Oct. 27. In spite of all this, Santos is plowing ahead for his reelection in 2024.

On Tuesday, his predecessor former Rep. Thomas Suozzi (D-NY) announced that he was filing paperwork to vie for Santos’ seat, which kind of seems like a dickhead move since he lost his bid to the liar. 

Tweet

Sen, Sherrod Brown pocketed thousands in donations from Pharma companies involved in the opioid epidemic

Ohio Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars from a trio of drug companies that were at the center of the opioid epidemic in the United States.

The Federal Exchange Commission (FEC) financial reports obtained by the New York Post, shows that Brown was paid over $200,000 from Political Action Committees (PACs) associated with Amerisource Bergen, Cardinal Health, and McKesson, since 2003. 

These Big Pharma companies paid out a $26,000,000,000 settlement to settle thousands of individual lawsuits from states and local governments, Ohio being one of the hardest hit by the epidemic, with over 5,000 drug overdose deaths in 2021, the nation's fifth highest according to the CDC’s National Vital Statistics System. 

According to FEC filings, Senator Brown took in a total of $144,500 in contributions to his campaign and leadership PAC, America Works PAC. He raised $85,000 from Cardinal Health, $56,500 from AmerisourceBergen, and $1,500 from McKesson. 

The most recent donation was a $2,500 donation from Cardinal Health on September 21 and lobbyists from the three aforementioned companies handed him over $54,000, as well as $5,600 from a McKesson lobbyist in 2021. These three companies comprise about 90 percent of the U.S.  supply chain for medical supplies and drugs, and have allegedly been involved in the proliferation of opioids.

There's more to the seediness but suffice it to say, Sherrod Brown is yet another politician getting rich like the millionaire congressmen and women who made their millions from the stock market and insider information.

Brown is running for a fourth term in the US Senate in 2024 in a state that's quickly going Republican, as witnessed by the win of J.D. Vance last year. It seems like people are finally wising up about how the woke left is decaying the global standing of the country.

Tweet

Rep. James Clyburn's campaign paid $86K in "management" fees to his grandson

South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn (D) gave his grandson over $86,000 in "campaign management" fees along with more than $50,000 in rent to a company his son-n-law ran during the 2022 midterm elections, federal election filings reveal.

Clyburn paid his grandson, Walter A. Clyburn Reed $7,000 a month starting in December 2021 up until the 2022 election, although one month netted the Reed a mere $3,500, Federal Election Commission data shows. 

Do the math: from October 2021 until November 2022, Reed received $86,500 in "campaign management" fees for his grandfather's campaign. Not bad if you can get it, eh?

Other federal filings show that Clyburn's campaign paid 49 Magnolia Blossoms LLC $57,500 in rent. Clyburn's son-in-law, Walter A. Reed, is the registered agent of the company, according to South Carolina business records reviewed by Fox News Digital.

Coincidence or nepotism? You make the call.

It is legal for federal politicians to use campaign money to pay family members, but ethics experts generally frown upon the practice, mostly because it's unethical.

Clyburn's campaign did not respond to media requests and told Brain Flushings 'tran-in-the-street' to go have sex with they-self. 

Tweet

Nadler might be under federal investigation for what he did

Jerry Nadler and his giant hearing aide buds

Rep. Jerold Nadler (D-NY) may have found himself in deep poo after likely violating basic ethics rules for United States representatives, a government watchdog group says.

The group, Americans for Public Trust [not a joke] told Fox News that it believes one of Big Jerry's senior staff members may be providing legal services for him, and that is in violation of House rules. The House Committee on Ethics website states, “[T]he outside employment restrictions define certain activities for which senior staff (as well as House Members and officers) may not receive any compensation whatsoever.” So if Nadler is paying the senior staff member, thus employing his services, he is in deep trouble for which the penalty would likely result in a clucking of tongues. 

“The restrictions prohibit senior staff from, among other things, (1) receiving compensation for practicing any profession that involves a fiduciary relationship, including, for example, law or accounting, and (2) serving for compensation as an officer or director of any entity.”

Robert Gottheim, district director, received payment from Nadler while he was a senior staffer from 2019 to 2021, and this could be a problem for Nadler, resulting in the wagging of fingers along with the aforementioned clucking of tongues.

According to Federal Elections Commission data, Gottheim was paid a total of $81,345.00 between 2019 and 2021 for what was categorized as “legal and political consulting.” See, words matter.

He's sticking to his diet, no matter what his doctor says

However, it sounds a lot like the term “fiduciary services,” for which Nadler is expressly prohibited from compensating Gottheim, according to House ethics rules.

A mouthpiece for Nadler's campaign denied even a hint of wrongdoing and said Gottheim “doesn’t practice law in any capacity, including the campaign.”

“He’s a campaign advisor, which doesn’t have any fiduciary responsibility. When the campaign files the quarterly reports the treasurer must choose a category to list his expenditures, so they chose ‘legal & strategic advising.’ He’s a strategic advisor, not a lawyer.”

So that may 'splain it, Lucy. But does it?

Gottheim is listed on the New York City West Side Democrat’s website as the organization’s treasurer, and his bio says he has been working as a Counsel for Nadler for Congress since 1997. It states that he has been  “handling all campaign finances & compliance issues with the FEC.” 

Again, this is fan-hitting information that is clearly prohibited for a senior staffer.

Nadler won't do well in a federal lockup. He's too soft; the guys would make mincemeat out of him--a lot of mincemeat.

APT executive director Caitlin Sutherland blasted Nadler for what she said was a violation of the law.

“Jerry Nadler brags about being the ‘conscience of the House,’ yet he can’t even ensure that his top staffer is in compliance with simple House ethics rules,” Sutherland said.

“It is absolutely against the law to be compensated for campaign work that involves fiduciary duties, and accordingly, we will look into filing a complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics.”

If the allegations against Nadler are true, and it seems likely they are, this would be extremely disturbing given his position. As the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the big guy is supposed to uphold justice and fairness for all, especially himself.But as a Democrat, this isn't so important. He has bigger fish to fry and maybe BBQ a side of beef with a health salad to negate the cholesterol.

But if Nadler is going down, he's going to take a lot of House Democrats with him come November.

* * *

Hey folks, consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and please check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against Communism, ignorance, The New York Times, and the heebie-jeebies. You also help me. Thanks.

* * *

Let's investigate Nadler and see just what he's been up to. Next we can do the other millionaires on the Hill.

We're coming for you, Nancy, Chuck and Alexandria Obviously-Communist.

Tweet

Poor Rashida Tlaib: victimized for possible ethics violation

It's hard to believe that "Squadette" Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) would find herself the victim of a House Ethics Committee investigation. She seems smart enough to know how to cover her tracks, but then again, perhaps she's just an innocent victim here, like Hamas is to the Israelis.

According to The Hill, the House Ethics Committee announced on Monday that it's extending a review of Tlaib over whether she accepted a salary from her 2018 campaign before taking office.

Now all three "Squad" anti-Semitic socialists are in ethics hearings.

This announcement was the first public acknowledgment that Tlaib is being investigated. But aside from Politico and Time, the story seems to interest mostly conservative outlets such as: The Hill, Daily Wire, Conservative Review, Red State, Washington Times, and the Blaze, to name a few. Yes, it was also covered by Detroit News but that may be an outlier.

House Ethics Committee Chairman Ted Deutch (D-FL) and the panel's ranking Republican, Rep. Kenny Marchant (Texas), said in a joint statement that the probe "does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred, or reflect any judgment on behalf of the committee."

The committee will announce its next course of action, such as potentially opening a formal investigation, by Nov. 14, just four days after Rabin Day  (Hebrew: יום רבין‎). This day is an Israeli national holiday celebrated annually on the twelfth of the Hebrew month of Cheshvan, to commemorate the life of Israeli leader and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. We know that Ms. Tlaib will not attend this year, but there is always hope. First she has to stop hating the Jewish state and the Jews who live there.

A spokesman for Tlaib said that the review involves allegations about her 2018 campaign salary but denied any wrongdoing, which would blow one's mind if they said otherwise.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) allows non-incumbent candidates to pay themselves a salary from their campaign committees if they meet a particular criteria. For example, the salary is designed to help first-time candidates who are not independently wealthy.

“As the Ethics Committee made clear, the fact that it received a referral does not mean any violation occurred,” Tlaib spokesman Denzel "Don't Call Me Washington" McCampbell said in a statement to The Hill. “Representative Tlaib has cooperated completely with the Committee to resolve the referral, which involves the same claims over her publicly disclosed salary during the campaign that conservative groups pressed back in March. Representative Tlaib fully complied with the law and acted in good faith at all times.” She simply hates Israel and loves socialism.

Conservative outlets in March highlighted FEC records showing that Tlaib's campaign paid out $17,500 in salary disbursements after the Nov. 6, 2018, general election. One payment of $2,000 was dated Nov. 16, while another of $15,000 was dated Dec. 1.

Under the FEC rules for allowing a candidate to receive a campaign salary state that the payments can be made until the date of the general election or until the candidate is no longer running.

In addition, the salary can't go beyond the minimum annual salary for the federal office sought [in her case it's $174,000] or the income she received the previous year.

An FEC spokesperson explained in March to The Washington Free Beacon that a candidate is permitted to pay themselves after the general election for an activity that happened up to that date.

Tlaib joins her fellow Squadette socialist, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) in an ethics investigation for also collecting a salary from her campaign before taking office. It should be noted that AOC failed to pay taxes on her failed business as required by NY State law, and has not repaid her student loan debt that she agreed to repay when she acquired it. 

Like Tlaib, Cortez also receives a salary of $174,000 annually, so it's unclear if she intends to repay the loan back to the lender who provided it. Socialists tend to think 'what's yours is mine . . . what's mine is also mine.'

Please consider following this blog and feel free to click on the ads on this page. It costs nothing, and may just save your life. Or not. But seriously, please check out the ads as this is my source of generating revenue. And you can also see my blog on the Times of Israel.





Tweet

Democrat paid his sister's law firm over half of his campaign expenditures

Democratic Rep. William Lacy Clay (MO) paid his sister's law firm over half of his campaign's expenditures during the first quarter as his Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings show.

Clay raised $145,340 throughout the first quarter of 2019 and disbursed $56,797 during this time. Clay's sister's firm was the biggest recipient of the campaign's cash.

Coincidence or crime? You make the call.

According to the FEC filings, $30,000 was paid out from the campaign's coffers to the Law Office of Michelle C. Clay LLC, a company owned by Clay's sister, Michelle, during the first three months of the year.

The firm's address is in Silver Spring, Md., and is just outside of Washington, D.C., but it turns out that it's not a law office but an actual residence.

Is it real or just a front?

The firm does not apparently have a website and practically no information is available online in relation to its operations. However, the Law Office of Michelle C. Clay LLC is incorporated in Maryland and is currently active. 

Shouldn't the Democrats demand full disclosure of the "firm's" IRS statements like they do with Trump?

The firm was disbursed three payments in the amount of $10,000 each, which were made in early and late January, with the third payment disbursed in late February. Clay's sister received the cash for what she claims is for fundraising, compliance, and community organizing, Obama style.

Believe it or not.

Clay paid his sister's firm for fundraising despite the committee receiving very little money from individual contributors because most voters think he isn't the man for the job.  An overwhelming majority of the cash came from donations from committees. Clay also paid out $9,000 to Frailoi & Associates, a D.C.-based campaign consulting group, for fundraising, the filings show.

Of the $145,340 in donations Clay received during the first quarter of the year, $116,350—or 80 percent—was sent from other committees while only $29,990 came from individual contributions in small, unmarked bills as he requested.

It is also unclear what community organizing the law office is receiving compensation for, as community organizing is typically not an activity performed by law offices. 

Perhaps like the Obamas, who both surrendered their law licenses in 2012, Michelle Clay had to do the same. Who knows?

Clay's campaign did not return a request for comment on what type of fundraising and community organizing work his sister's firm is performing on behalf of his campaign.

Outside of the money Clay's campaign disbursed to his sister's firm and Fraioli & Associates, the Democratic Rep. charged thousands on an American Express card for travel, spent thousands more for catering and "meals while working" at the National Democratic Club, and more than $1,000 on "Ford Credit" on an automobile, possibly a Mustang, but it isn't known.

This is not the first time his sister's law office has received money from Clay's campaign committee.

The Democratic congressman put his sister's firm on his campaign's payroll about a year after entering Congress in 2002. Since that time, the Law Office of Michelle C. Clay has been paid more than $950,000 from his campaign's funds.

It is believed he and his sister have a "very strange relationship."

Follow Brain Flushings and have a few laughs while you get a conservative viewpoint. Politics is the new NFL without the mindless kneeling and this blog will both inform you and will hopefully entertain you bigly.

Tweet

DNC fundraising in the commode with their words

Tom Perez: Famous for saying
the street word for 'feces'

The Democratic National Committee is out of ideas and their race card is being rejected, leading to yet another dismal fundraising month.

When your biggest fans are illegal immigrants, people on food stamps and public assistance, that's what happens. These are the takers, not the contributors.

On Friday, Brent Scher of The Washington Free Beacon reported:

The Democratic National Committee's already dire financial standing worsened during the month of August according to its Wednesday night filing to the FEC.

The DNC raised just $4.4 million last month, the second lowest August fundraising figure for the party in the past decade. The party had less cash on hand at the end of the month than it did at the beginning, as its spending outpaced its fundraising by $44,575.

And it gets worse. The DNC's debt substantially increased from $3.4 million to $4.1 million, a figure equal to about 60 percent of the committee's total cash on hand.

Maybe they should ask Mexico for the money.

Democratic Party officials predicted that fundraising figures would start to head north in August but these are spendthrift liberals who have no trouble spending other people's money and it has finally caught up to them.

DNC deputy chairman and covert anti-Semite Keith Ellison defended the previous month's crappy fundraising figures by looking into his crystal ball and saying there would be "some really good reports to share in the weeks to come."

He didn't say, nor is it clear, to what he's referring, but there's reason to believe that money may come from the Muslim Brotherhood where he appears to have important contacts.

On a bright note, the Republican National Committee raised $7.3 million in August and has $45.9 million in cash on hand while having no debts.

So who should the American public want controlling the economy?


Tweet

FEC's Ann Ravel is Trying to Gag Us

Democrats would love to control all of the media, including my blog. They love freedom of speech, just as long as they agree with what's being said. You see it on Fox News all the time: Jessie Watters asks whether Rush Limbaugh should be thrown off the air for his views and invariably leftists believe that he should.

A key Democrat and Vice Chair on the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), Ann M. Ravel (pronounced "Alinsky") called for new rules on Internet-based campaigns that would regulate political sites and news media like the Blaze and the Drudge Report. Currently, these sites are exempt from most FEC rules, but Ann would like more power over us to keep us in line. "A reexamination of the commission's approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long overdue," she complained.

Ann's power play attempt comes after a 3-3 deadlock vote on an anti-Obama campaign in Ohio featuring 2 YouTube videos that violated FEC rules when it didn't report its financing or offer a disclosure on the ads. 

But the ads were placed for free and not considered paid advertising. According to a 2006 FEC rule, free political videos and advocacy sites are not under FEC regulation because the FEC wanted to boost voter participation in the political arena. Only paid advertising are supposed to be regulated just like on TV.

If Little Awful Annie had her way, she would regulate all right-leaning groups that post anti-Democratic ads even if they're free. (Google IRS + scandals).

Fortunately, the FEC Chairman, Lee E. Goodman, is a good man and a Republican. He said that under the conditions Ravel argues for, then anyone with a political blog, uses a chat room or runs a politically active news site could be regulated, that is, censored, handcuffed, or gagged, however you want to depict it.


It's like the old saying goes: "When conservatives speak, liberals want to shut them up. When liberals speak, conservatives want them to keep talking."

People like Ann Ravel are dangerous to our First Amendment rights, which means they're dangerous to all of our rights. Look at any dictatorship and you will see a society that does not allow anyone to speak, write or in any way go against it.


Tweet