Democratic fundraisers plead the Fifth

Five employees of the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue invoked the Fifth Amendment when questioned by congressional investigators, refusing to answer any questions.

The witnesses were called to testify as part of an investigation into whether ActBlue misled Congress about its safeguards against foreign contributions. Those subpoenaed included former Vice President of Customer Service Alyssa Twomey, former General Counsel Darrin Hurwitz, former Director and Associate General Counsel Aaron Tug, Legal Counsel Zain Ahmad, and a senior workflow specialist involved in fraud prevention.

According to committee officials, the five employees invoked their Fifth Amendment rights 146 times, declining to answer questions ranging from “When did you work at the ActBlue” to “Did members of ActBlue’s legal and compliance teams leave ActBlue after the 2024 election because of the platform’s inability to prevent fraud during previous election cycles?”

Committee leaders said the refusal to testify “only amplifies” concerns about the platform’s internal controls.

A joint report obtained by conservative media outlet The Daily Wire from the House Administration, Judiciary, and Oversight and Government Reform Committees alleges a mass exodus of ActBlue legal and compliance staff after the 2024 presidential election. The report also says one ActBlue attorney “appears to have been retaliated against by ActBlue executives for blowing the whistle.”

Ahmad, described as one of the remaining attorneys at the organization, forwarded memoranda from outside counsel warning about weaknesses in ActBlue’s fraud detection and compliance practices, according to the report. Lawmakers argue the documents showed a failure to screen for foreign donations.

Ahmad reportedly went on leave after escalating the concerns to ActBlue’s board and senior leadership. Two days later, the organization’s director of compliance “either quit … or was fired” after more than a decade with the group.

The investigation is ongoing, with lawmakers examining whether ActBlue allowed foreign contributors into American elections and whether it misled Congress about its safeguards.A memo cited in the report warned that ActBlue could face allegations that it “accepted and/or facilitated the acceptance of foreign-national contributions,” and that any violations could be considered “knowing and willful,” potentially exposing the organization to increased penalties or a criminal investigation.

Under United States law, foreign citizens cannot donate directly to federal candidates or political action committees, and no one can lie to or obstruct evidence before Congress.

Nothing says "nothing to hide" quite like five ActBlue bigwigs pleading the Fifth a combined 146 times while Congress tries to figure out if the Democrats' favorite money-laundering machine has been letting foreign cash slosh into our elections. These are former vice presidents, general counsels, and senior compliance folks, the very people who were supposed to make sure ActBlue wasn't turning American democracy into an international PayPal for anyone with a suitcase full of unmarked bills.

When even the lawyers start clamming up and the compliance team does a mass vanishing act right after the 2024 election, you don't need a crystal ball to smell the panic. One attorney gets retaliated against for blowing the whistle, another gets shown the door after a decade on the job, and the remaining legal eagle is suddenly on leave after daring to point out that the fraud safeguards were about as sturdy as a wet paper bag.

The joint report from three House committees lays it out plainly: warnings ignored, foreign donation screens that apparently screened nothing, and a chilling memo spelling out the possibility of "knowing and willful" violations that could land the whole operation in serious legal crosshairs.

Democrats love to lecture the rest of us about "defending democracy," but when their premier fundraising platform gets hauled in front of Congress and responds with a collective "I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate me," the mask slips completely. 

If ActBlue has nothing to fear, why are all the adults in the room suddenly exercising their right to remain silent? The American people deserve straight answers, not a master class in stonewalling. This is the sound of a very expensive grift starting to unravel.

Thank you for following Brain Flushings. If you really want to help support my work here, you can Buy Me A Coffee or click on the ads alongside this page--it really helps. You can even subscribe to Brain Flushings--it's free.

Tweet

Comrade Mamdani: New York's Mayor-Elect, Ready to "Protect" the City from Those Pesky Babies

Oh, joy. Comrade Zohran Mamdani, the freshly minted Mayor-elect of New York City, has decided that his first order of business, after the confetti settles and the socialist chants fade, is to play exterminator with pro-life pregnancy centers. 

During the campaign, he "vowed to 'protect' New Yorkers from pro-life pregnancy centers which he accused of spreading 'false or deceptive information.'" 

This isn't some vague threat; it's aimed straight at CompassCare, the plucky outfit running the city's only three pro-life medical pregnancy centers. Mamdani's tough-guy routine is basically a remix of the lawsuit filed by New York's Attorney General, pro-abortion firebrand Letitia James, who, surprise, endorsed the democratic socialist's bid for the big chair. It's like watching a bad buddy-cop movie where the villains high-five over their shared love of red ink and ruined lives.

Folks are understandably twitchy: How is this self-proclaimed Islamic communist going to treat the already shell-shocked Christian pro-life clinics like CompassCare? These places are dodging lawsuits from New York State busybodies, city ordinances that read like Satan's to-do list, James' endless legal jihad, Big Tech's digital Iron Curtain, and the ever-present whiff of pro-abortion rage-fests egged on by Democrats in Che Guevara drag. It's a miracle they haven't started selling "I Survived Albany" T-shirts yet.

But let's cut the drama: What can these centers actually brace for under Mayor Mamdani? 

It boils down to which of his pet fundamentalisms clocks in on day one. The religious zealot version, or the commie-utopian fever dream? Spoiler: Either way, it's a body blow to America's Constitutional setup, that dusty old Judeo-Christian foundation where "don't murder the vulnerable inconvenient" was kind of a big deal.

Remember the Declaration of Independence? You know, the one where our founders, those dead white guys the left loves to cancel, said we're all endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights, starting with the right to, oh, not get vacuumed out of existence. Handing governments the keys to decide who's "human enough" for protection is how you end up with guillotines for the disabled, the sick, the old, the sad sacks, or anyone who forgot to like the right tweet. 

History's littered with dictators who started with "exceptions" and ended with mass graves. Pro tip: Don't be that society.

And don't forget the Bill of Rights, guys. 

First Amendment: Free speech and religion, so pro-lifers can holler about the unborn without Big Brother slapping a gag order. Fifth: No stripping life, liberty, or property without due process, sorry, Planned Parenthood, that "clump of cells" schtick doesn't fly in court. Fourteenth: Equal protection for all persons, not just the ones who've aced their first ultrasound.

Here's the dirty little secret that'd make Mamdani and his pro-abortion Dem pals choke on their fair-trade lattes: They couldn't care less about "women's rights" or "choice." If they did, they'd admit abortion is the ultimate cover for NYC's sex-trafficking slimeballs, glove over the bloody fingerprints, and that it jacks up breast cancer risk by 44%, preterm births by 52%, and suicide odds by a factor of five. No, they love abortion for the power trip: Whip up the sisterhood with feel-good slogans, harvest the votes, then torch the rule of law while everyone's too busy fist-pumping to notice.

In the end, propping up this Frankenstein "right" to abort clashes head-on with the real deal—life for the kid, freedoms in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth. It's a slick legal shell game, funneling control to the elite puppeteers who get off on herding the masses into appetite-driven servitude.

It's about as American as a gulag.

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

Adam Kinzinger gets schooled on 5th Amendment

He's got tears in his ears

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Ms. Adam Kinzinger (R Temp. - IL) is clueless about the principles of the U.S. Constitution. The 'Betsy Wetsy' on the Hill made a fool of himself in yet another tweet on Thursday night when he commented on the Fifth Amendment and the implications it suggests when anyone invokes it. We should all be concerned that people like Kinzinger represent us in Congress.

The soon-to-be-unemployed [until CNN or MSNBC hires him] congress-queen tweeted:

Quick reminder: pleading the 5th is because you don’t want to incriminate yourself. We respect the 5th amendment, but pleading the 5th says a lot

— Adam Kinzinger #fella (@AdamKinzinger) December 23, 2022

Kinzinger making that comment actually says a lot.

He obviously doesn't understand that the Fifth Amendment is our constitutional right that prevents us from being forced to testify and that invoking it cannot be used legally to incriminate us. This is a right that Kinzinger promised to uphold when he held up his right hand and swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Hard to believe that this crybaby is a lawmaker, [at least for now as he's been voted out of office, which I believe I mentioned]. 

Kinzinger doesn't even have a rudimentary understanding of the Fifth Amendment, which shows us why he became a 'transocrat' in the kangaroo Jan. 6 Committee clusterfrack.

Folks on Twitter reacted to Kinzinger's remark:

The 5th Amm protects against coerced confessions — which should never be forgotten. Think China, North Korea.
But it also protects the innocent against the overwhelming power of the state, especially in ambiguous circumstances or facts.
Does Kinzinger know this? He should.

— Political Sock (@politicalsock) December 23, 2022

Let’s put Kinzinger under oath and ask some very specific questions around J6. And while we’re at it, we will do a deep dive into the past seven years of his taxes. Let’s see if he too pleads the 5th… This will say a lot. https://t.co/fRq5uRgurt

— Dan Lawrence (@coramdeoDan) December 23, 2022

False: The 5th Amendment protects the innocent as well as the guilty from helping the government prosecute them. It is NOT an admission of a crime. The congressman and the J6 committee know this, but repeatedly used their power to spread and exploit this falsehood. https://t.co/MYdZTmekub

— Mike Columbo (@MikeColumboEsq) December 23, 2022

The Fifth Amendment is one of the items in the Bill of Rights that separates us from dictatorships and Kinzinger implies that using it implies that you're guilty. What an a-hole! He's no different from those on the Left who want to silence free speech as described in the First Amendment and take away our right to self-defense, as laid out in the Second Amendment.

But the good news is his impending departure from Congress--did I mention that?

Hey folks--have a very Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and  a wonderful Hanukkah.

Tweet

POTUS suggest going dark in WH press briefings

President Trump has openly kicked around the idea that during press briefings, cameras would be turned off to eliminate the preening, showboating and blatant narcissism that journalists display when there's a camera in front of them. This is particularly true for Jim Acosta, the Comedy News Network's reporter who apparently derives sexual gratification from being Jim Acosta.

Trump revealed his thoughts on the matter with Chris Wallace's "Fox News Sunday" in an exclusive interview.

"I thin one of the things we'll do is maybe turn the camera off that faces them because then they don't have any air time, although I'll probably be sued for that and maybe, you know, win or lose it, who knows?" Trump said, adding, "I mean, with this stuff you never know what's going to happen."

I don't believe the White House is mandated to provide TV coverage for press briefings, or even if the presidential administration is beholden to provide press briefings on a regular basis at all, just as long as they don't stop press coverage altogether.

Trump may be hedging his bets after he lost in court against Jim "How's-My- Hair" Acosta for his unruly behavior during a presidential press briefing. Acosta refused to give up the mic to an intern and rather than asking Trump questions, merely used the time to criticize him because Acosta is a scumcrumpet.

A Trump-appointed judge ruled that the White House did not provide due process [under the Fifth Amendment] in revoking Acosta's "hard pass" but the judge made it clear that he was not ruling on the First Amendment merits of the case.

The president suggested to Wallace that if Acosta or others don't comport themselves properly, he'll go back to court and prosecute the case to its fullest extent. Or maybe just end the briefing early.

Or why not just refuse to televise them? I suspect Trump doesn't like that idea because they "get good ratings."


Please click the "Follow" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me



Tweet

Acosta's back and boy, things are gonna change

President Trump's foe, and the foe of decorum and decency, Jim Acosta, had his White House press credentials reinstated by a Trump-appointed judge, Timothy Kelly. Based on a TRO, the judge made the decision based on the Fifth Amendment, rather than the First, specifically, Acosta's due process was violated.

So now that Acosta will be returning to the press conferences, what can we expect. Well, for one thing, Acosta will be getting his own chair [see photo below] and is expected to behave properly during the press briefings.

He is not to shout out, stand up, or monopolize the microphone. If he is asked to surrender the mic, he must do so without lashing out at women.

He is not to be given the leeway to ask more questions than this colleagues, and if he does, President Trump will walk away from the podium and end the press conference right then and there.

Acosta will not be allowed to voice opinions--that will be left to Sean Hannity and April Ryan. He is only to ask questions, both easy and hard, but only the number of questions specified by either the president or Sarah Sanders.

While the press briefing is going on and Acosta had not been called on to give a question to the podium, he is to sit in his seat with the tray table in place.

Please click the "Follow" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.



Tweet

Loretta Lynch 'Pleads Fifth' on Cash Payments Made to Iran

A congressional probe into the payments made to Iran is being blocked by the Obama administration.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch is not complying  with an investigation by Congress about the Obama administration's secret efforts to dole out $1.7 billion in cash to Iran earlier in the year. There are now accusations claiming that Lynch has "pleaded the Fifth" Amendment to avoid self-incrimination over the payments, according to lawmakers and exclusive communications obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.  

Lynch was presented with a series of questions by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Mark Pompeo (R-KS) about how the cash payment was approved and delivered. 

But in an October 24th response, Asst. Attorney General Peter Kadzik reponded on Lynch's behalf. He refused to answer the questions and told the lawmakers that they are barred from publicly disclosing any details about the cash payment, which we all know was part of a ransom deal to free several American hostages from Iran.

In effect, the response from the attorney general's office is "unacceptable" and is evidence that Lynch has chosen to "essentially plead the fifth and refuse to respond to inquiries regarding [her] role in providing cash to the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism," Rubio and Pompeo wrote in a follow-up to Lynch.

"It is frankly unacceptable that your department refuses to answer straightforward questions from the people's elected representatives in Congress about an important national security issue," the lawmakers wrote. "Your staff failed to address any of our questions, and instead provided a copy of public testimony and a lecture about the sensitivity of information associated with this issue."

"As the United States' chief law enforcement officer, it is outrageous that you would essentially plead the fifth and refuse to respond to inquiries. The actions of your department come at a time when Iran continues to hold Americans hostage and unjustly sentence them to prison."

Pompeo told the Free Beacon that the Obama administration has blocked Congress at every turn in their investigation of the payments made to Iran.

"Who knew that simple questions regarding Attorney General Lynch's approval of billions of dollars in payments to Iran could be so controversial that she would refuse to answer them?" Pompeo said. "This has become the Obama administration's coping mechanism for anything related to the Islamic Republic of Iran--hide information, obfuscate details, and deny answers to Congress and the American people."

Although details of the deal are not classified, they are kept under lock and key, thus treated as if they are. Staffers who have clearance to see the documents must relinquish their cell phones and are barred from taking notes about what they see.

And all this from "the most transparent president in history." Some might call it treason.

Now imagine how much worse it would be if the former Worst Lady wins the election.



Tweet