Cory Spartacus Booker hit with ethics complaint for fundraising off his filibuster

New Jersey Democrat Senator Cory Spartacus Booker (NJ) bloviated for a record-breaking 25 hours last week, said nothing of value or interest, and now he tried to raise money from his speech, according to The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), an ethics watchdog group.

The group filed the complaint on Tuesday alleging that the senator used his speech to raise campaign money and the Senate Select Committee on Ethics received the allegations showing that Booker sent a series of campaign messages to his supporters during and after his bloviating on the Senate floor. This included messages asking followers to "stand with Cory" during his speech by signing up for his email list and others that solicited contributions for Booker and the DNC from anyone "inspired" by his historic showing.

This tactic is in violation of long-standing ethics rules prohibiting congress members from using their official position for campaign purposes, FACT wrote in its complaint. 

If Booker's violation goes unpunished, the group warned, the Senate floor "will increasingly be seen as a campaign venue and treated as such."

"It is clear that Senator Booker's Senate floor speech had a campaign purpose," FACT said in its complaint. "During his speech, he sent a series of emails that campaigned and sought valuable supporter information and campaign contributions based on his Senate floor speech. Immediately after his speech, Booker sent an email that requested donations for his campaign and the DNC if the recipient liked what they saw him do on the Senate floor. There is no more direct of a tie between an official action and campaign solicitation."

The Senate's ethics rules "do not allow what is clearly performance art on the Senate floor for future political gain, whether that be for list-building or fundraising," the watchdog's executive director Kendra Arnold told the Washington Free Beacon. "I hope the Senate Ethics Committee will take action on this case and others like it to discourage other senators from fundraising off official actions and to maintain citizens' confidence in Congress."

Booker received widespread praise from the press and Democrats for his 25-hour floor speech, not so much for what he said than for the length of time he spent on the Senate floor without taking a break to pee or otherwise. 

But who knows? Depends.

Political pollster Frank Luntz said that Booker "may have changed the course of political history" with his speech. He believes his performance makes him the top dog for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, but AOC and Jasmine Crockett disagree.

But Booker's speech wasn't a real filibuster in the traditional sense. It didn't obstruct any legislation and all he did was bash Trump's cuts to the federal workforce and yadda, yadda.

Mostly yadda, yadda.

"I pour my heart into these posts, and hopefully my writing has sparked something for you, I’d be thrilled and grateful if you’d treat me to a coffee over at Buy Me a Coffee – totally optional, of course!"

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

Ketanji Brown Jackson’s ethics complaint over husband’s income

The Center for Renewing America, (CRA),  a conservative policy group, has filed an ethics complaint against SCOTUS Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (KBJ) for “willfully” omitting required income disclosures for years while serving as a judge of other people, some of whom do similar crimes.

The CRA is headed by Russ Vought, a former top Trump White House official. 

Vought sent a letter to the Judicial Conference alleging that Jackson "willfully failed to disclose" required information regarding her husband’s malpractice consulting income for over ten years. [Now there's a dose of irony if there ever was one.]

The letter suggests that the Judicial Conference should refer Jackson’s possible ethics violations to the highly wimpy Attorney General Merrick Garland for investigation and possible civil enforcement. It notes that federal judges are legally required to disclose  "source of items of earned income earned by a spouse from any person which exceed $1,000…except…if the spouse is self-employed in business or a profession, only the nature of such business or profession needs be reported."

The fact that KBJ's husband deals with malpractice while legally committing it [allegedly] would be funny if not tragic.

As part of KBJ's nomination to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, she disclosed the names of two legal medical malpractice consulting clients who paid her husband, Dr. Patrick Jackson, more than $1,000 for the year 2011, the letter notes.

On subsequent filings, however, Jackson "repeatedly failed to disclose that her husband received income from medical malpractice consulting fees," the letter states.

"We know this by Justice Jackson’s own admission in her amended disclosure form for 2020, filed when she was nominated to the Supreme Court, that ‘some of my previously filed reports inadvertently omitted’ her husband’s income from ‘consulting on medical malpractice cases,’" the letter says.

The word 'inadvertently' is defined by Dictionary,.com as: adverb, unintentionally; without meaning to. So one can surmise by KBJ's explanation that she meant to report the income but somehow, without meaning to, did not report it . . . for over ten years!

Maybe she didn't know that it was the law, after all, what does she know about the law when she cannot even tell us what is a woman because she isn't a biologist? But wait--she is a lawyer who became a judge and now a Supreme Court Justice of the United States. She should have known that it was legally required. Many people who are not biologists cannot define what is a woman, but she ought to be able to know what is legal and illegal using her standards.

Vought states that "Jackson has not even attempted to list the years for which her previously filed disclosures omitted her husband’s consulting income. Instead, in her admission of omissions on her 2020 amended disclosure form (filed in 2022), Justice Jackson provided only the vague statement that ‘some’ of those past disclosures contained material omissions."

Vought argues that her Dr. Jackson’s income does not qualify for the "self-employment" exception. The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (EIGA) requires Justice Jackson to identify the "source of items of earned income earned by a spouse from any person which exceeds $1,000." He also notes that since KBJ knew of the requirements in 2012 well enough to list the specific sources of income for her first disclosure filing, but not in subsequent filings apart from admitting that she left off some of her husband’s income, her actions amount to "willful" violation of the law.

No wonder the Biden administration likes her and nominated her for the Supreme Court. She fits right in.

Tweet

Cori Bush (D) hit with ethics complaint re: abuse of government resources for her campaign

Squadette and Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO-BLM-LGBTQ+1) faces an ethics complaint that alleges she used government resources for campaign purposes. This, of course, is in violation of House rules, but since when did rules matter to the left?

The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) lodged the complaint on Thursday with the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) asking for a prompt investigation as to whether Bush misused government resources from a campaign social media account, and thus violated the rules.

[H/T Fox News Digital]

"Rep. Bush's abuse of official resources for political purposes shows a flagrant disregard for the law," FACT executive director Kendra Arnold told Fox News Digital. "These laws and ethics rules are in place to maintain the integrity of official proceedings, so members cannot leverage them for political advantage." 

"The violation we have documented in our complaint is clear and obvious, and after confirming through investigation, we hope the OCE moves swiftly to impose the proper penalty," Arnold told the outlet. 

FACT's complaint states that Bush "disrupted official House proceedings with outrageous and unprofessional behavior and then campaigned and fundraised off of it." 

But at least she didn't go all out anti-Israel at the time.

On July 31st, Bush promoted a C-SPAN video from her campaign's Twitter account showing her on the House floor shouting about "racist bills" as House Majority Leader Steve Scalise spoke. In the tweet, Bush added that the bills are also "sexist, patriarchal, xenophobic, classist, homophobic, and transphobic."

Of course the bills are nothing like she accused them of being, but nevertheless, Bush posted a link to donate to her campaign and that's the case against her.

House ethics rules prohibit congressional members from using official resources for campaign or political purposes and FACT noted that  "official resources" are anything taxpayers fund, including photographs and video from the House floor or committee proceedings.

In addition, politicians are to keep campaigns, official websites and social media accounts separate.

"The legal violation in this case is obvious and there are no facts that can excuse it—Bush used official House proceedings and resources for political purposes," the complaint states. "Video of official house floor proceedings is an official resource, and both using it for political purposes and posting it on a campaign social media account are violations of the ethics rules."

"It is irrelevant that Bush obtained this video from CSPAN because a Member cannot use official footage even if it is obtained or reposted from another entity," it continues. "The fact that Bush uses this video on her campaign social media account and directly fundraises off of it shows a complete disrespect for the law."

But due to Bush's Democratic Party affiliation, the worst outcome for her will likely be a rolling of the eyes and a clucking of the tongue by fellow socialists.



Tweet

AOC refuses to accept responsibility re: Met Gala and ethics probe in which she "forgot" to pay the bill

AOC can't even pick her nose right

Socialists are a strange lot. Those in power want to tax you until you're broke while they don't want to pay for things themselves. It's how Sen. Bernie Sanders has operated ever since honeymooning in Russia, and how Rep. Alexandria Obviously-Communist (Commie-NY) has followed in his footsteps.

AOC is not even taking responsibility for not paying expenses at the 2021 Met Gala where she wore her infamous "Tax the Rich" gown, and instead is blaming her aides for the "oversight." [H/T Fox News]

The feisty Latina congress-commie is now under investigation by the House Ethics Committee, after discovering the Tax the Rich socialist had likely not paid anything for the elaborate goods and services, including the two $35,000 per guest event tickets, dress and accessories she was gifted, in spite of the congressional ethics rules allowing for only $7,000 in gifts from donors.

This is a socialist who attacks successful people who made their wealth honestly, and like her Party colleague, Bernie Sanders, who charged $95 for a ticket to his speaking event and wrote a crappy book titled "It's OK to Hate Capitalism," she is a blatant hypocrite. 

"This is just another example of the pot calling the kettle black," Scherie Murray said of the self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist on "Fox & Friends" Monday.

Murray, a New York City business owner, previously ran against Ocasio-Cortez for Congress, but dropped out during the 2020 GOP primary.

"[AOC] just has a memory failure when it comes to the fact that this wasn't a charity event. She's not allowed to receive these tickets," Murray told host Brian Kilmeade. "Courtesy of Anna Wintour, her and her fiance attended the Met Gala. She got her hair done. She got a complete wardrobe, including shoes. She got her makeup done and conveniently forgot to pay the bill."

Ocasio-Cortez did a "Sergeant Schultz" and claimed to be know nothing and see nothing regarding the unpaid expenses, saying she wasn’t "privy to the invoices." The staff member, who reportedly no longer works for her, was blamed.

"I think the delay there for me was I didn't have access to her personal credit card at that moment," the staffer told House ethics investigators.

But Murray said the excuse won’t hold up due to the contradictions in the stories.

"First, the staff was tasked to pay. Then the staffer said that he'd never had her credit card. So there is some controversy here, and I'm happy to see that she's being held accountable," Murray said.

Murray also went after AOC for her socialist agenda that ultimately led Amazon to pull out of its plan to build headquarters in New York City in 2019.

"She's known throughout the community as ‘Job Killing AOC.,’" Murray said. "She was uninformed then. She's uninformed now."

Alfredo Ortiz, president and CEO of Job Creators Network, also called the Latina socialist a "job killer." The organization has since paid for billboards slamming her for the jobs and wages lost due to Amazon’s pullout.

Those thousands of jobs she killed were high-paying and good for the city's economy, but it seems that AOC only likes big corporations when they give her freebies.

It runs in the Party.

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

Alexandria Obviously-Commie faces ethics investigation

AOC loves her some AOC

AOC loves her some AOC but things may have changed for the Capitol Hill darling of the far left. The House Ethics Committee is investigating the New York Democratic congress-commie. [H/T New York Post.]

The eight-member committee confirmed the investigation Wednesday but thus far has not provided details as to the nature of the investigation except to say that it has extended its looking into the matter that was brought to their attention on June 23 of this year.

The Latinx cha-cha chica was the focus of two complaints submitted to the Office of Congressional Ethics over her attendance at last year’s Met Gala in which she is picture above wearing an expensive white dress with the words "Tax the Rich" written on it in red.

Both complaints allege the socialist rep, 33, broke House rules by accepting free tickets to the star-studded, highly pretentious affair. Tickets for attendance was in the neighborhood of $35,000.

“The Committee notes that the mere fact of a referral or an extension, and the mandatory disclosure of such an extension and the name of the subject of the matter, does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred, or reflect any judgment on behalf of the Committee,” a statement read. But AOC had previously been the subject of two ethics complaints related to her attendance to the 2021 Met Gala.

Lawmakers are permitted, under chamber regulations, to accept free tickets to charity events directly from organizers. The New York Post has previously reported that she and her now-fiancé Riley Roberts were directly invited by the Metropolitan Museum of Art. 

But conservative groups allege that such allowances don't apply to this event since the invitations are controlled by Conde Nast, a for-profit company, and tables at the gala are also sponsored by corporate entities. AOC will likely claim ignorance about this issue, and when it comes to ignorance, she is totally believable, so nothing is likely to happen to her more than a light slap to her delicate Latinx wrist.

The American Accountability Foundation — the organization behind the initial ethics complaint filed against the congresswoman — claimed that Instagram “was able to purchase access to Representative Ocasio-Cortez that is unavailable to average citizens” by sponsoring a table at the gala.

The second ethics complaint was filed by the National Legal and Policy Center. It alleged that the borrowed Brother Vellies gown worn by AOC constituted an impermissible gift because it was “directly related to her ‘position with the House’ as a highly visible and controversial Member.”

“If AOC had not been a Member, she would not have been invited to the Gala,” the NLPC complaint read, “and even if she would have been invited as a private citizen, the designer would not have made a special dress for her to wear at the event.”

The irony is that the socialist message on the gown, "Tax the Rich" refers to and would directly effect the people who attended the gala, and the money that pays AOC's salary comes from taxpayers. 

Naturally, AOC's office issued a statement to the New York Post on Wednesday claiming she had done nothing wrong, but what else can they say.

Tweet

Kim Foxx lied about contacts with Jussie's sister and has ethics problem

Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx claimed publicly on several occasions that she cut off communication with the sister of convicted racist hoaxer Jussie Smollett after he became a suspect in the case in which he hired two Black men to pretend to be White Trump supporters and attack him at 2 a.m. on a freezing Chicago night. According to the special prosecutor's report, Foxx lied to the public as she continued communicating with her on several occasions afterward.

The report was released Monday by special prosecutor Daniel Webb. It cites multiple examples from March 2019 and at the end of May 2019 in which Foxx lied to the media by claiming she stopped communicating with Smollett's sister. In truth, she sent five text messages to her BFF and spoke with her on the phone three times through February 13, 2010--five days after she claimed she stopped communicating with her.

On Feb. 13, the women discussed the melanin levels of the alleged attackers whereby Smollett's sister asked, "They're White, right?"

Foxx told her that [unfortunately] they were not White. Then that evening, Smollett said her conversation with Foxx was "quite different" and that Foxx said they had to stop communicating anymore and that she was recusing herself from the case.

Unfortunately, there wasn't enough evidence to support criminal charges against Foxx or anyone else at the Cook County State Attorney's Office (CCSAO).

However, prosecutor Webb said in his report that "the OSP did develop evidence that establishes substantial abuse of discretion and operational failures by the CCASO in prosecuting and resolving the Initial Smollett Case."

He added that it included a breach of its "obligations of honesty and transparency by making false and/or misleading statements to the public regarding the nature and reasons for the dismissal" of the initial case and said it was a "major failure of the operations."

In other words, Foxx's lies were unethical.

* * *

Why not subscribe to Brain Flushings and 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 the tech giants.

* * *

Retired Judge Sheila O’Brien, successfully filed the motion as a private citizen to have a special prosecutor assigned to the case. She slammed Foxx, calling her a "liar."

"Kim Foxx should resign. This report shows she is a liar, that her administration is in chaos and that she’s blaming everyone else," O'Brien said. "She should resign. Taxpayers deserve better and Ms. Preckwinkle, her mentor, should take no part in replacing Foxx."

"Cook County Government needs to clean house," she added.

If you live above ground, you are probably aware that Jussie Smollett was found guilty of five out of six charges: lying to a police officer that he was a hate crime victim, telling an officer he was a battery victim, telling a detective he was a hate crime victim, and in this case, being a lousy script writer, actor, director and casting director for using two Black men to play the roles of two White men.

Tweet

Handy Andy Cuomo must return money received for pandemic book

Former Democratic governor Andrew "Handy Andy" Cuomo killed thousands of elderly nursing home bound New Yorkers when he mandated that nursing homes must accept Covid patients released from hospitals. Next he wrote a book about the wonderful job he did handling the pandemic and the left just ate it up with the help of his brother, Chris "Fredo" Cuomo, who had worked for CNN at the time and has since been fired for helping his brother, but not fired for helping himself to female butt cheeks without permission from their owners. [Not surprisingly, that's also how "Handy Andy" got his sobriquet from this writer.]

On Tuesday, the former governor has been ordered by New York's ethics commission [yes, they actually have one] to forgo millions of dollars paid to him by a publisher to write a book about his response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Cuomo's lawyer called the committee's action unconstitutional a vowed to fight for his cut.

Cuomo was told to turn over proceeds earned from his self-congratulatory book "American Crisis' Leadership Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic"  within 30 days under a resolution approved by the Joint Commission on Public Ethics. The order came a month after they voted to rescind the ethics approval they had given the disgraced governor before he signed the book deal amounting to $5.1 million.

* * *

Why not subscribe to Brain Flushings and 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 the tech giants.

* * *

The book, or should we call it a novel, was published in October 2020 before Cuomo was forced to resign after 11 allegations of sexual harassment bubbled up to the surface.

Cuomo has confessed that state employees helped him write his book, including editing the manuscript. He claims they volunteered but junior and senior staff members told investigators they were asked to work on the book during their work hours, tasks that included transcribing dictations, printing and delivering documents, dealing with agents and publishers and attending meetings.

Now that the former governor is out of work, he will need all that money to pay his legal expenses and for the purchase of giant Q-Tips for "that thing that sits on his beautiful face."

Tweet

Trump bans Bloomberg News from events due to unethical coverage

Billionaire nanny state leader, former Republican mayor of New York and current Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg has declared himself a 12th hour entry into the presidential race and announced a company-wide memo to his "journalists," They will not be allowed to do their journalistic due diligence and cannot report on any Democratic primary candidates, but Trump is fair game. Also, Bloomberg does not believe China's dictator, Xi, is a dictator, but that's another story.

Bloomberg's editor-in-chief, John Micklethwait, made the announcement about the outlet's policy of not reporting on Democrats, but there may be a question as to whether this amounts to an in kind donation to Bloomberg's campaign since they will be trying to dig up dirt on Trump.

The Compromised News Network (CNN) obtained the memo Micklethwait put out: 

“We cannot treat Mike's [Bloomberg’s] Democratic competitors differently than him. For the moment, our P&I team will continue to investigate the Trump administration, as the government of the day. If Mike emerges as the Democratic presidential candidate (and Donald Trump emerges as the Republican one), we will reassess how we do that.”

It seems like Bloomberg doesn't see the problem with the fact that he owns a media outlet and plans to go after his opponent in a presidential campaign. And he fails to see the irony in Trump wanting to find out whether the Bidens were guilty of corruption in Ukraine and China, in spite of the fact that Joe Biden was a Democratic nominee for 2020.

The Trump 2020 campaign manager, Brad Parscale, has called the decision “to formalize preferential reporting policies” both “troubling and wrong.”

“Bloomberg News has declared that they won’t investigate their boss or his Democrat competitors, many of whom are current holders of high office, but will continue critical reporting on President Trump,” Parscale said in a statement, according to Axios. “As President Trump’s campaign, we are accustomed to unfair reporting practices, but most news organizations don’t announce their biases so publicly.”

So the Trump administration appropriately hit back at the Bloomberg decision.

“Since they have declared their bias so openly, the Trump campaign will no longer credential representatives of Bloomberg News for rallies or other campaign events,” Parscale said. “We will determine whether to engage with individual reporters or answer inquiries from Bloomberg News on a case-by-case basis.”

How can anyone in good conscience blame them?

Kathy Kiely, a former editor at Bloomberg News, says she resigned after receiving similar instructions from the agency in 2016, when Bloomberg was also mulling a presidential run, according to CNN. And one can imagine that any decent reporter would have a problem with that directive.

“The same sort of directions were given, only it was not yet an official campaign, but I felt that that wasn’t ethical, and it was just an untenable situation for me as the assigning editor to be in,” said Kiely. “Unfortunately, they’ve had four years to think about this, and they haven’t come up with a better solution. I’m really sorry to see this.”

Ethics isn't completely dead in journalism.

Kiely them made a joke and called the press “a public trust”  insisting that “most people who own news organizations understand” that they aren’t designed to serve the owners, but rather to serve the general public.

Nobody laughed.


Please consider following this blog and visit the ads on this page.   You can also see my other blog on the Times of Israel.





Tweet

Stacey Abrams being investigated: subpoena on its way

Stacey Abrams still claims she won the Georgia gubernatorial election in spite of having 55,000 fewer votes than the Republican victor, Brian Kemp. She is a sore loser, but a loser nevertheless.

David Emadi, the new director of Georgia's ethics commission, says he will complete an investigation into about 4 or 5 ethics complaints against Abrams.

Emadi started on the job Monday replacing Stefan Ritter, who resigned amid allegations of workplace impropriety.

Emadi's agency plans to subpoena bank and financial records from Abrams - and groups associated with her campaign, including political action committees and special interest groups.

Emadi said the commission had already investigated complaints lodged against Brian Kemp's campaign, but found no sustainable allegations.

Abrams' former campaign manager Lauren Groh-Wargo went on an ad hominem attack against Emadi. She said in a statement that Emadi is a Republican operative doing "partisan" work into "baseless" allegations and "should be focused on real problems like the unethical ties between the governor’s office and voting machine lobbyists instead.”

"It is shameful, but not surprising," the statement said. "This is Kemp’s corrupt playbook, his long history of launching frivolous investigations with bogus charges against political opponents. This is a shameful misuse of taxpayer dollars for a political vendetta."

If Abrams is found guilty of the allegations, Groh-Wargo doesn't plan to apologize but will "do an [Ilhan] Omar" and make more baseless allegations against Emadi.

Abrams' campaign vowed to fight the "false accusations with every available resource" including more ad hominem attacks and racist accusations against Emadi and the ethics commission.

Emadi pushed back saying his office looks into complaints irrespective of partisan ties. In other words, not everything is about partisan politics. It's actually possible that in spite of his being a GOPer, Abrams still might be guilty and he's going to look into it, so Groh-Wargo can bite him.

Emadi says the ethics commission also has active investigations ongoing into complaints made against "all" the candidates for Atlanta Mayor who ran in 2017, including Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, a somewhat painful sounding name combination.

Emadi declined to describe details of any of the complaints against Abrams or the mayoral candidates. 

His first ethics commission meeting is next week and Stacey Abrams is quietly having a cow.

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

Avenatti alleged to have kept money from settlements for himself

He may not be the best lawyer in the world--heck, he may be the worst--now Michael Avenatti is being accused of covertly keeping settlement money from one of his clients, spending the money on himself, then telling the client he hasn't received the funds as yet.

The client, Gregory Barela, said that Avenatti “was operating his law firm in a Ponzi scheme like manner.” But let's face it, if you are stupid enough to hire the shyster Avenatti, you're probably going to get sexed in a bad way.

The Daily Beast reported that Barela filed a statement of claims with Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS), a private arbitration organization, arguing that after Avenatti pocketed the money from the settlement, he turned around and offered to lend some of the funds back to Barela with 10% interest.

Seriously?

The claim, which was shown to the media outlet by Barela’s attorney, claims “Avenatti was operating his law firm in a Ponzi scheme like manner, taking settlement proceeds received for clients to pay off debts, pay the other individual Defendants’ salaries and bonuses, and fund his lavish lifestyle, while telling clients that the settlement proceeds had not been received or would be received at a later date.”

Kathy "The Beheader" Griffin and Mickey

The Daily Beast reports that according to the statement from Barela’s attorney, Avenatti and a third party reached a settlement for Barela, but in January 2018 the third party deposited money into an account from which Avenatti would transfer the funds to Barela, and Avenatti later informed Barela the money had never been deposited, prompting months of worry for Barela and repeated queries of Avenatti as to the whereabouts of the money. Eventually, according to Barela, Avenatti made the offer of a loan, but Barela had now decided to hire attorneys who found from the third party that they had already paid Lyin' Loser Avenatti.

Steven Bledsoe, Barela's attorney, told The Daily Beast, “Mr. Barela hired our firm to investigate what happened to the settlement payment that he was supposed to have received early last year. As part of our investigation, we contacted the lawyer for the settling party and he gave us a copy of the unaltered settlement agreement and the wire-transfer confirmation showing that his client made the settlement payment to the bank account specified by Mr. Avenatti five days before it was due.”

Avenatti denied any wrongdoing as is his habit, telling The Daily Beast, “These allegations are completely fabricated, bogus and fraudulent. [Like all of the other allegations made by everyone else against the toad]. We have no idea where this is coming from or why someone would make up this ridiculous false story and deceive his attorneys. Until recently when we demanded to be relieved as counsel, we previously represented Mr. Barela in multiple matters and he has received 100 percent of what he is entitled to. We have never had any contact with Talitha Barela.” Talitha Barela is Gregory Barela’s wife and co-plaintiff.”

Hopefully we will soon learn the truth, and the truth may not set Avenatti free.

Stormy and Mickey

Avenatti is the so-called lawyer representing pornography performer Stormy Daniels [whose real name is Stephanie Clifford] against President Trump. It isn't known whether he had ever planned to represent Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, but if he did, that would tell you all you need to know about this guy.

I hope that 2019 will be the year you 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 hopefully entertain you bigly.

Tweet

Comey calls the kettle black

Former FBI Director James "Titan Testes" Comey is actually calling for "more ethical leadership" in 2018. 

Yes, Comey's ethics was clearly illustrated in his exonerating Hillary Clinton before interviewing her and those involved with her illegal private email server. 

The FBI Director, who assumed the role of Attorney General by letting Hillary Clinton off the hook, and by allowing the wording of his analysis of her illegal private email server to be changed, had the nerve to say: "Here's hoping 2018 brings more ethical leadership, focused on the truth and lasting values." He was aiming his words at President Trump.

Comey's tweet was retweeted over 30,000 times Monday morning. He also got thousands of responses accusing him of lacking self-awareness amid the incredible controversy that surrounded his bureau. 

One guy tweeted: "Lordy, how could you type that with a straight face?"

Lordy, lordy. He can do it because he lacks self-awareness and has an abundance of arrogance along with a sense of entitlement. 


Tweet

Hillary Clinton may teach ethics at Columbia U.

Hillary Clinton may return to the world of academia and teach at Columbia University. 

She will be joining such notables there as Kathy Boudin, a convicted cop killer and former Weather Underground radical. 

Then there's Joseph Massad, an Islamic radical who's known for his anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian views who has stated that "the Jews are not a nation. The Jewish state is a racist state that doesn't have the right to exist." 

And let's not forget Nicholas De Genova who, in 2003, told a campus "teach-in" that he wanted to see the  U.S. defeated in Iraq and suffer "a million Mogadishus" (referring to the 1993 Somalia ambush that killed 18 Americans).

So here we have Hillary Clinton, a Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals scholar, in discussions with Columbia University over a formal role at the Ivy League school where she may eventually house her archives, now that her gig as president of the United States didn't pan out.

One option they are discussing is an esteemed "University Professor" role that would allow her to lecture across a range of schools and departments without the requirement of an actual course load, according to a source for Fox News.

Hillary, who is a former law professor, might teach a course on ethics, but my source, Vinny Boombots, says that she's more likely to entertain the idea of teaching criminal law loopholes. 

Still, she can decide at any time in the future if she wants to settle at the law school of perhaps the School of International and Public Affairs. (Bill hopes for the latter position but only heard the last part of the school's title.)

The reason Hillary is expected to give for teaching at Columbia, according to Boombots, will be that she and Bill are "dirt poor" now that Donald Trump and Russia stole the election from her.

"She's trying to figure out what she wants to do, a source said. "It could end up with the papers at one place and she has some sort of faculty role at another. She hasn't quite come to a decision."

Or maybe, if President Trump's campaign promise is realized, she will be teaching law to fellow inmates at federal lockup.



Tweet

Pocahontas and Hypocrisy

Elizabeth "Pocahontas" Warren is the poster girl for dishonesty and is making a strong run to win the slot for hypocrisy as she presses the Trump Cabinet picks to follow [get this] ethics guidelines.

Warren was dubbed Pocahontas after she lied about her native American status to aid her career. She talks about victim-hood as an evil yet victimized an historically victimized group: the Cherokee, by claiming to be a member of the tribe.

Then she refused to acknowledge what she did and never apologized for her lie.

But that's just one facet to her lying past.

Pocahontas fudged descriptions of her corporate legal work and nickel-and-dimed the federal electronic court docket system while having an almost million-dollar-a-year family income. You can learn more about this at: http://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/

Warren even lied about being the first nursing mother to take the New Jersey Bar Exam.

Now she has the audacity to grill Trump's picks over ethics in her self-righteous bid for public face-time.

Note the tattoo 

Warren who took advantage of a loophole in ethics law to avoid disclosing $1.3 million credit line against her home is now warning cabinet picks that incomplete financial disclosures put the nation at risk.

Warren wrote in the Washington Post that "it is critical that each nominee follows basic ethics rules to ensure that they will act for the benefit of all the American people" [and not just the native American people of her tribe]. She argued that financial disclosures are necessary to "reveal potentially damaging information that may undermine fitness to serve" and said nominees with "complex financial histories" [like her $1.3 million credit line] need to be "forthcoming and transparent."

Elizabeth Warren is just one example of the left's unending hypocrisy. And the fact that she can criticize the same thing that she is guilty of doing, shows us how stupid she believes her supporters are--for once, she's correct.



Tweet

Hillary ordered to write response to Judicial Watch request re: emails

Hillary Clinton has been ordered by a federal judge to answer questions posed by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group. The questions concern her use of a private email server that she used while flying hither and thither as secretary of state, looking busy as she bided her time until it was her turn to be the FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!! 

The U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan issued the order as part of a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, who sought to question Clinton under oath and in person. However, because she's running to become the FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!! the judge ruled that she would be permitted to answer the questions in writing. However, he did not specify whether or not she would be permitted to email them in on her private server.

Twitter is all atweet as to whether the paper she writes her answers on will burst into flames, but all we can do is wait to find out.

So-called FBI Director James "She Didn't Mean It" Comey said that his agency would not seek or recommend criminal charges for her "extremely careless" handling of the sensitive material [she consistently lied about and perjured herself over] because, after all, she is Hillary Rodham Clinton and that alone is reason enough to tread lightly.

Judicial Watch's Director of Investigations Chris Farrell said the organization would have preferred to watch Hillary sweat it out in person, but still, having her being forced to dictate her responses to Huma Abedin is a victory for the organization.

"Judicial Watch will get Clinton under oath regarding the set-up of her outlaw server--something no other person, organization or agency has been able to do, to date," Farrell said. "We believe it is a victory for law and order to get Hillary Clinton under oath answering questions about the server setup and why she did it."

Donald Trump, who is never at a loss for words said, "'Law and Order' is one of my favorite shows. It's one of my favorites folks. Crooked Hillary's going to get what she deserves, and that's law and order, believe me .  .  .  believe me.  Thank you."

Clinton campaign spokes-human [who is still deciding on his or her gender identification] Brian Fallon, spoke on behalf of Hillary's campaign. He said that they were glad the judge is allowing Clinton to answer questions in writing because it gives her time to make stuff up and Google things.

"Judicial Watch is a right-wing organization that has been attacking the Clintons since the 1990s," Fallon whined. "This is just another lawsuit intended to try to hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign, and so we are glad that the judge has accepted our offer to answer these questions in writing rather than grant Judicial Watch's request."

This was Fallon's way of putting lipstick on a pig.

"I ate it with a nice Chianti and fava beans"

Judicial Watch is, in fact, a right-wing watchdog group, but just because it leans to the right doesn't mean Hillary Clinton didn't use a personal email server which, by itself, is indictable. It also doesn't mean that Hillary Clinton never told a lie she didn't like. 

It was the FOIA request by Judicial Watch that revealed how Huma Abedin left Hillary's daily schedule on the bed of her unlocked hotel room when Clinton was secretary of state, and that's considered sensitive information.



Hillary is now saying that if she becomes the FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!! the Clinton Foundation will no longer take foreign donations. So taking foreign donations as secretary of state was okay?

Hillary Clinton .  .  . well, she has the ethics of a spider. 


Tweet

Ethically Speaking

It seems as if ethics is a dying value.  My wife works in retail sales, a job she took when we moved to our new home, and the one thing she has learned is that many people are not ethical.  Her coworkers would steal her customers when her back was turned, or say she wasn't at work, when, in fact she was at the back of the store.

The Wikipedia definition is: "Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality--that is, concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice, etc."


While an obvious lack of ethics can be seen at my wife's place of business (by the way, she is very ethical and this may account for why she is one of the top salespeople in the entire area), it is also a problem in government; particularly in big government.  Take for example the case of "Fast and Furious" whereby agencies of the US government allowed rifles to be purchased by 'straw purchasers' and then sold to Mexican drug cartels.  These AK 47-variants were eventually lost in tracking.  Is it ethical to use American taxpayer dollars to secretly fund an illegal program, and only get "outed" when someone died from one of the "Fast and Furious" guns?  If you don't know the answer to that question, I know a retail store that would hire you on the spot.

Ethical debate

So we have the head of the Department of Justice (DOJ), Eric Holder, who either lied about being in the loop of the "Fast and Furious" debacle whereas four people just below him were in on it, or is he so incompetent that he isn't even capable of running the DOJ and being included in the "loop"? And we have a president who claims to know nothing about this illegal undertaking and we'll likely never be privy to the truth in that case. But we do know for a fact that our POTUS is a liar because he has been caught in numerous lies since taking office.

Just for starters, he lied about his mother's healthcare, or lack of it actually, when she was dying of cancer in her early fifties.  Obama claimed she died as a result of the lacking of medical funding, when, in fact, her healthcare provider paid for everything but the monthly deductible, which came to about $200.  Then he lied when claiming his healthcare bill would not increase the deficit one dime--wait, that isn't a lie--it increased the deficit somewhat more than a dime--can you say billions?


About his father, he claimed he was a goat-herder, when it turns out his father was clearly a man of priviledge.  And while we're on the topic of Obama's Muslim father, Obama claimed that he, himself, had never prayed in a mosque--this had to later be retracted by his campaign people.

The real Obama

Circumventing the Constitution with the claim that we aren't at war with Libya because there are no "boots on the ground" and therefore, he didn't need congressional approval for the non-war in Libya, is another lie.  First of all, there were CIA spotters on the ground to assist the aircraft in their missions.  But even more blatantly, to say our action in a country is not a hostile act, and thus does not qualify as a war, begs the question: and if we simply dropped a nuclear weapon on Libya with no boots on the ground, would that still not be considered a hostile action? 


We may all remember how Obama said that he wouldn't rest until the BP oil spill was stopped and plugged.  If you consider playing golf, entertaining the Duke Blue Devils after winning the NCAA Championship, greeting the US World Cup Soccer team and getting in some photo ops with Joe Biden, Bill "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lowenski" Clinton spending Memorial Day weekend in Chicago, and taking a weekend off at Mount Desert Island, not resting, then he was true to his word.


Obama is an amateur president. He was an amateur Senator before being whisked into the job as president. He was a community organizer--that's a dude who organizes anti-something-or-other protests for more money from those that have it to those that don't. This is Obama. Holder is his protege along with Tim Geithner, who didn't pay his taxes. Along with his other cronies and phonies. Make him a one-term wonder (as in "I wonder why anyone voted for that loser").


Peace out.

Tweet