Tuesday, November 29, 2022

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY OF INSIDE TRADERS AND BRIBES SUCKERS - Watchdog Calls for Ethics Investigation into Democrat Earl Blumenauer’s Stock Transactions

 

Watchdog Calls for Ethics Investigation into Democrat Earl Blumenauer’s Stock Transactions

UNITED STATES - NOVEMBER 4: Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., stops outside the Capitol for a phone call before heading to the House floor for votes on Wednesday, Nov. 4, 2015. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)
Bill Clark/Contributor/Getty Images, Kieran Stone/Getty Images
4:38

A non-partisan ethics watchdog organization demanded an investigation into Democrat Rep. Earl Blumenauer’s (OR) stock transactions on Monday to determine whether he violated conflict of interest rules that lawmakers have to follow.

The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) filed a complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) asking for an “immediately investigate” to determine if his wife’s up to $15,000 purchase of stock shares of the biopharmaceutical company Amgen was “directly related to his oversight role on the Health Subcommittee,” which would ultimately be in violation of conflict of interest rules.

The ethics complaint explained that documents show the congressman’s wife purchased up to $15,000 of stock shares of Amgen on September 26. However, shortly after, on October 4, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it would be “spending $290 million for supplies of Amgen’s drug Nplate — a move that has resulted in Amgen surging by over 24% as of [November 10, 2022].”

Additionally, the complaint noted that Blumenauer serves on the House Ways and Means Committee and its Health subcommittee, which “handles legislation and oversight related to programs paying for health care, health delivery systems, or health research . . . [and] oversees the Department of Health and Human Services administration.”

According to FACT, the House Ethics rules require congressional lawmakers to “conduct themselves at all times in a manner that reflects creditably on the House” and to adhere to the spirit as well as the letter of the ethics rules. FACT added:

Specific rules require Members to refrain from taking official action when the Member has either an apparent or actual conflict of interest, and Members are prohibited from using their official position and information obtained from it for personal financial gain. 

A conflict of interest exists when a Member’s private affairs appear to, or actually do, conflict with their ability to officially act on behalf of the public interest. “The ultimate concern ‘is risk of impairment of impartial judgment, a risk which arises whenever there is a temptation to serve personal interests.’” Because the integrity of government action is at risk, the ethics rules require Members to refrain from official action where there is even an inference of a conflict, as well as where there is an actual conflict. Thus, a conflict arises when a Member’s personal interest creates doubt the Member can act impartially and in the public interest. “At the other extreme, a conflict of interest becomes corruption when an official uses his position of influence to enhance his personal financial interests.” [Emphasis added.]

In the case, the complaint explained that there are two different types of conflict of interest: “(1) voting on legislation and (2) other official action. With respect to voting, a Member should not vote on legislation in which he or she has ‘a direct personal or pecuniary interest.'”

FACT also explained that when assessing whether a lawmaker has a conflict of interest, the lawmaker’s spouse’s employment and investments are fully considered as if he or she were the lawmaker himself or herself. “The law does not distinguish between whether stock shares were purchased in the Member’s name or the Member’s spouse’s name,” but the complaint clarified, “in each instance, the stocks are treated as the Members.”

FACT’s Executive Director, Kendra Arnold, slammed the congresswoman in a statement:

Given the information that they have access to, under the ethics rules, Members of Congress who sit on committees must meet a higher standard. Every time the public sees a transaction like this it causes them to question the motivation of our elected officials – something the ethics rules are specifically designed to prevent. The facts of this case require that the OCE investigate to determine precisely what occurred here and to prevent these types of transactions in the future.

Additionally, this is not the first time the congressman’s stock purchases raised concerns. Earlier this year, the New York Times reported that the congressman’s wife “bought or sold stocks or bonds in several health care companies, including CVS Health and UnitedHealth Group,” Blumenauer was still on the Ways and Means Committee and the Health subconscious.

Jacob Bliss is a reporter for Breitbart News. Write to him at jbliss@breitbart.com or follow him on Twitter @JacobMBliss.

The top question it raises is whether Zelensky "has something" on Joe Biden, given the revelations of corruption between the Biden family and Ukraine's oligarchs, as seen from the contents of the abandoned Hunter Biden laptops.  What does Zelensky indeed have on Biden?

Morris’ investigative work at the New York Post on the Hunter Biden “laptop from hell” also captured international headlines when she, along with Miranda Devine, revealed that Joe Biden was intimately involved in Hunter’s businesses, appearing to even have a 10 percent stake in a company the scion formed with officials at the highest levels of the Chinese Communist Party.


Joe Biden is unfit to be president. Why didn't anyone stop him?

Despite Democrats performing better than expected in the midterm elections just completed, two thirds of those voters do not want their leader, President Joe Biden, to run for re-election in 2024.  Perhaps, by now, like nearly everyone else in the country, they know the real Joe Biden.  Just who is he?  

President Biden is a man of mediocre intellect who, over almost five decades in national public office, accomplished little to nothing, other than his election to federal offices and becoming rich off the federal teat and various side hustles.  He is a thin-skinnedchip-on-the-shouldermacho swaggerer who, in Tucker Carlson phrase, "kisses up and spits down."  He is a prevaricatorplagiaristteller-of-tall-tales narcissist who has no respect for the truth, only narratives that advance his interests or portray him favorably.  If not a racist, he see only through the lens of race and pandersprejudges, or pounces accordingly.  Finally, when it comes to young children and women, he just cannot, as my mother use to put it, keep his hands to himself; he may be guilty of muchmuch worse.  

Sadly, as a result of advanced age and cognitive decline, his skills, such as a quick wit, adroit speech, and pleasant countenance, have eroded as his less desirable traits, such as angermendacity, and lack of self-control, have worsened.  No wonder people are discovering the real Joe Biden.

Senators who served with him always knew.  Nonetheless, none said to another, "Joe's a nice enough guy, but he must never be president."  We can't let him have access to the nuclear codesrun the largest law enforcement operation in the world, or make life-and-death decisions about sending our Armed Forces into or out of harm's way.  All senators, Democrats and Republicans, refused to hold Biden accountable and make him, at least as to any plan he had for the White House, persona non grata.

Nonetheless, there is historic precedent for such nonpartisan and patriotic action.

On August 7, 1974, my once and future boss, U.S. Senator Clifford P. Hansen (R-Wyo.), joined a few of his Republican colleagues, most famously Senator Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) and Senator Hugh Scott (R-Pa.), on a journey to the White House to urge President Richard Nixon to resign.  They told him, "not only had he 'lost' the congressional support of his own party and his natural allies among conservative Democrats, [but] also that they would actually convict him at trial and remove him from office."  Nixon resigned the next day.

On New Year's Eve in 1974, Justice William O. Douglas, one of the Supreme Court's longest serving jurists, suffered a severe stroke in Hawaii.  After months at Walter Reed Hospital, he returned to the Court, but he was nearly incapacitated, yet he hung on into the Court's new term the first Monday in October.  On October 17, seven of the eight remaining justices agreed that no case would be decided by a five-four vote with Douglas in the majority.  Only Justice Byron White of Colorado disagreed and pressed for Douglas's retirement.  A month later, after 36 years on the bench, Justice Douglas did so.  

In 1988, President George H.W. Bush nominated former U.S. senator John Tower (R-Texas) as his secretary of defense.  Senator Tower, who served from 1961 to 1985, was the first Republican senator to represent Texas since Reconstruction.  He chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee, later was chief U.S. negotiator at the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks in Switzerland, and in 1986 chaired the Tower Commission inquiry into the Iran-Contra Affair.  All that was not enough to prevent the Senate from rejecting his nomination, given its concerns over his alcoholism and other issues.  

Years ago, on a visit from Denver to D.C., I met with an old friend who once served as an attorney to the Senate Judiciary Committee and thus had frequent interactions with Biden.  Knowing he was aware of my negative view of the senator, I asked his opinion.  "He's always been good to me," he responded.  "That's a pretty low bar," I replied.  "It's my test," he shrugged.  So it must have been for the senators, Democrats and Republican, who knew the real Joe Biden for nearly five decades.  Now all Americans are paying a terrible price for their willingness to set such low standards. 

Mr. Pendley, a Wyoming attorney, served in the administrations of presidents Reagan and Trump and for 30 years provided pro bono representation, including before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Image: Gage Skidmore via FlickrCC BY-SA 2.0.


The top question it raises is whether Zelensky "has something" on Joe Biden, given the revelations of corruption between the Biden family and Ukraine's oligarchs, as seen from the contents of the abandoned Hunter Biden laptops.  What does Zelensky indeed have on Biden?


Zelensky demands $55 billion more from American public to fund his bureaucrats

Seems it's pretty easy for Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to shake out more cash from the Uncle Sam money tree, what with Joe Biden in the White House ready to accommodate.

So he's gone bold now, calling on Uncle Sugar to provide him with another $55 billion, on top of the $90 billion already earmarked for Ukraine by Congress, $13 billion of which he's already gotten for budget needs.  High as that is, it's even more outrageous than it looks, which we will get to in a minute.

First, Tucker Carlson's observations:

Conservative Treehouse has more here.

Here's some of the original reportage from Reuters last month:

WASHINGTON, Oct 12 (Reuters) — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Wednesday appealed to international donors to increase their financial support, saying more money was needed to rebuild schools and homes destroyed by months of Russian bombardment.

Zelenskiy, speaking by video link to finance ministers at the World Bank and International Monetary Fund annual meetings in Washington, said Ukraine needed about $55 billion — $38 billion to cover next year's estimated budget deficit, and another $17 billion to start to rebuild critical infrastructure, including schools, housing and energy facilities.

"The more assistance Ukraine gets now, the sooner we'll come to an end to the Russian war, and the sooner and more reliably we will guarantee that such a cruel war will not spread into other countries," Zelenskiy said.

Well, no, Vlodko.  That's not how these things work.  Extended wars create entire consultant classes of special interests, intent on keeping the war fires burning, the budgets expanding, and the salaries rising.  More money, longer war.  Or, to paraphrase Thomas Sowell, you can have all the Ukraine war you'd like to pay for.  (In the original, he said "poverty," in criticism of huge expanding government poverty programs.)  Just ask what happened in Afghanistan and Vietnam.

Ukraine may have a sympathetic cause, given that it was invaded, but it's also a nation that didn't prepare for its own defense.  It's had plenty of money, but it's one of the most corrupt places on Earth, according to Transparency International and other watchdogs of corruption and waste.  In 2021, Transparency found that Zambia, Algeria, and the Philippines were less corrupt places.  The corruption is so bad that Ukraine is a poorer nation than most of its Western neighbors, such as economically flourishing Poland and Hungary.

Is anyone asking where this money is going?  Back when the last big tranche of federal cash was dispatched by the Senate to Ukraine, Sen. Rand Paul called for an auditing amendment to watch where that money was going.  His amendment was turned down by a Democrat-led Senate, and Zelensky, whose nation is not a NATO ally, got what he wanted.

Well, he's spent that, and now he wants us to fill the budget hole in his government operations to the tune of $55 billion, some $38 billion for government operations and $17 billion for reconstruction of the country, showing that constructing roads and bridges is no match in terms of cost for government salaries and pensions.  He asks this as if the place were still operating normally, as if the country were incapable of cutting the size of its government, freeing its citizens of all its oppressive regulations, and growing its economy on its own without the gigantic government apparatus of pre-war times.  It could be argued that Ukraine spent so much on government bureaucrats and bureaucrat pensions that it didn't have much left for its national defense.

Here are some of the problems with that one.

Why does Zelensky want $38 billion for government operations when, according to the Reuters report, the IMF, which does demand conditions for aid, says it needs $3 billion per month, which would be $36 billion, not $38 billion?  That needs a little explaining right there.

Second, what do these bureaucrats do that creates this $38 billion in "value" to justify the expense?  Why can't they just be laid off as useless fixtures during a hot war and be done with it?

On the matter of pensions, note that pensions in Ukraine are a big cost indeed, given that so many young people have fled the country even in the pre-war era.  It's expected that about a quarter of the population is going to be on government pensions by 2024, according to Wikipedia.  Maybe they can try to bring some of the young people back by freeing their economy for entrepreneurship so they can get a tax base?

Here are some other problems cited in Wikipedia's entry, emphasis mine:

Pension expenditures in 2017 amounted to 284 billion UAH. representing approximately one-third of total spending. The government covered 141 billion UAH of pension spending while the rest was funded by Single Social Contribution.[12]

Capital residents received the highest average pension in 2017, 2408.02 UAH, while the lowest was in Sumy Oblast, 1560.95 UAH.

Nearly half of retirees (5.6 million) received the minimal pension.

Pensions of public servants, judges, prosecutors, and educators received multiples of the average. According to the State Statistic Service, payments over 10,000 UAH (312 EUR) were received by only 15.5 thousand pensioners.

Six million workers pay Single Social Contribution from which 12 million pensions are funded, which means that each contributor supports two retirees.

So these bureaucrats whom Zelensky expects Uncle Sam to bankroll make many times as much in terms of average pensions paid out compared to ordinary Ukrainians.  Seems they can't be asked to make any wartime sacrifices, and with Joe Biden in the saddle ready to sign off on another tranche of free money to them, why would they?  They can continue to live high on the hog compared to other Ukrainians, with many reports out there of them buying second and third properties for themselves in other countries.  Can't interrupt that, now, can we?  Zelensky himself is believed to be worth upwards of $20 million, according to Forbes.  What's his wartime contribution?

Note also from the Wikipedia report that the latest they retire is at age 65.  Over here in the states, they just raised that age to 70.  Ukraine, which is the land of long-lived people who drink their yoghurt, can't raise their full retirement age to 70, too, so they can pay out less?

It's conditions like these that make that $55-billion demand to fund Ukraine's government seem so skeevy.  It raises obvious questions about why there isn't an auditor for these gargantuan amounts, as well as a free-market policeman demanding reforms as conditionality, the way the IMF does, and why the IMF amounts and the contributions from Europe are so small, while the demands on the U.S. are so big.  The top question it raises is whether Zelensky "has something" on Joe Biden, given the revelations of corruption between the Biden family and Ukraine's oligarchs, as seen from the contents of the abandoned Hunter Biden laptops.  What does Zelensky indeed have on Biden?

But sure enough, Zelensky feels comfortable enough to get away with making these extraordinary demands, which seem to propel Ukraine into a fantasyland of permanent war and raining money.  "Show leadership," he implored the U.S. by means of flattery.  What he really meant was "show money."

Image: Screen shot from Fox News video via YouTube.


Comer: If Dems Think We’re Lying about Hunter, They Can Just Turn over Bank Records Instead of Establishing a War Room

2:29

On Friday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Rep. James Comer (R-KY) said that if Democrats want to embarrass Republicans for their statements about Hunter Biden, they don’t need a war room, the Bidens can just release suspicious activity reports on the Biden family and prove them wrong if they really believe Republicans are wrong.

Comer said, “[I]f the Democrats want to embarrass Republicans on the Oversight Committee for making allegations that aren’t true about the Biden family, then all they have to do is prove that what we say is not true, turn those bank records over, those suspicious activity reports. This is the most damning thing with respect to what this White House has done to block congressional investigations and to protect Hunter Biden and the entire Biden family from all of their influence-pedaling overseas. They have changed the rules to where Congress can’t have access to those suspicious activity reports. That shouldn’t be something that we have to subpoena. We will if we have to. But, at the end of the day, Maxine Waters, once Joe Biden changed that rule, put language in legislation to give Congress that authority back. I think that’s something the Financial Services Committee can do early on to try to get Congress to have the ability to access those suspicious activity reports.”

In 2018 and 2020, Breitbart Senior Contributor and Government Accountability Institute President Peter Schweizer published Secret Empires and Profiles in Corruption. Each book hit #1 on the New York Times bestseller list and exposed how Hunter Biden and Joe Biden flew aboard Air Force Two in 2013 to China before Hunter’s firm inked a $1.5 billion deal with a subsidiary of the Chinese government’s Bank of China less than two weeks after the trip. Schweizer’s work also uncovered the Biden family’s other vast and lucrative foreign deals and cronyism. Breitbart Political Editor Emma-Jo Morris’ investigative work at the New York Post on the Hunter Biden “laptop from hell” also captured international headlines when she, along with Miranda Devine, revealed that Joe Biden was intimately involved in Hunter’s businesses, appearing to even have a 10 percent stake in a company the scion formed with officials at the highest levels of the Chinese Communist Party.

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett

The GOP’s Hunter Biden Probe is Legit

Which party is really the one defending democracy?

As a tactical concern, the House GOP’s decision to open an investigation into Biden family corruption is questionable. It promises a limited political return. It would serve Republicans, and the country, far better if the House focused on a hyper-politicized Justice Department that targets the political opposition, labels concerned parents “domestic terrorists” and ignores violence aimed at pregnancy centers, for starters.

None of that, however, means there isn’t sufficient circumstantial evidence suggesting President Joe Biden not only lied about knowing his son was favor-trading on the family name with corrupt autocracies but that he was a beneficiary of those business dealings. Indeed, precedent says we Republicans have a duty to “democracy” to investigate. Yet Greg Sargent over at The Washington Post warns: “If Republicans can obliterate the distinction between congressional investigations done in good faith and ones that weaponize the process in bad faith, they win.”

You see, only Democrats can launch investigations in “good faith.”

Pathological partisanship can lead to cosmic shamelessness. And you almost have to admire the chutzpah. These are the very same people who spent years championing one of the most unethical investigations in American history. We now know that Russia’s “collusion” hysteria was predicated on partisan opposition research and disinformation meant to delegitimize the 2016 election. There was a total of zero indictments related to the 2016 election “collusion.” So rickety was the evidence that guardians of our sacred norms never even tried to impeach former President Donald Trump over this alleged sedition. I’ll spare you the slew of blown one-source anonymous “scoops” spread by major media organizations in concert with the FBI and Democratic Party. Sargent highlighted them all.

Let’s remember when the New York Post broke the Hunter Biden laptop story, virtually the entire left-wing media complex regurgitated the risible claims of former intelligence officials — including known liars James Clapper and John Brennan — that the entire kerfuffle was just Russian “disinformation.” Sargent dismissed the news as a “fake scandal” and worked to discredit the story.

The Hunter story always had far more journalistic substantiation than the histrionic and fallacious Russia-collusion investigations that Sargent and his paper peddled for five years. Post reporters had interviewed the owner of the Delaware computer shop where Hunter had abandoned his computer. They had Hunter’s signature on a receipt. They had on-the-record sources with intimate knowledge of his interactions. They had Tony Bobulinski, one of two former business partners of Hunter Biden who contend that “the big guy” was Joe.

Now, it’s certainly possible that the computer shop owner and Bobulinski, a Navy veteran and former chief technology officer at the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command who made campaign contributions to progressives like Ro Khanna, were part of an elaborate fascistic cabal spreading “disinformation.” But now, Congress can put them under oath.

Later, emails implicating the president as a participant in Hunter’s schemes were authenticated by forensic specialists. Yet virtually the entire censorious journalistic establishment, with the help of tech giants, limited the story’s exposure to help their preferred candidate win.

“Democracy,” indeed.

Then there is the issue of the president claiming he knew nothing about Hunter’s leveraging of the family name for influence peddling and never personally “profited off” any of his son’s schemes. What did the president think Hunter was doing when he hitched a ride to secure deals with the Chicoms on Air Force Two in 2013? Does Joe not remember that two Obama administration officials raised concerns about Hunter’s relationship with the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma? When finally asked about his son, Biden claimed the “vast majority of the intelligence people have come out and said there’s no basis at all.”

His buddies lied — just like they had during the Russia collusion hysteria. This week, only two years late, CBS News confirmed that the Hunter Biden emails were all genuine — just like everyone knew they were. Now we have authenticated emails showing an executive from Burisma thanking Hunter for facilitating a meeting with the vice president.

If Joe were a Republican, Adam Schiff would not only have opened an investigation but he would have claimed to have irrefutable proof that the 2020 election had been bought by the Chinese. Sargent would be churning out one hyperbolic piece after the next. We would all be watching another thermonuclear meltdown.

Of course, nearly every congressional investigation in history is to one extent or another undertaken in “bad faith,” and that’s fine. One of the most beneficial roles of political parties is that they will hold the opposition accountable. But Sargent, and other advocates of one-party rule, only see legitimacy in their objectives, which is one of the numerous reasons their claim to be democracy’s defenders is so laughable.


Bankrupt cryptocurrency firm FTX, whose former CEO Sam Bankman Fried spent nearly $40 million to help Democrats in this year's midterm elections, now owes its creditors at least $3 billion.


Judicial Watch investigated the scandal and obtained documents from the U.S. Treasury related to the controversial bailout. The famously remiss House Ethics Committee, which is charged with investigating and punishing corrupt lawmakers like Waters, found that she committed no wrongdoing. The panel bought Waters’ absurd story that she allocated the money as part of her longtime work to promote opportunity for minority-owned businesses and lending in underserved communities even though her husband’s bank was located thousands of miles away from the south Los Angeles neighborhoods she represents in Congress.


CRYPTO - Was FTX Simply a Fraudulent Criminal Scam? $10BN Customer Funds & $2BN Investor Money Lost





MAXINE WATERS IN BED WITH SAM.... JUST FOLLOW THE MONEY!

FTX Disaster - 7 Unbelievable Bankruptcy Discoveries


The 30-year-old entrepreneur donated $5 million to a super PAC that supported President Joe Biden in 2020 and $40 million this cycle, largely to Democrats. He contributed $6 million to the House Majority PAC, $1 million to the Senate Majority PAC, and nearly $900,000 to the Democratic National Committee.


Everybody wins when Maxine sells her endorsement, Maxine's

family with cash, and others with cash turned into newfound

power. The only losers are the voters, who get these

misleading junk mail flyers in their mail and vote on arguably

false premises.

What a racket this is for people like Waters. Still no sign of any

legislation to stop this practice.  MONICA SHOWALTER


BELOW IS THE IMAGE OF BANKSTERS' RENT GIRL MAXINE. HARDLY SUPRISING HER HUSBAND IS A BANKSTER!

Sam Bankman-Fried and FTX Cronies Gave $300k to House Committee Members Investigating Him

House Financial Services Committee chair Maxine Waters has dodged questions about crypto titan's donations

Sam Bankman-Fried a

Sam Bankman-Fried Aimed to Outpace George Soros as Largest Democrat Donor

Sam Bankman-Fried, co-founder and CEO of FTX, photographed in Hong Kong on May 11, 2021. (Lam Yik/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Lam Yik/Bloomberg via Getty Images
2:21

Disgraced former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried tried to build a political empire to rival Democrat megadonor George Soros.

Puck News reporter Theodore Schleifer wrote that Bankman-Fried personally bought a Democrat startup, Deck, spending roughly $4 to $5 million to buy out the existing investors to the Democrat analytics firm. Bankman-Fried reportedly heard about the startup from Mind the Gap, a Democrat donor network founded by his mother, Barbara Bankman-Fried.

The purchase of Deck served as Bankman-Fried’s political scheme to be the “biggest donor in the Democratic Party,” even outshining Democrat megadonor.

soros

Democrat megadonor George Soros on January 23, 2020 in Davos, eastern Switzerland. (FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP via Getty Images)

Bankman-Fried and Ryan Salame, co-CEO of FTX Digital Markets, served as two of the largest donors to Republicans and Democrats last cycle. Bankman-Fried fell just below Soros as the largest Democrat donor.

Ryan Salame, co-CEO of FTX Digital Markets. (Twitter)

In all, Bankman-Fried donated roughly $40 million to Democrat politicians and PACs, while Salame gave about $23 million to Republicans and PACs supporting the GOP.

Puck News wrote that the former FTX CEO sought advisers and conducted data experiments to help Democrats in the 2024 election cycle:

I have previously reported that S.B.F.’s team was actively looking for future advisors to join them in drafting “plays” for the 2024 cycle, and that one of those ideas was to fund some more progressive organizations, for instance. Some of those plans were already underway. I have learned in recent days that S.B.F. was already quietly funding some experiments across the Democratic ecosystem, such as randomized-controlled trials that might have yielded data that could help Democrats in 2024, according to two people familiar with the work, by assessing the impact of things like community newsletters, Facebook ads, and so-called “relational organizing.”

In all, the report suggested that Bankman-Fried might have spent roughly $100 million, but according to Schleifer, “That could be an undercount.”

Sean Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.



Crypto Firm Led by Democratic Megadonor Owes Creditors $3 Billion

Sam Bankman-Fried / Getty Images
 • November 21, 2022 1:32 pm

SHARE

Bankrupt cryptocurrency firm FTX, whose former CEO Sam Bankman Fried spent nearly $40 million to help Democrats in this year's midterm elections, now owes its creditors at least $3 billion.

The firm, which was once valued at $32 billion, filed for bankruptcy on Nov. 11, leaving a total of $3.1 billion owed to its top 50 creditors, the Washington Post reports:

The revelations, which came in a filing to U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware late Saturday, offer a striking portrait of the sheer number of entities that had considerably invested in, lent money to, or otherwise engaged with a three-year-old company that had done little to demonstrate it could properly safeguard the assets entrusted to it. Its top 50 creditors are owed a total of $3.1 billion, the filing showed, with the largest due $226 million.

The names of the creditors were redacted. […]

In a separate filing Saturday, new FTX chief executive John J. Ray said the company will seek sales and other forms of capitalization to ensure that as many creditors as possible get their money. He noted that some of the subsidiaries of FTX "have solvent balance sheets, responsible management, and valuable franchises," which could facilitate that process. Some 130 FTX sister companies are part of the bankruptcy filing.

Cofounder and former CEO Sam Bankman-Fried, who resigned when FTX filed for bankruptcy, and other FTX executives gave a total of $300,351 to nine members of the House Financial Services Committee. The largest donations went to Democrats working on regulating the crypto industry, the Washington Free Beacon found. Earlier this year, Bankman-Fried pledged $1 billion to Democratic campaigns in the 2022 midterm election. Now the crypto scion has lost all of his $16 billion net worth.

In the court filing, FTX listed one million potential creditors. Ray said the company is seeking sales and other forms of capitalization to ensure that its creditors get their money, but the process may prove difficult as Ray found serious inadequacies in FTX's record-keeping.

"The main companies in the Alameda Silo and the Ventures Silo did not keep complete books and records of their investments and activities," Ray wrote in the filing, referring to some of Bankman-Fried's entities. He added, "One of the most pervasive failures of the FTX.com business in particular is the absence of lasting records of decision-making."

Published under: BankruptcyCryptoDemocratic Donors

Sam Bankman-Fried and FTX Donated over $300,000 to Lawmakers Investigating Him

Sam Bankman-Fried, inset: Ritchie Torres
Jeenah Moon/Bloomberg via Getty; David Dee Delgado/Getty
4:03

Former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried and his cofounders donated over $300,000 to nine lawmakers who are now investigating the company for wrongdoing.

Bankman-Fried and his cofounders donated $300,351 to nine members of the House Financial Services Committee; the largest donations were to members of the Digital Assets Working Group, which is working on cryptocurrency regulation.

The House Financial Services Committee announced earlier this week that the committee would investigate any wrongdoing by Bankman-Fried and FTX.

Only Rep. Chuy Garcia (D-IL) said he would return a $2,900 donation from Bankman-Fried.

Although Bankman-Fried has donated to Republicans, 95 percent of the donations went to Democrats and Democrat campaign committees.

Bankman-Fried’s PAC, Protect Our Future PAC, spent $199,851 backing Garcia. The disgraced CEO and his brother, Gabriel, gave $40,300 to Rep. Ritchie Torres’s (D-NY) campaign and two of his political committees, the Torres Victory Fund and La Bamba PAC. Bankman-Fried and his head of the regulatory division gave $16,600 to Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ). Other Bankman-Fried employees gave $500 to Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), and $9,100 to Rep. Sean Caster (D-IL).

Torres, Gottheimer, Himes, and Casten were all members of the Digital Assets Working Group.

Bankman-Fried also gave $11,600 to Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA) and $5,000 to the super PAC for Rep. Cindy Axne (D-IA).

Bankman-Fried also generously donated to Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and John Boozman (R-AR), who have pushed a cryptocurrency regulation bill, the Digital Commodities Consumer Protection Act, a bill that Bankman-Fried backs.

The Washington Free Beacon reported:

His intensive lobbying campaign appeared to pay off before his company’s demise. He supported legislation proposed by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.) and Sen. John Boozman (R., Ark.) that would have subjected the crypto industry to regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, not the larger and aggressive Securities and Exchange Commission.

Bankman-Fried donated $5,800 to Stabenow’s campaign in February and $20,800 to her joint fundraising committee in January. Bankman-Fried gave $5,800 to Boozman in January and $5,800 to committee member Sen. John Hoeven (R., N.D.) in June. He gave a combined $31,000 to campaigns and joint fundraising committees tied to Sens. Cory Booker (D., N.J.), Tina Smith (D., Minn.), Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.), who serve on the Senate Agriculture Committee.

The 30-year-old entrepreneur donated $5 million to a super PAC that supported President Joe Biden in 2020 and $40 million this cycle, largely to Democrats. He contributed $6 million to the House Majority PAC, $1 million to the Senate Majority PAC, and nearly $900,000 to the Democratic National Committee.

House Financial Services Committee Chair Maxine Waters (D-CA) has dodged questions on whether Democrats should return donations from Bankman-Fried and his associates.

Sean Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.


Waters Has Shoveled Over $1 Million in Campaign Cash to Daughter

Joe Schoffstall - 

Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.) has now dished out more than $1 million in campaign payments to her daughter following the 2020 elections.

Karen Waters has pocketed $1.13 million for providing an array of services for her mother's campaign since 2003. The majority of the cash is for her role in running a controversial slate-mailer operation, in which California politicians gave money to Waters's campaign in exchange for mailers bearing her endorsement.

The mailers have become increasingly lucrative for the younger Waters over the years. During the 2020 cycle, her payments hit a high of $240,000. That's significantly more than the $90,000 her firm, Progressive Connections, took in during the 2006 election cycle. The Federal Election Commission gave Waters the green light for the mailer operation in 2004.

While slate mailers are commonplace in states like California and Oregon, the practice is extremely rare at the federal level. In fact, Waters appears to be the only federal politician to use a slate-mailer operation. As such, the arrangement between her and her daughter has led to complaints from watchdog groups asking the FEC to audit the campaign.

Many prominent California politicians have paid to be featured on the mailers. Vice President Kamala Harris twice shelled out tens of thousands from her campaigns for a spot on the mailers. California governor Gavin Newsom (D.) and former senator Barbara Boxer (D.) have likewise dished out cash for Waters's support.

The practice has received criticism from local media."While some of these mailers reflect the earnest political values of the organizations that put them together, many are pay-to-play money-makers that blur the line between endorsement, paid advertisement and extortion," CalMatters wrote last year.

Waters's campaign did not return a request for comment.



 

 

Maxine Waters Pays Daughter Hundreds of Thousands in Campaign Funds


Rep. Maxine Waters's (D., Calif.) campaign paid her daughter hundreds of thousands in campaign funds during the 2020 election cycle, according to Federal Election Commission records. 

Karen Waters received $240,000 from her mother’s campaign for a variety of campaign activities, including soliciting campaign contributions from other candidates in exchange for the congresswoman's endorsement on campaign mailers, Fox News reported

This is not the first time Maxine Waters has used the controversial practice to raise funds for her campaign, and her campaign has paid her daughter for years to help manage the scheme. 

From 2006 through 2020, Waters’s campaign shelled out more than $1 million to her daughter—either directly or through Progressive Connections, Karen Waters’s public relations firm—for producing what are known as slate mailers featuring her mother's endorsement of California candidates. Karen Waters raked in more than $200,000 from her mother’s campaign during the 2018 election cycle, the Washington Free Beacon first reported

Watchdog groups have filed complaints asking the FEC to audit Waters's campaign for using the mailers. The campaign has faced criticism for the mailers since 2010, when one watchdog group first reported that the congresswoman had been paying her daughter to run the operation.

California Democrats including Governor Gavin Newsom, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris have donated tens of thousands of dollars to Waters’s campaign for the endorsement mailers.

Though the FEC caps individual campaign contributions at $2,800, payments for the slate mailers are considered "reimbursements" for Waters’s endorsement. The commission issued an advisory opinion in 2004 allowing Waters permission to run the operation through her campaign.

Waters was first elected to Congress in 1990 and serves California's 43rd Congressional District.

 

Maxine Waters Unfit to Chair House Financial Services Committee

Considering her record and documented history of poor ethical and moral fitness, it’s outrageous that Maxine Waters is up for chair of the ultra-powerful House Financial Services Committee, which has jurisdiction over the country’s banking system, economy, housing, and insurance.

With Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives, come January the 14-term California congresswoman is expected to head the committee, which also has jurisdiction over monetary policy, international finance, and efforts to combat terrorist financing.

Throughout her storied political career, Waters has


been embroiled in numerous controversies,


including abusing her power to enrich family


members, getting a communist dictator to harbor a


cop-murdering Black  Panther fugitive still wanted


by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and


accusing  the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)


of  selling crack cocaine in black neighborhoods.

A few months ago, the 80-year-old Democrat from Los Angeles encouraged violence against Trump administration cabinet members. “If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they are not welcome anymore, anywhere,” Waters said at a summer rally in Los Angeles. Judicial Watch filed a House ethics complaint against Waters for encouraging violence against Trump Cabinet members.

Among her most corrupt acts as a federal legislator is steering millions of federal bailout dollars to her husband’s failing bank, OneUnited. Waters allocated $12 million to the Massachusetts bank in which she and her board member husband held shares. OneUnited subsequently got shut down by the government and American taxpayers got stiffed for the millions.

Judicial Watch investigated the scandal and obtained documents from the U.S. Treasury related to the controversial bailout. The famously remiss House Ethics Committee, which is charged with investigating and punishing corrupt lawmakers like Waters, found that she committed no wrongdoing. The panel bought Waters’ absurd story that she allocated the money as part of her longtime work to promote opportunity for minority-owned businesses and lending in underserved communities even though her husband’s bank was located thousands of miles away from the south Los Angeles neighborhoods she represents in Congress.

The reality is that without intervention by Waters OneUnited was an extremely unlikely candidate for a government bailout through the disastrous Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The Treasury Department warned that it would only provide bailout funds to healthy banks to jump-start lending and OneUnited clearly didn’t meet that criteria.

Documents uncovered by Judicial Watch detail the deplorable financial condition of OneUnited at the time of the government cash infusion. The records also show that, prior to the bailout, the bank received a “less than satisfactory rating.” Incredibly, after that scandal Waters was chosen by her colleagues to hold a ranking position on the House Financial Services Committee she will soon chair. The only consequence for blowing $12 million on her husband’s failing bank was a slap on the hand to Waters’ chief of staff (her grandson) for violating House standards of conduct to help OneUnited.

Waters, who represents some of Los Angeles’ poorest inner-city neighborhoods, has also helped family members make more than $1 million through business ventures with companies and causes that she has helped, according to her hometown newspaper. While she and her relatives get richer (she lives in a $4.5 million Los Angeles mansion), her constituents get poorer.

The congresswoman was also embroiled in a fundraising scandal for skirting federal election rules with a shady gimmick that allows unlimited donations from certain contributors. Instead of raising most of her campaign funds from individuals or political action committees, Waters sells her endorsement to other politicians and political causes for as much as $45,000 a pop.

It wouldn’t be right to part without also noting some of Waters’ international accolades. She has made worldwide headlines for her frequent trips to communist Cuba to visit her convicted cop-assassin friend, Joanne Chesimard, who appears on the FBI’s most wanted list and is also known by her Black Panther name of Assata Shakur.

Chesimard was sentenced to life in prison after being convicted by a jury of the 1979 murder of a New Jersey State Trooper. With the help of fellow cult members, she escaped from jail and fled to Cuba. Outraged U.S. lawmakers insisted she be extradited but Waters always stood by her side, likening the cop-assassin to civil rights leader Martin Luther King.

In fact, Waters wrote Cuban Dictator Fidel Castro a letter to assure him that she was not part of the group of U.S. legislators who voted for a resolution to extradite the cop murderer. Waters told Castro that she opposed extradition because Chesimard was “politically persecuted” in the U.S. and simply seeking political asylum in Havana, where she still lives.

In the 1980s Waters accused the CIA of selling crack cocaine to blacks in her south-central Los Angeles district to raise millions of dollars to support clandestine operations in Latin America, including a guerrilla army. During the infamous 1992 Los Angeles riots the congresswoman repeatedly excused the violent behavior that ironically destroyed the areas she represents in the House. She dismissed the severe beating of a white truck driver by saying the anger in her district was righteous. She also excused looters who stole from stores by saying they were simply mothers capitalizing on an opportunity to take some milk, bread, and shoes.

Should this ethically and morally challenged individual, who has repeatedly displayed behavior unbecoming of a federal lawmaker, be at the helm of an influential congressional committee that oversees the financial sector?

CLEARLY WE KNOW HOW MUCH BILLARY, HILLARY AND THE OBOMB MADE SERVICING CRIMINAL BANKSTERS. ALL PAID VIA 'SPEECH' FEES AT ABOUT $500k EACH. OBAMA PRIDED HIMSELF IN MAKING SURE NO CRIMINAL BANKSTER EVER WENT TO PRISON. MOST OF HIS BANKSTERS CONTINUE TO THIS DAY  TO PLUNDER WITH IMPUNITY!

KAMALA HARRIS WAS WAITING  ON THE SIDELINES IN CA AS A.G. SUCKING OFF WELLS FARGO AND 'KING OF FORECLOSURES' STEVEN MNUCHIN. 

THE OLD WHORE FEINSTEIN FOUGHT AGAINST ENDING 'CONSULTANT FEES TO FAMILY MEMBERS' BRIBES AS HER PIMP HUSBAND, RICHARD BLUM WAS DOLING OUT BIG MONEY TO BOXER SO SHE WOULD VOTE FOR ANYTHING THAT BENEFITED THE CRIME DUAL OF FEINSTEIN-BLUM.

FEINSTEIN IS A WHORE FOR RED CHINA, HAS SERVED THEM LONG FOR 'DEALS' THAT HER PIMP MADE. FEINSTEIN HAS LONG VOTED IN THE SENATE FOR ANYTHING THAT WOULD BENEFIT RED CHINA.

FEINSTEIN IS ALSO THE BIGGEST WAR PROFITEER IN U.S. HISTORY. SHE'S SO FUCKING CORRUPT SHE QUICKLY ENDORSED JOE BIDEN FOR THE PRESIDENCY, AFTER ALL, HE'S A FEINSTEIN CLONE.


Maxine Waters's paid-mailer racket snowballs

By Monica Showalter

When we last visited Rep. Maxine Waters's hightly questionable 'slate-mailer' money-making racket in 2019, where candidates and causes get Waters's endorsement in exchange for cash, her daughter Karen who runs the thing had just pocketed $50,000.


Well, the operation seems to have gotten

bigger, and Karen appears to be richer, all from

mama Maxine's simple word of endorsement.


According to Fox News, citing federal election data and a 2018 report from the Washington Free Beacon:

The reelection of U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters to another term in Congress last month proved to be something of a financial windfall for Karen Waters, the California Democrat's daughter, federal election data suggest.

Karen Waters received a total of about $240,000 from her 82-year-old mother’s campaign during the election cycle, Federal Election Commission records show.

The dollar figure appears to mirror what Karen Waters received during her mother’s previous campaign in 2018, when the daughter was paid “more than $200,000,” according to a November 2018 report by the Washington Free Beacon.

Which is nice work if you can get it. Seriously, this person makes $240,000 which is nearly equal to what the mayor of Los Angeles makes, or the average U.S. Senator makes, or Maxine herself makes as a House member at $174,000 a year. It's more than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi makes ($223,500). It's certainly more than California's Gov. Gavin Newsom ($210,000) makes.

All for the little task of assembling a mailer to fill the voters' junk mail takings and then the recycle bins in one part of one county, and collecting cash on the content. Running the country's largest state with the world's seventh largest economy, by contrast, is less important stuff. Karen Waters must be brilliant.

Which raises questions as to why Waters, a far left demogogue, is selling her endorsements for cash, and what the payers of these endorsements, are really getting for their money. We know the Waters machine is strong, but so strong as to merit inflated fees and salaries for Waters and her family? This is known as getting rich while in public office. Waters is the only one who's doing this sleazy machine-politics practice on a national scale, but don't imagine other Democrats aren't also looking to cash in.


Everybody wins when Maxine sells her

endorsement, Maxine's family with cash, and

others with cash turned into newfound power.

The only losers are the voters, who get these

misleading junk mail flyers in their mail and

vote on arguably false premises.


What a racket this is for people like Waters. Still no sign of any legislation to stop this practice.

Image: Gage Skidmore, via Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 2.0 

No comments: