Elon Musk Says Report Of $45 Million Monthly Donation To Pro-Trump Super PAC Was “Made Up Fiction By WSJ”
Elon Musk was spotted Wednesday in the US Capitol Building ahead of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to lawmakers as the war in Gaza continues into its ninth month.
A reporter asked Musk, “Are you still going to donate to Trump? Are you still donating $45 million?”
Musk replied, “At no point did I say that I was donating $45 million a month for Trump. That was a fiction made up by the Wall Street Journal.”
Footage of the interaction between the reporter and Musk was posted on X by Collin Rugg.
NEW: Elon Musk blasts the Wall Street Journal, says he never said he was donating $45 million a month to Donald Trump.
Reporter: “Are you still gonna donate to Trump? Are you still donating $45 million?”
On July 16, The Wall Street Journalreported that “people familiar with the matter” said Musk committed $45 million monthly to a new super political-action committee supporting the former president.
Earlier this week, in an interview with Jordan Peterson, the billionaire said, “What’s been reported in the media is simply not true. I am not donating $45 million a month to Trump.”
Elon Musk confirms that he created the America PAC.
But he says that the idea that he is not putting $45 million a month into the group.
“What’s been reported in the media is simply not true. I am not donating $45 million a month to Trump.”pic.twitter.com/V8we3Iqbwb
Russia is considering banning the export of diesel if prices rise further, Russian daily Kommersant reported on Wednesday, citing several sources.
The Russian government could ban diesel exports if prices spike in the near term, but no decision has been made yet, according to Kommersant’s sources.
There are no conditions for a complete ban on diesel shipments abroad yet, a source at a local oil company told the Russian daily.
The government is restoring a ban on gasoline exports from August 1.
In the autumn of 2023, Russia banned exports of diesel and gasoline in an effort to stabilize domestic fuel prices in the face of soaring prices and shortages as crude oil rallied and the Russian ruble weakened.
Prior to implementing the ban, Russia had raised mandatory supply volumes for motor gasoline and diesel fuel to deal with a supply crunch.
These bans lasted only a few weeks.
This year, Russia reinstated a ban on gasoline shipments from March 1 but lifted the restriction on May 20 as more refineries completed planned seasonal maintenance or emergency repairs after Ukrainian drone hits in the winter and early spring.
At the end of March, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said the government doesn’t plan to ban diesel exports again.
At the time the supply and prices of diesel were stable.
However, diesel demand and prices have increased in recent weeks, and, according to Kommersant’s sources, the government could reinstate a ban on exports if prices continue to rise.
In terms of gasoline exports, a ban will be renewed on August 1, Novak said earlier this week.
“We have the embargo approved until September 1. An exception has been currently made for the month of July. The exception ends from August 1. The tacit ban on exports of petroleum products and gasoline will be restored. In other words, the ban will be reenacted from August 1,” Russian news agency TASS quoted Novak as saying.
In the latest episode of the Money Metals Midweek Memo, host Mike Maharrey delved into the perils of central planning and the inherent limitations of human knowledge, drawing on insights from economist Friedrich Hayek and financial expert Jim Grant.
The episode offered a critical examination of the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy and its implications for the economy.
Planning in Uncertainty
Maharrey began with personal anecdotes to illustrate the unpredictability of life. He shared stories of a day disrupted by a flat tire and an unexpected plumbing issue during a home renovation, underscoring the theme that “you don’t know what you don’t know.” This unpredictability, he argued, is a fundamental flaw in central economic planning.
The Knowledge Problem
Maharrey referenced Friedrich Hayek’s seminal work, “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” to explain why central planning is doomed to fail. Hayek’s “knowledge problem” posits that no central planner can possess all the information necessary to make informed economic decisions. Hayek wrote, “The knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess.”
Jim Grant’s Critique of Central Planning
Maharrey highlighted an interview with Jim Grant on Fox Business, where Grant criticized the Federal Reserve’s approach to monetary policy.
Grant described central planning as “the ignorance that knows not it’s ignorant,” a phenomenon where policymakers fail to recognize the limits of their knowledge.
He stressed the importance of markets in discovering interest rates rather than having them imposed by central authorities.
Grant also pointed out the flaws in the Federal Reserve’s interest rate projections, noting that they are accurate only 38% of the time, which Maharrey compared to flipping a coin.
This statistic underscores the speculative nature of central banking decisions.
In the interview, Grant made a compelling point: “Assumptions are harmless as long as the assuming party doesn’t confuse them with foreknowledge.”
Historical Perspective
To provide context, Maharrey reflected on the contrasting attitudes of policymakers in 1953, the first year of President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s administration. At that time, there was a commitment to balancing the budget and restoring the dollar to gold convertibility. Federal Reserve Chairman William McChesney Martin lauded the free market and emphasized that fixed interest rates and economic dysfunction were not part of American institutions.
In contrast, today’s Federal Reserve is deeply involved in manipulating markets and interest rates. Maharrey pointed out that despite their confidence, central planners are inevitably blind to the full consequences of their actions, leading to economic dysfunction.
“The future is a phenomenon both strange and wondrous though it doesn’t exist unless we reckon with it,” Grant remarked, highlighting the unpredictability of economic outcomes.
The Current Economic Climate
Maharrey criticized the current mindset that the Federal Reserve has everything under control, attributing the stock market’s highs to easy money policies rather than effective economic governance. He argued that the apparent stability over the past two decades has given people a false sense of security, ignoring the underlying issues that could lead to future economic crises.
Maharrey expressed significant skepticism about Jerome Powell and the Federal Reserve’s ability to manage the economy effectively. He argued that central planners, including Powell, are often overly confident in their ability to predict and control economic outcomes, despite lacking the necessary comprehensive knowledge.
Maharrey emphasized that “they don’t know what they don’t know,” highlighting the inherent unpredictability and complexity of economic systems.
He pointed out that the Federal Reserve’s interest rate projections are only accurate 38% of the time, suggesting that their decisions are more speculative than scientific. Maharrey was critical of the Fed’s past and current policies, including the handling of the 2008 financial crisis and the response to the pandemic, which he believes have led to long-term economic instability.
Maharrey also criticized the mainstream investment world for treating Fed officials like “demigods handing down wisdom from on high,” despite their frequent inaccuracies and failures. He argued that the Fed’s current monetary policies, including interest rate manipulation, are based on hubris and a false sense of certainty, leading to potential future economic crises.
The Importance of Humility
Maharrey echoed Grant’s advice for investors and policymakers to approach their predictions with humility. Grant reminded us that the future is uncertain and that past successes do not guarantee future accuracy. Maharrey emphasized that understanding historical economic trends and fundamentals can help make more informed predictions, but one must always remain cautious and prepared for unexpected events.
In conclusion, Maharrey stressed the importance of having a safe haven like gold and silver in one’s investment portfolio to hedge against economic uncertainty. He encouraged listeners to contact Money Metals Exchange to explore opportunities in precious metals, especially during periods of market volatility.
Final Thoughts
Maharrey wrapped up the episode by inviting listeners to stay informed through Money Metals’ various platforms and to tune in to their regular podcasts for more insights into the precious metals markets and economic trends. “Just because nothing bad has happened yet doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen,” Maharrey cautioned, urging a proactive approach to financial preparedness.
For more detailed insights, listeners are encouraged to visit the Money Metals website and subscribe to the updates and podcasts.
Ukraine Strongly Signals Willingness To Negotiate With Russia: China FM
The Ukrainian government has been showing an increased willingness to get to the negotiating table to end the war, with the latest development being a trip by the country’s top diplomat to China to explore avenues forward. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba on Wednesday met with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi, and communicated in a statement that “I am convinced that a just peace in Ukraine is in China’s strategic interests.”
“China’s role as a global force for peace is important,” he emphasized, while also stipulating that Kiev will only engage Moscow when Putin is “ready to negotiate in good faith.” However, he added that “No such readiness is currently observed on the Russian side.” This marks the first such trip of Ukraine’s foreign minister to China since the war began in February 2022.
Wang in a readout said that Russia and Ukraine had each “sent signals of their willingness to negotiate to varying degrees.”
From Ukraine’s perspective, China alone is a powerful enough external actor which possesses enough influence with Moscow to get it to end the invasion. For Beijing, this is an opportunity to show itself a crucial counterweight to the United States on the world stage in dealing with intractable conflicts from Ukraine to Gaza.
A Chinese Foreign Ministry statement continued in follow-up to Wang’s comments, saying, “Of course, the negotiations should be rational and substantive, aimed at achieving a just and lasting peace.”
Wang had in the meeting warned the Ukrainian diplomat that there is the “risk of escalation and spillover” of the conflict, adding that “China believes that the resolution of all conflicts must eventually return to the negotiation table.”
Last week, President Zelensky issued a surprise reversal, saying that a second Ukraine peace summit should include Russian representation. “I believe that Russian representatives should be at the second summit,” Zelensky told a press conference in Kiev on July 15 while outlining preparatory work for another summit.
The first “Summit on Peace in Ukraine at the Bürgenstock” in Switzerland in mid-June importantly did not have either Russian or Chinese participation. While Beijing had been invited, Russia was not, and the Chinese government cited this as a reason it found the whole endeavor futile.
China has been busy presenting itself as peacemaker while condemning ‘hegemonic’ Washington…
China 🇨🇳 just brokered a historic unity pledge with Palestinian leaders.
Ukraine is requesting China mediate peace with Russia.
China brokered peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
While the U.S. fuels genocide and endless war, China is showing its a peace making super power. pic.twitter.com/uHq4RJOJLO
In addition to China, the Vatican is also this week calling for some very real talk regarding the war. According to a readout from the Vatican as quoted in Russian media:
The Vatican’s Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, believes that the Ukrainian conflict is still far from being settled and that Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky’s proposed peace formula is not sufficient, the Cardinal said on Wednesday in an interview with Italian daily Avvenire…
“It seems to me that we are still far away from the resolution [of the conflict],” he said. “We have President Zelensky’s peace proposal, which the Holy See supported immediately, particularly in the sphere of humanitarian issues.”
“It represents an attempt to find peace, although it has gaps in the sense of not involving Russia. This plan can help, but it is not sufficient,” he continued. “I hope other formulae can be found to pave the way for the talks.”
It remains that Kiev has been unwilling to budge on the idea of making territorial concessions. At the same time, Russia is unwilling to give up the four eastern territories it previously annexed, declaring them part of the Russian Federation after a referendum last year.
But this month has included a series of openings and unprecedented signaling coming from Kiev for the first time. This as both Ukraine is in a desperate situation on the battlefield and as it is bracing for a likely future Trump administration in the US.
Romania Scrambles Fighter Jets Amid Russian Attacks Near Its Border
In another dangerous close call with Russia on a NATO border, Romania scrambled fighter jets overnight in response to Russian military actions very close to the Ukraine-Romanian border.
Romania’s Defense Ministry said Wednesday that it scrambled the fighter jets in response to a series of Russian drone attacks near the border. It confirmed two F-16 aircraft took off just after 2am local time from the 86th Borcea Air Base, which lies east of the capital of Bucharest.
The Romanian fighter jets were given a mission to monitor “the aerial situation.” The fighter jets returned to their base two hours later, and reportedly did not engage any targets or hostile cross-border threats.
There was a separate incident elsewhere in which Romanian authorities feared drone parts or debris may have fallen within Romania’s sovereign territory:
Around the same time, Romania’s Tulcea County — which borders southern Ukraine’s Odesa region — was put on alert as Russian forces were said to have been carrying out drone attacks “against certain targets” near the NATO member’s border with Ukraine. Authorities did not specify where those attacks had taken place.
…“The Ministry of National Defence has ordered measures to conduct investigations in the field, in the vicinity of Plauru, to search for possible objects that have fallen on the national territory,” the defense ministry’s statement said, referring to a town located just 300 meters from the Ukrainian city of Izmail on the Danube River.
Romania has reported several times throughout the course of the war that drone debris fell on its territory. For example, last year in a very dangerous moment, Ukraine claimed that a Russian suicide drone attacked Romanian territory, something which Romania itself later rejected.
“This is yet another confirmation that Russia’s missile terror poses a huge threat not only to Ukraine’s security, but also to the security of neighboring countries, including NATO member states,” Ukraine’s foreign minister said at the time.
But this was widely seen as an attempt by Kiev to drag Romania directly into the conflict on its behalf: “The Ministry of National Defense categorically denies information from the public space regarding a so-called situation that occurred during the night of September 3 to 4 in which Russian drones allegedly fell on the national territory of Romania,” Bucharest had responded at the time.
Netanyahu Gives Fiery Speech Before Divided Congress Hailing ‘Forever Alliance’ Between America & Israel
Summary: Seeking to shore up support for the war against Hamas in Gaza, and with Vice President Harris not in attendance and with dozens of Democrats also choosing to skip in protest, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed “this great citadel of democracy for the fourth time.” He also took time in the lengthy address to acknowledge rescued hostages and their families, including families of American hostages, present in the chamber for the speech.
“I will not rest until all of their loved ones are home! All of them” – he said of the hostages. We are “actively engaged” in intensive efforts to secure their release, the prime minister said. “Some of them are taking place right now.” He also recognized “President Biden’s “tireless efforts” and “heartfelt support” for Israel. Biden “dispatched two aircraft carriers to the Middle East to prevent a wider war,” Netanyahu said. Also acknowledging this politically chaotic and sensitive moment where Biden has bowed out of the presidential race, he called the US president “A proud Irish-American Zionist.” But he also by the end of the speech thanked Donald Trump for forging the historic Abraham Accords, and gave thanks for his surviving the assassination attempt against him.
Bibi is a master of optics, and he delivered a highly emotional reminder of the enormity and evil of the Oct.7 terror attacks. As expected, he linked 9/11, Oct. 7, and the Holocaust, but also highlighted American domestic protests and ‘anti-Jewish hate’. He described that ultimately this is a clash between “barbarism and civilization”, or “those who glorify death and those who sanctify life.” He said that on Oct.7 Hamas butchered 39 Americans, and likened it to having several 9/11’s in one day (compared to the population size of Israel). “Iran’s axis of terror confronts America, Israel, and its Arab friends,” he also said at one point, before linking Iran to US campus protests. He even mentioned the “frat brothers at the University of North Carolina” who tenaciously protected the American flag from raging anti-Israeli protesters. He ultimately accused “Iran of funding and promoting” anti-American and anti-Israel protests. “If Israel’s hands are tied, America is next,” he claimed.
He emphasized that America and Israel must stand together… “we win, they lose,” he said. Netanyahu also repeatedly went after the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) during the speech, calling the court “downright dangerous”. He called the genocide allegations “utter complete nonsense” and a fabrication.
At one point he told the story of an Ethiopian-Israeli officer who ran eight miles to the border where he killed terrorists. “These are the soldiers of Israel, unbowed, undaunted, unafraid!” He also held up the heroic actions of a Muslim-Israeli officer serving in a Arab Bedouin unit.
As expected, much of his speech was focused on Iran, who he said is behind “all the terrorism” and “all the killing”. He argued that Israel is essentially a wall protecting the rest of the civilized world from Iran and its proxies, whether Hezbollah, the Houthis, or Iraqi Shia militants. At one point he even asserted that the Islamic Republic “brazenly threatened to assassinate President Trump.” He said Israel is at the “front lines” – which helps prevent more American boots on the ground.”
He proclaimed that Israel is “grateful” for US support, but also pleaded: “give us the tools faster” and we will end the war faster. He blamed Hamas for lack of ceasefire, saying the terror group must return all hostages. If they don’t, Bibi said, Hamas will be utterly destroyed.
Surprisingly, any protest attempt during the speech was minimal to non-existent, apart from a few shouts just after the close of the speech, with throughout was interspersed with long clapping bouts from Congress members. There were a few Progressive Dems holding up small signs, however, which appeared to have no impact…
Others decided to show their support by actually putting on a suit and tie…
Watch Live:
* * *
Update (1358ET):
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is scheduled to address Congress at 1400 ET. The last time Netanyahu addressed Congress was in 2015. This address comes at a time of massive division between Republicans and Democrats and their approach to one of America’s closest allies amid the ongoing war raging across Gaza.
House Speaker Mike Johnson has welcomed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the Capitol, calling it a “very important time” for the Israeli leader’s visit.
“This is a very important time,” Johnson said, adding, “Our bipartisan congressional leadership recognized it as such and invited him here.”
According to CNN, at least 50 Democratic lawmakers are planning to ‘miss’ Netanyahu’s address to Congress.
“Dozens of members of Democrats are expected to skip Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress on Wednesday afternoon. Some are boycotting, others are attending a series of counter-programming events, and several cited scheduling conflicts as the reason.” – CNN
Republicans are currently criticizing Vice President Harris for also planning to skip the event.
“The Vice President can’t be bothered to show up at the nation’s capital and the House chamber and to demonstrate the respect and courtesy that we thought was a given, but apparently not,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said earlier.
Cornyn added, “I think it’s absolutely disgraceful that the most senior members of the Democratic Party have chosen to give the Heisman to one of our closest allies in the Middle East.”
Elon Musk is even attending.
🚨 JUST IN: Elon Musk has now CONFIRMED he is at the US Capitol to Israeli PM Netanyahu speech to a joint session of Congress
CNN notes that Hostages Families Forum has urged Netanyahu to open up to US lawmakers with the words: “There’s a deal.”
Without those words, “there will be neither victory nor revival,” the forum expressed.
Netanyahu’s speech comes at a critical juncture in the nine-month war. CNN cited US officials who expressed optimism about the potential for a deal that could free Hamas-held hostages and bring the conflict to the final chapter.
* * *
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived in Washington, DC, on Monday. Today, he plans to address Congress to strengthen American support for his multi-month war in Gaza to eliminate Hamas terrorists. Meanwhile, outside the Capitol Complex, thousands of pro-Palestinian protesters are set to participate in what organizers are calling a ‘day of rage.’
On Tuesday evening, X user Andy Ngo said, “A large mob has flooded the US Capitol one day ahead of the planned “Day of Rage” against Netanyahu’s visit to Congress.”
Ngo said, “Far-left and Palestinian nationalist groups have announced plans to shut down Washington, DC in response to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking at the Capitol on July 24.”
Ahmad Abuznaid, executive director of the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights and organizer of the event, told BBC News that protesters will “make the statement that war criminals like Netanyahu are not welcome” in Washington.
Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson invited Netanyahu to give his first address to Congress in nine years. He is scheduled to address lawmakers at 1400 ET. Johnson has warned against demonstrations inside the House chamber, saying there would be arrests “if we have to do it.”
Hundreds of NYPD officers have been sent to Washington, D.C. to help local law enforcement maintain public safety for the planned leftist “Day of Rage” against Netanyahu on July 24. https://t.co/LU3lGWIsJX
Another protest organizer said, “More people are willing to get arrested this time” compared to previous demonstrations.
“All the protests have shown a tone of rage, but this time is definitely different,” said one of the organizers with the Palestinian Youth Movement, adding, “It is our enemy, our primary enemy, they are inviting into the White House.”
Meanwhile, most leftist corporate media outlets are radio silent about the ‘day of rage’… Most likely because protests would generate bad optics for the presumptive Democratic nominee, Vice-President Kamala Harris.
Netanyahu is also due to speak with President Biden and VP Harris at the White House. Former President Trump announced on Tuesday that he will talk with Netanyahu later this week at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida.
Below is my column in the New York Post on the ruling against Nina Jankowicz in her defamation case. It turns out that calling opposing views defamation is no better than calling them disinformation.
Here is the column:
For free speech advocates, there are few images more chilling than that of Nina Jankowicz singing her now-infamous tune as “the Mary Poppins of Disinformation.”
The woman who would become known as the “Disinformation Czar” sang a cheerful TikTok parody of “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” to rally people to the cause of censorship.
When the press caught wind of President Biden’s plan to appoint Jankowicz as head of the Department of Homeland Security’s new “disinformation board,” Fox News said she “intended to censor Americans’ speech.”
The backlash was swift. Plans for the board were suspended, and Jankowicz resigned in 2022. She then sued Fox News for defamation.
On Monday, the case was dismissed. But Chief Judge Colm Connolly, a Delaware Democrat, didn’t just say it was legally unfounded — he demolished the claims of figures like Jankowicz that they are really not engaged in censorship.
The Biden administration has coordinated with social media and targeted the revenue of conservative, libertarian and other sites.
These figures gleefully worked to silence others with the support of millions in public dollars for years. Yet, when exposed to criticism, they often portrayed themselves as victims with an obliging and supportive media.
They all took a page from Mary Poppins, who “taught us the most wonderful word!” In this case, the word is “disinformation” and it is certainly not connected to “censorship.” Rather you are supposed to call the barring, blacklisting and throttling of opposing views “content moderation.”
Jankowicz took that not-so-noble lie to a new level. After losing her job, she launched a campaign soliciting funds to sue those who called her a censor.
I was highly critical of these efforts as trying to use defamation as another tool to chill critics and shut down criticism.
It was a telling lawsuit, as Jankowicz simply labeled criticism of her as “defamation” — just as she labeled opposing views “disinformation.”
The objections to her work were called false and she insisted that she was really not seeking to censor people with her work.
Connolly made fast work of that effort. After holding that people are allowed to criticize Jankowicz as protected opinion, the court added:
“I agree that Jankowicz has not pleaded facts from which it could plausibly be inferred that the challenged statements regarding intended censorship by Jankowicz are not substantially true. On the contrary … censorship is commonly understood to encompass efforts to scrutinize and examine speech in order to suppress certain communications.
“The Disinformation Governance Board was formed precisely to examine citizens’ speech and, in coordination with the private sector, identify ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and ‘malinformation.’ … that objective is fairly characterized as a form of censorship.”
Of course, in America’s burgeoning censorship infrastructure, the entire decision is likely to be viewed as some form of disinformation, misinformation or malinformation.
After all, even true facts can be deemed censorable by the Biden-Harris administration.
I testified previously before Congress on how Jen Easterly, who heads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, extended her agency’s mandate over critical infrastructure to include “our cognitive infrastructure.”
The resulting censorship efforts included combating “malinformation” — described as information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”
Thus, referring to Jankowicz as engaged in censorship on this defunct board may be true, but could still be treated as “malinformation.”
As I discuss in my book, these setbacks are unlikely to deter the corporate, academic and government figures aligned in our current anti-free speech movement. Millions of government and private dollars are flowing to universities and organizations engaged in targeting or blacklisting individuals and groups.
It is now a growing industry unto itself.
The new censors have gone corporate and mainstream. Silencing others is now a calling, a profession. They have literally made free speech into a commodity that can be packaged and controlled for profit.
Yet Confucius once said that “the beginning of wisdom is the ability to call things by their right names.” This opinion takes a large step toward such wisdom.
If figures like Jankowicz want to continue to make money silencing others, we can at least call them for what we believe they are: censors.
* * *
Jonathan Turley is a Fox News Media contributor and the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” (Turley appears as a legal analyst on Fox, but nothing in this column is written on behalf of Fox Corp.)
Funny Money: ActBlue Accused Of “MASSIVE Money Laundering Operation” As Trump Files FEC Complaint Over $91M Transfer To Kamala
Democrat donation platform ActBlue has been accused of a engaging in a “MASSIVE money laundering operation,” by which contributions from large donors are being funneled through hundreds of thousands of small donations made in the name of people who have no clue they’ve donated.
I’m told Harris campaign is already using ActBlue money laundering scheme, $20 million from Johann Georg Wyss known as Hansjörg Wyss, born 19 September 1935, a Swiss billionaire, and was broken down into over 1,600,000 donations across 400,000 donors. Dirty! Dirty! Dirty! pic.twitter.com/pHaJr3lzwC
The accusation comes as the platform says it had its best day of 2024, and possibly of all time, in the wake of President Biden abandoning his reelection campaign on Sunday.
ActBlue has been previously been fined for facilitating nearly $44,000 in illegal contributions.
Meanwhile, journalist James O’Keefe approached alleged donors with hundreds of thousands of contributions listed in their name, who knew nothing about them.
This is how Kamala Harris raised all that money in one day.
Silver Throat’s donors mostly had no idea they even donated.
In related news, the Trump campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on Tuesday accusing President Biden and VP Kamala Harris of violating campaign finance laws with the transfer of $91 million in fundraising cash to her new campaign.
According to the complaint, Harris is “seeking to perpetrate a $91.5 million dollar heist of Joe Biden’s leftover campaign cash.”
Trump campaign general counsel David Warrington called the act a “brazen money grab that would constitute the single largest excessive contribution and biggest violation in the history of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended,” adding “Kamala Harris is in the process of committing the largest campaign finance violation in American history and she is using the Commission’s own forms to do it.”
“The Commission must not and cannot sit idly by while one candidate takes nearly one hundred million dollars from the authorized committee of another, in violation of the Act and the will of the donors who gave the money in the first place.”
The complaint names Biden, Harris, “Biden for President (aka Harris for President) and Keana Spencer, as treasurer, for flagrantly violating the Act by making and receiving an excessive contribution of nearly one hundred million dollars, and for filing fraudulent forms with the Commission purporting to repurpose one candidate’s principal campaign committee for the use of another candidate.”
The complaint argues that if “Kamala Harris were a candidate for something in 2024, federal law requires her to have filed a Statement of Candidacy and for her name to have appeared in the name of her authorized committee.But Kamala Harris’s name does not appear in the name of her purported authorized committee, ‘Biden for President,’ and, until Sunday, no Statement of Candidacy existed for her. Then Sunday, rather than filing her own Statement of Candidacy, she merely altered Joe Biden’s to replace his name with hers. There is no mechanism under the Act for one individual to end another’s federal candidacy by simply amending the other’s Form 2. Moreover, in that purported amended Form 2 Harris designated ‘Biden for President’ as her principal campaign committee and then renamed it. Altering a document submitted to a federal agency is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519.3.” -Fox News
According to the Harris campaign, the complaint is “baseless.”
1. Promises to ban fracking and offshore drilling
2. Supports mediocrity over merit: “equal outcomes for all”
3. Wants more big government / deficit spending
4. Supports free healthcare and housing for illegals
5. Hoax peddler (Smollett, Charlottesville, Border agents whipped migrants, Russiagate, Biden is healthy)
6. Wants more funding for foreign wars
7. Race-baiter
8. BLM supporter
9. Supported Defund the Police
10. Supports woke DEI ideology
11. Was ranked as the “most liberal” Senator (100/100)
12. Wants to pack the Supreme Court
13. Supports ending the filibuster to pass radical legislation
14. Climate change zealot
15. Supports open borders
16. Wants to abolish ICE
17. Wants the government to legislate what you eat, including less red meat
18. Supports restricting the 2nd Amendment
19. Wants to replace private insurance with universal healthcare
20. Election denier
Mike Shedlock (via Mishtalk.com) dives deeper… Kamala Harris is off and running with a mind meld of the most progressive policies of Biden, AOC, and California governor Gavin Newsom.
On Tuesday outside of Milwaukee, Ms. Harris was introduced by an “educator” with a doctorate who said that thanks to the Biden-Harris Administration, “I had almost all of my student-loan debt forgiven.”
And if that plank of progressive big government doesn’t appeal, Ms. Harris has others. The VP said she sees a future where “every worker has the freedom to join a union,” and “every person has affordable health care, affordable child care, and paid family leave,” and “every senior can retire with dignity.”
The promise is that Uncle Sam will deliver it all. She also pledged to sign federal laws to ban “assault weapons” and override state abortion limitations.
This is a strange strategy. Ms. Harris is talking as if she’s running in the Democratic primaries and trying to beat California Gov. Gavin Newsom for her party’s presidential nod. In reality she leapfrogged that fraught step and is going straight to the general election.
In Milwaukee she sounded as if her main political task is to get Democrats enthused about finishing the pieces of Mr. Biden’s Build Back Better agenda that failed in the Democratic Senate. That means more government entitlements for healthcare, child care, and more progressive culture war.
The main policy areas with some daylight between Biden and Harris have been healthcare, trade, climate and taxes.
As a senator, Harris supported Medicare for All, which would shift the healthcare system from private and employer-based insurance to a government-run program. But in 2020, during her run for the White House, she released a more moderate proposal to expand access to Medicare while keeping private insurance intact. And since joining Biden’s presidential ticket, Harris has backed his plan, which calls for building on the Affordable Care Act.
On trade, Harris opposed two recent major trade deals that Biden supported, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Harris was one of just 10 senators who voted against the USMCA, a renegotiated version of the North American Free Trade Agreement under the Trump administration, arguing the environmental provisions were insufficient. She also opposed TPP as a Senate candidate, arguing it didn’t do enough to protect the environment and worker regulations.
Harris’s climate record has arguably been the most liberal part of her policy portfolio. She has backed the Green New Deal and supported banning fracking. Biden ran on a fracking ban, but only for oil and gas production from federal lands. As president, Biden did more to address climate change than any of his predecessors spending $1 trillion in tax credits, grants and loans for clean energy.
Vice President Harris, seen visiting Lake Mead in Nevada in 2021, has a climate record that has arguably been the most liberal part of her policy portfolio.
As a presidential candidate, Harris proposed a full repeal of the 2017 tax cuts enacted by Trump and congressional Republicans. Biden as a candidate and as president has backed leaving in place the tax cuts for people making under $400,000 and fully paying for those extensions with new taxes on companies and high-income households.
During her campaign, she also favored raising estate taxes.
In 2016 Republican voters nominated Mr. Trump to the dismay of GOP elites who thought he was unelectable. This year, liberal pooh-bahs are pushing for Ms. Harris, and the question is whether rank-and-file Democrats have changed their minds about her.
Gallup reported this month that 55% of U.S. adults want immigration levels reduced. That’s up significantly from 41% a year ago and the highest level since 2001. “The shifts in attitudes have come after monthly illegal border crossings reached record levels late last year,” the polling company said.
Moreover, Gallup’s “monthly measure of the most important problem facing the country finds immigration consistently ranking among the top issues this year.” In Ms. Harris, Democrats are offering a candidate who was put in charge of addressing the border crisis and who failed so miserably at that task that more than half the country is now demanding a reduction in immigration.
As a senator, Ms. Harris co-sponsored a bill introduced by fellow Democrat Cory Booker that would “establish a commission to study the impact of slavery and continuing discrimination against African-Americans and make recommendations on reparation proposals for the descendants of slaves.”
Ms. Harris’s past support for reparations is likely to go over as well as her past support for giving illegal immigrants free healthcare. Do the party elites expect voters to forgive and forget all this because she’s a black woman? Ms. Harris’s sudden elevation may well trigger higher black turnout this year, but not all of it will benefit Democrats. If the polls are correct, a growing number of black voters believe that liberals like Ms. Harris care more about the welfare of illegal immigrants than they do about the welfare of black communities.
Democrats are changing the name at the top of the ticket when what’s really needed is a course correction, and someone from Ms. Harris’s wing of the party isn’t likely to provide it. Mr. Biden’s re-election bid was flailing, only partially due to his age and infirmities. He was also struggling to convince voters that his prescriptions for everything from inflation and crime to immigration and foreign policy were preferable to what could be expected in a second Trump presidency. In choosing Ms. Harris, Democrats are betting that Donald Trump will beat himself in November.
Change Where?
Kamala Harris isn’t the change voters want because she is promising no change at all.
At least she’s honest. Biden promised to be a moderate and a healer. How’d that work out?
Vote for me, I’m dumb but honest. Hmmm, could that work? Somehow I doubt that is the message voters want to hear.
Appeal to the Base?
Is the Democrat base now the extreme Progressive Left?
Regardless, it’s clear that neither Trump nor Harris has any use for swing voters.
Trump and Harris both can’t be right, but they both can be wrong. One of them will win anyway.
A Word About the Polls
Expect a bounce for Harris. But that bounce may be nothing more than a sigh of relief that Democrats saved Democracy, not from Trump, but from Biden.
With the weight of Biden gone, there will be more enthusiasm headed into the Democratic convention. Then the convention will likely add a bit of a bounce.
We won’t have any readings for a week that mean anything. But if there is no bounce at all in the polls for Harris in the next few weeks that could be a sign that it’s curtains already.
Here is a mosaic of Kamala Harris, made out of the black men she kept in prison beyond their sentences to use as free labor for the State of California.
Kamala Harris was one of the leaders of the Defund the Police Movement. She even put up bail money for rioters who attacked police and burned down businesses. pic.twitter.com/m3Fpz3rmi9
New footage has been released showing local Beaver County police officers and a Secret Service agent on the roof with the neutralised shooter Thomas Matthew Crooks at the July rally where President Trump was almost assassinated.
The footage, obtained by Senator Chuck Grassley from the Beaver County Emergency Services Unit in compliance with congressional requests, shows police and the agent talking about what has transpired while standing over the dead and bloodied body of the shooter, with the rifle he used just a few feet away.
Grassley notes“July 13 Bodycam footage provides more info than Secret Service will share with America. We NEED detailed answers ASAP on security failures TRANSPARENCY BRINGS ACCOUNTABILITY.”
NEW My office has obtained docs from law enforcement on July 13 assassination attempt of Pres Trump I’m writing Secret Service Acting Dir Rowe & DHS Scty Mayorkas AGAIN 2get badly needed answers/clarity pic.twitter.com/LyQMzYGCkD
New police bodycam footage has been released showing local Beaver County police officers and a Secret Service agent on the roof with the neutralised shooter Thomas Matthew Crooks at the July rally where President Trump was almost assassinated. Full report: https://t.co/5zd92uzs6lpic.twitter.com/9OOuiCiVCG
Here is a Rumble embed of the footage in case X blocks it on grounds of it being sensitive:
The biggest takeaway from the footage is that one of the county officers is heard saying that a police sniper in a building overlooking where Crooks was positioned was able to take multiple photos of Crooks before he began shooting.
This corroborates the timeline released by Senator Ron Johnson, chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
Another facet of the bodycam footage that is interesting is the Secret Service agent believes that two other people had been detained, but the local police don’t seem to know anything about it.
In addition, the fact that several people are standing on and moving around the roof completely rubbishes the excuse from the now former head of the Secret Service that the sloped roof was too hazardous to position personnel on.
How are they able to stand and talk on a sloped roof in such severe heat, I was told that was very dangerous
Furthermore, close to the end of the video, someone says through one of the police radios “Do we have access to a drone to clear this water tower?”
The has been much speculation that a possible second shooter was seen on the water tower, however this has not been verified.
In addition to this video, a new eyewitness video of the moment the shooter fired on Trump has emerged. Crooks is also seen pointing his weapon at those filming him, while a former military eyewitness notes that the area was not secured and no one standing along the fence was vetted.
New footage of Trump assassination attempt. Shows the shooter aiming his gun at those filming him. Former military eyewitness says neither he nor those with him were vetted despite being all along the fence and having a clear view of the stage. Report: https://t.co/5zd92uzs6lpic.twitter.com/5zV0behqsG
The new footage only serves to underscore the question, now also being asked by Trump himself, why on Earth was he on the stage when law enforcement knew there was a gunman on the roof?
* * *
Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.
