Commentary Culture Investigations

You can serve the rule of law or be a loyalist. Can’t do both.

Attorneys for ActBlue, the Democratic fundraising behemoth that has fueled the left’s political machinery by processing more than $7 billion in small-dollar contributions in the past five years, issued a dire warning to the organization’s leadership in early 2025: They may have lied to Congress about their efforts to reject illegal political donations from foreign citizens.
ActBlue chief executive Regina Wallace-Jones told congressional investigators in a 2023 letter that ActBlue had instituted “multilayered” checks to ensure the platform only accepted overseas donations from American citizens. Measures included requiring donors to supply U.S. passport numbers before processing donations from international addresses, according to the letter.
That wasn’t entirely accurate, attorneys for the fundraising platform at the D.C.-based law firm Covington and Burling warned the company’s senior leadership in a pair of 2025 memos. They noted that ActBlue did not verify passport information from donors who paid through third-party apps such as Apple Pay or Venmo, the New York Times reported.
Covington warned ActBlue in its memos that the oversights present “substantial risk” to the fundraising platform, which facilitates online contributions for the vast majority of left-of-center politicians, PACs, and nonprofits across the country. Later, in a video conference call with ActBlue’s leadership, Covington also warned Wallace-Jones that she was at risk of legal liability over her 2023 letter to Congress and needed to retain a personal attorney.
“It can be alleged that ActBlue accepted and/or facilitated the acceptance of foreign-national contributions into American elections,” one of the Covington memos read, according to the Times. “In addition, because ActBlue’s staff was aware that its system was not as robust as necessary, it could be alleged that these violations were ‘knowing and willful,’ a standard that both increases the penalties the F.E.C. might seek and gives the Justice Department jurisdiction for a potential criminal investigation.”
Covington’s memos to ActBlue come to light as the organization faces intense scrutiny from the Justice Department following an April 2025 order from President Donald Trump directing an investigation into allegations the platform had been facilitating political contributions by foreign nationals.
ActBlue chairwoman Kimberly Peeler-Allen in an interview with the Times downplayed the memos, saying that “less than 1 percent” of contributions processed through the platform during the 2024 election cycle had “signs” of coming from foreign countries.
One percent of ActBlue’s fundraising haul during the 2024 cycle clocks in at $38 million, a seismic figure that could have a measurable impact on major elections during the cycle. The ActBlue platform processed $3.8 billion in political contributions to Democratic politicians and groups during the 2024 election cycle, Federal Election Commission records show.
Covington’s warnings appear to have spooked wide swaths of ActBlue’s senior leadership, prompting several senior officials to resign from the organization within weeks in early 2025. That includes ActBlue’s former in-house attorney Aaron Ting, who said he resigned because of the platform’s representations to Congress in its 2023 letter.
“I am concerned that leadership is not fully committed to transparently addressing with the Board the seriousness of our most pressing concerns: the legal compliance of ActBlue’s past practices for screening political donations from abroad and its past representations to Congress regarding foreign donations and related matters,” Ting wrote in his resignation letter, the Times reported.
ActBlue’s remaining leaders say Covington “insufficiently reviewed the 2023 letter to Congress,” according to the New York Times, which reported that Covington “approved the letter.” The fundraising platform parted ways with Covington in the weeks after the law firm issued its memos.
Covington has landed its clients in hot water before, most notably through former attorney general Eric Holder’s exorbitantly priced corporate diversity audits.
Holder, who serves as senior counsel at Covington, has charged as much as $2,295 an hour to conduct “racial equity audits” for corporations such as Starbucks. A 2021 report from Holder urged the coffee giant to tie executive pay to diversity targets, set spending goals for “diverse suppliers,” and launch a mentorship program for “BIPOC” employees. Starbucks was sued a year later for violating non-discrimination laws.
ActBlue denied making false statements to Congress in a statement posted to its website Thursday that called the reporting from the Times a distraction “by those who want to rewrite our history or undermine our mission.” A Covington spokesman, David Schaefer, told the Times that the firm has “complete confidence in the legal advice our lawyers provided to ActBlue.”
Editor’s Note: The Free Beacon is a Covington & Burling client. But the firm, which once represented the Free Beacon in matters of defamation and employment, no longer does so after Covington partner Lindsay Burke and the firm’s Of Counsel, Jason Criss, cited a conflict of interest given their discomfort with the Free Beacon’s coverage of Holder’s practice. The Free Beacon has not had Covington conduct a racial equity audit.
The post ‘Substantial Risk’: Democratic Fundraising Juggernaut ActBlue May Have Misled Congress About Vetting Foreign Donations, Its Own Attorneys Warned appeared first on .

It’s the Great Fear that has been haunting California Democrats, and especially Politico, since they noticed the possibility last December that because of the Democrats splitting the votes among each other in the open gubernatorial primary in June. The two top candidates could end up being Republicans, thus locking Democrats out of the November general election.

The angst over this possibility has only increased dramatically since then, with the latest poll results sending poor Politico over the edge to the extent they have completely dropped even the bare pretense of objectivity as they MindMeld with the Democrats in deep deep concern as you see with senior politics reporter Jeremy B. White furiously rubbing the worry beads on Wednesday in “Democrats risk a historic upset in California.”

White might have written his panic piece on April Fool’s Day and the joke appears to be on the Democrats as illustrated by the subtitle: “How the party in America’s bluest state could lock itself out of the governor’s race.”

The  nightmare scenario (for Democrats and You-Know-Who) was laid out by White:

In a typical election, Democrats would be cruising. But this is not a typical year.

After heavyweights like Sen. Alex Padilla and former Vice President Kamala Harris passed on the race to succeed Gavin Newsom, no Democrat has broken away from the scrum. Now, some polls show Republicans are in position to capture the top two spots — including a survey circulated by state party Chair Rusty Hicks, whose plea for lower-tier Democrats to drop out has been met with backlash and accusations of racism.

“It’s completely dysfunctional,” said a former legislative leader granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. “It’s the weirdest combination.”

The cause for the latest panic attack was most likely the most recent Evitarus poll, SPONSORED BY DEMOCRATS, that revealed these hilarious results as reported in the March 25 Palm Springs Desert Sun, “New California poll shows Hilton, Bianco leading as Democrats split.”

The EVITARUS poll released Tuesday, March 24, shows conservative commentator Steve Hilton leading with 16% of likely voters, and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco just behind with 14%.

Three Democratic candidates — Congressman Eric Swalwell, Congresswoman Katie Porter, and climate advocate Tom Steyer — trail behind, each capturing 10% of likely voters. The other five democratic candidates each hold 3% or less of likely voters.

Yes, absolutely the worst of all worlds as far as both Democrats and Politico are concerned. And yet with the three top Democrats tied at exactly 10 points each behind the Republicans the political agony is made even funnier.

White does his bit for damage control by hyping the candidacy of Mr. Fang Fang, aka Eric Swalwell, perhaps with the intent to help him break away from the rest of the Democrat pack and especially ahead of at least one of the Republican candidates now leading in the polls:

In recent weeks, much of the political establishment has backed Rep. Eric Swalwell, who has picked up endorsements from Sen. Adam Schiff and two of California’s most prominent labor groups. A pro-Swalwell super PAC has piled up millions of dollars from medical interests and Uber, and a well-funded anti-Steyer effort launched late last month.

Finally, Jeremy White entertains us with some amusing “Woe Is Us” shtick:

California Democrats say they’ll clean up this mess. But in a governor’s race that has all the makings of a debacle, they’re digging themselves deeper.

With a sprawling field threatening to split the vote and hand the governorship to a Republican, a late-hour effort failed to persuade longshot contenders to drop out. A preeminent labor group split its coveted endorsement four ways, elevating no one. And in the most recent upheaval, a televised debate was hastily canceled after an uproar from within the party that leaving out low-polling candidates of color would produce an all-white stage.

…“We know there’s this risk ahead — a 15 percent chance of calamity. It’s not a 15 percent chance of stubbing your toe, it’s a 15 percent chance of losing the governorship, losing the down-ballot races,” said Paul Mitchell, a leading Democratic data strategist in the state.

Losing the governorship would rank among the biggest upsets in modern political history. For Democrats, who have held a monopoly on statewide office for a generation and outnumber Republicans two to one, it wouldn’t just mean ceding California’s role as a national leader in progressive policymaking. The lack of a top-of-the-ticket standard bearer could also suppress turnout and cost the party House seats, squandering Democrats’ victory last year in a hard-fought gerrymandering campaign.

Exit Question: Will there be Californians in June who will vote for one of the GOP gubernatorial candidates just for the comedic entertainment value of watching a Conniption Fit For The Ages by the Democrats and Politico?

ABC’s Good Morning America had the sensibility Thursday to do the opposite of what they did Wednesday in leading with — and not burying — the NASA launch of Artemis II on a ten-day trip to slingshot around the moon, but that’s where the compliments cease as, like Wednesday, Thursday’s show had plenty of anti-Trump hate. This time, it concerned Trump’s address to the nation the night prior.

Of course, co-host and former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos set the tone: “Want to turn now to President Trump’s first prime time address to the nation since launching the war against Iran, detailing military progress. The President promised to finish the job soon, but offered no new details on that end of conflict and threatened escalation.”

Condescending White House correspondent Mary Bruce set the tone with the negative:

[T]his speech left more questions than answers. More than a month into this war, the President argued why he feels this fight is necessary. He touted his military successes, even as Iran continued to strike while he was speaking. But the President offered no cut path forward to actually end this conflict. 

She continued to pummel the President: “Overnight addressing the nation for the first time since launching this war with Iran, President Trump claiming the U.S. is on track to end the conflict soon, but offering no vision or timeline for what comes next.”

ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’ to offer a wholly negative, condescending story on President Trump’s primetime address, courtesy of former Clinton tool George Stephanopoulos and the Biden regime’s chief apple polisher, Mary Bruce pic.twitter.com/fBD0piYWC4
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 2, 2026
Literally every thought had to have a negative connotation, including simping for the Iranians (click “expand”):

BRUCE: Five weeks into this war, the President still not making clear what conditions have to be met for this conflict to end. He says the operation is nearing completion, but is also vowing to continue attacking Iran and threatening their energy infrastructure if they don’t reach some kind of a deal.

TRUMP: We’re going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We’re going to bring them back to the stone ages where they belong.

BRUCE: The President rehashing why he started this campaign, saying Iran couldn’t have a nuclear weapon, despite claiming he obliterated their program in last year’s strikes. And, in an interview Wednesday, Trump said he’s not concerned about removing Iran’s remaining stockpile of enriched uranium, saying “that’s so far underground, I don’t care about that.” But that statement at odds with why the President says he went to war in the first place: to prevent Iran from being able to make a nuclear weapon.  International inspectors estimate Iran has nearly a thousand pounds of near-bomb grade uranium, deep underground at nuclear sites bombed by the U.S. last year.

Bruce also sided with Europe: “[T]he President did not repeat his earlier warning that he could pull the U.S. out of NATO. The President is furious with our NATO allies for not supporting the war effort, even though, guys, he did not give them and he heads up.”

And, because they hate the President so much, ABC brought Bruce back in the second hour to rehash many of these same points.

In contrast, CBS Mornings and NBC’s Today were far more ho-hum or indifferent to the speech.

Taking NBC first, Saturday co-host Laura Jarrett kicked it off by saying Trump “[made] his case for what he says will be several more weeks of this war with Iran, but the lack of specifics rattled markets and oil prices as attacks continue to spread across the Middle East.”

Senior White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez acknowledged the speech “many points that President had made recently” and provided “no specifics on how the crucial Strait of Hormuz will reopen,” but was the only network correspondent on Thursday to concede “a senior White House official tells me the President’s intended audience was the American people who are not following the war’s developments day-to-day.”

Gutierrez’s piece largely gave space for Trump’s objectives to be laid out before including Iran’s latest ominous response.

He was also the only person on the networks to pivot to Trump’s Easter lunch speech to allies and supporters, which was not supposed to have been made public (but the White House had inadvertently done) (click “expand”):

GUTIERREZ: Overnight, global markets fell sharply rattled by the uncertainty, all of it coming amid rising gas prices here at home and growing skepticism over the conflict. Yesterday, in a speech to faith leaders at the White House, the President saying the federal government needs to focus on the militaries while discussing fraud and funding for domestic programs, which he says states should run.

TRUMP: We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of daycare. It’s not possible for us to take care of daycare. Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things, they can do it on a state basis. We can’t do it on a federal. We have to take care of one thing, military protection.

GUTIERREZ: The White House posting then removing the speech, which was closed to the press. The remarks coming as the President is also pressuring Republicans to end the partial government shutdown while TSA officers are now getting paid, easing those long airport lines.

Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker also had analysis: “[A]ccording to the President’s allies I’ve been speaking with, the President’s goal was to really lay out his rationale in the most fulsome way for the war in Iran to the American people, and to try to calm jitters from Wall Street to Main Street, even though that clearly hasn’t happened yet[.]”

“[H]e did leave a lot of critical questions unanswered, including what his strategy is for exiting, whether he plans to put troops on the ground…and his critics say he didn’t show empathy for the higher prices Americans are dealing with,” she added in part.

Over on CBS, Saturday co-host Kelly O’Grady had a similar phraseology as NBC’s Jarrett:

[W]e’re going to start the news with President Trump’s late-night address to the American people. Now, in his nearly 20-minute speech he made his case for the war against Iran and said the U.S. military would, “finish the job soon.” But he didn’t say what that job is. After the speech, oil prices rose more than seven percent. The national average for a gallon of gas is now $4.08. 

CBS senior White House correspondent Weijia Jiang had the story and was more grim by declaring the speech came amid “sagging job approval numbers and soaring gas prices” and delivered no “new details about a time frame, a plan for winding down on what victory would look like.”

That said, she relayed that “Trump delivered a full defense of the Iran war and promised Americans the end to the military operation is in sight, claiming the objectives are ‘nearing completion’” and “vowed to continue the U.S. bombing campaign even as he says negotiations are ongoing.”

Jiang was the only network correspondent to point out that, amid Trump’s disgust with NATO countries for refusing to step up to help ensure safe passage for oil tankers on the Strait of Hormuz, “[t]he United Kingdom is hosting a virtual summit today with 35 countries to talk about reopening the Strait of Hormuz, but the prime minister has made clear they do not want to get tangled up in the conflict.”

Chief correspondent Matt Gutman then brought in CBS News contributor and School of War podcast host Aaron MacLean for measured and welcomed analysis (click “expand”):

[I]f you go back to the matrix of objectives that the President and others of his administration laid out at the start of the campaign a month ago, you can go it and give them grades. The Iranian navy — I think our military is doing pretty well. The Iranian military is largely at the bottom of the sea or has holes in the sides of its boats. The missile program has massively been degraded, but it’s here where you get slightly more moderate grades, right? They retain the capacity to harass their neighbors pretty significantly day to day as a big salvo fired at Israel and other countries just in the last 24 hours. President Trump spoke repeatedly about the nuclear program. Not a lot of action directly connected to the nuclear program thus far and it is unclear what the status of the goal will be going forward. And, of course, I think the biggest thing that’s on everyone’s minds and we just referred to it in that good report there is the Iranians have played the major card available to them which is the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, is having a massive economic impact and at some point is going to have to be dealt with.

(….)

[T]here were a series of comments [about the Strait] through the speech. First, he basically said the Strait of Hormuz is not America’s problem because we don’t buy our oil from there which, while technically true, of course, there’s a global finite supply of the commodity. So, if there’s a lack of supply the price still goes up in America. I think they should in and take it and he said don’t worry, it is naturally going to open up which implies his objective remains a deal at which point the Iranians open it up or perhaps regime change where they no longer harass it. You can see — I think he’s aware of the difficulty of a military campaign to open the Strait. It’s been done before. The United States did it in the 1980s, but it’s potentially protracted as a military operation. The President promised the American people a four-to-six-week war.

In the second hour, chief Washington analyst Robert Costa said the speech illustrated Trump “exerting executive power” and “leav[ing] a lot of options on the table” by, among other things, following recent predecessors in speaking to the public and Congress once the U.S. is in the midst of an armed conflict and not beforehand.

To see the relevant network transcripts from April 2, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC).

A closed strait hurts the U.S. economy pretty badly, too. The president knows that, right?

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for failing to produce the grand jury subpoenas served in connection with allegations that Chairman Jerome H. Powell may have misled Congress about a $2.5 billion headquarters renovation project (Judicial Watch Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (No. 1:26-cv-01113)).
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the Federal Reserve failed to comply with Judicial Watch’s January 26, 2026, FOIA request seeking access to the subpoenas issued by the U.S. Department of Justice.
In a public statement in January 2026, Powell disclosed that the Justice Department had served the Federal Reserve with grand jury subpoenas “threatening a criminal indictment” related to his June 2025 testimony before the Senate Banking Committee. That testimony addressed, in part, the multi-year renovation of the historic Marriner S. Eccles Building and the adjacent Federal Reserve East Building.
During his testimony, Powell denied the existence of luxury features such as private dining rooms, special elevators, rooftop gardens, and other high-end elements. The renovation project, originally estimated at approximately $1.9 billion, has ballooned to $2.5 billion amid questions about cost overruns.
In July 2025, U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Tim Scott (R-SC) sent a formal oversight letterto Powell highlighting discrepancies between the testimony and approved renovation plans, raising concerns about transparency and accountability for the multi-billion-dollar project. The letter points out that previously approved plans by the National Capital Planning Commission appear to reference some of the luxury features—raising questions about whether the plans changed, the features were removed, or the testimony was incomplete.
Trump administration officials, including then-Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, sharply criticized the renovation project. Vought sent a letter  to Powell on July 10, 2025, questioning the project’s management and compliance with federal standards. Vought publicly compared aspects of the renovation to elements that belong in France’s “Palace of Versailles.”
In March 2026, U.S. District Chief Judge James E. Boasberg nullified the Justice Department grand jury subpoenas. Jeanine Pirro, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, announced that her office would seek reconsideration and plans to appeal the ruling.
“Hiding grand jury subpoenas only deepens suspicions and erodes trust in our financial institutions,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
###
The post Judicial Watch Sues Fed for Grand Jury Subpoenas Tied to Testimony about $2.5 Billion Headquarters Renovation appeared first on Judicial Watch.