EXCLUSIVE: 13 of 22 RINO Holdouts Derailing Jim Jordan Are Connected to FTX and Voter Mule Donations

CONGRESSMAN STEVE SCALISE (R-LA), WHO IS UNDERMINING JIM JORDAN FOR HOUSE SPEAKER, TOOK MONEY FROM SAM BANKMAN-FRIED’S ILLEGAL FTX CAMPAIGN FINANCE OPERATION, AS DID 13 OF THE 22 RINO HOLDOUTS

According to Breitbart, Steve Scalise (R-LA) is the driving force behind the twenty-two RINOs who have prevented Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) from clenching the House Speakership after two rounds of votes.  Trump-endorsed Jordan is the clear choice of grassroots conservatives. A top House GOP aide reported, “[Constituents] are literally melting the phone lines. Some offices’ numbers are permanently busy. Thousands and thousands of people are calling their members of Congress demanding Jordan for Speaker.”

But several sources are claiming Steve Scalise is orchestrating the holdout that is preventing Jordan from clenching the speakership, including Debbie Dooley, a grassroots activist and Louisiana native:

Why would Scalise want to undermine the clear choice of the people and President Trump? Evidence unearthed by grassroots researchers in Scalise’s home state of Louisiana indicates that Scalise is has taken money from the FTX money laundering scandal.

The Former co-CEO of FTX, Ryan Salame, pled guilty early last month to “Conspiracy to Make Unlawful Political Contributions and Defraud the Federal Election Commission and Conspiracy to Operate an Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business.” Salame admitted that his job at FTX was to illegally funnel money to Republican politicians and political causes, while his co-conspirator, Sam Bankman-Fried, funneled money to Democrats. According to Salame, the donations were to support initiatives supported by Bankman-Fried. Bankman-Fried’s dearest initiative appears to be Joe Biden himself, as he made the second-largest single donation to his 2020 presidential campaign.

 Another initiative of Bankman-Fried was Steve Scalise, the man currently preventing Jim Jordan from becoming speaker. Bankman-Fried’s straw donor and co-CEO, Salame, donated $2,900 to Scalise a month before the 2022 Midterms ($2,900 is the maximum donation allowed by an individual):

In fact, thirteen of the twenty-two holdout RINOs also accepted donations from Ryan Salame – almost all of them maximum donations.

The RINOs who accepted these funds include Kay Granger (TX-12th), Mike Simpson (ID-2nd), Carols Gimenez (FL-28th), Jen Higgins (VA-2nd) , Marinette Miller-Meeks (IA-2nd), Mike Lawler (NY-17th), Steve Womack (AR-3rd), Mike Kelly (PA-16th), Mike Simpson (ID-2nd), Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-26th), Linda Chavez-Deremer (OR-5th), Andrew Garbarino (NY 2nd), Tony Gonzales (TX-23rd), and John Rutherford (FL-5th).

 As previously uncovered by The Gateway Pundit and the O’Keefe Media Group, donor mules are people whose identities are being used without their knowledge to launder large amounts of cash into campaign coffers of politicians. These fraudulent donations make it appear that these politicians have significant support from real people, when they are really being funded illegally by special interests. The donations are typically small, but frequent. The small amounts don’t arouse as much suspicion as large donations, but the total amount of cash from single individuals can add up to tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars. Follow-up investigations with the people whose identities are being stolen often reveal that they are average Americans who are really donating only small amounts to one or two candidates, but they are being credited with massive numbers of donations in the Federal Election Commission (FEC) records.

 Steve Scalise’s FEC records indicate significant donor mule activity. For example, a retired woman from Marietta, Georgia is credited with donating to Scalise 98 times in a single day with amounts varying from $3 to $22.50:

FEC RECORDS FOR STEVE SCALISE SHOWING 98 DONATIONS FROM ONE RETIRED INDIVIDUAL ON A SINGLE DAY

There are many similar incidents in Scalise’s FEC records. Research continues on how much mule activity appears in the campaign accounts of the twenty-two holdouts preventing Jim Jordan from becoming speaker. 

BREAKING: “Saint” Benitez Declares California “Assault Weapons” Ban Unconstitutional

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez delivered another scathing rebuke to the state of California on Thursday, just weeks after declaring the state’s ban on “large capacity” magazines unconstitutional. This time around it was the state’s ban on “assault weapons” that was before the judge, in a case known as Miller v. Bonta. Benitez was unsparing in his criticism of the law, which he says bars ordinary Californians from possessing commonly-owned arms that are protected by the language of the Second Amendment…

Benitez’s 79-page decision is far too long and so full of juicy goodness like this that it would be impossible for me to quote all of the highlights, so take the time and read it for yourself when you’ve got a half-hour or so.

Even though the Bruen test does not require (and in fact prohibits) interest-balancing, Judge Benitez engages in a bit of his own to rebut California’s argument that banning commonly owned firearms because they are sometimes used in high-profile and shocking assaults on groups of innocent people will have no impact on law-abiding citizens.

The case has more legal hurdles and will likely end up at SCOTUS.

Benitez’s 79-page decision is far too long and so full of juicy goodness like this that it would be impossible for me to quote all of the highlights, so take the time and read it for yourself when you’ve got a half-hour or so.

Even though the Bruen test does not require (and in fact prohibits) interest-balancing, Judge Benitez engages in a bit of his own to rebut California’s argument that banning commonly owned firearms because they are sometimes used in high-profile and shocking assaults on groups of innocent people will have no impact on law-abiding citizens.

A few of the judge’s excellent comments for those who care to read them.

Modern semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 platform rifle are widely owned by law-abiding citizens across the nation. Other than their looks (the State calls them “features” or “accessories”) these prohibited rifles are virtually the same as other lawfully possessed rifles. They have the same minimum overall length, they use the same triggers, they have the same barrels, and they can fire the same ammunition, from the same magazines, at the same rate of fire, and at the same velocities, as other rifles. What is it, then, that animates the State’s criminalization of possessing certain rifles as “assault weapons”? It is that similar rifles have been used in some mass shootings and that by virtue of this law, the legislature hoped to keep these modern weapons out of the hands of mass shooters. The California legislature, at a time in the past when the lower courts did not recognize an individual’s right to keep firearms and in a state that has no constitutional analogue to the Second Amendment, balanced that interest above and against its law-abiding citizens who wanted these firearms for self-defense.

That was then. Today, the Supreme Court has very clearly ended modern interest balancing when it comes to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment, the Court said, “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people and it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms for self-defense.” It is “this balance—struck by the traditions of the American people—that demands our unqualified deference.”

The American tradition is rich and deep in protecting a citizen’s enduring right to keep and bear common arms like rifles, shotguns, and pistols. However, among the American tradition of firearm ownership, there is nothing like California’s prohibition on rifles, shotguns, and handguns based on their looks or attributes. Here, the “assault weapon” prohibition has no historical pedigree and it is extreme. Even today, neither Congress nor most states impose such prohibitions on modern semiautomatic arms. In contrast, laws that punish criminal acts committed with any gun, like the crime of assault with a deadly weapon, remain perfectly constitutional. Those criminal laws are not at issue here.

People have heard about the Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas. They have heard about Sandy Hook, Parkland, the Pulse nightclub, and other tragic mass shootings. But they do not hear of the AR-15 used in Florida by a pregnant wife and mother to defend her family from two armed, hooded, and masked home intruders. As soon as the armed intruders entered the back door of her home they pistol-whipped her husband — fracturing his eye socket and sinus cavity. Then they grabbed the 11-year old daughter. The pregnant wife and mother was able to retrieve the family AR-15 from a bedroom and fire, killing one of the attackers while the other fled.

It does not require much imagination to think what would have happened next if the woman had lived in California and could not possess such a firearm. People do not remember the disabled 61 year-old man living alone on a 20-acre property in Florida with dense woods and a long dirt driveway. After the homeowner had gone to bed, three men armed with a shotgun, pistol, and BB gun invaded. One wore a “Jason” hockey mask. The disabled victim said he was awakened by a loud noise and grabbed the AR-15 laying near his bed. He saw the masked man and a second man coming toward him inside his home. Gunfire was exchanged. By the time police arrived, one attacker had run away, one lay wounded outside, and one was dead on the dining room floor. Police found the disabled man in his bedroom alive, but bleeding from a gunshot wound to the stomach. The AR-15 lay across his legs. Without his modern rifle, the victim would have become an evidence tag and a forgotten statistic.

People do not hear about the AR-15 used by a young man in Oklahoma to defend himself from three masked and armed home invaders clothed in black. The three intruders broke through a rear glass door. Though outnumbered, the homeowner put up a successful defense with his AR-15.18 People do not hear about the AR-15 that was needed when seven armed and masked men burst through a front door at 4:00 a.m. firing a gun. Outnumbered seven to one, it took the resident 30 rounds from his AR-15 to stop the attackers.

California’s “assault weapon” ban takes away from its residents the choice of using an AR-15 type rifle for self-defense. Is it because modern rifles are used so frequently for crime? No. The United States Department of Justice reports that in the year 2021, in the entire country 447 people were killed with rifles (of all types). From this one can say that, based on a national population of 320 million people in the United States, rifles of any kind (including AR-15s) were used in homicides only 0.0000014% of the time. Put differently, if 447 rifles were used to commit 447 homicides and every rifle-related homicide involved an AR-15, it would mean that of the approximately 24,400,000 AR15s in the national stock, less than .00001832% were used in homicides. It begs the question: what were the other AR-15 type rifles used for? The only logical answer is that 24,399,553 (or 99.999985%) of AR-15s were used for lawful purposes.

New Trump ad. This one addresses Hillary’s “deprogramming.”