While Minnesota grapples with a staggering $9 billion fraud crisis, the companies of Rep. Ilhan Omar's (D-MN) husband are raking in valuations that defy belief.
Two ventures owned by Tim Mynett, spouse of the Minnesota Democrat, have ballooned in worth recently, with Rose Lake Capital LLC jumping from a measly $1-$1,000 in 2023 to $5 million-$25 million in 2024, and ESTCRU LLC climbing from $15,000-$50,000 to $1 million-$5 million in the same span, per congressional disclosures.
For hardworking Minnesota taxpayers, this raises red flags about potential windfalls tied to a state drowning in government program abuse, with losses that could burden families with higher taxes or slashed services. From a conservative standpoint, every dime of that $9 billion fraud loss demands scrutiny, and no one—not even a congresswoman’s spouse—should escape a thorough investigation. We’re talking real financial exposure for everyday folks already stretched thin.
Let’s rewind to 2022, when Mynett co-founded Rose Lake Capital LLC, a firm focused on deal-making, mergers, and political consulting, according to its own website.
Just one year later, in 2023, its value was a humble $1 to $1,000, but by 2024, disclosures show it soared to a jaw-dropping range of $5 million to $25 million. Even at the lowest estimate, that’s a multiplication of wealth that could make Wall Street blush.
Interestingly, the company once boasted a roster of heavy hitters like former Sen. Max Baucus and ex-ambassador Adam Ereli on its site, but those names have since vanished—why the sudden secrecy?
Then there’s ESTCRU LLC, Mynett’s winery based in Santa Rosa, California, which popped up on Omar’s disclosures back in 2020.
Valued at $15,000 to $50,000 in 2023, it somehow shot up to $1 million to $5 million by 2024, despite a non-working online store, a dead phone line, and social media silence since early 2023. Something smells off, and it’s not the vintage.
From a populist perspective, when small business owners in Minnesota can barely keep the lights on, this kind of unexplained growth begs for answers—especially with public funds hemorrhaging in the state.
Meanwhile, Minnesota is reeling from investigations into government program abuse that could tally losses over $9 billion—a scandal of epic proportions.
Public pressure is mounting on Omar to clarify if there’s any connection between her husband’s sudden wealth and the state’s fraud schemes. Conservatives aren’t buying the silence; full transparency is the only way to rebuild trust.
Omar’s office, predictably, dodged requests for comment on the companies’ growth or the scrubbed website details, leaving more questions than answers.
On a related note, Omar has defended past policies like the 2020 MEALS Act, stating she has "absolutely" no regrets because "it did help feed kids."
While feeding children is a noble goal, conservatives argue that good intentions don’t excuse oversight failures when billions vanish into thin air. With Mynett’s firms thriving amid this chaos, the optics couldn’t be worse for Omar’s progressive priorities.
President Trump unleashed a verbal thunderclap at Mar-a-Lago, aligning firmly with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu while delivering a stark warning to Iran: test us, and regret it.
At a pivotal meeting in Palm Beach, Florida, on Monday, Trump solidified his alliance with Netanyahu, addressed Iran’s nuclear threat, and pushed forward on a recent Gaza peace agreement, according to the New York Post.
The optics couldn’t be clearer: Trump and Netanyahu, convened at the opulent Mar-a-Lago club, squashed any rumors of a rift with a display of unity.
Trump outright rejected reports of friction, asserting that their partnership stands stronger than ever through shared trials.
On Iran, Trump’s tone turned razor-sharp, promising unrelenting action if Tehran restarts its nuclear ambitions.
“I hear that Iran is trying to build up again, and if they are, we’re gonna have to knock them down. We’ll knock the hell out of them,” Trump stated, leaving no room for misinterpretation.
Trump suggested Iran might be eyeing new locations for nuclear development, a claim that amps up regional tensions.
He referenced potential use of U.S. B-2 stealth bombers, citing past assistance to Israel in a short conflict with Iran earlier this year.
Should Iran advance its missile or nuclear programs, Trump pledged immediate support for Israeli airstrikes, showing he’s not in the mood for endless talks.
Moving to Gaza, Trump outlined the urgency of launching “Phase Two” of an October peace deal, starting with basics like sanitation projects.
He insisted Hamas must disarm promptly, cautioning that failure to comply will bring severe consequences.
“If they don’t disarm as they agreed to do — they agreed to it — then there will be hell to pay for them, and we don’t want that,” Trump warned, driving home the high stakes.
Trump hinted that nations once tied to Hamas might oppose them if disarmament falters, though he avoided naming specifics beyond possible roles for Egypt and Qatar in peacekeeping.
While wary of external interference in the peace process, Trump offered light criticism of Israeli strikes in Gaza but affirmed Israel’s full compliance with the plan.
Trump also extended compassion to Israeli families with hostages still unaccounted for in Gaza, while lauding Netanyahu as a heroic “wartime prime minister” vital to Israel’s endurance.
In a case that has gripped the nation, a Utah judge has decided to unseal redacted transcripts and audio from a closed-door hearing involving the accused killer of conservative icon Charlie Kirk.
This tragic story centers on the September 2025 murder of Kirk, a 31-year-old married father of two and founder of Turning Point USA, during a university event, with the accused, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, now facing severe charges, including aggravated murder.
The horror unfolded on Sept. 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University, where Kirk was struck in the neck by a single shot from a rooftop while engaging with an audience in a courtyard.
The catastrophic wound proved fatal, silencing a prominent voice in the fight against progressive overreach and leaving a family and movement in mourning.
Robinson, the alleged shooter, reportedly fled into a nearby neighborhood, discarding a Mauser .30-06 rifle believed to be the murder weapon, before driving four hours to his southern Utah home.
Upon returning, Robinson allegedly admitted his actions to his roommate and partner, Lance Twiggs, as well as his parents, who authorities credit with persuading him to surrender to Washington County deputies.
Twiggs, cooperating with investigators, faces no charges, while Robinson now confronts seven counts, including aggravated murder, which could carry the death penalty if convicted.
Since his initial court appearance on Sept. 16, 2025, before Judge Tony Graf Jr. in Provo’s Fourth District Court, Robinson has largely appeared via camera, entering no plea as the case unfolds with intense scrutiny.
A closed-door hearing on Oct. 24, 2025, stirred controversy as Robinson’s defense requested one hand be unshackled for note-taking, a matter Judge Graf allowed after security consultations, though parts remain redacted.
Judge Graf, acknowledging the case’s uniqueness, stated, “This case is unique. Whether we like it or not, this case is unique,” a sentiment that hardly needs explaining given the public’s hunger for answers.
Yet, while the judge sees the spotlight, conservatives might wonder if such “uniqueness” excuses sealing off justice from the very people—us—who demand accountability over woke courtroom antics.
Media outlets, including Fox News, pushed for court recognition and advance notice of future sealed hearings or camera bans, but Judge Graf denied their formal intervention, though he upheld a prior order for notification of closed proceedings.
On security, Graf asserted, “This is not a jail. This is your honor’s courtroom,” making it clear who calls the shots on whether Robinson appears shackled—a jab at bureaucratic overreach if there ever was one.
The issue of what to keep private and what to make public will be an ongoing one, with this as one example among many.
During remarks to reporters outside Mar-a-Lago, President Donald Trump blasted an alleged Ukrainian assault on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s home in northwestern Russia, but also admitted that it might not have happened.
On Monday, Dec. 29, 2025, Trump voiced outrage over claims of a Ukrainian military operation targeting Putin’s residence, while also admitting uncertainty about whether the incident occurred, after hearing directly from Putin himself, alongside a denial from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who called it Russian propaganda.
For American taxpayers, this escalating drama isn’t just geopolitical theater—it’s a potential financial burden if U.S. involvement deepens, with billions possibly funneled into foreign conflicts instead of domestic priorities like infrastructure or border security. Let’s not kid ourselves: every dollar spent on overseas disputes is a dollar not fixing potholes or securing our own backyard. And if this spirals, the compliance costs for sanctions or military aid could hit small businesses hardest.
Rewind to early Monday morning, Dec. 29, 2025, when Trump got the news straight from Putin during a phone call, detailing the supposed attack on his personal residence. That’s right—while most of us were sipping coffee, Trump was getting an earful from Moscow.
Standing next to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his remarks at Mar-a-Lago on the same day, Trump didn’t hold back his frustration. He made it clear he’s glad he withheld Tomahawk missiles from Ukraine during a sensitive period, a decision he views as prescient.
“Thank god we didn’t give them Tomahawks,” Trump reportedly told Russian sources, a quip that underscores his relief at dodging a bigger mess. But let’s be real—if those weapons had been handed over, would we be staring down an even uglier escalation right now?
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov didn’t mince words, alleging a massive drone operation with around 91 unmanned vehicles targeting Putin’s home. He’s already promised retaliatory strikes, with targets and timelines locked in by the Russian military. Sounds like Moscow’s itching for a fight, doesn’t it?
On the flip side, Zelensky fired back on social media the same day, Dec. 29, 2025, dismissing the whole story as a Kremlin concoction meant to justify more attacks on Ukraine. He pointed out Russia’s own history of striking Kyiv, including government buildings, as evidence of their hypocrisy.
“This alleged ‘residence strike’ story is a complete fabrication intended to justify additional attacks against Ukraine, including Kyiv, as well as Russia’s own refusal to take necessary steps to end the war,” Zelensky declared. Fabrication or not, this denial raises eyebrows—shouldn’t we dig deeper into who’s spinning what before anyone pulls a trigger?
Just a day before this bombshell, on Sunday, Dec. 28, 2025, Trump met Zelensky in person at Mar-a-Lago for talks. That meeting came after a brutal week of aerial bombardments on Ukraine, with Zelensky reporting over 2,100 drones, 800 bombs, and 100 missiles unleashed on his country. Tough backdrop for diplomacy, to say the least.
During those discussions, Zelensky pushed for a 50-year security guarantee from the U.S., though Trump countered with a 15-year commitment. That’s a hefty promise either way, and conservatives might wonder if we’re signing a blank check for a conflict with no clear exit strategy.
Back to Monday’s remarks, Trump admitted to reporters it’s “possible” the attack on Putin’s residence didn’t happen, despite Putin’s personal account. Still, he emphasized his anger over the situation, suggesting that even the rumor of such a strike crosses a line during delicate times.
Lavrov’s vow of retaliation isn’t just saber-rattling—he confirmed Russia will “revise” ongoing negotiations but won’t abandon talks with the U.S. entirely. That’s a small relief, but it still smells like a prelude to more conflict, not less.
For working-class Americans, retirees, and homeowners watching this unfold, the stakes couldn’t be clearer: any misstep here risks dragging the U.S. into a quagmire with legal and economic ripple effects, from trade disruptions to energy price spikes. We’ve seen this movie before, and it doesn’t end with a balanced budget or safer streets.
So, where do we stand? Trump’s caught between a rock and a hard place, balancing Putin’s claims, Zelensky’s denials, and America’s own interests—let’s hope cooler heads prevail before this turns into a full-blown crisis. Conservatives should demand transparency and accountability, not knee-jerk reactions, to keep our nation’s priorities front and center.
President Donald Trump claimed in remarks from Mar A Lago on Monday that a pardon for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is imminent, but at least one Israeli leader has denied the claim.
Here’s the crux: Israeli President Isaac Herzog is pushing back against Trump’s assertion that a pardon for Netanyahu, who’s tangled in corruption charges, is “on its way,” while Netanyahu meets with Trump at Mar-a-Lago to hash out a Gaza peace plan.
Let’s rewind to 2019, when Netanyahu was indicted on serious charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust during his fourth and fifth terms as Israel’s leader. These accusations, involving several prominent Israeli businessmen, have kept him in court since 2020.
Before the trial even kicked off, Netanyahu tried to shield himself by requesting immunity from the Israeli Parliament. That didn’t pan out, and the legal storm has raged on.
Fast forward to November—exact year unspecified in reports—when Netanyahu turned to Herzog’s office with a pardon request, arguing that constant court appearances are splitting the nation after the horrific terrorist attacks of October 7, 2023. He also claimed they’re hampering his ability to steer the Gaza war’s wind-down.
Enter Trump, who’s never shy about making waves, meeting Netanyahu at Mar-a-Lago to discuss a peace plan for Gaza. During this powwow, Trump told reporters on Monday that a pardon for Netanyahu is coming soon.
“I think he will. How do you not? He’s a wartime prime minister who’s a hero,” Trump declared to the press in Florida. Call it classic Trump—full-throated support for a leader he admires, but let’s be real: pardons aren’t his jurisdiction in Israel, and conservatives value the rule of law over personal loyalty.
Trump doubled down, adding, “How do you not give a pardon, you know?” While his heart might be in the right place, many on the right would argue that justice systems must play out without foreign interference, even from a friend like Trump.
Now, Herzog’s office is setting the record straight with a firm rebuttal. “There has been no conversation between President Herzog and President Trump since the pardon request was submitted,” they stated clearly.
Instead, Herzog spoke with a Trump administration official to outline where the pardon process stands. That explanation, per his office, matches what he’s told the Israeli public—no special deals, no secret chats.
Still, Trump’s comments suggest he’s been given a different impression, which raises questions about miscommunication or wishful thinking. For those of us skeptical of elite backchannels, this discrepancy demands clarity.
From a conservative lens, this saga isn’t just about Netanyahu’s fate—it’s about sovereignty and the principle that no leader is above the law. If Trump’s enthusiasm for a pardon muddies the waters, it risks looking like meddling in another nation’s judicial process, something the left would howl about if the roles were reversed.
American patriots, especially those wary of overreaching globalist agendas, want to see Israel handle its own affairs without outside pressure skewing the scales of justice. Let’s support our allies, sure, but not by undermining their legal systems or dodging accountability. Investigations must proceed, full stop.
New York City’s incoming mayor, Zohran Mamdani, is kicking off his term in a way that’s anything but ordinary.
In a move blending history with progressive flair, Mayor-elect Mamdani will take his oath just after midnight on New Year’s Day in a private ceremony at the long-shuttered Old City Hall subway station, the New York post reported.
This isn’t your typical City Hall photo-op; Mamdani’s swearing-in will unfold below City Hall Park at a station that’s been out of service since 1945.
The Old City Hall stop, part of the city’s first subway line from 1904, boasts stunning Guastavino tiles and chandeliers, though it’s mostly inaccessible except for rare tours by the New York Transit Museum.
Mamdani picked this spot for its historical weight, a nod to the city’s past, though one wonders if this choice signals more nostalgia than practical focus for the future.
New York Attorney General Letitia James will administer the oath, and she’s already framing this as symbolic of unity, posting on social media, “Our subways connect us all, and they represent exactly what our next mayor is fighting for: a city every New Yorker can thrive in.”
While the sentiment sounds noble, let’s hope the new administration prioritizes fixing the subway’s daily woes over poetic metaphors about connectivity.
The midnight event will be an intimate affair, a small gathering in stark contrast to the massive public celebration planned for later that day.
Around City Hall Park in Lower Manhattan, a block party is expected to draw over 40,000 attendees, shutting down streets south of Canal on Broadway’s famed “Canyon of Heroes.”
This “man of the people” bash aims to bring thousands together on New Year’s Day, but taxpayers might question the cost of such a spectacle when potholes and public safety remain pressing concerns.
Mamdani himself seems eager to embrace the moment, stating, “When I take my oath from the station at the dawn of the New Year, I will do so humbled by the opportunity to lead millions of New Yorkers into a new era of opportunity, and honored to carry forward our city’s legacy of greatness.”
That’s a lofty promise, but New Yorkers are a tough crowd—let’s see if this “new era” tackles gritty issues or just rides on symbolic gestures like underground ceremonies.
Later in the week, on Thursday afternoon, a larger public swearing-in will occur outside City Hall, with Senator Bernie Sanders, a fellow Democratic Socialist, delivering the oath.
With temperatures forecasted to dip below freezing, attendees might need more than ideological warmth to endure the event, though the transition team has been planning these spectacles for weeks.
While Mamdani’s rollout blends historical reverence with populist outreach, conservatives might raise an eyebrow at whether this energy will translate into policies that prioritize fiscal restraint over progressive pageantry.
Brigitte Bardot, the dazzling French actress who redefined sensuality on the silver screen, has left us at 91, marking the end of an era that shaped cinema and culture, NPR reported.
Her passing was confirmed by her animal rights foundation in a statement to Agence France-Presse on a Sunday, though details of time and location remain undisclosed.
Born in 1934 to a well-to-do Parisian family, Bardot grew up Catholic, trained in ballet, and soon caught the public eye as a teenage model gracing Elle magazine covers.
At 18, she wed Roger Vadim, an aspiring director six years her senior, who molded her into a global icon of allure after her parents insisted on the wait.
In Vadim’s 1957 film "And God Created Woman," Bardot stunned audiences with a bold portrayal of sexual freedom, a role that both captivated and scandalized.
While The New York Times critiqued the film harshly, they couldn’t deny her magnetism, noting she “moves herself in a fashion that fully accentuates her charms.”
Through the 1950s and ‘60s, Bardot’s influence soared, her provocative style inspiring women worldwide to mimic her hair, makeup, and signature pout.
She collaborated with cinematic giants like Jean-Luc Godard in "Le Mépris" and Louis Malle in "Viva Maria!," though critics often fixated on her beauty over her craft.
Simone de Beauvoir captured this duality in a 1959 Esquire essay, writing, “In the game of love, she is as much hunter as she is prey,” a line that hints at Bardot’s commanding yet vulnerable persona.
Yet fame took a toll; relentlessly hounded by paparazzi, Bardot battled depression and even attempted suicide, later revealing how the spotlight gnawed at her soul.
Retiring in 1973 after a prolific career in dozens of films, she turned her passion to animal rights, founding a foundation to champion her cause.
Her later years near Saint-Tropez, alongside fourth husband Bernard d’Ormale and numerous pets, shifted focus from stardom to activism, though not without controversy.
Post-retirement, Bardot’s outspokenness drew ire, with multiple convictions in France for inciting racial hatred over comments on immigration and cultural practices.
Her 2003 book "Un Cri dans le Silence" criticized various societal shifts and groups, while her ties to far-right politics through d’Ormale, an aide to National Front founder Jean-Marie Le Pen, raised eyebrows.
Though she apologized in court in 2004, she doubled down on concerns about cultural changes, leaving a legacy as complex as her screen roles—a champion of freedom who, as scholar Ginette Vincendeau noted, seemed to resent others exercising it.
Bryce Reeves, a stalwart conservative voice, has just pulled the plug on his U.S. Senate bid in Virginia.
In a surprising turn, Reeves announced on social media this past Sunday that he’s stepping away from the race to unseat Democratic incumbent Sen. Mark Warner, leaving Republicans scrambling for a strong contender, according to Politico.
Reeves, a 58-year-old state senator who’s been representing Virginia’s 28th District since 2012, first threw his hat into the U.S. Senate ring back in September.
With a campaign built on his military and law enforcement credentials, he seemed poised to give Warner a run for his money.
But life, as it often does, threw a curveball, with Reeves citing a “serious family health matter” and poor timing as reasons for his withdrawal.
He’s not walking away from politics entirely, though—he plans to seek reelection to his state Senate seat in 2027.
“I remain fully committed to serving the citizens of Virginia’s 28th Senatorial District and look forward to seeking re-election to my Senate seat in 2027,” Reeves stated.
That’s all well and good, but let’s be real—his exit stings for conservatives who saw him as a principled fighter against the progressive tide in Washington.
Reeves also took a moment to address the broader Republican struggle, pointing to the disappointing results of the recent November elections.
“This past election was devastating for Republicans across our Commonwealth. We must stop the infighting, regroup, and unite behind principled leadership worthy of our cause,” he urged.
Spot on, Senator—nothing undermines a movement faster than squabbling while the left pushes its agenda unchecked; it’s time for the GOP to get its act together.
With Reeves out, the field now includes Democrat Jason Reynolds and Republican Kim Farrington, alongside the entrenched three-term incumbent, Mark Warner.
Warner, a fixture in Virginia politics, isn’t likely to face an easy challenge, but without a heavyweight like Reeves, Republicans might be grasping at straws.
Still, Reeves made it clear this isn’t about disappointment but about values, emphasizing that family trumps political ambition every time.
His gratitude to supporters shone through as well, reminding everyone that politics, at its best, is a team sport built on shared conviction, not just personal glory.
Could a school really keep a parent in the dark about something as life-changing as a child’s gender transition?
In a case stirring national debate, Amber Lavigne, a Maine mother, is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to step in after alleging that Great Salt Bay Community School advised her 13-year-old daughter on gender transitioning without her knowledge, while Maine itself grapples with separate controversies over school policies and federal funding tied to male participation in female sports.
Lavigne’s fight began when she discovered a chest binder among her daughter’s belongings, only to learn it was provided by a school social worker, Just the News reported.
This wasn’t just a piece of clothing—it was part of a broader effort, Lavigne claims, where the social worker encouraged her daughter to adopt a different name and pronouns without a whisper to her as the parent.
When Lavigne confronted the principal and superintendent, she was met with justifications rather than apologies, a stance that only fueled her resolve.
Since filing her lawsuit in 2023, Lavigne has faced setbacks, with a federal judge in Maine dismissing her case and the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston upholding that decision in July.
Now, backed by the Arizona-based Goldwater Institute, Lavigne is taking her battle to the highest court, hoping for a ruling that could set a precedent on parental notification rights.
The petition argues for clear, nationwide guidance on school policies regarding gender identity, insisting that parents have a constitutional right to be informed about such significant decisions.
“We are asking the Supreme Court to step in and make it clear that parents like Amber have a right to know when public school officials make important decisions affecting the mental health and physical wellbeing of their children,” said Adam Shelton, a Goldwater Institute attorney.
Let’s unpack that quote—schools making unilateral calls on a child’s mental and physical health without parental input feels like a dangerous overreach, though one must sympathize with educators navigating these sensitive waters.
Amber Lavigne herself put it poignantly: “This situation is really about my parental rights being violated.”
She continued, “It’s about a social worker who had never even had a conversation with me encouraging my child to keep secrets from me. Our goal as parents is to raise amazing human beings who contribute to society, who care about other human beings, and to be left out of such a life altering decision just doesn’t make sense.”
While Lavigne’s case focuses on parental rights, Maine is also a battleground for debates over allowing male athletes in female sports, with Governor Janet Mills clashing with federal directives under President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at restricting such participation.
The U.S. Education Department has sued Maine’s education officials over alleged Title IX violations, the Department of Agriculture has halted funding, and conservative groups are pushing a 2026 ballot measure to ban male students from girls’ teams—talk about a state caught in the cultural crossfire.
Lavigne’s struggle, though personal, mirrors these larger tensions, and while progressive policies may aim for inclusivity, one wonders if they’ve swung too far from common-sense family values; still, the pain of all involved deserves our respect as the Supreme Court considers whether to weigh in.
Rep. Ilhan Omar’s husband, Tim Mynett, is caught in a whirlwind of suspicion as his venture capital outfit, Rose Lake Capital, mysteriously wipes nine key names from its website while a massive welfare fraud scandal rocks Minnesota, Breitbart reported.
This story boils down to a billion-dollar fraud scheme, ties to Omar’s circle, and a digital disappearing act by Mynett’s firm that’s raising eyebrows across the political spectrum.
Let’s start at the beginning: Tim Mynett, married to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), launched Rose Lake Capital back in 2022.
Almost overnight, the firm’s value reportedly skyrocketed from next to nothing to somewhere between $5 million and $25 million, per recent reports.
That kind of rapid ascent might impress Wall Street, but it also invites questions about how such wealth accumulates so fast.
Meanwhile, Omar’s own net worth has allegedly jumped from a modest $51,000 to a staggering $30 million in just one year, a figure she disputes but one that’s tied to Mynett’s ventures, including a winery alongside this venture capital firm, according to the New York Post.
Now, let’s pivot to the bigger storm brewing in Minnesota, where federal prosecutors have charged eight more individuals, six of Somali descent, in a welfare fraud scheme described as the largest of the pandemic, totaling over $1 billion in stolen taxpayer funds.
Omar herself has deep connections to organizations and individuals implicated in these cases, even hosting events at Safari Restaurant in Minneapolis, a venue linked to the investigations.
The owners of Safari, Salim Said and Aimee Bock, have already been convicted in the Feeding Our Future case, which siphoned off $250 million in child food aid from the state.
Amid this legal firestorm, between September and October, Rose Lake Capital scrubbed the names and bios of nine officers and advisors from its public website, a move that smells like damage control to many observers.
Among those erased are heavy hitters like Adam Ereli, a lobbyist and former Obama ambassador, and Max Baucus, another Obama-era ambassador, alongside DNC-linked figures like Alex Hoffman and William Derrough.
Even Keith Mestrich, ex-CEO of Amalgamated Bank, vanished from the site, a man who once boasted of his institution as “the institutional bank of the Democratic Party,” per his own words.
While none of the nine removed from the website face charges in the fraud, the timing of this digital purge—right as new indictments dropped—hardly seems coincidental.
Critics also point to Omar’s legislative record, noting she pushed policies that some argue opened the door for what federal authorities call a historic fraud, as reported by the New York Post.
Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL), never one to mince words, has even proposed a resolution to expel Omar and slammed Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN), declaring he “should be in jail” for his handling of the issue.