Nearly 100 former lawmakers call on House to ban stock trading by members of Congress, and it’s certainly a topic that’s sparking a lot of discussion. The very fact that this many former members are speaking out says something, doesn’t it? It feels like a late realization, a collective “hindsight is 20/20” moment. It’s a bit of a cliché, the “I got mine, now pull up the ladder” mentality, but there’s a definite whiff of that in the air. These are people who, by virtue of having been “former,” are no longer directly benefiting from the system they’re criticizing. It’s easy to advocate for change when you’re not personally affected by it anymore.… Continue reading
Fight erupts on Senate floor over provision letting senators reap millions from suing DOJ, and honestly, it’s just as absurd as it sounds. The core issue revolves around a proposed legal provision that, in essence, could allow senators to profit handsomely from suing the very department they are supposed to oversee – the Department of Justice. The sheer audacity of it is what has sparked the outrage, and rightly so.
Think about it: senators, who are already in positions of immense power and influence, potentially lining their pockets by taking the government to court. This isn’t about upholding the law or seeking justice; it’s about financial gain, potentially at the expense of taxpayers.… Continue reading
House unanimously passes repeal of phone records provision that could enrich senators, and it immediately sets off a flurry of reactions, doesn’t it? It’s the kind of news that, at first glance, feels straightforward – a good thing! – but then the details start to surface, and suddenly, you’re wading through a swamp of potential conflicts of interest and political maneuvering. The fact that the House unanimously agreed to repeal a provision that could line the pockets of senators – essentially, a provision that could allow senators to profit from lawsuits related to phone records – immediately raises eyebrows. Shouldn’t this have been a no-brainer from the start?… Continue reading
Financial disclosures revealed that U.S. President Donald Trump made significant bond purchases, totaling at least $82 million between late August and early October, with a maximum value exceeding $337 million. These investments, detailed in forms released by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, included corporate and municipal bonds across various sectors, some of which benefit from his administration’s policies. Notable acquisitions included bonds from tech companies, retailers, and Wall Street banks. This occurred while Trump’s administration had previously stated that Trump does not have a hand in running the portfolio, which is managed by a third party.
Read More
A consumer rights watchdog reports that a majority of the corporations funding the construction of the new Trump White House ballroom already held lucrative government contracts prior to their donations. The report, titled “Banquet of Greed,” reveals that two-thirds of the known corporate donors collectively received $279 billion in federal contracts over five years, with Lockheed Martin accounting for $191 billion of that sum. These contributions, the report argues, create inescapable conflicts of interest as the administration proceeds with the privately financed project while also potentially looking like a down payment on favorable treatment. Additionally, the administration has reportedly worked to keep some donor names off a public list, despite previous promises of transparency.
Read More
A recent Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll indicates that a majority of Americans oppose President Trump’s proposed $300 million ballroom project. The poll revealed that 56% of respondents disapproved of the project, while only 28% showed support. The project, which involves demolishing the East Wing, is being privately funded by donations from major companies. Some Senate Democrats have requested a full accounting of these donations, citing concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
Read More
Fox News host Laura Ingraham is joining a business venture with Donald Trump Jr., revealed in a recent SEC filing. The SPAC, “Colombier Acquisition Corp. III,” aims to raise capital for acquisitions, with Ingraham and Don Jr. named as directors. This collaboration raises potential conflict-of-interest concerns, given Ingraham’s regular coverage of the Trump family and her past criticism of Hunter Biden’s business dealings. Media Matters has expressed worries that Ingraham’s financial interests may be tied to the success of the MAGA movement, and that she may face pressure to remain loyal.
Read More
ProPublica’s investigation reveals that the Trump administration, which has vowed to pursue those who misrepresented their primary residences on mortgage applications, could face scrutiny within its own Cabinet. At least three Cabinet members—Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Sean Duffy, and Lee Zeldin—have obtained primary-residence mortgages for multiple properties concurrently. These findings, discovered through financial disclosures and mortgage records, mirror the types of loans that have been cited to target political rivals for potential mortgage fraud. While real estate experts note the practice is common and rarely prosecuted, the administration’s focus on this issue could create a conflict of interest, as some of its own members may have engaged in the same practice.
Read More
Nestle abruptly removes CEO Freixe over undisclosed relationship with subordinate. Wow, talk about a plot twist! It seems the seemingly untouchable, head-honcho of a global food giant, has been ousted. The reason? An undisclosed relationship with a subordinate. Honestly, it’s a little mind-boggling, isn’t it? Considering the, shall we say, *interesting* history of this corporation, it’s a bit shocking that *this* is what tripped them up. Child labor, stealing water, questionable environmental practices – yet a workplace romance is the final straw?
Nestle abruptly removes CEO Freixe over undisclosed relationship with subordinate. Let’s be clear: the underlying issue isn’t necessarily the relationship itself.… Continue reading
A woman accused of fraud hired the AG’s brother as her lawyer. Months later, DOJ dropped charges – and let’s just say, the situation feels a little…off, doesn’t it? It’s hard not to read between the lines and see a glaring conflict of interest, a potential abuse of power, and a system that seems to be bending over backward for those who know how to play the game. It’s the kind of story that makes you question the very foundations of fairness and justice.
The fact that the AG’s brother was the one representing the accused woman is the first red flag.… Continue reading
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker