[NY Post] "We already know all these people - they're our donors and constituents"
As Republicans expose fraud in the tens of billions in Medicaid and other welfare programs, Democrats’ response is to... duck.
They made it glaringly obvious last week as Sen. Rand Paul chaired a Senate Homeland Security Committee meeting: Nearly all the panel’s Dem members were total no-shows; only Sen. Gary Peters attended at all, and only long enough to ask a few questions before heading for the door.
The hearing actually covered two very different fraud topics:
Independent journalist Nick Shirley reviewed his welfare-fraud discoveries, including blatant abuses of Medicaid by New York adult day cares.
Undercover-video specialist James O’Keefe testified about his recordings uncovering voter bribery on LA’s Skid Row.
Strange: Dems have extremely strong views on both issues. They’ve been slamming Republican moves to trim Medicaid and other welfare outlays for years now, denouncing anti-fraud measures as “savage cuts”; Senate Dems are even now using the filibuster to prevent a floor vote that would pass the SAVE Act to counter voting fraud.
Yet they simply boycotted a hearing where they could have poked holes in GOP claims as they grilled the witnesses.
Do they think their own case is so weak that they don’t dare even try to make it?
#1
The Dem strategy of disengagement on fraud and corruption appears to be largely successful. Large chunks of the electorate have no idea that there is an issue. Republican politicians have trouble truly exploiting the opportunity because of their own high levels of corruption.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/21/2026 6:52 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It's a criminal organization that fronts as a political party. Taxes are just shake down money.
[PJMedia] When President Donald Trump delivered his address to the nation on July 16, he brought attention to something we should know much more about but don’t yet: the discovery of “burn bags,” which Trump said contained sensitive documents from the Obama administration.
Trump said, “Recently, we found significant numbers of burn bags... and this is a group of bags that were used to destroy information given by President Barack Hussein Obama to be burned....These bags were supposed to be at a different level, by different people, incinerated...but it never happened. Maybe we got lucky.”
As the term implies, burn bags contain material that is slated for destruction, sending all of the former administration’s secrets into that big shredder in the sky. But someone “dropped the bag,” and more than a few of them were left to be discovered by the second Trump administration in the FBI building.
Now that Trump is sitting on a political treasure trove of data and information that can be used to expose the left, expect a distraction or two. Whenever the left panics, you start to see ginned-up controversies over allegations of Trump "stealing our democracy," "climate change," "Christian nationalism," or all of the above.
Given the seriousness of the potential contents of those burn bags, it wouldn’t surprise me if the left goes even harder with its lies and wrap-up smears to try to take Trump out using the 25th Amendment to the Constitution.
As a result of the Trump administration’s discovery of those burn bags, the president ordered the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the CIA to review the documents, analyze them, and see if any laws were broken. That analysis will focus on the handling of the sensitive information and the chain of custody of the documents themselves, and the contents of the documents that were never destroyed.
It must be noted that simply finding some old burn bags doesn't mean something improper was done. The federal government uses burn bags as a matter of course to destroy sensitive materials that will no longer be kept on file.
The president believes that the bags of documents could unearth critical information that has been concealed from the public eye. He bases this viewpoint on his past experience with both the Obama and Biden administrations and their pattern of not preserving, or not providing access to, certain important intelligence information.
In other words, Trump knows what he doesn’t know, and he wants answers. Could those bags contain more proof of the deep state covering up election schemes? Do any contain information that implicates specific members of the Obama or Biden administrations?
If Trump knows, he’s not naming names or providing details just yet.
Trump’s mention of those burn bags was in the context of his larger address on election integrity failures and questionable activities on the part of Democrat administrations, their political operatives, and others. As leftists circle the wagons to protect their favorite former Democrat presidents and their people, leftist central messaging is already testing the following key messages:
"Alleging foreign interference in an election is not proof (evidence) that a foreign government successfully controlled the outcome." This is like saying, “Sure he had a gun and shot at ya, but he missed ya, so he didn’t do anything wrong.”
"Criminal charges require more than political accusations." Of course, this is true, but where do criminal charges themselves come from? They come from accusations that can be supported by evidence.
"Even if you find some incriminating information in those burn bags, you’re going to need to prove that the person implicated knowingly violated federal law." Depending on the situation, that would be a matter for the courts to decide, but this key message gets at understanding and intent, which in a PR sense can be a straw man. For example, it doesn’t matter whether you intended to kill someone with your car; if you ran over them, intentionally or not, you likely broke a law or two. In other words, “I did not know there was a law against this” is no excuse.
"The discovery of documents alone would not establish a criminal conspiracy." Another straw man. No one is saying “discovery of documents” is all you need. If the documents contain words and sentences that do establish a criminal conspiracy, someone’s goose may be cooked.
"As for China, investigators must have direct evidence of coordination, communication, or actions that link actual people to the effort to tamper with an election." Once again, this is just a description of the legal and justice process. All of this is true, but stating it does not get anyone off the hook.
Back in 2020 and 2021, when Trump sought to use the court system to contest the manner in which the 2020 election was conducted, he literally had no time left in his term to go the legal route as president. By the time the courts would consider some of his claims, he was essentially an outsider without access to much of the information that he now has.
After election day in 2020, Trump was shut out of the system long enough to ensure that he would live the rest of his life in political exile after one term in office. But in 2024, Trump shocked the world and won.
His administration now has access to what it needs to better determine what happened in 2020, to address it, and, hopefully, to tap the justice system to ensure such corruption never happens again.
#5
No way they're that sloppy. This has all the hallmarks of an inside smear job. Pay attention carefully to who gets named, it will be people the blob wants out of the way.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[PJMedia] When President Donald Trump delivered his address to the nation on July 16, he brought attention to something we should know much more about but don’t yet: the discovery of “
