ActBlue contractors to face congressional grilling on Democrats' shady fundraising scheme



The House Oversight, Judiciary, and Administration Committees summoned ActBlue contractors to appear before Congress amid its investigation into Democrats' fundraising platform, according to a Tuesday report.

Letters obtained by the New York Post revealed that the committees requested two employees of Sift, an AI fraud detection platform, testify about ActBlue's allegedly relaxed fraud standards.

'This continued targeting of ActBlue and our partners by MAGA Republicans needs to be seen for what it is: Donald Trump's latest front in his campaign to stamp out all political, electoral and ideological opposition.'

The Sift employees reportedly worked with the fundraising platform and are aware of "critical" information about the "more lenient" criteria.

The Post quoted the letters written by Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), and Administration Chairman Bryan Steil (R-Wis.). It noted that the letters were addressed to Sift's director of customer success and senior customer success manager.

"The Committees are concerned that ActBlue has maintained poor anti-fraud practices that may have allowed bad actors to make fraudulent political donations, including from foreign sources," it read.

The Sift employees were requested to participate in transcribed interviews with the House Judiciary panel by May 13, the Post reported.

A Sift spokesperson told the news outlet, "ActBlue is a safe and secure fundraising platform, trusted by donors for more than 20 years – that's how we've become a vital part of American democracy."

"This continued targeting of ActBlue and our partners by MAGA Republicans needs to be seen for what it is: Donald Trump's latest front in his campaign to stamp out all political, electoral and ideological opposition," the spokesperson claimed.

Congress has been probing ActBlue for years over its alleged lenient standards allowing potential foreign donations.

The three committees released a joint report earlier this month that revealed the platform's "executives and staff are aware that both foreign and domestic fraudulent actors are exploiting the platform but do not take the threat seriously."

"In fact, they attempted to hide the changes to avoid sparking discussions about fraud on the platform. For example, ActBlue's training guide for new fraud-prevention employees instructed them to 'look for reasons to accept contributions,' rather than err on the side of flagging suspicious donations," the committees claimed.

Last week, President Donald Trump signed a memorandum directing the Department of Justice to open an investigation into "unlawful 'straw donor' and foreign contributions in American elections." The action cited the committees' findings on ActBlue.

Amid the ongoing probes, at least seven of the fundraising giant's top executives jumped ship in February.

Following the resignations, an ActBlue spokesperson told the New York Times, "Like many organizations, as we undergo some transition heading into this new election cycle, we are focused on ensuring we have a strong team in place."

"We greatly appreciate the contributions of our incredible team members and remain deeply committed to the success of our organization and our mission to enable grass-roots supporters to make their voices heard," the spokesperson stated.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Why we should root for AOC in her coup against Democrat House leadership



When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is in our headlines, it’s almost always for something negative. She is a far-left Hamas apologist who advocates for the rights of biological men to use women’s bathrooms and perpetuates the Trump-is-a-fascist narrative.

Despite her obvious flaws, AOC’s decision to challenge Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) for ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform might be a good thing, according to Blaze Media senior politics editor Christopher Bedford.

In his recent article, Bedford compared the two candidates. “AOC is a young firebrand and a household name” who “riles up the base,” while “Connolly is a white man in his mid-70s who is battling stomach cancer.”

Now he joins Jill Savage on “Blaze News Tonight” to explain why the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee is such an important role and why he believes AOC is preferable to Connolly.

“The ranking member of Oversight's job is to essentially investigate and oversee the executive branch,” says Bedford.

“It is an important role, and it's one that people can either use simply to raise their profile and make a lot of noise and to go on their cable channels … and rile up their base and raise money, or they can use it to be a little more studious, a little more serious, and really dig into and cause trouble for whoever is running the executive at that moment,” he explains.

AOC falls into the first category, while Connolly falls into the second, Bedford explains.

“If you want the least done, then you probably want Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in that position. She's very vocal; she jumps around; she dances at rallies,” he says. “She's someone who's a lot of bark but I would say less serious in the bite.”

Her “much more serious” opponent, on the other hand, “had spent 10 years in Senate Oversight as a staffer by the time [AOC] was born,” says Bedford. “If you're in the administration and you don't want the Democrats causing you too much trouble, you would not prefer [Connolly] to be the guy who's watching over you.”

On top of that, he’s also “backed by Nancy Pelosi.”

When it comes to the “Resistance 2.0,” Bedford would much prefer AOC’s “yelling to the base and throwing dance parties” to Connolly’s “more substantive investigations.”

To hear more of the conversation, watch the clip above.

Want more from 'Blaze News Tonight'?

To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Steve Bannon sentenced to 4 months in jail for defying subpoena from House committee investigating January 6 Capitol riot



Steve Bannon was sentenced Friday to four months in jail for defying a subpoena from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riots, the Associated Press reported.

What are the details?

Bannon — a longtime confidant of and White House adviser to former President Donald Trump — also was fined $6,500 as part of the sentence, the AP said, adding that U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols allowed Bannon to stay free pending appeal.

Earlier this week the Justice Department recommended a six-month sentence and $200,000 fine for Bannon, who was found guilty in July of two charges of contempt of Congress by a federal jury.

The AP said Nichols imposed the sentence after saying the law was clear that contempt of Congress is subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of at least one month behind bars; Bannon’s lawyers had argued the judge could instead have sentenced him to probation.

“In my view, Mr. Bannon has not taken responsibility for his actions,” Nichols said before he announced the sentence, the AP noted.

More from the outlet:

The House panel had sought Bannon’s testimony over his involvement in Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Bannon has yet to testify or provide any documents to the committee, prosecutors wrote.

Prosecutors argued Bannon, 68, deserved the longer sentence because he had pursued a “bad faith strategy” and his public statements disparaging the committee itself made it clear he wanted to undermine their effort to get to the bottom of the violent attack and keep anything like it from happening again.

“He chose to hide behind fabricated claims of executive privilege and advice of counsel to thumb his nose at Congress,” prosecutor J.P. Cooney said, according to the AP.

Bannon’s lawyer, David Schoen, argued that his client did what his lawyer told him to do under Trump’s executive privilege objections, the outlet said.

“Quite frankly, Mr. Bannon should make no apology. No American should make any apology for the manner in which Mr. Bannon proceeded in this case,” Schoen also said, according to the AP.

The outlet added that Schoen also defended Bannon’s public remarks about the committee: “Telling the truth about this committee or speaking one’s mind about this committee, it’s not only acceptable in this country, it’s an obligation if one believes it to be true."

'Illegitimate regime'

“This illegitimate regime, their judgment day is on 8 November when the Biden administration ends," Bannon told reporters as he walked into court Friday, the AP said.

After the hearing, Bannon said he believed Attorney General Merrick Garland would be impeached, the outlet added.

Anything else?

After his July guilty verdict, Bannon told Fox News' Tucker Carlson, "If I go to jail, I go to jail. I will never back off. ... I support Trump and the Constitution, and I'm not backing off one inch."

He added during the TV appearance that "the law is with us" and warned viewers "they're coming for everybody. ... This is an ideological war and we cannot lose. The fate of the country is over the next couple years."

\u201cSteve Bannon joined us for his first interview since his guilty verdict.\u201d
— Tucker Carlson (@Tucker Carlson) 1658608218