BREAKING: FBI FBI Raids George Soros-Linked Org - Massive Vote Fraud Probe
BREAKING: FBI FBI Raids George Soros-Linked Org - Massive Vote Fraud Probe
Here We Go: FBI Raids Soros-Backed Left-Wing Org And We’re All In For It
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has launched a sweeping raid against a prominent left-wing voter mobilization organization in Ohio. The high-profile operation marks an unprecedented escalation in the federal government's domestic efforts to crack down on alleged election misconduct and financial fraud within politically connected non-profit networks.
FBI tactical agents executed a coordinated search warrant at the headquarters of the Ohio Organizing Collaborative (OOC). Bureau personnel simultaneously deployed across multiple cities statewide to serve subpoenas, seize encrypted electronic devices, and conduct field interrogations of key organizational members.
Sources close to the matter have since confirmed that the massive, multi-city raid is tied directly to an ongoing, complex federal fraud investigation.
Millions in Funding Trace Directly to Soros Philanthropies
The OOC functions as an influential progressive non-profit entity that works hand-in-hand with the Democratic Party throughout Ohio to drive massive voter registration and turnout initiatives. The organization has played an indispensable role in shaping high-stakes statewide ballot referendums, utilizing an expansive donor network bankrolled heavily by billionaire financier George Soros and his family's foundations.
Financial disclosures reveal a massive, multi-million-dollar pipeline flowing into the progressive group over recent election cycles:
2019–2020: The Soros-controlled Foundation to Promote Open Society poured $1.9 million into the OOC.
-
2021: The Open Society Action Fund directed an additional $1 million to the group's direct sister affiliate, the Ohio Organizing Campaign.
2023: The same Soros-backed fund injected another $1 million payout to sustain the group's political operations.
The OOC has historically deployed these vast financial reserves to aggressively push back against conservative legislative priorities. In 2023, the non-profit spent $250,000 to defeat a Republican-led ballot measure aimed at blocking abortion protections from the Ohio state constitution. The following year, the group spent another $300,000 to torpedo a Republican redistricting proposal.
Department of Justice Maintains Operational Secrecy
While the targeted raid has triggered intense political shockwaves across the country, federal law enforcement officials are maintaining strict operational security regarding the active case file. The Department of Justice has flatly refused to comment on the specific criminal allegations or the evidence presented to the federal bench to secure the warrants.
A spokesperson for the Department of Justice released a formal statement addressing the media speculation:
"Search warrants are authorized by a judge and anything said by any organization or others in the media is unfounded speculation, as the target of any investigation is not privy to the search warrant affidavit until after indictment."
Bipartisan Clash Escalates Ahead of 2026 Midterms
The raid has instantly become a fierce national flashpoint ahead of the crucial 2026 midterm elections. The Trump administration's aggressive expansion of federal law enforcement resources to aggressively investigate voter fraud has drawn immense praise from conservative lawmakers, who have long argued that past election irregularities were severely under-enforced.
Conversely, Democrats and progressive voting rights coalitions have heavily condemned the raid, alleging that the administration is weaponizing the FBI to systematically dismantle liberal voter registration machines.
This is not the first time the OOC has faced intense legal scrutiny over its operational methods. In 2017, a paid canvasser employed by the organization pleaded guilty in a court of law for his direct involvement in a fraudulent voter registration scheme.
While critics point out that conclusive evidence of widespread voter fraud in recent statewide cycles has remained elusive, proponents of the federal crackdown emphasize that thorough, proactive investigations have been absent for far too long. With federal agents actively auditing the OOC's financial ledgers and internal data drives, the outcome of this fraud probe could fundamentally reshape election operations in the Midwest.
BARRED FROM TAKING THEIR SEAT - DISASTROUS NEWS HITS MAMDANI'S SOCIALISTS AFTER THEY WON THEIR PRIMARIES
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and his progressive allies faced a pair of significant legal and political challenges this week, following a federal court defeat over a massive affordable housing dispute and a new congressional effort led by conservative lawmakers targeting a recently victorious democratic socialist candidate in the state's Democratic primary.
The legal setback unfolded in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, where Judge David Jones formally approved the $450 million sale of more than 5,000 rent-subsidized apartments formerly owned by the Pinnacle Group.
The ruling delivered a blow to the Mamdani administration, which had intervened in the bankruptcy proceedings to halt the auction to Summit Real Estate Holdings.
The properties are plagued by housing code violations. The Mamdani administration argued the sale should be delayed, alleging the new ownership could create additional housing instability and noting the company allegedly owed the city $12.7 million in unpaid fines.
However, Judge Jones ruled the sale could proceed, determining the city could not indefinitely block the transfer.
Concurrently, a separate controversy emerged in Washington, D.C., surrounding a Mamdani-endorsed congressional candidate.
Following the recent primary victories of several prominent progressive candidates in New York, Representative Greg Steube (R-Fla.) announced his intention to introduce a House rules amendment designed to prevent newly elected members from being seated if they refuse to swear the constitutional oath of office.
Steube’s proposal specifically targets Darializa Avila Chevalier, a democratic socialist who recently won her Democratic primary for a U.S. House seat. Steube and other Republicans point to Avila Chevalier's past activism as disqualifying for federal office.
According to Steube, the candidate co-founded the Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD) organization.
Republican critics have highlighted the group's published platform, which includes statements calling for “Death to America” and the “total eradication of Western Civilization,” alongside the use of militant force to achieve those objectives.
Furthermore, Steube referenced previously reported social media posts attributed to the candidate, including claims she joked about using an American flag as a napkin.
“Every member of Congress has to swear an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution,” Steube stated. “If she is refusing to do that, she should not be seated. I’m calling for a House rules change to ensure anyone who refuses the oath is barred from taking their seat.”
Steube argued that these positions are fundamentally incompatible with upholding the constitutional oath of office, which mandates that all members swear to support and defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies.
Steube has not yet released the specific legislative text detailing how the proposed rule would apply to questions surrounding a member's intent or past statements.
The proposal would require majority approval in the House at the beginning of the new Congress to take effect. If elected, Avila Chevalier would still be required to take the constitutional oath before assuming office.
How Would You Feel About Ilhan Omar Being Deported?
A prominent progressive senator is distancing his political movement from several positions that have become liabilities for Democrats in recent elections.
His comments prompted questions for one of Congress’ best-known progressive lawmakers, who was pressed on whether activists and candidates associated with the movement had actually embraced the policies he was dismissing.
Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., responded Friday after Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said that “no serious person” running for office supports defunding the police, despite the issue’s prominent role in progressive politics following the 2020 death of George Floyd.
Sanders made the comments during an Aug. 5 appearance on the “Pod Save America” podcast with former Obama administration speechwriter Jon Favreau.
Favreau asked Sanders about Democratic Socialists of America-backed candidates who have supported policies including abolishing prisons, defunding or abolishing police departments and eliminating national borders.
“No serious person that I know who is running for office believes in, quote unquote, defunding the police,” Sanders responded.
Sanders acknowledged problems within some law enforcement agencies while arguing that police officers continue to perform a necessary and difficult job.
“We need to get rid of racism” in police departments, Sanders said while discussing reforms he believes are necessary.
CNN’s Kaitlan Collins subsequently confronted Omar about Sanders’ characterization and asked whether the Vermont senator was correct that no serious candidates were advocating defunding the police.
Omar pointed to Minneapolis and the political environment following Floyd’s death while explaining why the issue became particularly important in her community.
“For us in Minneapolis, with the murder of George Floyd, we had to have a deeper conversation about what really it looked like for us to address public safety here,” Omar said.
“We had a police department that was essentially problematic,” she continued.
Omar argued that the discussion changed once the Minneapolis debate became a national political issue.
“And when that conversation becomes nationalized, then you sort of get the kind of messaging that gets sort of lost in the void,” she said.
“Minneapolis has come a long way. We still have a long way to go. And I think that is sort of what Bernie was speaking to,” Omar added.
Collins pressed Omar specifically on Sanders’ assertion that “no serious person” running for office supported defunding police departments.
“I mean, when he says that, I think he’s talking about someone putting forth a piece of legislation,” Omar responded.
“And to that regard, I would say that he is right,” she continued. “I haven’t seen any pieces of legislation or ordinances come through in the United States since 2020.”
The exchange comes as DSA-backed candidates have scored victories in several Democratic primaries, bringing renewed scrutiny to some of the organization’s more controversial positions.
DSA national co-chair Megan Romer defended the organization’s support for abolishing institutions including the Senate and Immigration and Customs Enforcement during a Fox News appearance last month.
Sanders, who identifies as a democratic socialist but is not a member of the Democratic Party, also rejected several other positions associated with elements of the socialist movement during his conversation with Favreau.
Asked about abolishing prisons, Sanders said he wants the United States to incarcerate fewer people but rejected eliminating imprisonment for dangerous criminals.
“I hope the day comes when we don’t lead the world in the number of people who are in custody,” Sanders said. “That speaks very poorly of our society.”
“But does that mean that there should not be dangerous people who should be behind bars? Of course, everybody agrees with that,” he added.
Sanders was equally direct when discussing immigration and the idea of eliminating borders.
“Open borders? No,” Sanders said. “We all, most of us, believe in comprehensive immigration reform, not opening up all the borders.”
Sanders argued that conservatives amplify the most controversial proposals associated with the political left, but maintained that “most serious candidates” do not embrace those positions.
Here We Go — First 2028 Democrat Makes the Announcement
The 2028 presidential election is still more than two years away, but Democrats are already making moves to gain whatever advantage they can with primary voters.
For instance, California Gov. Gavin Newsom traveled to Michigan, a vital swing state, earlier this week, where he held a series of campaign events.
Another Democrat being mentioned as a potential presidential contender is Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff, who was asked about a 2028 presidential run in an interview with MS NOW on Wednesday.
“No. I have zero interest in running for president in 2028,” he said.
When pressed, he added: “My purpose is not to gain attention. My purpose is to do my job and do it well.”
Meanwhile, the Republican field is a lot clearer.
The most obvious choice would be Vice President JD Vance, though Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s name has been mentioned more than a few times, as he has taken on several roles for President Trump in addition to his duties as secretary of state.
That said, according to Fox News, the president told donors during a private Oval Office meeting in late July that “at the end of the day, we need to elect JD,” suggesting he may be leaning toward Vance while stopping short of a formal endorsement.
“At the end of the day, we need to elect JD,” an anonymous source first told The Washington Post.
While Vance remains the leading figure in many early hypothetical 2028 Republican presidential polls, Rubio has gained ground in several national surveys, early-state polls and Republican straw polls ahead of a nominating contest that is not expected to begin in earnest until after the 2026 midterm elections.
According to The New York Post, however, Trump’s remarks should not be interpreted as an indication that he has definitively chosen between Vance and Rubio as a potential successor.
But the comments have drawn attention because they offer a rare glimpse into Trump’s long-term political thinking.
During a donor event in Las Vegas on Aug. 5, Trump mentioned Vance once, praising him for his work on combating fraud.
“He’s doing a great job,” Trump said of the vice president.
Rubio, who represented Florida in the U.S. Senate before joining the Trump administration, was one of more than a dozen Republicans who sought the party’s presidential nomination in 2016 before losing to Donald Trump.
Earlier this year, Rubio finished second to Vance in the closely watched 2028 Republican presidential nomination straw poll conducted at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), receiving 35% to Vance’s 53%.
Those results, along with recent national and early-state polling, have fueled speculation about a potential rivalry between Rubio and Vance as possible contenders for the 2028 Republican nomination, even as both men have publicly described each other as friends.
Rubio has also said he would not seek the GOP nomination if Vance does and would instead support the vice president.
“The president runs this administration: He is the very top of the administration; he makes orders,” Vance told “The Ingraham Angle” in an exclusive sit-down interview.
“We, of course, have debates and conversations about what exactly we should do, but when the president of the United States makes a decision, we’re unified in this administration in carrying out that mission,” he added.
Although Vance was selected as Trump’s running mate in the 2024 election, Trump has also repeatedly praised Rubio for his work on foreign policy, including diplomatic efforts involving Venezuela, Cuba and the Middle East.
Rubio has also served in multiple senior national security roles within the administration.
Trump has said Rubio could become “the greatest secretary of state in history.”
May you like
For his part, Trump has floated a Vance-Rubio 2028 ticket.
The president has described a potential Republican ticket featuring Vance and Rubio as “unstoppable,” while declining to indicate which of the two should head such a ticket.
