2025 will be a GREAT year

Skulnik

Truth Teller
Forum Member
Mar 30, 2007
21,222
497
83
Jefferson City, Missouri

Paid protest CEO urges Congress to pass law exposing who funds demonstrations​

Diana Falzone
Updated: Nov 12, 2025 / 10:34 AM CST

How does paid protesting work? Crowds on Demand CEO explains | NewsNation Prime
Unmute

Current Time 0:00
/
Duration 4:58

Captions

FullscreenSharePlay


Want to see more of NewsNation? Get 24/7 fact-based news coverage with the NewsNation app or add NewsNation as a preferred source on Google!
(NewsNation) — The CEO of a company that provides paid protesters for events is asking members of Congress to pass a “Transparency in Political Demonstration Act” that would expose the groups hiring demonstrators to attend events around the U.S.
Adam Swart is the head of Crowds on Demand, a company that, according to its website, provides services “for impactful advocacy campaigns, demonstrations, PR stunts, crowds for hire and corporate events.” NewsNation has obtained the letter Swart wrote to Congress on November 11 demanding greater transparency over who hires protesters.
CEO of paid protest company says it works with both sides of the aisle
Swart wrote in part:
“The right to peacefully assemble is one of America’s most sacred constitutional protections. Protests have long advanced justice and reform — but in recent years, we’ve seen the line between authentic civic expression and paid political manipulation blur beyond recognition.
“Across the country, peaceful activism has too often been replaced by coordinated influence campaigns. Most concerningly, many of these campaigns result either intentionally or unintentionally in violence, property destruction, and the mass disruption of American cities through unpermitted road closures.
“While these demonstrations are branded as ‘grassroots,’ evidence increasingly shows large-scale organization and financing behind them, often routed through opaque nonprofit networks designed to conceal true funders—some of whom may be foreign entities with nefarious intentions.”
Swart said his proposed “Transparency in Political Demonstrations Act,” which he calls a “bipartisan effort to protect free speech while ensuring accountability and safety,” is needed for the American people to have full knowledge who is funding and facilitating political demonstrations.
Protesters clash with police at Turning Point USA event
According to Swart’s letter, the TPDA would:
  • Require disclosure of funding sources behind demonstrations exceeding a defined number of participants
  • Establish a “Public Accountability Portal” where highly funded and heavily attended protest operations must disclose sponsors and subcontractors involved in planning, staffing or logistics
  • Ensure foreign entities and intermediaries cannot covertly fund or coordinate demonstrations intended to destabilize domestic institutions
  • Hold funders and organizers to a strict nonviolence standard, disqualifying organizations that promote or tolerate violence from certain federal benefits or nonprofit protections
Swart is asking that the “Oversight Committee and the Senate Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight review this proposal and hold hearings on the financial and organizational structures behind recent mass protests. I also request the opportunity to meet with committee staff or a potential sponsoring member of Congress to discuss model legislation and implementation logistics.”

Paid protest company CEO: We work with both Democrats and Republicans​

In July, Swart told NewsNation he turned down $20 million to provide demonstrators for the “Good Trouble Lives On” protests.
“I’m rejecting it not because I don’t want to take the business but because, frankly, this is going to be ineffective,” he said. “It’s going to make us all look bad.”
Swart told NewsNation in August that Crowds on Demand receives requests for both conservative and liberal causes, saying his company works “on causes that align with common-sense values. Democrats are hiring our company and so are Republicans.”
On Tuesday, he said his proposed legislation would “establish ground rules for activism to preserve our basic freedoms while putting a stop to the idea that malign actors can attack our system using opaque funding networks. Most concerningly, these funding networks can be used to hide support for violent activities.”

Swart tells NewsNation he’s making this proposal to Congress “because peaceful protest is supposed to be protected speech — not a business model for dark-money networks or foreign actors trying to destabilize our democracy.”
“This isn’t about stopping protest; it’s about protecting it,” he continued. “The First Amendment only works when Americans know who’s paying.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldmansrt

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,325
1,510
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org

Paid protest CEO urges Congress to pass law exposing who funds demonstrations​

Diana Falzone
Updated: Nov 12, 2025 / 10:34 AM CST

How does paid protesting work? Crowds on Demand CEO explains | NewsNation Prime
Unmute

Current Time 0:00
/
Duration 4:58

Captions

FullscreenSharePlay


Want to see more of NewsNation? Get 24/7 fact-based news coverage with the NewsNation app or add NewsNation as a preferred source on Google!
(NewsNation) — The CEO of a company that provides paid protesters for events is asking members of Congress to pass a “Transparency in Political Demonstration Act” that would expose the groups hiring demonstrators to attend events around the U.S.
Adam Swart is the head of Crowds on Demand, a company that, according to its website, provides services “for impactful advocacy campaigns, demonstrations, PR stunts, crowds for hire and corporate events.” NewsNation has obtained the letter Swart wrote to Congress on November 11 demanding greater transparency over who hires protesters.
CEO of paid protest company says it works with both sides of the aisle
Swart wrote in part:

Swart said his proposed “Transparency in Political Demonstrations Act,” which he calls a “bipartisan effort to protect free speech while ensuring accountability and safety,” is needed for the American people to have full knowledge who is funding and facilitating political demonstrations.
Protesters clash with police at Turning Point USA event
According to Swart’s letter, the TPDA would:
  • Require disclosure of funding sources behind demonstrations exceeding a defined number of participants
  • Establish a “Public Accountability Portal” where highly funded and heavily attended protest operations must disclose sponsors and subcontractors involved in planning, staffing or logistics
  • Ensure foreign entities and intermediaries cannot covertly fund or coordinate demonstrations intended to destabilize domestic institutions
  • Hold funders and organizers to a strict nonviolence standard, disqualifying organizations that promote or tolerate violence from certain federal benefits or nonprofit protections
Swart is asking that the “Oversight Committee and the Senate Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight review this proposal and hold hearings on the financial and organizational structures behind recent mass protests. I also request the opportunity to meet with committee staff or a potential sponsoring member of Congress to discuss model legislation and implementation logistics.”

Paid protest company CEO: We work with both Democrats and Republicans​

In July, Swart told NewsNation he turned down $20 million to provide demonstrators for the “Good Trouble Lives On” protests.
“I’m rejecting it not because I don’t want to take the business but because, frankly, this is going to be ineffective,” he said. “It’s going to make us all look bad.”
Swart told NewsNation in August that Crowds on Demand receives requests for both conservative and liberal causes, saying his company works “on causes that align with common-sense values. Democrats are hiring our company and so are Republicans.”
On Tuesday, he said his proposed legislation would “establish ground rules for activism to preserve our basic freedoms while putting a stop to the idea that malign actors can attack our system using opaque funding networks. Most concerningly, these funding networks can be used to hide support for violent activities.”

Swart tells NewsNation he’s making this proposal to Congress “because peaceful protest is supposed to be protected speech — not a business model for dark-money networks or foreign actors trying to destabilize our democracy.”
“This isn’t about stopping protest; it’s about protecting it,” he continued. “The First Amendment only works when Americans know who’s paying.”

I thought this was going to be about the 8 Republican Senators sneaking in $1M pay days for getting caught up in the January 6th investigations. BUT, no. More horseshit about secretly paid protesters that only far right propaganda outlets know the truth about.
 

Skulnik

Truth Teller
Forum Member
Mar 30, 2007
21,222
497
83
Jefferson City, Missouri
Lawfare

Exclusive: GOP Leaders Grill Judge Boasberg For Allowing Jack Smith To Spy On The Senate​

By: Breccan F. Thies
November 20, 2025
5 min read
boasberg

Image CreditPBS NewsHour / Youtube
Calls to impeach Boasberg have been growing louder, with Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, filing Articles of Impeachment earlier this month.
Author Breccan F. Thies profile

Breccan F. Thies
Visit on Twitter@BreccanFThies
More Articles

Share​

Abicameral group of Republicans in Congress is grilling James Boasberg, the U.S. district chief judge for Washington, D.C., on his decision to allow lawfare activist Jack Smith to spy on the Senate, offering him the “opportunity to explain yourself publicly” for a decision that almost certainly violated federal law.
As The Federalist reported, Boasberg approved a scheme under the Department of Justice’s Arctic Frost weaponization against Republicans in which Smith could subpoena the phone records of House and Senate Republicans and attach a nondisclosure order (NDO) so that the congressional bodies could not find out about it from the telecommunications providers being subpoenaed.

The Republican lawmakers note that of the 43 subpoenas issued to Verizon and two issued to AT&T, all had NDOs, and 19 were approved by Boasberg, including on official devices issued by the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms (SAA).
The Federalist obtained a letter sent Thursday from Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ron Johnson, R-Wis., chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, to Boasberg pointing to federal law that explicitly prohibits his actions.
The letter notes that “2 U.S.C. § 6628 provides that no law, rule, or regulation may be used to prevent a service provider from notifying a Senate office that data or records have been sought through legal process,” the letter states. “Specifically, this section states, ‘any provider for a Senate office … shall not be barred, through operation of any court order or any statutory provision, from notifying the Senate office of any legal process seeking disclosure” (emphasis original).
Part of the law’s purpose is to give the Senate the ability to stop any such subpoenas on separation of powers grounds. But, as The Federalist CEO Sean Davis stated, “Boasberg issued the illegal gag order precisely to prevent the Senate from going to court to vindicate its rights. … He knew the Senate would have IMMEDIATELY gone to court to nuke the Biden administration’s illegal spying against at least eight U.S. senators.”

To that end, the legislators are looking for answers about the extent to which Boasberg reckoned with that statute in his approval of the NDOs.
The only explanation, at least for the subpoena of the records for Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, is that Boasberg claimed he thought Cruz would destroy or tamper with evidence, intimidate potential witnesses, or put “serious jeopardy to the investigation” — something the legislators called “absurd on its face.”
“Special Counsel Smith’s request for records relating to sitting Members of Congress, including SAA-issued devices, raises serious constitutional and separation of powers concerns,” the letter states. “Had the court considered the application of 2 U.S.C. § 6628, it would have seen that the clear prohibition on granting NDOs was designed, at least in part, to address such grave constitutional concerns.”
To Grassley, Johnson, and Jordan, either Boasberg was derelict in his duty as a judge or Smith was lying to the court.

The trio has given Boasberg until Dec. 4 to answer eight questions:
  1. Did the Special Counsel’s office inform you that it sought provider records for sitting Members of Congress? Please explain in detail.
  1. Did the Special Counsel’s office brief the court on the applicability of 2 U.S.C. § 6628 when it applied to the court for an NDO pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2705 for the Members of Congress’s records? If yes, explain in detail how that affected your analysis. If not, should they have done so?
  2. Prior to granting the NDO for SAA-issued devices, were you otherwise aware of 2 U.S.C. § 6628? Did you consider the applicability of 2 U.S.C. § 6628? If not, why not? If yes, explain in detail.
  3. In light of the volume of subpoenas issued by the Special Counsel’s office, did you question the government about whether Members of Congress would be swept up into the collection of data and information? Did you consider constitutional and separation of powers implications? If not, why not?
  4. Did the Special Counsel’s office brief the court on Verizon’s contractual requirement to notify the SAA about requests for records related to SAA-issued devices? If yes, explain in detail how that affected your analysis. If not, should they have done so?
  5. Prior to granting the NDO for SAA-issued devices, were you otherwise aware of Verizon’s contractual requirement to notify the SAA about requests for records related to SAA-issued devices? Did you consider the applicability of that contractual provision? If not, why not? If yes, explain in detail.
  6. After granting the NDOs, did the Special Counsel’s office ever present you with information concerning 2 U.S.C. § 6628 or Verizon’s contractual requirement to notify the SAA about requests for records related to SAA-issued devices? What action did you take, if any, after learning this information?
  7. Did you deny any DOJ requests for NDOs involving subpoenas related to Arctic Frost and Members of Congress before or after Special Counsel Smith was appointed? If yes, please list each subpoena and describe in detail why it was denied.
Calls to impeach Boasberg have been growing louder, with Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, filing Articles of Impeachment earlier this month. Taking it a step further, a group of Republican senators has demanded that D.C. Circuit Chief Sri Srinivasan suspend Boasberg while those efforts are ongoing, as The Federalist reported.
“We cannot tolerate rogue, self-professed prejudicial judges ruling on our nation’s most important cases,” Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., said.
The D.C. District Court did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Federalist.


Breccan F. Thies is the White House correspondent for The Federalist. He previously covered education and culture issues for the Washington Examiner and Breitbart News. He holds a degree from the University of Virginia and is a 2022 Claremont Institute Publius Fellow. You can follow him on X: @BreccanFThies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ageecee

Skulnik

Truth Teller
Forum Member
Mar 30, 2007
21,222
497
83
Jefferson City, Missouri

Documents: Letitia James Lied To Bank, Insurer In Alleged Mortgage Fraud Scheme​

By: Breccan F. Thies
November 21, 2025
4 min read
letitia james

Image Credit13News Now / Youtube
The timeline of James’ claims suggest she knew her claims were false when she made them.
Author Breccan F. Thies profile

Breccan F. Thies
Visit on Twitter@BreccanFThies
More Articles

Share​

New York Attorney General Letitia James, D-N.Y., allegedly lied to her lending bank, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and a homeowner’s insurance company in the mortgage fraud scheme for which she was indicted in October, according to documents filed with the court.
According to a tranche of exhibits revealed Thursday night by Lindsey Halligan, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, James knowingly lied on numerous documents and applications in an effort to game the system for a second home purchased in Norfolk, Virginia, in 2020.

Mike Davis, founder and president of the Article III Project, noted the filings make the case against James appear both open-and-shut and fairly routine for that judicial district.
“Lindsey Halligan’s prosecution of Letitia James is a righteous, garden-variety mortgage fraud prosecution,” Davis wrote on social media. “As her filing shows, prosecutions are routinely brought in the Eastern District of Virginia for fraud over similar amounts of cash.”
“No one’s above the law, Tish,” he added, referencing James’ persistent claims that politicians at all levels should be prosecuted for committing crimes. Ironically, she tried and failed to falsely tag President Donald Trump with charges similar to her own in a nationwide get-Trump lawfare scheme run by Democrats during the Biden administration.
James was indicted for allegedly falsifying records in order to obtain loans for the Virginia home that she claimed would be her “principal residence.” When she applied for the loan, she was living in New York as the state’s attorney general, which is still the case.

One document revealed Thursday shows that in an Affidavit of Occupancy (in which the information given is sworn to be true under oath), James stated the Virginia home would be bought as a “second home,” meaning it could be kept as a vacation home or something similar while maintaining a second property somewhere else.
According to the court filings, however, James never lived in the home, which, judging from the filings, was on Peronne Ave. Her niece did.
“[James] stayed in hotels during visits to Norfolk despite representing that the Peronne residence was her secondary residence,” court filings state. “This is because the home was not treated as her secondary home at all. In fact, [James] purchased the Peronne residence for a relative from whom she collected rent while enjoying the financial benefits of a lower mortgage rate.”
“Furthermore, in October 2020, the relative attempted to use the Peronne address to register to vote,” the filings continue.

This information puts a massive hole in the next thing James allegedly lied about — her homeowner’s insurance application with Universal Property. On that application she claimed that the Virginia home was not occupied for five months out of the year.
It was apparently occupied by her niece year-round, and James was collecting rent from her, according to the court filings. Another insurance document shows James claimed that the only occupant was a single adult, herself.
While James never lived there, her niece did, but not alone. Her niece lived there with three children, none of whom were claimed in the insurance document. There does not seem to be any way these claims were mistakes, as she must have known the reality when she filled out the forms.
In the insurance document in which she neglected to claim the children and falsely claimed that she lived at the property, James said she moved in October 2020. However, the utilities for the property were registered under James’ niece’s name in September 2020, according to the court filings. Filings also state that James claimed that the home was an investment property when filing her taxes, despite “having claimed it as a secondary home on her mortgage application,” as Davis described.
James took “deductions consistent with investment property” on those taxes, not a secondary residence, which “demonstrate that [James] never occupied nor intended to occupy the Peronne residence as the mortgage terms required,” the court filings say.
She claimed it was an investment property “at least twice,” “taking the investment property deductions for several years,” according to the court documents, “but never took steps to amend the material falsehoods on her mortgage documents.”
James has pleaded not guilty.



Breccan F. Thies is the White House correspondent for The Federalist. He previously covered education and culture issues for the Washington Examiner and Breitbart News. He holds a degree from the University of Virginia and is a 2022 Claremont Institute Publius Fellow. You can follow him on X: @BreccanFThies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ageecee
Bet on MyBookie
Top