GOP Rep. Fine Considers Forcing House Vote To Boot Ilhan Omar pssss
GOP Rep. Fine Considers Forcing House Vote To Boot Ilhan Omar
Rep. Randy Fine, a Republican from Florida, is reportedly considering forcing a House vote to expel Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Democrat from Minnesota. Fine told Axios on Wednesday that he is actively weighing the move.
He said the potential action would be based on allegations that Omar married her brother, along with what he described as her “general embrace of Muslim terror,” Axios reported.
“I don’t think she should be a citizen, let alone a member of Congress,” Fine told the outlet.
The comments followed a fundraising email from Omar’s campaign calling for Fine to be expelled from Congress over past remarks in which he said Muslims should be “destroyed.”
“I won’t send out fundraising emails calling for her expulsion,” Fine told Axios. “If I’m going to do that, you will see me bring the piece of paper. And I am actively considering that.”
Axios noted that expelling a member of the House requires a two-thirds vote.
With Republicans holding only a narrow majority, at least 85 Democrats would need to support the effort for it to succeed.
Omar has also faced renewed scrutiny in recent weeks related to fraud tied to the Somali community in her Minnesota district.
The controversy centers on the Minnesota “Feeding Our Future” program, which authorities have linked to approximately $250 million in fraud connected to the MEALS Act passed during COVID lockdowns.
Omar supported the legislation and has defended her role.
“Do you regret pushing for that bill, the MEALS Act? Do you think it led to the fraud?” Fox News reporter Nicholas Ballasy asked Omar earlier this month, according to Fox News.
“Absolutely not, it did help feed kids,” Omar replied.
President Donald Trump has also sharply criticized Omar in recent weeks.
Earlier this month, Trump referred to the congresswoman as “garbage” and raised broader concerns about large scale migration from Third World nations such as Somalia, according to NBC News.
“I don’t want them in our country. I’ll be honest with you, okay,” Trump said.
“Somebody will say, ‘Oh, that’s not politically correct.’ I don’t care,” he added.
“I don’t want them in our country. Their country is no good for a reason,” Trump continued.
“Her friends are garbage,” Trump said, referring to Omar. “These aren’t people that work. These aren’t people that say, ‘Let’s go, come on, let’s make this place great.’ These are people that do nothing but complain.”
Republican challenger John Nagel is accusing Rep. Omar of being closely linked to the $1 billion Feeding Our Future fraud scandal, which is based in her Minneapolis congressional district. Nagel, who is running against Omar in Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District, claims that legislation introduced by Omar contributed to the circumstances that allowed the fraud to take place.
“Where did this actually start?” Nagel said, Townhall reported. “She passed legislation. Her legislation actually started it, and it allowed people to get into Feeding Our Future.” Nagel pointed to the geographic concentration of the fraud.
“If you look at where the fraud is, it’s primarily her district, the district that I’m running in against her,” he said. “And it’s really odd to think that all the fraud just happened in a particular area.”
Omar introduced the Maintaining Essential Access to Lunch for Students Act, known as the MEALS Act, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The bill allowed states to provide free meals to children during school closures through alternative methods such as grab-and-go distribution and eased eligibility requirements. Omar has denied any wrongdoing.
The legislation was passed by Congress with bipartisan support.
Nagel further alleged that individuals connected to Omar’s political circle financially benefited from the fraud scheme. He said Omar held campaign events at Safari Restaurant, a business tied to the Feeding Our Future investigation, and claimed she had personal familiarity with one of the restaurant’s owners who has since been convicted.
IT ALL CAME OUT' – GAVIN NEWSOM BLOWS UP AFTER BEING EXPOSED LIVE ON AIR
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — As the 2028 presidential election cycle rapidly approaches, life is getting increasingly complicated for California Governor Gavin Newsom.
The ambitious Democrat, widely expected to declare his candidacy for his party's highest nomination, is currently drowning in a massive, rapidly expanding ethics scandal centered on hundreds of millions of dollars in questionable corporate donations. As federal investigators continue to circle both the governor and his wife, First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom, the sheer scale of his fundraising tactics is raising serious alarm bells across the political spectrum.
At the absolute center of this controversy is Newsom’s unprecedented and unapologetic use of "behested payments"—a controversial practice in California law that allows elected officials to personally solicit massive, unlimited donations from deep-pocketed corporations, wealthy individuals, and labor unions to fund specific charities or government initiatives.
While technically legal under the state's highly permissive rules, government watchdogs and ethics experts are fiercely arguing that these payments represent a glaring, dangerous loophole. It essentially allows special interests—many of whom have active, highly lucrative business before the state of California—to gain massive political influence and curry favor with the governor, entirely outside the strict boundaries of traditional campaign finance laws.
The $347 Million Man
According to official California disclosure records, the scale at which Newsom utilizes this loophole is utterly staggering. Since 2011, Newsom has reported soliciting more than $347 million in behested payments.
To put that massive figure into perspective, data from the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) reveals that all elected officials statewide combined directed roughly $556 million in behested payments between 2011 and 2026. Newsom alone accounted for nearly two-thirds—a whopping 62%—of that total.
By stark contrast, his predecessor, former Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, reportedly solicited a relatively modest $35 million in behested payments during his entire tenure.
"Behested payments are ripe for abuse," warned Sean McMorris of California Common Cause, pointing out the obvious ethical minefield created when powerful elected officials lean on organizations that have direct business before the government.
The Optics of Influence Peddling
The ethical concerns are not just hypothetical; they are rooted in a pattern of massive corporate donations followed by highly favorable state actions.
Public reports have raised serious questions about several major donors who opened their checkbooks at Newsom's behest and later benefited immensely from state contracts or policy decisions. For example, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the healthcare giant Blue Shield donated a staggering $20 million to initiatives heavily supported by Newsom. Shortly thereafter, the corporation was miraculously awarded a highly lucrative, no-bid state contract related to vaccine distribution.
Similarly, the Kaiser Foundation contributed nearly $10 million before securing a significantly expanded role in California’s massive Medi-Cal program. In another instance, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria donated millions to organizations associated with the governor and his wife’s initiatives. Later, they benefited significantly from favorable state decisions involving tribal gaming matters, including efforts to block a rival casino from opening nearby.
While proving an explicit, legal quid pro quo is notoriously difficult, critics argue that the actual transaction is irrelevant. The concern is that the system inherently encourages and rewards a "pay-to-play" culture. Assemblyman David Tangipa slammed the practice, describing behested payments as a blatant form of "political influence peddling," boldly arguing that just because the system is legal does not mean it isn't deeply corrupt.
The Family Business and Federal Heat
The issue has drawn even fiercer scrutiny because millions of these corporate dollars have been funneled directly into organizations tightly linked to the governor’s inner circle. Approximately $4.8 million in behested donations were routed to the California Partners Project, a nonprofit organization co-founded by Jennifer Siebel Newsom. For many critics, corporate money flowing into a charity run by the governor's wife creates, at the very least, a glaring appearance of a massive conflict of interest.
The intense debate over this influence-peddling loophole comes at a highly precarious time for the governor. Newsom recently acknowledged that both he and his wife are currently the subjects of multiple, ongoing federal investigations. While neither has been charged with any wrongdoing, and the Department of Justice has remained completely tight-lipped about the exact nature of the inquiries, the specter of a federal probe casts a dark cloud over his 2028 presidential ambitions.
A "Laughable Slap on the Wrist"
Adding insult to injury for government transparency advocates, Newsom recently agreed to pay a $31,500 ethics fine handed down by the state's campaign finance watchdog, the FPPC. The fine was levied after the commission found that Newsom flagrantly failed to legally report 36 separate behested payments—totaling more than $5.6 million—within the required 30-day timeframe.
The late disclosures involved massive corporate donations solicited during the 2024 and 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, pulling in vast sums from corporate titans like BlackRock, Amazon, Lockheed Martin, and Anthem Blue Cross. While Newsom's office brushed off the violation as a mere paperwork oversight during an emergency, critics blasted the $31,500 penalty as a "laughable slap on the wrist" for a wealthy politician manipulating a quarter-billion-dollar shadow fundraising system. This marks the second time Newsom has been fined for late reporting of these payments, having previously paid a $13,000 fine in 2024.
Supporters of the governor are quick to point out that these behested donations have funded critical public initiatives, including wildfire relief and charitable causes. However, the public benefit of those projects does absolutely nothing to eliminate the massive concerns surrounding transparency, corporate influence, and the ability of powerful special interests to funnel unlimited cash into causes promoted by the state's most powerful executive.
As Newsom attempts to position himself as the future of the Democratic Party, the growing scandal surrounding his $347 million loophole is forcing a national reckoning. The American people are left to wonder: if this is how Gavin Newsom runs California, how exactly would he run the country?
