The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Tag: lindsey graham

Coup Plotters' Love Quadrangle: Ginni And Clarence And John -- And Lindsey!

In a single-page order issued today, Ginni’s husband temporarily stayed a subpoena from an Atlanta grand jury seeking testimony from South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham in an ongoing investigation of attempts to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia.

There is a neat little love quadrangle going on here, folks. The House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack ffhas emails between Ginni Thomas and John Eastman, the author of one of Trump’s last attempts to overturn the results of the presidential election. Eastman wrote a memo for Trump outlining how fake slates of electors could be appointed in states Trump lost, including Georgia, and submitted to the Congress at the time electoral votes were to be counted on January 6.

The hope was that Republican Senators and Congressmen would object to the official slates of electors from those states, and that resolving the phony dispute between the fake and real electors would be thrown into the House, where it would be resolved in Trump’s favor, and he would be declared the winner of the election.

It is not known what Ginni and Eastman discussed in their exchange of emails, but Eastman was sufficiently frightened of his own subpoena by the same Georgia grand jury that he invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when he testified. Eastman also invoked attorney-client privilege, the “client” being Donald Trump, before the grand jury. The end result was that he answered no questions from the Georgia grand jury about his involvement in attempts to overturn the results of the presidential election in that state.

The grand jury wants to hear from Senator Graham about his phone calls with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger during the period between Election Day in November and the certification of electoral ballots by the Congress on January 6, 2021. The other person known to have called Raffensberger on the phone during the same time period was Donald Trump, who asked the Georgia secretary of state to help him “find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have,” so he could win the state in the presidential election.

So we’ve got Ginni emailing with Eastman, and we’ve got Eastman meeting with Trump in the Oval Office pitching the scheme for phony slates of electors in the states Trump had lost, and we’ve got Eastman refusing to testify about his involvement in overturning the election results in Georgia, and we’ve got Trump calling Raffensberger and trying to get him to come up with enough votes that he would be declared winner in Georgia.

And we’ve got Lindsey Graham filing lawsuits trying to get his grand jury subpoena quashed, losing in the federal district court in Georgia, losing again when he appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, then filing an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court last Friday, and Ginni’s husband bailing him out of complying with the subpoena today.

We know from her emails that Ginni was involved in trying to overturn election results in Arizona and Wisconsin, and I’m not saying that Lindsey Graham knows anything about Ginni’s involvement in attempting to overturn the results of the election in Georgia, which her friend John Eastman was involved in, and her friend Donald Trump was involved in. But wouldn’t it be interesting to hear what her friend Lindsey has to say about it? And isn’t it curious that her husband leapt at the opportunity to stick his nose into the Georgia investigation?

It may turn out that the full Supreme Court ends up ruling on Graham’s emergency appeal for a stay, but in the meantime, I don’t know, could Ginni’s husband possibly have a conflict of interest here?

Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has had a 50-year career as a journalist, novelist, and screenwriter. He has covered Watergate, the Stonewall riots, and wars in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five bestselling novels. You can subscribe to his daily columns at and follow him on Twitter @LucianKTruscott and on Facebook at Lucian K. Truscott IV.

Reprinted with permission from Lucian Truscott Newsletter

New Polling Shows Why Republicans Shunned Graham's Abortion Ban

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina thought he had hit a sweet spot last month when he introduced his 15-week national abortion ban. It was something Republicans could supposedly rally around and, yet, not as repulsive as a zero-tolerance national abortion ban conservative zealots clearly want to impose on the country.

But a 15-week abortion ban is still a ban, robbing women of their bodily autonomy and their right to make their own health care decisions. There's just no putting lipstick on that pig, and new polling from the progressive consortium Navigator Research shows that voters get it.

In broad terms, Americans oppose a nationwide abortion ban by a 41-point margin, 27% support-68% oppose, including a 70% majority of independents and even a 49% plurality of Republicans (with 44% supporting one).

But Navigator also tested support for abortion bans using two different descriptions, one of which specified banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Described as a “national abortion ban, which would ban abortions in all 50 states without exceptions for the health of the mother” without mentioning the 15-week restriction, respondents opposed ban by 41 points, 25% support-66% opposed.

But adding Graham's 15-week qualifier barely moved the needle. Described as a "national abortion ban, which would ban abortions in all 50 states after 15 weeks without exceptions for the health of the mother," the measure was still 38 points underwater, with 27% support-65% opposed.

In the end, a national ban is a national ban to two-thirds of Americans, no matter how Graham tried to dress it up.

Another key finding of the survey was that respondents found the prospect of a national abortion ban even more motivating than the overturning of Roe v. Wade itself.

In previous Navigator tracking, 58% of Americans said the Supreme Court overturning Roe made them more motivated to vote, including 72% of pro-choice Americans compared to just 39% of anti-abortion Americans. But news of a national abortion ban bumped Americans' urgency to vote by 7 points to 65%, including 82% of Democrats and 79% of pro-choice Americans, compared to just 48% of Republicans and 43% of pro-life Americans.

It's worth remembering here that Graham not only unveiled the bill, he also promised it would get a vote if Republicans took control of Congress.

“If [Republicans] take back the House and the Senate, I can assure you we’ll have a vote on our bill," Graham pledged at a press conference last month.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Graham Says 15-Week Abortion Limit Is Step Toward Total National Ban

Sen. Lindsey Graham is not letting up on his national abortion ban, even though many of his fellow Senate Republicans wish he’d be quiet about that until after the election. Graham’s plan may help fire up the Republican base, but he clearly thinks it’s going to win swing voters despite all the available evidence that it will do the opposite.

Graham is out with an op-ed at Fox News (of course) trying to sell his abortion ban as the loving and compassionate and extremely moderate thing to do. Written with Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, the piece opens with a lie and ends with an acknowledgment that a national 15-week abortion ban is just the beginning.

“Pain is part of the human experience, and so is compassion for those who suffer pain,” they write at the outset, selling a policy devoid of compassion for the pregnant people it would affect. “For too long, our nation’s laws have excluded unborn children from this compassion even when growing evidence shows they can feel pain at least by 15 weeks in their development.”

In reality, “The science conclusively establishes that a human fetus does not have the capacity to experience pain until after at least 24–25 weeks. Every major medical organization that has examined this issue and peer-reviewed studies on the matter have consistently reached the conclusion that abortion before this point does not result in the perception of pain in a fetus,” according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Why would that be? “Rigorous scientific studies have found that the connections necessary to transmit signals from peripheral sensory nerves to the brain, as well as the brain structures necessary to process those signals, do not develop until at or after 24 weeks of gestation. Because it lacks these connections and structures, a fetus or embryo does not have the physiological capacity to perceive pain until at least this gestational age.”

Following that lie, Graham and Dannenfelser tell a truth: Graham’s national abortion ban would establish a ceiling, but not a floor, on abortion rights. It would limit abortion rights in states that allow abortion past 15 weeks (as was the national policy until the Trump Supreme Court went to work), but states that wanted to entirely ban abortion could do so.

Next, Graham and Dannenfelser move on to a misleading comparison between the national abortion ban they’re pushing and European laws. “Most of our European allies already limit abortion by at least 15 weeks. Developed nations like Switzerland, Denmark, and Norway allow abortion up to 12 weeks while France, Germany, Belgium, and Spain allow abortion up to 14 weeks,” they write. Here’s the thing: That may be true on paper, but most European countries have broader exceptions than Graham is proposing after those gestational limits.

“We see earlier gestational limits in Europe,” Katherine Mayall of the Center for Reproductive Rights told The Atlantic’s Adam Serwer, but “in practice, if somebody hits a gestational limit of 12 weeks, they’re still able to access abortion care, because the broad grounds after that limit option include things like mental health or the woman’s economic circumstances.” Economic circumstances!

Here’s maybe the best part, though. “For almost 50 years, the American people were denied a voice on abortion,” Graham and Dannenfelser lament, as they push a bill that would deny a voice to many states. And a bill that is, according to post-Dobbs polling, opposed by the public 57% to 30%, a 27-point margin.

It’s lie after lie in a piece intended to sell a policy that lowers the ceiling on medical freedom for pregnant people. And yes, it’s terrible politics for Republicans. The Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision put the U.S. on notice that Republicans do want to take away your rights, and Graham’s bill emphasizes that. That’s why so many Republicans who will gladly vote for it after the midterm elections are running scared right now. But he’s just being honest about his party’s goals—and toward the end of his piece with Dannenfelser, Graham acknowledges that this 15-week abortion ban is not the final step.

”There’s a lot more work to be done to ensure that one day every child is protected under the law, and we believe, over time, life will win,” they write. “But this is a reasonable starting place for a debate worthy of the United States Senate and our nation.”

Got that? A national 15-week abortion ban is just the starting point. The only answer is to make sure they don’t get started.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

It's Too Late For Republicans To Escape Their Abortion Blunder

Nice try, Lindsey Graham. The senator from South Carolina has been reading the polls, clearly. After decades of railing against abortion and populating the U.S. Supreme Court with justices eager to ditch a right to an abortion, Republicans like him are discovering that the broader public never signed up for losing that option.

On the contrary, many voters are hopping mad they've lost a right they took for granted. People who might not have participated in the midterms are registering and circling Nov.8 on their calendars.

The belief that women are the force that may scuttle Republican dreams come the midterms is widespread. But, actually, a Pew survey shows a majority of men, 58 percent, favor abortion rights in all or most cases.

A man of elastic beliefs, Graham has a "solution" that spins the head in light of what's transpired. He's proposed a new national law permitting abortion in the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. Who does that please? Not the many states that oppose added restrictions. Not the 12 or so states that had virtually banned the procedure.

Gosh, haven't Republicans been telling us for 50 years that decisions on abortion should be left to the states? And repeated with added force after the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision struck down Roe v. Wade? And, of course, Graham himself over how many decades?

His bill would add exceptions for rape and incest, which sounds reasonable to many but constitutes an insult to a true "pro-life position." If the embryo or fetus is an innocent human being, as abortion foes hold, then it should not matter whether that being was conceived in love or through a violent crime.

What Roe did was give women the option of ending a pregnancy before fetal viability for any reason. What influenced their decisions was no business of politicians.

In any case, rape and incest account for a tiny fraction of unwanted pregnancies. Out in the real world, the desire for access to abortion centers on other, more common scenarios.

It's about parents dealing with an 11th grader impregnated by a 12th grader. It covers the single woman who became pregnant by a guy she wants out of her life. It involves couples burdened with debt and job loss who feel unable to start a family at the moment — or are struggling to support the children they have.

The most restrictive bans on abortion tend to make an exception for saving the life of the mother. But then, who decides whether a mother's life was truly endangered? Ordinarily, that person would be a doctor.

But politically inspired restrictions on the procedure have empowered politicians and other outsiders to threaten doctors making complicated decisions. And that has struck fear among maternal medicine professionals.

Ohio's near ban on abortion has created tension at the Cleveland Clinic, nationally known for its expertise in high-risk pregnancies. There are cases, for example, in which a non-viable twin must be removed to prevent irreparable harm to the mother and the other twin.

One in 10 pregnancies end in miscarriages. Doctors treating them to preserve the woman's health routinely use common abortion drugs. Are they now open in many states to all kinds of crazy accusations?

The Cleveland Clinic also worries that doctors may avoid Ohio altogether rather than expose themselves to oversight by people not at all qualified to practice medicine.

With many Republicans pretending they never really opposed abortion, Graham apparently wants to help with his compromise. The post-Dobbs stance that states should decide these matters lasted about 15 minutes.

"I thought it'd be nice to introduce a bill to define who we are," he said. Mission accomplished.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Marco Rubio, ‘States’ Rights’ Advocate, Endorses National Abortion Ban

United States Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) announced on Wednesday afternoon that he has become a co-sponsor of a national abortion ban that was first proposed by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Tuesday.

The legislation would outlaw the procedure after 15 weeks with limited exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

Less than three weeks ago, Rubio told CBS News Miami's Jim DeFede that he believes that abortion should be regulated by the states.

“[A]ll the Supreme Court said is that now that debate is not going to happen in Washington — where it wasn’t happening at all because of Roe v. Wade — now that decision has to be made at the state level.... Every state will have its own [law]," Rubio said as noted by MSNBC's Steve Benen on Wednesday.

"Well, I think that right now this issue is appropriately before the states," Rubio added. "That’s where it should’ve always been; that’s where it is now; and I think that’s where it’ll be for the foreseeable future.... Frankly, I think this issue is better decided at the state level."

Rubio's opponent in the hotly-contested race for his Senate seat, House Democratic Representative Val Demings, blasted the incumbent's move on Twitter.

Rubio "just cosponsored the bill to ban abortions and criminalize doctors. He’ll stop at nothing to strip women of our constitutional rights. We have to hold him accountable in November," Demings wrote.

In response, Rubio parroted Republican comparisons to reproductive laws across Europe, where citizens enjoy universal health care, comprehensive sex education, and public assistance when an abortion is needed.

"Restricting abortions to the first 4 months is more lenient than virtually every country in Europe," Rubio tweeted. "The extremists are people like Congresswoman Val Demings who opposes any restrictions & has voted for taxpayer funded abortion for any reason, at any time, up to the moment of birth."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

'Massive' Blunder: Graham Abortion Bill Riles Republicans, Thrills Democrats

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is being praised and punished by Democrats – and mostly criticized if not just ignored by Republicans. Democrats are grateful for the massive “gift” he dropped in their laps, almost without warning Tuesday, by introducing a nationwide abortion ban that has no chance of passing the Senate, much less the House, or ever being signed into law by any Democratic president. In fact, it will never even be brought to the floor for a vote, at least not while Democrats hold the Senate.

Graham’s bill, which would ban abortion at 15 weeks (Graham got even that wrong at his press conference, saying “after” 15 weeks,) with few exceptions, is more extreme than even some states’ current bans.

It is a remarkable about-face for a lawmaker who just 37 days ago on national television said abortion should be left up to the states, not the federal government. It’s also a snapshot of just how extreme Graham has allowed himself to become. Last year he introduced a 20-week abortion ban.

Many Democrats and voters on the left are thrilled Graham, they say, has exposed what the GOP’s real intentions have been all along: not “states’ rights,” but the control of women’s bodies and a nationwide ban on abortion.

Republicans and those on the right are furious he has not only exposed their goals but did so less than two months before the midterms, when early voting has already begun in some states.


The U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, overturning the nearly 50-year-old Roe v. Wade decision that found women have a constitutional right to abortion, has been historically unpopular. It’s catapulted women to register to vote in numbers not seen in at least decades.

“No issue has upended the battle for Congress and state races as abruptly,” The Washington Post reported last week, adding that “female voters who drifted away from the Democratic Party after the 2020 election are shifting back. Democrats have overperformed in special elections, and voters showed up in droves to reject a ballot measure in ruby-red Kansas aimed at restricting abortion.”

The right-wing Wall Street Journal earlier this month, reported that “60% of voters said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, up from 55% in March.”

“More than half of voters said the issue made them more likely to cast ballots in the midterm elections; majorities oppose 6-week and 15-week abortion bans.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), one of the most-respected lawmakers on Capitol Hill, blasted the South Carolina Republican senator, correctly framing the GOP as “theocrats.”

“Lindsey Graham’s nationwide 15-week abortion ban is a dangerous escalation of the GOP’s plan to destroy women’s health care. We won’t let it pass, but we see what’s coming if the theocrats take over Congress,” Raskin warned, adding: “Pro-freedom Americans: stay vigilant.”

A popular Twitter account with nearly 300,000 followers that posts video clips on important news events, Acyn, who rarely makes political commentary without a video noted, “Lindsey Graham really seems to have made a massive miscalculation here.”

Ryan Saavedra, a senior reporter for the far-right-wing website The Daily Wire lamented, “What a great way to energize the opposition against your own party just weeks before an election.

Daily Beast columnist Wajahat Ali, an attorney and author of Go Back To Where You Came From: And, Other Helpful Recommendations on Becoming American, says, “Republicans and Lindsey Graham have just handed Democrats a gift before the midterm with their national abortion ban. I hope Democrats recognize it and run ads and messaging on it nonstop.”

Activist and author Amy Siskind said, “Trust me: Lindsey Graham’s plan to remind us that Republicans took away women’s right to control our own bodies is not going to go the way he thinks it is.”

Attorney Ron Filipkowski, a former Republican and former federal prosecutor turned Democrat who works to expose right wing extremism observed that “Lindsey Graham just took a flamethrower to every carefully crafted Republican narrative designed to fool voters about their intentions on abortion. The American people can now see very clearly what they intend to do.”

He added, “Can we get Lindsey on the road to campaign in PA, OH, WI, GA, AK, AZ, FL? Can we pay for his travel expenses? Never thought I’d say this, but more Lindsey Graham please!”

Journalist Brian J. Karem says Sen. Graham “seems determined to make sure the GOP loses and the Democrats retain control of the House and Senate in the midterms.”

Even Fox News seemed stunned.

Host Bret Baier said Graham’s abortion ban is “raising eyebrows” and asked, “Are Republicans going down the wrong road with a nationwide abortion ban after saying it’s up to the states in the wake of Dobbs?”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Lindsey Graham Introduces Bill For Nationwide Ban On Abortion

Republicans are struggling with the backlash against the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and a series of Republican-controlled states instituting harsh abortion bans. Voters are angry, and that anger has contributed to a reduction in Republican hopes for November’s midterm elections. So what are they doing about it? Well, Sen. Lindsey Graham is going to introduce a national 15-week abortion ban.

That’s one way to do things. Voters are angry that your party is banning abortion in the states? Go ahead and ban it nationally! Many in your party defended the Supreme Court’s move as backing states’ rights on this issue? Take it federal!

Graham’s move is a political calculation. He’s calling his 15-week abortion ban—which falls far short of Roe’s standard of viability, usually around 23 or 24 weeks—the “Protecting Pain-Capable Unborn Children from Late-Term Abortions Act.” He thinks he can convince swing voters to hear “late-term abortions” and “pain-capable” and think, “This is a reasonable limit I can support in the name of compromise.”

But that’s presuming that voters will hear those words and not just “national abortion ban.” Or that they won’t see through the fact that what Graham proposes is a sharp cut from what had been the national standard for nearly five decades.

It’s also, of course, total bunk. Fetal pain is a big Republican talking point, but as applied to a 15-week ban, it’s simply a lie. Here’s what the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has to say on the issue: “The science conclusively establishes that a human fetus does not have the capacity to experience pain until after at least 24–25 weeks. Every major medical organization that has examined this issue and peer-reviewed studies on the matter have consistently reached the conclusion that abortion before this point does not result in the perception of pain in a fetus.”

Then there’s “late-term.” This is not a medical concept. “Late-term pregnancy” is a thing, meaning when a pregnancy goes past 40 weeks. But “late-term abortion” is a sneaky way to relate abortions performed past some indeterminate point—here, 15 weeks!—to actual late-term pregnancies. Fifteen weeks is also before the anatomical ultrasound at which many serious fetal anomalies, including many incompatible with life, are discovered.

It’s not hard to see what Graham thinks he is doing with this messaging bill that has no chance of passing in a Congress controlled by Democrats or being signed by a Democratic president. He’s trying to use the deceptive name of the bill to convince voters that Republicans just have reasonable goals when it comes to a national abortion ban. The thing is, Republicans haven’t given voters a lot of reason to trust them on this issue, given the harsh abortion bans in so many Republican-controlled states, and the horror stories coming out of those states of women denied care for miscarriages or pregnancies that threaten their health, or child rape victims forced to travel out of state for medical care. And Graham’s ban wouldn’t reinstitute abortion rights up to 15 weeks in the states with near-total bans—it would only limit abortion rights where they currently exist.

It is also, of course, a huge betrayal of everything Republicans have said about states’ rights. Here's Graham himself, just last month: “I think states should decide the issue of marriage and states should decide the issue of abortion.” It isn’t, or shouldn’t be, a surprise that Graham is a giant liar on this front, but it’s another reminder that the implication that Republicans just want to pass this oh-so-reasonable “Protecting Pain-Capable Unborn Children from Late-Term Abortions Act” isn’t just a lie when it comes to the name of the bill, it’s a lie about their larger ambitions. They’re just getting started with this, and yes, Republicans want a national abortion ban.

Republican candidates across the country are frantically backpedaling on their extreme opposition to abortion, and here come Senate Republicans to remind voters that yes, Republicans really do want to ban abortion. Thanks, I guess?

But that’s the message to voters. “Republicans want a national abortion ban.” It’s really that simple.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Senators Demand Probe Of Fake 'Rothschild' Heiress Who Infiltrated Trump Club

Senators are calling for an investigation into a Russian-speaking Ukrainian scammer who, posing as a member of the Rothschild banking family, infiltrated Mar-a-Lago and met top Republicans, including former President Trump.

The startling case underscores the security challenges that plagued Trump’s resort — the de facto headquarters of the GOP — where the former president stashed confidential government records, including documents with markings higher than “top secret.”

Inna Yashchyshyn, the 33-year-old daughter of an Illinois truck driver,” conned her way into Trump’s private club on “multiple” occasions and convinced club members she was Anna Rothschild, an heiress of the famous European banking dynasty, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, in conjunction with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reported in August.

Yashchyshyn’s ruse, the Post-Gazette wrote, “demonstrates the ease with which someone with a fake identity and shadowy background” could breach security at Trump’s club, “one of America’s power centers and the epicenter of Republican Party politics.”

The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), said Yashchyshyn’s breach was another example of “what appears to be porous or even nonexistent security at Mar-a-Lago,” per the Post Gazette.

“I have regular contact with senior leadership [of the intelligence agencies], and I intend to raise this issue,” Warner told the publication.

Yashchyshyn posed for photos with Trump and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on a golf course and later with Kimberly Guilfoyle, Donald Trump Jr.’s fiancee, as well as Trump campaign donor Richard Kofoed and other Trump associates after dinner at an Italian restaurant.

"Anna, you're a Rothschild. You can afford $1 million for a picture with you and Trump," a man told Yashchyshyna at Trump’s golf club in video footage obtained by the Post-Gazette.

"It wasn't just dropping the family name. She talked about vineyards and family estates and growing up in Monaco," John LeFevre, a former investment banker, told OCCRP. "Everyone was eating it up,” he added.

According to OCCRP and the Post-Gazette, Yashchyshyn, the former director of an embattled Miami charity, is under investigation by “both the FBI’s office in Miami and the Sûreté du Québec provincial police in Canada.”

Several records linked to Yashchyshyn were obtained by the FBI in its investigation, including “copies of two fake passports from U.S. and Canada — bearing her photo and the name Anna de Rothschild” and a Florida driver’s license with a fake address of a $13 million Miami Beach mansion she had never been to, the Post-Gazette reported.

Yashchyshyn, “a self-confessed grifter,” denied knowing Anna de Rothschild and blamed her one-time business partner, Valeriy Tarasenko, for the existence of any passports that bore the Rothschild name and her photo, saying, “I think there is some misunderstanding,” according to the OCCR.

Tarasenko filed a domestic injunction against Yashchyshyn in South Florida and accused the fake heiress of defrauding “rich older men” and abusing his daughter.

Yashchyshyn, Tarasenko said in an affidavit, used "her fake identity as Anna de Rothschild to gain access to and build relationships with U.S. politician[s], including but not limited to Donald Trump, Lindsey Graham, and Eric Greitens," according to the Post-Gazette.

Yashchyshyn’s charity, United Hearts of Mercy, founded in 2010 in Canada and 2015 in Miami, claimed on Facebook to help “release children from spiritual, social, economic, and physical poverty in Africa, the U.S., Canada, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic,” but where the funds it raised ended up is still not clear.

The charity’s records showed it raised at least $236,500 in a donation drive for families of covid-19 victims. However, Stripe, a payment processing platform, later kicked the charity off their platforms on suspicion of fraud after it found donations made to the charity from stolen credit cards from Hong Kong.

In a sworn statement made last December, the charity’s certified public accountant, Tatiana Verzilina, said that the charity, which allegedly raised $200,000 in 2020 alone, was a clearinghouse for illicit funds for organized crime.

Kofoed and Graham declined to discuss Yashchyshyn, as did representatives for the Trump Organization and Guilfoyle.

Senator Bob Casey weighed in on the Mar-a-Lago security breach. “One of the things our adversaries try to do every day of the week is infiltrate, either physically infiltrate or if someone was able to get into a building or into a setting where a public official is, or documents are, or a former public official,” he said. “It’s a real concern.”

Trump ally Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) told the Post Gazette that he hadn’t read any reports on Yashchyshyn.