☕️ COSPLAYING ☙ Thursday, April 30, 2026 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

U.S. seizes $500 million in IRGC crypto and their French villas; big finance bans SPLC donations; key informant flips on the woke hate-charity; SCOTUS drops decision bomb upending midterm calculations

Good morning, C&C, it’s Thursday! Your roundup includes: Treasury seizes $344 million in IRGC crypto and freezes the mobsters’ French villas; the SPLC’s terrible week gets worse as Vanguard and Fidelity ban donations and its paid informant flips; and a massive SCOTUS redistricting decision upends the Democrats’ midterm map math.

⛑️ C&C ARMY BRIEFING — IRAN WAR UPDATE ⛑️

I’ve waited days for top corporate media to pick up this story, but they’ve gone all Mr. Magoo again. Late last week, Reuters thinly reported, “US sanctions wallets tied to Iran, freezing $344 million in cryptocurrency, Bessent says.” The story was so thin it was just one sentence. (Crypto News provided a little more detail.)

CLIP: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent explains next-level economic warfare (1:56).

So far as I can tell—and the facts remain as murky as the water at the Kharg Island dock— the State of Iran owned the seized cryptocurrency. Since crypto’s main purpose is to preserve anonymity (like cash), it was likely used for smuggling, evading international sanctions, funding terror proxies, cybercrimes and ransomware, and other nefarious purposes.

Anyway, Scott Bessent is vacuuming it all up now. He reported yesterday that the total seized is now up to $500 million.

Yesterday, Secretary Bessent told Fox Business that the Treasury Department is ramping up “Operation Economic Fury” and is now “sprinting for the finish line.”

Specifically, the US Treasury has found and frozen secret bank accounts owned by IRGC officials, preserving the money “for the Iranian people.” Hilariously, Bessent also announced we are now seizing IRGC officers’ “villas in the South of France and all over the world,” including, unsurprisingly, London. (Because nothing screams ‘Death to the Great Satan!’ quite like yelling it from the balcony of your six-bedroom chateau in Cannes while sipping mimosas and checking your crypto wallet.)

In his bland, straightforward way, Bessent said, “We will track them down,” sounding more like he was announcing a scheduled expansion of Treasury restroom facilities instead of burning up IRGC officials’ bugout bags amidst a war.

This is the key. We’ve learned that the Iranian Republican Guard Corps (IRGC) is a parasitic mega-corporation that has co-opted the elected government of Iran, and uses the apparatus of state to suck blood and treasure out of the Iranian people, all to enrich a secretive class of demented hypocrites who cosplay as religious maniacs but are really violent mobsters with missiles and an army.

You couldn’t possibly imagine a less democratic system of government. It’s not a theocracy. It’s a heavily armed kleptocracy.

Not that any of that troubles our corporate media types. We shouldn’t judge other cultures. But let’s do a thought experiment. Suppose we discovered that all our top Pentagon officials had secret overseas bank accounts stuffed with millions, villas in the South of France, and so on. How would the U.S. media report that? But when it comes to Iran— crickets.

So Operation Economic Fury may not simply be a curious sideshow to the greater war. That, combined with the Trump Blockade, might be the main action. The United States Military has defanged the IRGC’s military capabilities. For proof, just ask yourself— when was the last time Iran lobbed a missile at anyone?

Its oil wells are full and will soon begin losing permanent capacity. Its ports are closed to any kind of foreign trade, especially oil sales. It’s under a naval blockade. Now comes the real leverage— taking the IRGC mobsters’ toys and Swiss bank accounts away. It’s what you might call a “rubber meets road” moment. The IRGC’s ‘mullahs’ constantly brag about how they’ll happily become martyrs if needed.

But … are the anonymous leaders of Iran’s private army willing to become paupers for the cause? That’s the real question.

🌍🇺🇸 ESSENTIAL NEWS AND COMMENTARY 🇺🇸🌍

🔥🔥🔥

Ruh-roh! Even as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is trying to reverse its indictment in court, more bad news is coming down the pike, and the group’s problems are multiplying like rabbits overdosing on Viagra. It’s all starting to fall apart. In the first of two “bad news” stories, yesterday the New York Times reported, “Fidelity, Vanguard Won’t Let Donor-Advised Fund Holders Donate to Southern Poverty Law Center.”

Fidelity Charitable and Vanguard Charitable are large “donor-advised funds,” which let people maximize tax benefits under special “donor fund” laws. Investors receive immediate tax benefits in the tax year they contribute to the fund, even though the actual donation occurs later, sometimes much later. Meanwhile, the money is invested in mutual funds, stocks, bonds, or similar equities, which continue growing tax-free, potentially increasing the ultimate donation.

Even better (or worse, depending on your viewpoint), the funds are not required to disclose which donor-investors gave to what charity. So these types of funds also provide a way for donors to remain anonymous and avoid anyone finding out where their money went. You can imagine why this would be popular for certain individuals. (Like politicians, say.)

The main thing, the thing that keeps it all running smoothly, is that investors can specify which charitable organization will get their money. The funds aren’t legally required to follow these designations, but they almost always do, unless it raises a legal or regulatory compliance issue.

Yesterday, both Vanguard and Fidelity announced to hundreds of thousands of their customers that they will no longer allow donations to the SPLC. Fidelity said, “the organization is not an eligible grant recipient during the ongoing investigation.” Vanguard told its investors, “The organization has had allegations and/or charges brought against them for activities that may call into question their ability to carry out their tax-exempt charitable purpose.”

Ironically, in 2023, the SPLC noisily criticized these exact types of funds —specifically naming Fidelity and Vanguard— for acting as a “consistent and significant source of income for groups peddling a variety of hateful and extremist beliefs.” Now the worm has turned. So it will have a hard time complaining about getting cut off in 2026.

But that’s okay! The SPLC has media allies. The Times was outraged on its behalf. Outraged! “It is noteworthy,” the Times argued, “that the Fidelity and Vanguard funds acted before any legal or judicial process had played out.” It a “Boston College law school professor” who asked, “If you or I can still make an outright donation on our own, why can’t the funds do so on our behalf?”

The professor answered her own question. (I guess it was rhetorical.) “My answer is, if we can, then they can,” she said. Of course, the Times didn’t quote any law professors explaining why it would make sense for Fidelity and Vanguard to defer donations to the SPLC. But it did finally get around to the gist, or nub, which was that this development is likely going to sting:

The Times called other donor-advised funds, like Daffy and Charles Schwab, who are currently still letting investors designate the SPLC as a charitable recipient. So there’s room to grow.

🔥 But that was just the first domino to fall. Remember the old saying? It goes something like: lie down with dogs, get up with criminal indictments. The second story did not appear in any corporate media report I could find, but appeared in the SPLC’s own court filings. Specifically, the SPLC admitted that one of its “paid informants” has flipped and is now cooperating with the DOJ against it. Their current story is that “informant F-9” is intensely biased against the SPLC:

According to the DOJ’s indictment, the SPLC laundered $1 million to informant F-9 —a leader of a neo-nazi group. There’s clearly pretty good money in hate. That, and autism, hospice, childcare, food stamps, trans puppet shows, PPP loans, minority-owned SBA loans, and political payment processing.

It’s just that nobody told us how the grift works.

Anyway, the SPLC is attacking the indictment just as I’d predicted when I first reported this story to you: it is quibbling about whether its informants were legitimate sources versus the DOJ narrative it was “funding hate groups.” In its filed motions, the SPLC presented various examples where it has previously provided the DOJ with tips and warnings, which it claims came from its informant network.

I warned you this line of argument would get murky.

Personally, I don’t believe it was well-intended. Why pay a hate group leader a million dollars for “tips?” Any reasonable rationale beggars the imagination. But their careful provision of some tips over the years opens the door to their defensive argument. And I’m sure that was their insurance plan, if they ever got called out. But it doesn’t matter. The legitimacy of their informant network is not the real issue.

Which is why their current strategy seems to be focused on quashing the indictment. They need to stop it right here before things get out of hand.

🔥 Nowhere in SPLC’s motions and letters did it explain, justify, or even mention their fake-entity bank accounts (such as “Fox Photography,” “Rare Books Warehouse,” “Center Investigative Agency,” etc.). The DOJ’s indictment said those accounts were created using false information submitted to federally insured banks. So far, the SPLC has not denied it. They also have not addressed the concealment money-laundering conspiracy count head-on.

(Apparently, the only thing stored in the ‘Rare Books Warehouse’ was a pristine first edition of Money Laundering for Dummies.)

Convictions for bank fraud and false statements to banks require proof of a scheme or artifice intended to deceive a financial institution. The DOJ’s indictment alleged the SPLC knowingly opened accounts under fake names and submitted false documents precisely to hide the fact that donor money was flowing to insiders in the very hate groups they publicly condemned.

“We did it to protect sources,” “we only lied a little,” or “we meant well” are not recognized defenses to these statutes. Federal courts have repeatedly held that operational necessity or a “greater good” does not excuse lying to banks.

The SPLC has yet to provide any compelling factual explanation for why an organization run by lawyers felt it was appropriate to set up multiple sham entities to deceive financial institutions. That silence is notable nine days after the indictment (and going).

The SPLC’s public posture is “the program was necessary and helpful to law enforcement, and the charges are politically motivated.” That may play well with their donor base (some of whom have already said publicly they “knew” or expected informant payments), but it is not a strong legal shield against the specific bank-fraud and laundering counts, which turn on the mechanics of deception, not the moral worthiness of the underlying intelligence work.

It’s not illegal to pay for information. But —and this is a huge but— most people don’t cosplay as intelligence agencies and pay criminals through fake bank accounts. There’s a good reason why not. As SPLC’s lawyers must surely have understood, lying to banks is completely illegal under very serious federal laws. Full stop. Maybe even worse, if you pay an informant for information, and that informant commits crimes, then you can also be criminally liable for the same crimes, as an aider and abettor.

It’s an understatement to say what the SPLC was doing was a titanic risk. There was also titanic money to be made. I guess we’ll find out how much risk, as the Middle District of Alabama makes its decisions. Good luck.

⚖️⚖️⚖️

An all-day fireworks show erupted on social media yesterday, as one of the year’s most-anticipated and longest-delayed Supreme Court decisions finally rolled off the clerk’s presses. The New York Times reported, “Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Map, Another Blow to Voting Rights Act.” The Act is a Civil Rights-era law that has been interpreted by courts to require ridiculous electoral district drawing, such as Louisiana’s gerrymandered ‘snake’ map, which stretches nearly the entire length of the state and looks less like a voting district and more like the outline of your lower intestine after a bad batch of Circle-K sushi:

That is Louisiana’s current map, which the Supreme Court just struck down as unconstitutionally racially motivated. The decision flipped the previous interpretation of Section Two of the Voting Rights Act on its head. Mind you, the Act itself says nothing about mandating minority districts (which would be unconstitutional). But previous Supreme Court decisions, relying on Section Two, allowed states to use race to “ensure minority participation.”

Here is a link to the terrific decision, which in a single stroke changed the entire calculus about Democrats’ prospects for the midterms. For decades, the Donkey Party lazily relied on lawfare lawsuits demanding racially-drawn districts, especially in the otherwise red South, to support its Congressional advantage. It was one leg of the Democrats’ stool, which got sawn off yesterday.

Courts’ racially biased interpretation of the Act brought us some of the most intellectual heavyweights in Congress, like Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who chaired the House January 6th Committee. Now all those districts are in jeopardy.

All it will take is those states redistricting to ensure compliance with SCOTUS’s new race-neutral requirement, and these clowns will go away for good. Reuters reported that Governor Jeff Landry (R-La.) immediately suspended the May primaries, to allow time to reprint ballots reflecting a new map before the November midterm elections:

The effects are so wide-ranging that it’s hard for anyone to count them all. For instance, Governor DeSantis pointed out yesterday that the new decision changes the game in unexpected ways, as in Florida, where SCOTUS’s decision just voided part of Florida’s state constitution.

He wasn’t just randomly musing. In a legislative lightning round this week, right after SCOTUS issued its opinion, Florida’s House and Senate speed-passed a new redistricting bill that is now sitting on Governor DeSantis’s desk, and which would have been susceptible to Democrat legal challenges absent the new SCOTUS decision. Now it’s fine. Here’s the new map, which shifts +4 in the GOP’s direction:

In the wake of the decision, Alabama Republicans are also racing to redraw their state’s congressional district maps before the midterms. Alabama news (AL.com), this morning:

It seems likely more states will follow. There is —barely— still time.

The entire midterm calculus for the House of Representatives just shifted in the GOP’s favor.

🗳️ Needless to say, Democrats are extremely upset by this race-neutral interpretation. They are practically hyperventilating. They claim the decision is “destroying democracy” and is “racist.” This is based on two misunderstandings. Both flawed concepts were exposed in Barack Obama’s awful take. He complained about (1) equal participation in “democracy,” (2) and the “rights of minority groups.”

You would think a former two-term president would know better. First of all, our system is not a “democracy” —under which the majority rules— but is a representative republic. So his first complaint is aimed at a different country.

Second, and much more pernicious, is the claim about “protecting the rights of minority groups.” Obama’s not the only one. That phrase decorates judicial decisions over the years. But it is even dumber than the “democracy” argument.

Minority groups don’t have rights. That should not be controversial. The reason minority groups don’t have rights is because groups don’t have rights. In the American constitutional system, individuals —not groups— hold the rights. There is literally no such thing as “rights of minority groups.”

And, lest you conclude Obama was just speaking rhetorically or something, think again. In the neo-communist formulation, where racial and sexual identity groups replaced classic economic ones, groups are everything. Obama exposed what Democrats wish were true, that the Constitution would privilege the “rights” of discrete identity groups over the rights of individuals. (And, of course, they would be in charge of defining the groups, which is nothing more than identitarian gerrymandering.)

🔥 Some political analysts estimate that, in total, this single change could permanently cost Democrats up to 40 seats in the House. (The current margin is only +3 GOP.) Here’s one “plausible” map of just the Southeast, where VRA districts are most commonly found:

They are downplaying it now, though. Yesterday, NPR estimated “at least 15 House districts at risk of being eliminated.” Axios reported the ruling “might enhance the Republican majority in the House by an estimated +19 seats compared to the electoral maps for 2024.”

But —before the decision— Politico cited an analysis by Democrat‑aligned voting‑rights groups, which warned that if Section 2 were effectively gutted (as it has been), up to 30% of the Congressional Black Caucus and 11% of the Hispanic Caucus —around 24 members— could be drawn right out of their seats.

In other words, this is a generational shift. Absent a sea change toward the Democrats, which seems unlikely, since all the momentum is going the other way, the Democrats are facing being the congressional wilderness for a long time, like Republicans were for forty years until the Reagan revolution.

I told you not to worry about corporate media forecasts about the midterms. And listen—the plan doesn’t rely solely on this decision. There’s much more yet to come.

Have a terrific Thursday! Come back tomorrow for another great installment of Coffee & Covid’s essential news and commentary.

Don’t race off! We cannot do it alone. Consider joining up with C&C to help move the nation’s needle and change minds. I could sure use your help getting the truth out and spreading optimism and hope, if you can: ☕ Learn How to Get Involved 🦠

How to Donate to Coffee & Covid

Twitter: jchilders98.
Truth Social: jchilders98.
MeWe: mewe.com/i/coffee_and_covid.
Telegram: t.me/coffeecovidnews
C&C Swag! www.shopcoffeeandcovid.com