In a significant development highlighting further corruption within the Swamp, the Office of Congressional Ethics has published a report indicating that far-left Representative Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL) likely benefited from taxpayer funds allocated by Congress, channeling those funds to a for-profit organization.

The report reveals that investigators from the Office of Congressional Ethics discovered “substantial reason to believe” that Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick applied for and received taxpayer funding for a community initiative, subsequently diverting those funds into a private enterprise from which she gained financially.

In reaching this conclusion, the OCE stated, “The Board recommends that the Committee conduct a further examination of the aforementioned allegation regarding Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick, as there is substantial reason to believe that Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick sought community project funding intended for a for-profit entity.”

Furthermore, it elaborated on the perception that she might have been influenced through campaign donations, which is a prevalent type of Swamp corruption. It stated, “Representative Cherfilus-McCormick may have received campaign contributions associated with an official action. Should Representative Cherfilus-McCormick have accepted campaign contributions tied to an official action, she could have breached House regulations, standards of conduct, and federal law.”

The report subsequently outlined the different ways in which her campaign could have potentially violated the law by associating accepted contributions with official actions, stating, “Representative Cherfilus-McCormick’s congressional office may have made payments to an entity that contravenes House committee regulations and standards of conduct; alternatively, her campaign might have received and neglected to report in-kind contributions that could have surpassed the applicable limits. Should Representative Cherfilus-McCormick’s congressional office have made payments to an entity in breach of House committee regulations and standards of conduct—or if her campaign accepted and failed to disclose in-kind contributions, or if those in-kind contributions exceeded the applicable limits—she may have breached House rules, standards of conduct, and federal law.”

In addition, it remarked that she seemed to have utilized her position to grant favors and privileges to her allies, stating, “Representative Cherfilus-McCormick may have granted special favors or privileges to acquaintances in relation to her congressional office’s requests for community project funding. If Representative Cherfilus-McCormick granted special favors or privileges to acquaintances in relation to her congressional office’s requests for community project funding, she may have violated House rules, standards of conduct, and federal law.

The report subsequently stated, prior to concluding that there is significant evidence to suggest she violated the law, “Representative Cherfilus-McCormick’s campaign may have inaccurately reported the origin of a campaign contribution or accepted a campaign contribution made by one individual on behalf of another. If Representative Cherfilus-McCormick’s campaign did misreport the origin of a campaign contribution or accepted a campaign contribution made by one individual in the name of another, she may have breached House regulations, standards of conduct, and federal law.”

Watch Bongino provide commentary on what DOGE has uncovered here: