A Lakeville man was sentenced Wednesday in federal court to one year of probation for his involvement in the massive Feeding Our Future fraud investigation.
U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel sentenced Khadar Adan, who pleaded guilty in August to one count of theft of government property, for allowing a fraudulent food distribution site to operate out of his Minneapolis business center, JigJiga.
Adan admitted to accepting $1,000 in illicit proceeds and was ordered to pay the same amount in restitution, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported.
Adan was the last of three defendants tied to the Lake Street Kitchen scheme housed within JigJiga to plead guilty.
The $250 million Feeding Our Future case — centered on a St. Anthony nonprofit — is the largest pandemic-era fraud prosecution in the United States. Of the 75 people charged, 50 have entered guilty pleas. Prosecutors say the defendants falsely claimed to have provided millions of meals to children during the COVID-19 pandemic, instead diverting federal reimbursements to purchase luxury cars, real estate, and other high-end goods.According to court records, Adan and his co-defendants claimed to have served 70,000 meals between December 2020 and April 2021 through Lake Street Kitchen, receiving “significant funds” in return. Federal prosecutors said only a small fraction of those meals were actually distributed.
Co-defendant Liban Yasin Alishire, who co-operated Lake Street Kitchen and another site, Community Enhancement Services, received more than $1.6 million and pleaded guilty in 2023.
Meanwhile, a former campaign associate of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) pleaded guilty last month to participating in the same scam, adding another chapter to the growing list of controversies surrounding the progressive lawmaker’s political orbit.
Federal prosecutors announced that 49-year-old Guhaad Hashi Said — described by Alpha News as an “enforcer” for Omar’s campaign — admitted in court to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. The charges stem from a wide-ranging fraud targeting a federally funded child nutrition program during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“The conviction many in the Feeding Our Future case is yet another reminder of the vast reach of this fraud and the scale of the crisis we face in Minnesota,” Acting U.S. Attorney Joseph H. Thompson said in a statement. “These crimes are not isolated events. They are part of a web of schemes targeting programs that are intended to lift up Minnesotans and bleeding them dry.
“From where I sit, the scale of the fraud in Minnesota is staggering, and every rock we turn over reveals more. We must be honest and clear-eyed about the scope of this problem, because ending it will take an unyielding, all-hands-on-deck effort from all of us,” Thompson added.
According to court documents, between December 2020 and January 2022, Said exploited the Federal Child Nutrition Program, falsely claiming his nonprofit — Advance Youth Athletic Development — was serving thousands of meals daily to underprivileged children. Incorporated in February 2021, the organization was registered to a residential apartment in the Central Avenue Lofts in Minneapolis.
Beginning in March 2021, Said submitted meal count sheets claiming to have served 5,000 meals per day. From March through December of that year, he claimed to have served more than 1 million meals — but in reality provided only a fraction of that number. Prosecutors say he fabricated meal counts, attendance rosters, and invoices to secure reimbursements.
The scheme brought in roughly $2.9 million in federal funds. Between August and December 2021, Said transferred more than $2.1 million from his organization’s bank accounts to a catering business, ostensibly for food purchases, while using other proceeds to buy real estate, cars, and personal items through a network of shell nonprofits and LLCs, the DOJ said.
Said now faces up to 25 years in federal prison when sentenced. He previously ran for the Minnesota House of Representatives in 2018.
In an era when politics often looks more like a shouting match than a serious exchange of ideas, a viral showdown between Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett and conservative commentator Mark Levin
has sparked a seismic shift in political discourse.
The two clashed during a televised debate over the constitutionality of a controversial executive order. What began as a typical segment—Levin armed with his usual fiery rhetoric—quickly devolved into something very different. For nearly 40 minutes, Levin interrupted Crockett an astonishing
But Crockett didn’t flinch. Instead, she stayed calm, composed, and devastatingly precise. By the end, the debate wasn’t remembered for Levin’s interruptions—it was remembered as the night
The Stage Is Set
From the very beginning, Levin underestimated his opponent. Known for his aggressive media persona, he came in hot—cutting Crockett off mid-sentence, raising his voice, and dismissing her points before she could finish them.
But Crockett didn’t take the bait. Armed with documents, precedents, and her background as a civil rights attorney, she turned Levin’s interruptions into her advantage. Each time he tried to derail her, she returned with facts, footnotes, and a calm correction.
One viral clip shows her holding up a highlighted Supreme Court case file, smiling as she told Levin:
“You can shout all you want, but the Constitution doesn’t bend to interruptions.”
That moment set the tone for what would become one of the most talked-about debates of 2025.
The Core of the Debate
The central issue was the president’s authority under a recent executive order. Levin framed it as a dangerous overreach. Crockett countered with case law, citing
Levin tried to bulldoze over her points, but Crockett stood firm, saying:
“Executive power is not unlimited, and the precedent is clear. You don’t get to invent your own Constitution.”
Her command of constitutional law highlighted the contrast between a career built on
By this point, social media was exploding with live reactions:
“Jasmine is schooling Levin with receipts!” — @LawNerd2025
“18 interruptions and she’s still calm. Queen energy.” — @CivicWatchdog
“Mark Levin has met his match.” — @PolicyPulse
From Fireworks to Fallout
The longer the debate went on, the more Levin’s tactics backfired. His interruptions made him appear disrespectful and unprepared, while Crockett’s patience only amplified her credibility.
When Levin dismissed her reference to a nonpartisan Congressional Research Service report, Crockett calmly slid the printed copy across the table and said:
“I don’t need to argue. The evidence is right here. You can read it during the commercial break.”
The audience erupted, and Levin—visibly flustered—resorted to raising his voice louder, but the damage was already done. Crockett’s calm precision had shifted the energy entirely in her favor.
Calm vs. Chaos
As the debate stretched into its second half, it was clear who had won the room. Crockett maintained her composure, never once raising her voice. Levin, by contrast, looked rattled, repeating talking points and stumbling over his words.
Commentators noted the stark difference:
Crockett = calm, factual, prepared
Levin = angry, scattered, repetitive
Social media flooded with clips. By midnight, #CrockettVsLevin was trending worldwide, and by morning, millions had seen the moment she corrected Levin’s misquote of a constitutional clause.
“If you can’t quote the Constitution correctly, maybe don’t shout over people who can.”
That one line alone was replayed millions of times across TikTok, Twitter, and Instagram.
The Fallout Hits Hard
In the days following the debate, the media landscape shifted. Mainstream outlets ran headlines like:
“Crockett Silences Levin: A Lesson in Calm Power” (The Hill)
“Mark Levin Shouted. Jasmine Crockett Won.” (Politico)
“Is This the End of Levin’s Media Reign?” (Rolling Stone)
Clips of the debate dominated YouTube and TikTok, some exceeding 15 million views within a week. Even late-night hosts weighed in, mocking Levin’s constant interruptions.
Meanwhile, Crockett’s national profile skyrocketed. Invitations poured in for prime-time interviews, op-eds, and keynote speeches. For many, she became the face of a new kind of political discourse: one rooted in evidence, not volume.
A Career on the Line
Mark Levin attempted damage control, framing the debate as “media bias” and accusing Crockett of “grandstanding.” But the audience wasn’t buying it. Ratings for his program dipped sharply, and his publisher quietly postponed the release of his latest book.
Even conservative commentators admitted privately that Levin had stumbled badly. One insider noted:
“He tried to steamroll her. Instead, she rolled over him with the Constitution.”
The fallout was so severe that industry observers began speculating whether Levin’s signature shouting style had finally gone out of fashion.
The Bigger Picture
Beyond the careers of two individuals, the debate highlighted a larger cultural shift. Viewers are increasingly rejecting the shouting-match model of political programming. Audiences crave substance, civility, and real expertise—and Jasmine Crockett delivered all three.
Her rise illustrates that a calm, prepared, evidence-driven approach can resonate even in an era dominated by viral soundbites. As one viral tweet put it:
Producers are reportedly rethinking their show formats, leaning toward structured debates with fact-checks, documents, and moderators empowered to control interruptions.
The Crockett-Levin clash will be remembered as more than just another TV debate. It was a turning point—proof that calm beats chaos, facts beat noise, and preparation beats performance.
For Jasmine Crockett, it was a career-defining moment, cementing her as a rising national star with both political and cultural influence.
For Mark Levin, it may well be the moment that defined his decline.
And for America, it was a reminder that real leadership doesn’t shout—it speaks with strength, clarity, and calm.