You say journalists heard it but you want me to furnish evidence of it's existence? That is what I mean about defying logic. As is the case with the Epstein files, why doesn't the regime just release the files of the Homan investigation. Unless they destroyed the file too.
That is what I mean about defying logic. As is the case with the Epstein files, why doesn't the regime just release the files of the Homan investigation. Unless they destroyed the file too.
Same answer for both: Because the DOJ has long had an ethical stricture against releasing information about an investigation that led to no indictment. That's even if there ever was such an investigation. There is no evidence of an investigation of Homan - none. Just second hand reporting of supposed anonymous sources.
Seriously doubt there was anything incriminating on a recording. There is a reason these are mostly never released.
The second person involved was a snitch. That is generally the meat of the prosecution.
The FBI even admits their use of informants is dubious right on their own site. They say,
"...use of informants to assist in the investigation of criminal activity may involve an element of deception, intrusion into the privacy of individuals, or cooperation with persons whose reliability and motivation may be open to question."
Edit: Message won't post with my source, but you can do an internet search on the quote. It's from the FBI's own site
Seriously doubt there was anything incriminating on a recording. There is a reason these are mostly never released.
The second person involved was a snitch. That is generally the meat of the prosecution.
The FBI even admits their use of informants is dubious right on their own site. They say,
"...use of informants to assist in the investigation of criminal activity may involve an element of deception, intrusion into the privacy of individuals, or cooperation with persons whose reliability and motivation may be open to question."
Edit: Message won't post with my source, but you can do an internet search on the quote. It's from the FBI's own site
Maybe that is what Tom meant when he said he had broken no laws. He thought he had been the victim of entrapment. Cuz he didn't say in a Faux interview he didn't take the money.
That's a defense............."I took the bribe before I was named border czar"...........I think most Americans, those not in trump's cult, would find unpersuasive.
That's a defense............."I took the bribe before I was named border czar"...........I think most Americans, those not in trump's cult, would find unpersuasive.
That's a defense............."I took the bribe before I was named border czar"...........I think most Americans, those not in trump's cult, would find unpersuasive.
I'm not sure about the partisan rhetoric in the OP, just b/c you don't like someone doesn't automatically mean they are guilty.
But I am always in favor of more information, that can only be good for a representative republic.
However, intelligent folks know that in this era, high government officials don't face any legal consequences for corruption, we see it all over these days.
No reason to keep the evidence under wraps if there will be no prosecution, sure, let's see it.
Homan to Newsmax: 'Did Nothing Illegal,' Bribe Claims a 'Hit Piece'
". . . FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement to the Hill Saturday that “this matter originated under the previous administration and was subjected to a full review by FBI agents and Justice Department prosecutors. They found no credible evidence of any criminal wrongdoing.”
I'm not sure about the partisan rhetoric in the OP, just b/c you don't like someone doesn't automatically mean they are guilty.
But I am always in favor of more information, that can only be good for a representative republic.
However, intelligent folks know that in this era, high government officials don't face any legal consequences for corruption, we see it all over these days.
No reason to keep the evidence under wraps if there will be no prosecution, sure, let's see it.
Homan to Newsmax: 'Did Nothing Illegal,' Bribe Claims a 'Hit Piece'
". . . FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement to the Hill Saturday that “this matter originated under the previous administration and was subjected to a full review by FBI agents and Justice Department prosecutors. They found no credible evidence of any criminal wrongdoing.”
I'm not sure about the partisan rhetoric in the OP, just b/c you don't like someone doesn't automatically mean they are guilty.
But I am always in favor of more information, that can only be good for a representative republic.
However, intelligent folks know that in this era, high government officials don't face any legal consequences for corruption, we see it all over these days.
No reason to keep the evidence under wraps if there will be no prosecution, sure, let's see it.
Homan to Newsmax: 'Did Nothing Illegal,' Bribe Claims a 'Hit Piece'
". . . FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement to the Hill Saturday that “this matter originated under the previous administration and was subjected to a full review by FBI agents and Justice Department prosecutors. They found no credible evidence of any criminal wrongdoing.”
Wow, you are one impressive person. Legal experts suggest Homan could have faced charges for conspiracy or fraud. No wonder trump's DoJ put a halt to the investigation.