2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: eyeeatingfish on September 23, 2025, 09:31:42 PM
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/justice-department-ends-baseless-probe-into-trump-border-czar-tom-homan-over-alleged-50k-bribe-in-cava-restaurant-bag/ar-AA1N5pKu?ocid=BingNewsSerp
This looks pretty damning to Homan and the administration. Have to see where this goes, there are calls for a congressional investigation, I am very curious to see what else comes out about this.
"The Justice Department has shut down its probe into allegations Trump border czar Tom Homan accepted a Cava restaurant bag containing a $50,000 cash bribe last year. The alleged payment to Homan was made as part of a sting by undercover FBI agents during the Biden administration in September, with the G-men presenting themselves as businessmen seeking border security contracts with the federal government...
Once the new Trump administration was in place, the DOJ closed down the investigation, citing doubts about whether prosecutors could prove Homan promised specific actions in exchange for the cash, and the fact that he was not a federal employee at the time."
-
Hillary Clinton commented, "$50,000? I never answered Clinton Foundation calls for less than $250,000!"
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/justice-department-ends-baseless-probe-into-trump-border-czar-tom-homan-over-alleged-50k-bribe-in-cava-restaurant-bag/ar-AA1N5pKu?ocid=BingNewsSerp
This looks pretty damning to Homan and the administration. Have to see where this goes, there are calls for a congressional investigation, I am very curious to see what else comes out about this.
"The Justice Department has shut down its probe into allegations Trump border czar Tom Homan accepted a Cava restaurant bag containing a $50,000 cash bribe last year. The alleged payment to Homan was made as part of a sting by undercover FBI agents during the Biden administration in September, with the G-men presenting themselves as businessmen seeking border security contracts with the federal government...
Once the new Trump administration was in place, the DOJ closed down the investigation, citing doubts about whether prosecutors could prove Homan promised specific actions in exchange for the cash, and the fact that he was not a federal employee at the time."
All just allegations from unnamed sources.
The usual modus operandi.
Nice try.
In the meantime, let’s shoot up an ICE facility, killing some hapless detainees, doh!
-
it's cool that a cop doesn't think someone is is innocent until proven guilty...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/justice-department-ends-baseless-probe-into-trump-border-czar-tom-homan-over-alleged-50k-bribe-in-cava-restaurant-bag/ar-AA1N5pKu?ocid=BingNewsSerp
This looks pretty damning to Homan and the administration. Have to see where this goes, there are calls for a congressional investigation, I am very curious to see what else comes out about this.
"The Justice Department has shut down its probe into allegations Trump border czar Tom Homan accepted a Cava restaurant bag containing a $50,000 cash bribe last year. The alleged payment to Homan was made as part of a sting by undercover FBI agents during the Biden administration in September, with the G-men presenting themselves as businessmen seeking border security contracts with the federal government...
Once the new Trump administration was in place, the DOJ closed down the investigation, citing doubts about whether prosecutors could prove Homan promised specific actions in exchange for the cash, and the fact that he was not a federal employee at the time."
-
it's cool that a cop doesn't think someone is is innocent until proven guilty...
Perfectly consistent hypocrisy in all things is a sure marker …
… but it’s our very own EEF, so we should appreciate him for hanging out.
-
"looks damning". Hahahhaha.
OP being fooled again by the fake news.
Lets play this out, if this truly was a sting, they would have arrested him shortly after. Knowing that Brandon and his people might not be in office soon.
It also would have been front page news as an "insider" would have leaked the info and the fake news would run with it, damaging Trumps election. Then social media would have taken over and liberals would do what they do.
I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt that this is a witch hunt. They've tried everything to go after Trump and wasn't successful, so they're going after his people again.
-
"looks damning". Hahahhaha.
OP being fooled again by the fake news.
Lets play this out, if this truly was a sting, they would have arrested him shortly after. Knowing that Brandon and his people might not be in office soon.
It also would have been front page news as an "insider" would have leaked the info and the fake news would run with it, damaging Trumps election. Then social media would have taken over and liberals would do what they do.
I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt that this is a witch hunt. They've tried everything to go after Trump and wasn't successful, so they're going after his people again.
Well said.
-
Did he take that money or not. So far only Karoline Leavitt claimed he never took the money in the first place.
Nobody else said he never took it. So did he? What was it for if he did? For Vegas?
-
Did he take that money or not. So far only Karoline Leavitt claimed he never took the money in the first place.
Nobody else said he never took it. So did he? What was it for if he did? For Vegas?
Maybe the corrupt DOJ took it and is blaming him.
-
Did he take that money or not. So far only Karoline Leavitt claimed he never took the money in the first place.
Nobody else said he never took it. So did he? What was it for if he did? For Vegas?
What if he took the money as evidence and reported the attempted bribery to the Feds?
In that context, he would not be considered to have received a bribe, because he never intended to reciprocate and he didn't keep the cash.
Since the facts are sparse and incomplete, the article is just an attack piece.
-
All just allegations from unnamed sources.
People who go to the media to report wrongdoing by government officials often don't publicize their names so an unnamed source in a news story isn't indicative of anything. By the way, unnamed doesn't mean unknown to the reporters, good journalists vet their sources and their bosses are part of that whole process because not doing so opens up the whole company to lawsuits and loss of reputation.
Imagine you were an agent involved in the case, if you witnessed the bribery and the coverup would you publicly announce what you saw risking firing, criminal charges, and maybe even your safety?
Instead of being in a rush to find an excuse to disbelieve a report, why not keep an open mind? It's not like there are never dirty heads of law enforcement agencies...
-
"looks damning". Hahahhaha.
OP being fooled again by the fake news.
So basically you made up your mind, no interest in the truth.
Lets play this out, if this truly was a sting, they would have arrested him shortly after. Knowing that Brandon and his people might not be in office soon.
You know this because of your years of experience in law enforcement? You know this to be true despite it being common practice for the feds to take years to build their cases?
It also would have been front page news as an "insider" would have leaked the info and the fake news would run with it, damaging Trumps election. Then social media would have taken over and liberals would do what they do.
I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt that this is a witch hunt. They've tried everything to go after Trump and wasn't successful, so they're going after his people again.
Give him the benefit of the doubt then, but why not investigate further? Unless of course you don't care about the truth...
-
What if he took the money as evidence and reported the attempted bribery to the Feds?
In that context, he would not be considered to have received a bribe, because he never intended to reciprocate and he didn't keep the cash.
Since the facts are sparse and incomplete, the article is just an attack piece.
Then there would be a record of him turning in $50,000 and making a police report. Then the Trump administration would have presented it instead of the defense they are going with.
The article isn't an attack piece, it is reporting on the allegations.
-
So basically you made up your mind, no interest in the truth.
Correct. Finding out that 50% of democrats are ok with political assassinations really put things into perspective.
We should take care of the house fire first, and when that’s settled we can call work on pest control.
Assuming there’s anything left, of course.
-
Correct. Finding out that 50% of democrats are ok with political assassinations really put things into perspective.
We should take care of the house fire first, and when that’s settled we can call work on pest control.
Assuming there’s anything left, of course.
Proof of that number? I know of bad numbers on violence and speech on the left from the group FIRE but they are much lower than that and they didn't talk about assassinations.
Is Tom Homan the only one capable of doing the job? If not then you don't have to decide between fighting a fire and fighting pests. These allegations are serious for someone in such a powerful position of law enforcement, why not look into them seriously?
-
Proof of that number? I know of bad numbers on violence and speech on the left from the group FIRE but they are much lower than that and they didn't talk about assassinations.
Is Tom Homan the only one capable of doing the job? If not then you don't have to decide between fighting a fire and fighting pests. These allegations are serious for someone in such a powerful position of law enforcement, why not look into them seriously?
Rasmussen. And this was last year.
https://mustreadalaska.com/poll-28-of-democrats-say-america-would-have-been-better-off-if-trump-had-been-assassinated/
That figure includes 28% of Democrats who say that America would have been better off if Trump had been assassinated. Another 24% of Democrats were not sure. Fewer than half (48%) of Democrats could bring themselves to say that America would not be better off if the opposing party’s candidate for president had been assassinated.
So no. Don’t care.
I was promised authoritarianism. Let’s a get this show on the road.
A purge of woke military brass is a great place to start.
https://news-pravda.com/world/2025/09/26/1719994.html
-
please show me where it was not looked into seriously...
Proof of that number? I know of bad numbers on violence and speech on the left from the group FIRE but they are much lower than that and they didn't talk about assassinations.
Is Tom Homan the only one capable of doing the job? If not then you don't have to decide between fighting a fire and fighting pests. These allegations are serious for someone in such a powerful position of law enforcement, why not look into them seriously?
-
funny how you call someone out about not being in law enforcement, but won't admit that you are law enforcement...
You know this because of your years of experience in law enforcement? You know this to be true despite it being common practice for the feds to take years to build their cases?
-
Quote from: Kalihi Uka on September 24, 2025, 07:27:16 AM
All just allegations from unnamed sources.
*************************************************
People who go to the media to report wrongdoing by government officials often don't publicize their names so an unnamed source in a news story isn't indicative of anything. By the way, unnamed doesn't mean unknown to the reporters, good journalists vet their sources and their bosses are part of that whole process because not doing so opens up the whole company to lawsuits and loss of reputation.
Imagine you were an agent involved in the case, if you witnessed the bribery and the coverup would you publicly announce what you saw risking firing, criminal charges, and maybe even your safety?
Instead of being in a rush to find an excuse to disbelieve a report, why not keep an open mind? It's not like there are never dirty heads of law enforcement agencies...
Ok, well this is for you Mr. Fish: FBI had 274 undercover agents on J6, and this is the upshot of the after action report. Filthy agency under Biden & Wray - this is why minds are rather reasonably closed to accepting what they said at face value. Just drop this facade that the agency was not run as the federal LE of The PartyTM
“The FBI secretly deployed more than 250 plainclothes agents to the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021 riot, an operation so disorganized it unleashed searing frustrations among many of the FBI's rank-and-file that the bureau had lost its core competencies to "wokeness" and allowed its employees to become “pawns in a political war,” according to an after-action report kept from the public for more than four years.”
https://justthenews.com/accountability/fbi-bombshell-274-agents-sent-capitol-j6-many-later-complained-they-were-political?utm_source=mux&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=social-media-autopost
-
People who go to the media to report wrongdoing by government officials often don't publicize their names so an unnamed source in a news story isn't indicative of anything. By the way, unnamed doesn't mean unknown to the reporters, good journalists vet their sources and their bosses are part of that whole process because not doing so opens up the whole company to lawsuits and loss of reputation.
Imagine you were an agent involved in the case, if you witnessed the bribery and the coverup would you publicly announce what you saw risking firing, criminal charges, and maybe even your safety?
Instead of being in a rush to find an excuse to disbelieve a report, why not keep an open mind? It's not like there are never dirty heads of law enforcement agencies...
Lots of assumptions about a media known as the fake news.
-
So basically you made up your mind, no interest in the truth.
You know this because of your years of experience in law enforcement? You know this to be true despite it being common practice for the feds to take years to build their cases?
Give him the benefit of the doubt then, but why not investigate further? Unless of course you don't care about the truth...
You posted nothing of substance as usual. My post you replied to answers all your questions with logic used.
-
funny how you call someone out about not being in law enforcement, but won't admit that you are law enforcement...
I'll address this since I didn't in my other reply to EEF. I am not law enforcement. Wow, that's easy to admit.
-
Lots of assumptions about a media known as the fake news.
The main stream corporate media lost all credibility long, long ago. The destruction was complete during Trump's first campaign & term with the Russia-Collusion Hoax, the secret meeting on the tarmac between Slick Willy and the USAG, and the constant attacks on what Trump said and not what he was doing that was positive.
Excuse me if i treat the press as liars no matter what they say.
As Judge Marilyn Milian on The People's Court used to like saying, "I wouldn't trust what you say even if your tongue came notarized!"
It all falls under the "Fool me once..." doctrine.
-
The main stream corporate media lost all credibility long, long ago.
People who use logic understand this. But there are millions who don't and they still believe them.
-
People who use logic understand this. But there are millions who don't and they still believe them.
They’re pounding Tylenol right now and showing up in the hospitals with liver failure.
As their reality continues collapsing they will doubtless reach for something stronger.
-
When English accepted the bribe he was immediately arrested.WHy wasn't Homan?
I'll let our local LEO/SME/OP opine on this.
https://www.news10.com/news/politics/prosecutors-2-hawaii-lawmakers-took-bribes-to-steer-bills/
-
When English accepted the bribe he was immediately arrested.WHy wasn't Homan?
I'll let our local LEO/SME opine on this.
https://www.news10.com/news/politics/prosecutors-2-hawaii-lawmakers-took-bribes-to-steer-bills/
Your answer will be either really short, or really, really,
l
o
n
g
.
.
.
-
You posted nothing of substance as usual. My post you replied to answers all your questions with logic used.
1 part irony and 1 part falsehood :crazy:
-
Quote from: Kalihi Uka on September 24, 2025, 07:27:16 AM
All just allegations from unnamed sources.
*************************************************
Ok, well this is for you Mr. Fish: FBI had 274 undercover agents on J6, and this is the upshot of the after action report. Filthy agency under Biden & Wray - this is why minds are rather reasonably closed to accepting what they said at face value. Just drop this facade that the agency was not run as the federal LE of The PartyTM
“The FBI secretly deployed more than 250 plainclothes agents to the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021 riot, an operation so disorganized it unleashed searing frustrations among many of the FBI's rank-and-file that the bureau had lost its core competencies to "wokeness" and allowed its employees to become “pawns in a political war,” according to an after-action report kept from the public for more than four years.”
https://justthenews.com/accountability/fbi-bombshell-274-agents-sent-capitol-j6-many-later-complained-they-were-political?utm_source=mux&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=social-media-autopost
The FBI having undercover agents on Jan 6 is not significant. Law enforcement agencies routinely send in plain clothes officers to monitor large protest crowds from the inside. This fact alone is not evidence of any type of nefarious action.
Having said that, law enforcement is open to bad actors and corrupt actors like any agency. Bad actions do fairly invite suspicion upon an agency but do not mean all the officers are bad. We can't just point at Comey or undercover officers in Jan 6 and dismiss the allegations of this investigation when politically convenient. Does a bad employee at your work make you do bad work too? Of course not therefore I would look at this investigation relatively independently of the other wrongdoings by the FBI if they were different officers under different supervision.
In the end it is possible that there isn't enough evidence for a criminal case, maybe the officers failed to establish a specific enough quid pro quo for the money that was handed over for example. But why not investigate further? If there really is a video of undercover agents handing Homan $50,000 grand that isn't something to just be swept under the rug even if Homan is doing a great job.
Trump doesn't drain swamps, he just makes it his own swamp with his own alligators. We must dispel with this notion that he is eliminating corruption, Trump is human and just as susceptible to the corrupting strength of such power. We must guard against such corruption with political blinders on.
-
When English accepted the bribe he was immediately arrested.WHy wasn't Homan?
I'll let our local LEO/SME/OP opine on this.
https://www.news10.com/news/politics/prosecutors-2-hawaii-lawmakers-took-bribes-to-steer-bills/
Depends on the details of the investigation.
Cops don't always arrest drug dealers the first time they buy drugs from them. It all depends the scope of the investigation.
-
Rasmussen. And this was last year.
https://mustreadalaska.com/poll-28-of-democrats-say-america-would-have-been-better-off-if-trump-had-been-assassinated/
That figure includes 28% of Democrats who say that America would have been better off if Trump had been assassinated. Another 24% of Democrats were not sure. Fewer than half (48%) of Democrats could bring themselves to say that America would not be better off if the opposing party’s candidate for president had been assassinated.
So no. Don’t care.
I was promised authoritarianism. Let’s a get this show on the road.
A purge of woke military brass is a great place to start.
https://news-pravda.com/world/2025/09/26/1719994.html
Thanks for that poll info but you are stretching it a bit. The poll is about a single specific assassination but your comment made a claim of democrat positions generally about assassinations. Furthermore, the poll question was about whether we would be better off without Trump, not whether they approved of Trump being assassinated.
The more scary number is the percentage of liberals (and conservatives) who think it is ok to use force to stop a speaker they don't like.
-
please show me where it was not looked into seriously...
Show me where it was.
Do you oppose having congress look into this?
-
you made the claim, you back it up...
Show me where it was.
Do you oppose having congress look into this?
-
why should congress look into this when the investigation was already dropped?
Show me where it was.
Do you oppose having congress look into this?
-
I know I asked this before but if Homan accepted that money, why did the Trump administration deem that there is insufficient evidence of any wrongdoing?
I tried to find out this by myself but my google-fu is weak or close to non-existent.
I'm pretty disappointed in Homan if he did accept that money and the Trump administration covered for him. I admired him as one of the very rare and few "untouchables".
I loved that movie. Andy Garcia on the stairwell, pointing his revolver at the perp while securing the baby carriage. Eyes focused. Unwavering. Just waiting for the green light. ;D
-
1 part irony and 1 part falsehood :crazy:
You're still wrong.
-
why should congress look into this when the investigation was already dropped?
So you are arguing that the FBI only ever investigates things without political pressure or bias?
-
I know I asked this before but if Homan accepted that money, why did the Trump administration deem that there is insufficient evidence of any wrongdoing?
I tried to find out this by myself but my google-fu is weak or close to non-existent.
I'm pretty disappointed in Homan if he did accept that money and the Trump administration covered for him. I admired him as one of the very rare and few "untouchables".
I loved that movie. Andy Garcia on the stairwell, pointing his revolver at the perp while securing the baby carriage. Eyes focused. Unwavering. Just waiting for the green light. ;D
I haven't found any specific information to explain the reasoning. It is possible that whatever conversation was had did not contain the requisite quid pro quo to clearly show it was a bribe. So for example, if you got stopped by a cop for a speeding violation, you handed him your car wallet with the insurance, registration, etc. and inside was $200, the cop would have a hard time showing you were trying to bribe him. There would need to be some level of communication that established the money was in exchange for some type of favorable treatment. Absent this, a prosecution would have trouble.
I try to look at the case from both sides and see it from the angle that Homan was doing nothing wrong but the big question I can't answer is what possible justifiable reason would there for Homan to accept such a sum of money? I agree, Homan did seem like a principled, mission oriented, tough, no BS guy to get the job done. If Homan really didn't do anything wrong, then I think he should welcome a congressional investigation. That's what I would want if I were innocent, have congress look at it so they can publicly clear me without question of political favor.
-
please show me where i said that...
So you are arguing that the FBI only ever investigates things without political pressure or bias?
-
So you are arguing that the FBI only ever investigates things without political pressure or bias?
So you are arguing that the FBI never investigates things without political pressure or bias?
-
is there proof that he took the money?
perhaps the FBI cleared him because there is no proof he took the money
see how your whataboutism can be used against you?
why does congress have to look into it?
he was already cleared
I haven't found any specific information to explain the reasoning. It is possible that whatever conversation was had did not contain the requisite quid pro quo to clearly show it was a bribe. So for example, if you got stopped by a cop for a speeding violation, you handed him your car wallet with the insurance, registration, etc. and inside was $200, the cop would have a hard time showing you were trying to bribe him. There would need to be some level of communication that established the money was in exchange for some type of favorable treatment. Absent this, a prosecution would have trouble.
I try to look at the case from both sides and see it from the angle that Homan was doing nothing wrong but the big question I can't answer is what possible justifiable reason would there for Homan to accept such a sum of money? I agree, Homan did seem like a principled, mission oriented, tough, no BS guy to get the job done. If Homan really didn't do anything wrong, then I think he should welcome a congressional investigation. That's what I would want if I were innocent, have congress look at it so they can publicly clear me without question of political favor.
-
is there proof that he took the money?
perhaps the FBI cleared him because there is no proof he took the money
see how your whataboutism can be used against you?
why does congress have to look into it?
he was already cleared
What’s interesting here is that Dems not only could care less about open and rank corruption on the part of their political apparatchiks, they view it as Dem bona fides - I.e. “wish I was him/her/it - damn that was good!”
Whereas the rest of us view the same corruption as treasonous with respect to our vision of what a leader and true American should be, and we would DEMAND their removal if proven true - like this guy here - anyone else old enough to remember this one?
“Rep. Robert Livingston, R-La. Announced his resignation in late 1998 after being chosen as the next House speaker, citing adulterous affairs. Livingston shocked his colleagues by announcing his decision to the House as it debated the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. He left Congress in March 1999.” - hilarious! Bill kept right on going, this hapless guy - dung heap of history in a dark room.
Anyway, the Dems know this, desperately what to destroy Homan - which would publicly discredit ICE & Trump’s core policy agenda - which is why they floated the anonymous charges in the first place.
Therefore, if there was ANY actual evidence of this charge, no matter how spurious, it would have damn well been out there day ONE!
They’re not even still trying to dry-heave this thing. Not only was there no fire - there was no smoke either.
To believe otherwise implies the belief that Trump has the loyalty of everyone in the FBI, CIA, blah blah blah - that’s just too incredible to believe.
It never was a thing - it’s not that it was somehow hermetically sealed up by Trump.
-
please show me where i said that...
I didn't say you said that, I was asking if that was your position. Note the question mark at the end of the sentence, that means it is a question.
-
is there proof that he took the money?
perhaps the FBI cleared him because there is no proof he took the money
see how your whataboutism can be used against you?
why does congress have to look into it?
he was already cleared
I haven't seen any proof made public at this point, but there is an alleged recording of the incident.
Sure, it is also possible the undercover agent didn't complete the transaction to hand over actual funds.
You could who could help clear up these questions? A congressional inquiry. Why have congress look into it? Because there is a lack of trust that the FBI is being honest. Because someone is making allegations that there was a crime by Homan and that the FBI is covering it up.
Is it that hard to conceive it possible that Homan is dirty and Trump had it covered up? Do you always trust cops investigating other cops to do the right thing, you always trust them when they say "nothing there, case closed"?
-
Therefore, if there was ANY actual evidence of this charge, no matter how spurious, it would have damn well been out there day ONE!
Have to disagree with this conclusion. The release of such information would create all sorts of problems for an actual prosecution of Homan. For starters it goes against standard operating procedures to come out with public statements like this and it could also tank the investigation from proceeding further. So for example if Homan wasn't the only target but there was a network of people accepting bribes, the public announcement of Homan's alleged crime would hamper getting all the other suspects. Good FBI agents aren't going to waste months or years of work on a huge case to have them lose in court because the public release of all the information screwed their case.
-
Have to disagree with this conclusion. The release of such information would create all sorts of problems for an actual prosecution of Homan. For starters it goes against standard operating procedures to come out with public statements like this and it could also tank the investigation from proceeding further. So for example if Homan wasn't the only target but there was a network of people accepting bribes, the public announcement of Homan's alleged crime would hamper getting all the other suspects. Good FBI agents aren't going to waste months or years of work on a huge case to have them lose in court because the public release of all the information screwed their case.
And yet a news story about it won't alert anyone else right? lol, keep trying.
-
And yet a news story about it won't alert anyone else right? lol, keep trying.
A news story after the case is closed. How about you think for yourself instead of being a Trump lemming.
-
A news story after the case is closed. How about you think for yourself instead of being a Trump lemming.
Typical reply when someone has no facts.
Isn't this about Homan? Seems like Trump lives rent free in your head.
Thanks for playing.
-
Have to disagree with this conclusion. The release of such information would create all sorts of problems for an actual prosecution of Homan. For starters it goes against standard operating procedures to come out with public statements like this and it could also tank the investigation from proceeding further. So for example if Homan wasn't the only target but there was a network of people accepting bribes, the public announcement of Homan's alleged crime would hamper getting all the other suspects. Good FBI agents aren't going to waste months or years of work on a huge case to have them lose in court because the public release of all the information screwed their case.
Hmmm… none of these considerations seemed to weigh on the Dems when they manufactured and distributed the completely fake Steele dossier against Trump - or any other of their numerous governmental weaponizations against Trump and his businesses, etc.
Such attentiveness and concern for strict due process is not their reputation.
If they are such lunatics when it comes to the manufacturing and public distribution of falsehoods and slander - actual evidence of wrongdoing by Homan would be simulcast across the entire Borg network, along with being etched on a platinum plate and launched into interstellar space, before the sun set that very day in DC.
-
Hmmm… none of these considerations seemed to weigh on the Dems when they manufactured and distributed the completely fake Steele dossier against Trump - or any other of their numerous governmental weaponizations against Trump and his businesses, etc.
Such attentiveness and concern for strict due process is not their reputation.
If they are such lunatics when it comes to the manufacturing and public distribution of falsehoods and slander - actual evidence of wrongdoing by Homan would be simulcast across the entire Borg network, along with being etched on a platinum plate and launched into interstellar space, before the sun set that very day in DC.
He doesn't know what due process is or when it applies.
-
Hmmm… none of these considerations seemed to weigh on the Dems when they manufactured and distributed the completely fake Steele dossier against Trump - or any other of their numerous governmental weaponizations against Trump and his businesses, etc.
Such attentiveness and concern for strict due process is not their reputation.
If they are such lunatics when it comes to the manufacturing and public distribution of falsehoods and slander - actual evidence of wrongdoing by Homan would be simulcast across the entire Borg network, along with being etched on a platinum plate and launched into interstellar space, before the sun set that very day in DC.
Law enforcement organizations are not homogenous groups, you can have a small pocket of bad actors engage in something like the Steele dossier. Because one team of agents would compromise integrity or a case doesn't mean another team would.
My position on this is simple, a very serious allegation is being made and it should be investigated in a transparent manner. If Homan did nothing wrong then let an outside agency have a look and verify it. We have three branches of government for a reason, this will show the public that Homan did nothing wrong and that Trump isn't covering for his guy.
-
Law enforcement organizations are not homogenous groups, you can have a small pocket of bad actors engage in something like the Steele dossier. Because one team of agents would compromise integrity or a case doesn't mean another team would.
My position on this is simple, a very serious allegation is being made and it should be investigated in a transparent manner. If Homan did nothing wrong then let an outside agency have a look and verify it. We have three branches of government for a reason, this will show the public that Homan did nothing wrong and that Trump isn't covering for his guy.
How come no "outside" agency was available for Trump with all of his issues? Where were you asking for this back then?
Or like usual, are you trying to justify another wrong post.
-
How come no "outside" agency was available for Trump with all of his issues? Where were you asking for this back then?
Or like usual, are you trying to justify another wrong post.
Congress has investigated issues of alleged wrongdoing by the executive branch before, they hold hearings all the time. Lindsey Graham led the investigation into the Steel dossier investigation, so the premise to your question is wrong. It is also whataboutism. An allegation of serious wrongdoing is made, why not let congress see the files so they can clear Homan's name?
-
Congress has investigated issues of alleged wrongdoing by the executive branch before, they hold hearings all the time. Lindsey Graham led the investigation into the Steel dossier investigation, so the premise to your question is wrong. It is also whataboutism. An allegation of serious wrongdoing is made, why not let congress see the files so they can clear Homan's name?
U didnt answer as u have none.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
U didnt answer as u have none.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Liar, I just gave you one. Re-read my statement until you find it. Maybe you just don't know that Lindsey Graham is in Congress, which is not within the DOJ...
Either way your comment is whataboutism and avoiding the issue I raised.
-
focus
homan was not in the executive branch at the time...
Congress has investigated issues of alleged wrongdoing by the executive branch before, they hold hearings all the time. Lindsey Graham led the investigation into the Steel dossier investigation, so the premise to your question is wrong. It is also whataboutism. An allegation of serious wrongdoing is made, why not let congress see the files so they can clear Homan's name?
-
Liar, I just gave you one. Re-read my statement until you find it. Maybe you just don't know that Lindsey Graham is in Congress, which is not within the DOJ...
Either way your comment is whataboutism and avoiding the issue I raised.
Hahahha wrong again.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
It's pretty simple.
If an investigation is closed, it's closed. Unless new evidence is discovered or proof that the investigation was tainted, then opening up another investigation is not only political BS, but a total waste of tax payer money.
What EEF wants to do is what most in the judicial system refer to as a fishing expedition. You have no new evidence beyond what was already considered in the fir investigation, but you want authority to continue upending this man and his family's lives because you lost. Plain and simple.
I would call it a witch hunt, but we know who the witch is....
https://themillenniumreport.com/2019/04/its-true-hillary-clinton-really-did-join-a-witches-coven/
-
You left out the word "allegedly" in the title.
He was not charged after a complete investigation, so your topic is absolutely false. You're guilty of libel and defamation.
This is why we can''t let the anti-Trump forces disrupt his cabinet members's efforts to do the job Trump was elected to do.
Thomas Hooooo-man!
https://youtube.com/shorts/H-ehE7xoucU
-
focus
homan was not in the executive branch at the time...
What does that matter?
-
It's pretty simple.
If an investigation is closed, it's closed. Unless new evidence is discovered or proof that the investigation was tainted, then opening up another investigation is not only political BS, but a total waste of tax payer money.
Are you saying you trust that law enforcement never cover up a crime? They never are corruptly ordered to stop investigating something? Re-opening the investigation isn't BS or a waste if it was improperly closed. Furthermore, letting congress look at it isn't re-opening it either.
What EEF wants to do is what most in the judicial system refer to as a fishing expedition. You have no new evidence beyond what was already considered in the fir investigation, but you want authority to continue upending this man and his family's lives because you lost. Plain and simple.
Wrong, if they have video of him accepting a bribe, then that isn't a fishing expedition. Fishing expeditions are when you have no evidence of a crime, you just go searching for something.
-
Are you saying you trust that law enforcement never cover up a crime? They never are corruptly ordered to stop investigating something? Re-opening the investigation isn't BS or a waste if it was improperly closed. Furthermore, letting congress look at it isn't re-opening it either.
I said what I meant. Show me where Congress has a mandate to distrust law enforcement and to reinvestigate EVERY CASE THAT ENDS WITH NO CHARGES without any evidence the investigators were corrupt.
Wrong, if they have video of him accepting a bribe, then that isn't a fishing expedition. Fishing expeditions are when you have no evidence of a crime, you just go searching for something.
No. A fishing expedition is when you manufacture an excuse to investigate someone over an unproven allegation, and then wind up charging him for a totally unrelated crime. "We went through his finances. No sign of a bribe, but it looks like he may have underpaid his taxes 10 years ago." Fishing.
Have you seen this video? How do you know it exists?
EEF: Congress has to investigate, because law enforcement is corrupt and they lie.
Also EEF: The video proves there was a crime. We have to trust the investigators who recorded the video, because they wouldn't lie.
:crazy:
Remember Gen. Michael Flynn? He was convicted of lying to investigators, but he was never charged with anything resulting from the actual investigation.
Sometimes the investigation is used as a means of getting you to squeal on your boss rather than risk the feds combing through your life.
-
I said what I meant. Show me where Congress has a mandate to distrust law enforcement and to reinvestigate EVERY CASE THAT ENDS WITH NO CHARGES without any evidence the investigators were corrupt.
Mandate? No. Ability? Yes. BTW no one said congress should reinvestigate every case.
Who else has the power to check the president/DOJ if there is an allegation they are committing a corrupt action? You trust people in such power to basically say "I investigated my good friend and he didn't do anything wrong, trust me, no need to have someone else look at it."?
Did you make this same argument against congress looking into the Steele Dossier fiasco?
No. A fishing expedition is when you manufacture an excuse to investigate someone over an unproven allegation, and then wind up charging him for a totally unrelated crime. "We went through his finances. No sign of a bribe, but it looks like he may have underpaid his taxes 10 years ago." Fishing.
Where is the evidence that it was a fishing expedition?
Have you seen this video? How do you know it exists?
We already covered this
-
Mandate? No. Ability? Yes. BTW no one said congress should reinvestigate every case.
Who else has the power to check the president/DOJ if there is an allegation they are committing a corrupt action? You trust people in such power to basically say "I investigated my good friend and he didn't do anything wrong, trust me, no need to have someone else look at it."?
Did you make this same argument against congress looking into the Steele Dossier fiasco?
Where is the evidence that it was a fishing expedition?
We already covered this
Says the person who believes red flag laws will be justly applied and executed.
The Steele Dosiere was debunked by the Dossiers leading author: Steele himself. That was about the time of Trump's first inauguration. Yet, the FBI continued to use that misinformation to go after Trump and his administration for years, costing tax payers millions, and resulting in no charges for Trump or his people as related to the Russia-Collusion hoax. Comey tried to claim ignorance, and after he left the FBI, he told an interviewer that, had he known then what he knows now, he would have never gone after Trump. Now he's being arrested and charged.
Not a good example, since we knew the hoax was a hoax early on, but the crime of basing an investigation on it continued until the Mueller report ended it.
With Homan, the people investigating found no evidence. This time they have the good sense to not keep taking bites at the same apple.
-
Says the person who believes red flag laws will be justly applied and executed.
I never made that argument.
The Steele Dosiere was debunked by the Dossiers leading author: Steele himself. That was about the time of Trump's first inauguration. Yet, the FBI continued to use that misinformation to go after Trump and his administration for years, costing tax payers millions, and resulting in no charges for Trump or his people as related to the Russia-Collusion hoax. Comey tried to claim ignorance, and after he left the FBI, he told an interviewer that, had he known then what he knows now, he would have never gone after Trump. Now he's being arrested and charged.
Cool story, so did you object when congress looked into it?
With Homan, the people investigating found no evidence. This time they have the good sense to not keep taking bites at the same apple.
You don't know that, you only hear a Trump lackey say there was no evidence. So again, why not have congress look at it as well and verify? It would show the source was unreliable, Trump didn't engage in corruption, and Homan didn't take a bribe.
-
I never made that argument.
No, you chose to ignore it and push for red flag laws in spite of government corruption, their incompetence, and abuse by the public, law enforcement and the courts.
Cool story, so did you object when congress looked into it?
Are you that dumb? As I said there should be evidence/proof of corruption or an incomplete investigation. We had that proof. Try again.
You don't know that, you only hear a Trump lackey say there was no evidence. So again, why not have congress look at it as well and verify? It would show the source was unreliable, Trump didn't engage in corruption, and Homan didn't take a bribe.
There were no charges. That tells me more than a "Trump lackey" believed there was no evidence. Try again.
-
Says the person who believes red flag laws will be justly applied and executed.
The Steele Dosiere was debunked by the Dossiers leading author: Steele himself. That was about the time of Trump's first inauguration. Yet, the FBI continued to use that misinformation to go after Trump and his administration for years, costing tax payers millions, and resulting in no charges for Trump or his people as related to the Russia-Collusion hoax. Comey tried to claim ignorance, and after he left the FBI, he told an interviewer that, had he known then what he knows now, he would have never gone after Trump. Now he's being arrested and charged.
Not a good example, since we knew the hoax was a hoax early on, but the crime of basing an investigation on it continued until the Mueller report ended it.
With Homan, the people investigating found no evidence. This time they have the good sense to not keep taking bites at the same apple.
Don't bother explaining, we have an entir election fraud thread with details about this. Our facts haven't changed as we posted about truths and logic. WHen someone relies on feelings, they forget facts.
-
I never made that argument.
Ohhhhh booooyyyy. Here we go again.
-
please show it was a trump lackey said there was no evidence...
You don't know that, you only hear a Trump lackey say there was no evidence.
-
focus
homan had no role in the govt at that time...
What does that matter?
-
focus
you said congress can investigate the executive branch
homan was not in the executive branch when the alleged bribe occurred
What does that matter?
-
oops
never mind...
please show it was a trump lackey said there was no evidence...
-
No, you chose to ignore it and push for red flag laws in spite of government corruption, their incompetence, and abuse by the public, law enforcement and the courts.
I ignored it because it is a spurious argument. The argument that law can be abused by law enforcement, the courts, etc. is a stupid argument to make because it isn't an argument specifically about red flags, it is an argument against any and all criminal laws. No law can ever be made or enforced because there always is a possibility it could be abused. Unless you are an anarchist this is a pointless argument to make because it burns down an entire legal system just to justify a single position you support.
Are you that dumb? As I said there should be evidence/proof of corruption or an incomplete investigation. We had that proof. Try again.
What proof? Kash Patel saying there was nothing there isn't proof.
There were no charges. That tells me more than a "Trump lackey" believed there was no evidence. Try again.
There were no charges against Biden, against Obama, against Hillary. I guess that is proof to you that they are all innocent too? Or do you want us all to believe that impropriety only happens on one side?
-
focus
you said congress can investigate the executive branch
homan was not in the executive branch when the alleged bribe occurred
I figured it was obvious but I will spell it out for you...
Congress can investigate the decision to close the Homan case.
-
nothing is obvious in what you write
because you are constantly posting thought experiments and other bullshit rather than stating an opinion...
I figured it was obvious but I will spell it out for you...
Congress can investigate the decision to close the Homan case.
-
nothing is obvious in what you write
because you are constantly posting thought experiments and other bullshit rather than stating an opinion...
When he does state an opinion, it's usually wrong anyway.
People who stand for nothing fall for anything.
-
nothing is obvious in what you write
because you are constantly posting thought experiments and other bullshit rather than stating an opinion...
You are backtracking now. I clearly stated an opinion and gave reasons for it.
You brought up an irrelevant defense that doesn't make sense. The issue at stake here is that there is a claim Homan took a bribe and that the DOJ covered it up. It should have been obvious with a basic understanding of how the three branches of government work.
-
When he does state an opinion, it's usually wrong anyway.
People who stand for nothing fall for anything.
Opinions by definition are neither right nor wrong. Do you not understand what an opinion is?
-
Opinions by definition are neither right nor wrong. Do you not understand what an opinion is?
By whose definition? Yours? Your handlers?
Opinions are not always about what color you like or whether you prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream.
Opinions of important events, topics and polices ARE able to be judged right or wrong. They should be supported by facts and desired outcomes. e.g. If I have the opinion that killing anyone who disagrees with me as much as you do is justified, is that opinion Right? Wrong? Neither?
The courts issue hundreds of opinions daily based on laws, precedence and the facts of the cases. I guess none of them were right or wrong?
-
By whose definition? Yours? Your handlers?
Opinions are not always about what color you like or whether you prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream.
Opinions of important events, topics and polices ARE able to be judged right or wrong. They should be supported by facts and desired outcomes. e.g. If I have the opinion that killing anyone who disagrees with me as much as you do is justified, is that opinion Right? Wrong? Neither?
The courts issue hundreds of opinions daily based on laws, precedence and the facts of the cases. I guess none of them were right or wrong?
Thus, you just proved the statement you made about EEF usually being wrong.
-
Thus, you just proved the statement you made about EEF usually being wrong.
He proved it himself. I'm only the messenger.
-
By whose definition? Yours? Your handlers?
Opinions are not always about what color you like or whether you prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream.
Opinions of important events, topics and polices ARE able to be judged right or wrong. They should be supported by facts and desired outcomes. e.g. If I have the opinion that killing anyone who disagrees with me as much as you do is justified, is that opinion Right? Wrong? Neither?
The courts issue hundreds of opinions daily based on laws, precedence and the facts of the cases. I guess none of them were right or wrong?
My handlers? :crazy: :crazy:
I supported my opinion with facts. Your cognitive bias (or your pride) won't let you admit those facts. I gave the facts, if you don't agree you can always say you don't agree instead of riding some faux high horse. Trump is never going to notice your valiant brown nosing.
-
My handlers? :crazy: :crazy:
I supported my opinion with facts. Your cognitive bias (or your pride) won't let you admit those facts. I gave the facts, if you don't agree you can always say you don't agree instead of riding some faux high horse. Trump is never going to notice your valiant brown nosing.
(https://i.imgur.com/Bj6bjuH.gif)