IBDaMann
Well-known member
Cover-up of what? You Democrats are asking the world to believe that the FBI runs "stings" whereby they offer free cash to people on the street, and naturally don't capture it on video.
Too funny.
Tom Homan...
- Thread starter QP!
- Start date
Too funny.
I guess we’ll find out if the lawsuit if successful or in 3 years when there’s a new DOJ, one that doesn’t cover for criminals.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
How is such a rumor even plausible? Homan wasn't a government employee at the time. He couldn't "accept a bribe.".
IBDaMann
Well-known member
No, answer the question. The rumor itself isn't even plausible. Homan wasn't a government employee at the time. He was in no position to be bribed for anything. It would be the same if the FBI ran a "sting" on you. If the FBI were to offer you $50K for the promise of helping them in the future, of what would they GETCHA? Why are you screaming "COVER UP!" instead of scratching your head?
Please explain your logic to me.
I don’t agree with you, that’s my logic.
I want Homan to go through a full investigation. This administration claims to be transparent, if this is a nothing burger, release the FBI recording. Don’t sweep the investigation under the rug. Find out what happened to the $50,000.
Homan doesn’t deny taking the money, so what went on between the FBI and him. We have a right to know.
That is not what the law says. You can accept a bribe with promises of future government service.
He was a probable future government employee, so he was in an obvious position to be bribed. The law does not make your distinction. Beyond that, he laundered $50k in illegal proceeds. That is another group of crimes.
Be careful about accepting illegal deals. You can be arrested in a drugless drug bust. If undercover agents get you to agree to sell them $50k of cocaine, you are committing a crime. There is no need for the cocaine to actually exist.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Nope. That is entirely illogical. If you cannot identify any error in the logic or math, you have to accept the conclusion/result/theorem.
@Scott does the same thing, i.e. he rejects both logic and math. You don't get to just "disagree" when it's not a subjective matter of opinion.
That full investigation happened. OK, now what?
The administration publicly announced the results of the full investigation. The whole thing is just a DNC rumor and there is not even any hint of evidence suggesting any wrongdoing.
OK, now what?
There is no recording to release; existence of said recording was part of the rumor. If there had actually been a "sting" on Homan, the Biden's handlers' administration would have publicized it to the ends of the earth.
Alas, you are just another victim of the latest DNC rumor ... because these kinds of things actually work on the gullible who NEVER ask any questions about what they are ordered to believe. I feel sorry for you.
Homan hasn't dignified the rumor with any comment.
But, but, but big Bobby Bolinski telling Sean that Biden was the “big guy” proved Biden was getting payoffs
IBDaMann
Well-known member
It's not a bribe if he's not a government employee. If the FBI approaches you and me and offers us sacks of cash for promises of future help, we can legally take them up on that offer. It is not a bribe, it is a contract, and not a legally enforceable one, even if recorded in audio.
Also, there is nothing to suggest that anything of the sort ever even happened with Homan.
Pure Democrat rumor.
QUESTION: What is the technical term for "probable future government employee"?
ANSWER: "NOT a government employee."
He was not anyone who could be bribed, just as neither you nor I are.
The law makes my distinction quite definitively.
This is where you get to admit that you have absolutely no rational reason to believe that.
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
- Undercover FBI agents, posing as business executives from a fictitious company, supposedly approached Homan. They say they claimed to seek his help in securing government contracts for border security services in a potential second Trump administration. Homan allegedly met the agents at a location in Texas, where he was reportedly recorded on audio accepting a bag containing $50,000 in cash, concealed in a Cava restaurant takeout bag. During the exchange, Homan allegedly indicated he would hold the money in a trust until after his government service and assist with contracts in return.
- Investigation Context: The probe began after a separate corruption investigation was alerted to claims that Homan was soliciting bribes. Biden-era FBI and DOJ officials in the Southern District of Texas thought they had a strong case for conspiracy to commit bribery (under 18 U.S.C. § 371), as well as potential wire fraud and honest services fraud charges. The usual "anonymous sources familiar with the matter" supposedly told MSNBC that prosecutors viewed the recordings as evidence of an agreement to exchange the cash for official acts.
- Standard bribery statutes (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 201) typically require the recipient to be a public official at the time of the exchange. Since Homan was not a public official at the time of the alleged incident, new DOJ personnel (under Attorney General Pam Bondi) and FBI (under Director Kash Patel) reviewed the accusations and cited "insufficient evidence" to prove criminal intent to a jury, influenced by recent Supreme Court rulings (e.g., Snyder v. United States, 2024) that raised the bar for proving quid pro quo corruption. A DOJ spokesperson stated there was "no credible evidence of criminal wrongdoing."
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Let me know if you need anything else explained to you.
QP!
Verified User
It is NOT entrapment if the police are told the guy on the corner is selling drugs, and the police dress up like a normal citizen and see if he offers to sell them drugs.
The reporting is that Homan was implicated by another person who said he was selling federal contract over border security work, if Trump got back in power and if the FBI approached him on that basis it is not entrapment.
Eventually this video will be shown and the files will all come out and we will see exactly how it went down and any smart money bets on Homan being dirty as most magats in Trump's orbit are.
Into the Night
Verified User
Dream on, Phanty! ;
:
Into the Night
Verified User
Ooooo. That IS asking a lot of him!
Into the Night
Verified User
Denial of logic. Argument of the Stone fallacy.
For what?
What FBI recording?
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
- The legal standard often hinges on the “subjective test” (focusing on the defendant’s predisposition) or the “objective test” (focusing on whether police conduct would induce a reasonable person to commit the crime). Most jurisdictions lean on the subjective test.
- Context is Critical: If the police go too far, say, repeatedly harassing or coercing the individual, that could cross into entrapment. The specifics of the interaction matter.
- If an informant agent begs, threatens, or offers an exorbitant sum to pressure a suspect when he initially refuses, that could potentially be entrapment.
"Reporting is", eh?
Hold that thought.
Is that so?
QP!
Verified User
Right.
Again if the cops are told the person is on the corner selling drugs and they approach him under cover and see if he offers to sell them drugs that is not entrapment.
Homan was already out actively trying to sell contracts, based on the report and the FBI just approached him to see if he would make that offer and take payment, and he did, based on what people have said is on that video, which will come out.
QP!
Verified User
yes when a thread is created to talk about a report and video then that discussion will be based on that report and video.
If you were not so stupid you would know that is how that works.
When the video is released and we can all see it, let me help you in advance, and tell you now the discussion then will be based on that video.