44 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

AI quickie

 

The names of the specific undercover agents involved in the (Homan) operation have not been publicly disclosed. It is standard practice for the identities of undercover law enforcement officers to remain confidential to protect their safety and the integrity of ongoing and future investigations.

That may well be the case, but until some primary source is willing to go on the record, or the FBI release the tape, then there is no hard evidence, Homan took the cash, especially as no one as yet has challenged Karoline Leavitt!

Trump not only is avoiding a level of transparency that he promised during the campaign, but he's covering up for sleaze bags and highly corrupt individuals within his own Administration. I wouldn't have expected anything less of him, as that's just who he is, a sleazeball, a highly corrupt and highly compromised conman, and someone who stands up for the guilty and the rich. 

12 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

That may well be the case, but until some primary source is willing to go on the record, or the FBI release the tape, then there is no hard evidence, Homan took the cash, especially as no one as yet has challenged Karoline Leavitt!

Likely end-of-the-road on this one unless one of those FBI undercover guys who made the alleged recordings turns renegade.

 

However, in a statement to ABC News, FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche confirmed the probe and said it "was subjected to a full review by FBI agents and Justice Department prosecutors. They found no credible evidence of any criminal wrongdoing."

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/doj-ended-probe-border-czar-tom-homan-allegedly/story?id=125781386

31 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

That may well be the case, but until some primary source is willing to go on the record, or the FBI release the tape, then there is no hard evidence, Homan took the cash, especially as no one as yet has challenged Karoline Leavitt!

So since you haven't seen the tape there is no hard evidence.

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So since you haven't seen the tape there is no hard evidence.

The tape is being held by the FBI, the msm like MSNBC, CNN, Guardian etc have not seen the tape, they are relying totally on anonymous sources. So yes no hard evidence, its all hearsay!

Video Classified: FBI holds it as evidence; no leaks or declassifications. Democrats (e.g., Sen. Blumenthal) demand release, but no action.

 

 

4 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

So yes no hard evidence, its all hearsay!

'No  hard evidence' and 'its all hearsay' are far from the same. The tapes do exist, no denials from FBI and DoJ, so no, it's not hearsay. There is hard evidence of the event.

7 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

The tape is being held by the FBI,

Leavitt on Monday defended that decision, going as far as to dispute that Homan had taken the $50,000 in the first place.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/22/politics/tom-homan-white-house-investigation-reports

 

-- So, if per Ms. Leavitt says Mr. Homan never took the $50,000 in the first place, how can there be a tape of it,

6 minutes ago, stevenl said:

'No  hard evidence' and 'its all hearsay' are far from the same. The tapes do exist, no denials from FBI and DoJ, so no, it's not hearsay. There is hard evidence of the event.

 Hearsay and "no hard evidence" are a little different but closely related. Hearsay is a type of evidence (secondhand statements) that’s often inadmissible in court unless verified, while "no hard evidence" means lacking direct, tangible proof (e.g., documents, video). In the Tom Homan case, the distinction is small: reports citing anonymous sources about an unreleased FBI video are hearsay, and without the video, there’s no hard evidence, making them functionally similar here.

In this case the terms are nearly interchangeable—both reflect the lack of public, tangible proof. If the video surfaces, it’ll shift to hard evidence.

Yes, a tape exists per consistent reporting and no FBI/DOJ denials, but without public access, it’s hearsay (secondhand) until released. It’s hard evidence in FBI hands, not ours.

8 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Leavitt on Monday defended that decision, going as far as to dispute that Homan had taken the $50,000 in the first place.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/22/politics/tom-homan-white-house-investigation-reports

 

-- So, if per Ms. Leavitt says Mr. Homan never took the $50,000 in the first place, how can there be a tape of it,

Well there is a tape, but there is no public access, it's classified,  so what is on the tape, is in question!

1 minute ago, mikeymike100 said:

 Hearsay and "no hard evidence" are a little different but closely related. Hearsay is a type of evidence (secondhand statements) that’s often inadmissible in court unless verified, while "no hard evidence" means lacking direct, tangible proof (e.g., documents, video). In the Tom Homan case, the distinction is small: reports citing anonymous sources about an unreleased FBI video are hearsay, and without the video, there’s no hard evidence, making them functionally similar here.

In this case the terms are nearly interchangeable—both reflect the lack of public, tangible proof. If the video surfaces, it’ll shift to hard evidence.

Yes, a tape exists per consistent reporting and no FBI/DOJ denials, but without public access, it’s hearsay (secondhand) until released. It’s hard evidence in FBI hands, not ours.

I believe it's an audio tape. 

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

 

Maybe the OP is a Czar wannabe 

 

Czar of misinfo, hate, trolling. 

3 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

 Hearsay and "no hard evidence" are a little different but closely related. Hearsay is a type of evidence (secondhand statements) that’s often inadmissible in court unless verified, while "no hard evidence" means lacking direct, tangible proof (e.g., documents, video). In the Tom Homan case, the distinction is small: reports citing anonymous sources about an unreleased FBI video are hearsay, and without the video, there’s no hard evidence, making them functionally similar here.

In this case the terms are nearly interchangeable—both reflect the lack of public, tangible proof. If the video surfaces, it’ll shift to hard evidence.

Yes, a tape exists per consistent reporting and no FBI/DOJ denials, but without public access, it’s hearsay (secondhand) until released. It’s hard evidence in FBI hands, not ours.

LOL, trying to squeeze out of a nonsense claim. No cigar.
You're even admitting it's hard evidence while trying to deny it in the same post.

1 minute ago, Alan Zweibel said:

I believe it's an audio tape. 

The reports refer to the FBI recording of Tom Homan allegedly accepting $50,000 on September 20, 2024, as both video and audio or sometimes just “video” or “tape.” Based on the most precise descriptions, it’s likely a video with audio captured by hidden cameras, as is standard in FBI sting operations.

1 minute ago, KhunLA said:

Czar of misinfo, hate, trolling. 

Misinfo, so the tape doesn't exist?

10 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Czar of misinfo, hate, trolling. 

 

I think all his posts are about politics.

He's one of these accounts that was created only for that reason. Like BLMFem. 

 

He was on Maher's show last week, before this story came out.  I thought he was some drunk they picked up at the Teamsters hall.

He had a whole lot of words that didn't say much, and Bill would be able to say "see?  I had a cabinet member on!"  He wisely backed off pretty much and let the old guy go on.

 

6 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

 Hearsay and "no hard evidence" are a little different but closely related. Hearsay is a type of evidence (secondhand statements) that’s often inadmissible in court unless verified, while "no hard evidence" means lacking direct, tangible proof (e.g., documents, video). In the Tom Homan case, the distinction is small: reports citing anonymous sources about an unreleased FBI video are hearsay, and without the video, there’s no hard evidence, making them functionally similar here.

In this case the terms are nearly interchangeable—both reflect the lack of public, tangible proof. If the video surfaces, it’ll shift to hard evidence.

Yes, a tape exists per consistent reporting and no FBI/DOJ denials, but without public access, it’s hearsay (secondhand) until released. It’s hard evidence in FBI hands, not ours.

 

 

 Hidden cameras were used during the FBI sting on September 20, 2024, and internal DOJ summaries say Homan accepted a bag containing $50 in cash.

•  News outlets reference the footage, but they do not broadcast the actual handoff scene. Instead, they show commentary, reenactments, or edited segments that imply the event occurred.

•  No raw, unedited video of the handoff has been released to the public. The footage remains in DOJ and FBI archives, but its existence is cited in internal documents.

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

LOL, trying to squeeze out of a nonsense claim. No cigar.
You're even admitting it's hard evidence while trying to deny it in the same post.

Let me be more succinct.

 The tape is hard evidence (video/audio of the event) in FBI custody, but it’s not public, so for us, it’s inaccessible. Publicly, we only have hearsay—secondhand reports from anonymous sources describing the tape

 

4 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Well there is a tape, but there is no public access, it's classified,  so what is on the tape, is in question!

So Ms. Leavitt is supplying specious info. Whodathunk

2 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

The reports refer to the FBI recording of Tom Homan allegedly accepting $50,000 on September 20, 2024, as both video and audio or sometimes just “video” or “tape.” Based on the most precise descriptions, it’s likely a video with audio captured by hidden cameras, as is standard in FBI sting operations.

The Times indicates that the recording was audio, while MSNBC‘s version of the evidence suggests that video footage exists.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/tom-homan-50000-cash

1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said:

So Ms. Leavitt is supplying specious info. Whodathunk

Well ,maybe, but no one has challenged her statement yet, so until they do????????

2 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Well ,maybe, but no one has challenged her statement yet, so until they do????????

No one? Really?

Just now, Alan Zweibel said:

No one? Really?

Well if you have info, please share it!

17 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Well if you have info, please share it!

I'm going to take your assertion very literally. And even so, here are a couple of people who directly countered what she claimed. And, of course, if you want to find people who challenge general denials, there are a whole lot more.

People who called out Leavitt

1. Ken Dilanian (MSNBC)

   • After Leavitt said there was no evidence, Dilanian responded on X (formerly Twitter):

     “That was not part of their statement when we first went to them on Saturday. Multiple people familiar with the case say he did accept the money, as does an internal government document reviewed by MSNBC.”

     https://newrepublic.com/post/200757/karoline-leavitt-donald-trump-border-czar-tom-homan?utm_source=chatgpt.com

2. Carol Leonnig (MSNBC journalist)

   • She directly countered the White House’s denial by pointing to internal documents. According to The Guardian, Leonnig said:

     “White House spokesperson says that Homan never took $50,000; we reviewed internal document saying Homan

      

4 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

I'm going to take your assertion very literally. And even so, here are a couple of people who directly countered what she claimed. And, of course, if you want to find people who challenge general denials, there are a whole lot more.

People who called out Leavitt

1. Ken Dilanian (MSNBC)

   • After Leavitt said there was no evidence, Dilanian responded on X (formerly Twitter):

     “That was not part of their statement when we first went to them on Saturday. Multiple people familiar with the case say he did accept the money, as does an internal government document reviewed by MSNBC.”

     https://newrepublic.com/post/200757/karoline-leavitt-donald-trump-border-czar-tom-homan?utm_source=chatgpt.com

2. Carol Leonnig (MSNBC journalist)

   • She directly countered the White House’s denial by pointing to internal documents. According to The Guardian, Leonnig said:

     “White House spokesperson says that Homan never took $50,000; we reviewed internal document saying Homan

      

Their story relies on anonymous sources, until a primary source goes on the record (e.g., a named FBI/DOJ official) or the FBI tape is released, Karoline Leavitt’s claim (September 22, 2025, White House briefing: “Mr. Homan never took the $50,000”) cannot be definitively rebutted. The current evidence—reports from MSNBC, NYT, Reuters, and others citing anonymous sources describing a video of Homan accepting $50,000 on September 20, 2024—is hearsay and not publicly verifiable, so it’s insufficient to conclusively disprove her statement.

11 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

I'm going to take your assertion very literally. And even so, here are a couple of people who directly countered what she claimed. And, of course, if you want to find people who challenge general denials, there are a whole lot more.

People who called out Leavitt

1. Ken Dilanian (MSNBC)

   • After Leavitt said there was no evidence, Dilanian responded on X (formerly Twitter):

     “That was not part of their statement when we first went to them on Saturday. Multiple people familiar with the case say he did accept the money, as does an internal government document reviewed by MSNBC.”

     https://newrepublic.com/post/200757/karoline-leavitt-donald-trump-border-czar-tom-homan?utm_source=chatgpt.com

2. Carol Leonnig (MSNBC journalist)

   • She directly countered the White House’s denial by pointing to internal documents. According to The Guardian, Leonnig said:

     “White House spokesperson says that Homan never took $50,000; we reviewed internal document saying Homan

      

 

 

I think this thread can be closed now......

 

 

...............just listened to the report referenced above and it confirms Kash Patel personally reviewed to CCTV the files and audio and confirmed Homan did nothing wrong.

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Their story relies on anonymous sources, until a primary source goes on the record (e.g., a named FBI/DOJ official) or the FBI tape is released, Karoline Leavitt’s claim (September 22, 2025, White House briefing: “Mr. Homan never took the $50,000”) cannot be definitively rebutted. The current evidence—reports from MSNBC, NYT, Reuters, and others citing anonymous sources describing a video of Homan accepting $50,000 on September 20, 2024—is hearsay and not publicly verifiable, so it’s insufficient to conclusively disprove her statement.

But it's a matter of  hearsay on both sides. At which point we need to invoke probability do decide the issue.

22 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

But it's a matter of  hearsay on both sides. At which point we need to invoke probability do decide the issue.

Fair point, until we get someone willing to go the record, we won't know for sure!

It is possible Leavitt has privileged information, as Press secretary, but we will have to wait to find out!

An MSNBC report says on Sept. 20, 2024, with hidden cameras recording the scene at a meeting spot in Texas, Tom Homan accepted $50,000 in bills

 

So where was Mr. Homan on Sept. 20, 2024?

 

1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said:

An MSNBC report says on Sept. 20, 2024, with hidden cameras recording the scene at a meeting spot in Texas, Tom Homan accepted $50,000 in bills

 

So where was Mr. Homan on Sept. 20, 2024?

 

Why does MSNBC not run the video they took with hidden cameras?