Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Silent Type

(11,271 posts)

5. Apparently, there is some question of legality because he was not in a position to deliver contracts in Sept 2024.

Reply to Klarkashton (Original post)

Mon Sep 22, 2025, 11:19 PM

Sep 22

So, there was concern prosecution would be difficult.

It’s BS, but that’s the quess by attorneys with little interest in protecting trump admin.

Now, if he delivered the contracts after trump inaugurated, he should be toast after a few weeks of WH circling the wagons.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

23 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How about proof that Homan didn't take the money? [View all] Klarkashton Sep 22 OP

How do you prove a negative if it was cash? Frasier Balzov Sep 22 #1

How about him carrying it away. It's pretty fucking simple. Klarkashton Sep 22 #2

I thought you were asking them to prove he didn't. Frasier Balzov Sep 22 #4

If anybody walks away with 50k under those circumstances Klarkashton Sep 22 #9

Yep. That's what the poster said. stopdiggin Tuesday #20

I don't think there was cash in the envelope. multigraincracker Sep 22 #3

Apparently, there is some question of legality because he was not in a position to deliver contracts in Sept 2024. Silent Type Sep 22 #5

So what. If he took $50k that's all we need to know. Klarkashton Sep 22 #7

We knew he was a crook to get appointed, but that won't convict him. Silent Type Sep 22 #12

Nothing is going to convict him. He is immune from Klarkashton Sep 22 #13

Doubt he's immune in that delivering contracts under table ain't an official duty, though who knows Silent Type Sep 22 #17

It could not be bribery because he wasn't in office yet Jersey Devil Sep 22 #15

The point was that either he took the bag of money or he didn't. Klarkashton Tuesday #18

Isn't that advocating fascism Kaleva Sep 22 #6

No Klarkashton Sep 22 #10

And did he declare the $50G on his income tax return. Jersey Devil Sep 22 #16

It's up to the accusers to provide proof that he did Kaleva Tuesday #21

There is video, tapes and files of the money transfer. gab13by13 Sep 22 #11

No need to wait EarlG Tuesday #19

The accused don't have to prove their innocence Kaleva Tuesday #23

There is fucking proof, or was, gab13by13 Sep 22 #8

If pressed hard enough ( it won't happen) they will Klarkashton Sep 22 #14

The FBI filmed the transaction. Emile Tuesday #22