In September 2016, Trump met with Egyptian dictator Sisi in a closed-door meeting during a UN session.
After the meeting, Trump declared that the US would be a loyal friend of Egypt’s if he was elected.
Five weeks later, Trump injected $10 million of his personal funds into his campaign.
In January 2017, the Egyptian secret service withdrew $10 million from a bank account–a subsantial portion of Egypt’s US dollar reserves. They put it in $100 bills in two duffel bags, which a couple of guys took away.
Mueller investigated this series of events, but by the time they finally got through the court process to learn about the withdrawal, Mueller was wrapping up his investigation, and passed it on to a US attorney, Jessie Liu, who had been appointed by Trump.
Liu struggled with deciding whether to subpoena Trump’s bank records to see if he had any suspicious income in 2016 or early 2017 that would match this Egyptian withdrawal.
In 2020, Bill Bar replaced her with his ally Timothy Shea, who put the investigation on hold.
A few months later, he replaced Shea with Michael Sherwin, who shut down the investigation.
In 2022, the statute of limitations expired.
So, question: is this something that should still be pursued? Is there any legal grounds under which it can be pursued? Is this just one more story that won’t matter?
I didn’t read the full article, but I’m skeptical about the 3-month gap between #3 and #4. Would Trump (who reneges on deals whenever possible) really pony up $10 million of his own cash in expectation that a foreign leader would replenish that amount three months later?
#4 sure is fishy, but is there any evidence that the duffel bags went to Trump?
All that said, I fully support asking Trump, “What did you do with the $10 million in cash Egypt gave you, and what did you promise them in return?” Make the sonofabitch deny it.
It’s uncontested that he ponied up $10 million of his own cash. What’s in doubt is whether that was really his money, or whether it was laundered money from someone else.
I dunno. Did they find any Egypt-stamped gold bars at Mar-a-Largo?
It should be pursued by a journalist, at the least to expose more shady dealings by Trump, in the run-up to the election. Perhaps the Democrats already have this one in the firing chamber, ready for October, to distract Donny. I doubt there is any legal path forward, however.
No, I can’t see the WaPo article due to paywall. I guess I meant having more exposure for the story in the media and not rely on the courts. I should have been more clear.
Trump: Gimme 10 mil, and I’ll make sure to send US money your way.
Sisi: Counteroffer: you win the election, I’ll get you 10 mil.
Trump: OK
[Trump wins election, Sisi gets him 10 mil, Trump sends US money to Egypt]
You might suggest that Trump doesn’t work on spec–but again, we know he funneled 10 mil from his own accounts into the campaign. We also know that Mueller was investigating this, and it took three successive Trump appointees before the investigation was shut down.
Okay. I’ll kindly request that folks who want to discuss this either actually read an article on it (the one I linked to, or another one), or discuss it elsewhere. I think that’s the best way to keep the quality of discussion high and substantive.
My point still stands that I would like this to get more exposure, but I doubt there will be any legal ramifications, nor consequences for Trump and the upcoming election. Perhaps someone familiar with the legal side of things can share more info on if this has any legs in the courts at this point.
This is the key. We may never be able to charge anyone with crimes for the actual bribe due to the SoL, but the covering-up may still be criminal if it can be proven. Still, I suspect, the trail will be murderously difficult to uncover and may still fall under “official acts” as far as Trump’s actions.
That’s why I vote for reducing it to a talking point: “What did you do with the $10 million in cash Egypt gave you, and what did you promise them in return?” Make Trump explain it over and over.
News (of this sort) comes from leaks and leaks come from motivations.
There’s some motivation, around this moment, to make sure that this information is public.
Leakers, of course, also need to have access to the information. Here, we’re talking about people who are aware (supposedly) of the conversations between Liu and Barr, Barr and Wray, etc. The people trusted in those sorts of conversations, near Barr, aren’t definitely outside of the Biden DOJ but there’s a low likelihood that they’re still in the Biden DOJ.
So when we look at motivation, the obvious ones would be to slam Trump, leading into the election. But that would most obviously come from Biden’s people. Barr and his closest confidants aren’t Biden’s people. So there’s the other option, that the previous administration might have seen (for example) Menendez convicted, believe that he and his wife have access to information that may be relevant, and want to ensure that the Biden DOJ is aware of it, so they know to approach the Menendez’s to offer them a deal. Or, that they saw or are aware of something else that merits bringing the matter up for attention again.
Of course, there’s the compromise option that a lot of Barr’s people don’t like Trump and are backing Biden, and trying to help.