You're watching the legal breakdown. Glenn, we are through the looking glass here because we've got a bombshell corruption scandal that just uh emerged onto the scene that involves a top Trump administration official accepting $50,000 in a bag of cash. Can you explain what happened here? Yeah, only the best people. Donald Trump's borders are Tom Holman, who you've probably seen in the news recently, trying to justify the unjustifiable, like violating the due process rights of folks as part of this aggressive immigration crackdown. So we now know that apparently there was a criminal investigation of Tom Holman underway by both the US attorney's office in Texas and Maine Justice the Department of Justice in Washington DC the public integrity section before Trump was elected to the second term and it involved FBI agents uh recording Tom Hman taking $50,000 in cash in a paper bag and promising that he would steer business um to these FBI agents who are undercover and posing as businessmen. He would steer business to them if Trump got reelected. Brian, that is bribery minus one. The only reason it is minus one is because as the investigation continued and as Donald Trump got elected and as Donald Trump took control of the Department of Justice instead of doing the responsible law enforcement thing which would have been let's see if Tom Hman makes good on his corrupt you know bribery riddled promises and began steering business to these undercover FBI agents posing as businessmen steering government contracts to them as part of a quidd proquo, a bribery scheme. Instead, Donald Trump's FBI and Department of Justice shut down the criminal investigation. Now, let's unravel whether a crime was committed. Because of course Todd Blanch, Deputy Attorney General, recently issued a statement when this reporting broke saying, "Well, whoa, well, well, there was no credible evidence that a crime was committed. Now Todd Blanch may be hanging his hat on." Well, yeah, because we dismissed the investigation. We shut it down before Tom Hman could deliver the quo for his quidd. Let me break it down. Quidd proquo. this for that. When you promise or you agree to use your government position to um obtain a thing of personal value to you, like $50,000 and I'm going to steer government contracts your way. That's bribery. That's quid proquo. That's this for that. But it looks like they couldn't get to the that because even though Trump was elected and Tom H. Homeman was put in a position where he could conceivably u make good on his promise to deliver for the $50,000 in cash that he was given. They shut down the investigation. So it it looks like they basically protected him before the crime could be complete. Before it could come to fruition. Now at the risk of turning this into a legal breakdown law school class, Brian, there is also a crime called attempted bribery. What does that mean? It means you took significant steps toward the commission of the crime of bribery and but for some intervening factor beyond your control um you were unable to complete the crime of bribery. You know this sure smells a lot like attempted bribery. So that is where we stand right now. And Brian, the Trump administration knew all of this when they decided to make Tom Holman Borders Are. But you know what? Maybe some, you know, criminal misconduct or potential criminal misconduct on your resume made you a more appealing candidate for a position in the Trump administration than a less appealing candidate. Right. At this point, it's basically a prerequisite. Well, Glenn, all of this, by the way, as a quick aside, underscores the need uh for folks who are going to focus on on justice and the law as it actually stands. So, for those who are watching, if you'd like to follow along and support our content, please make sure to subscribe to both of our channels. The links are in the post description of this video. I I got to ask because the two jurisdictions that that this occurred in that it would be um possible for them to take action against him were Texas and Maine justice, basically the the the federal government because those two jurisdictions are run by people who are political allies of this administration. Does that mean there's no recourse? Does that mean that it that this that any crimes at the hands of these high-ranking Republican officials can take place and nothing can happen because Texas Republicans are in charge and they're ideologically aligned with this administration? And then as far as Maine justice is concerned, as far as uh uh the the the federal government is concerned, that's also led by Trump Republicans and they're not going to do anything to hurt one of their own. So can like a is there no recourse for the Tom Holman situation and b are any high-ranking Republican officials allowed to engage in overt criminality with basically a get out of jail free card at this point? You know, it's a great question and an extraordinarily frustrating question because as long as the Department of Justice and the various United States attorneys offices around the country are in, you know, not just Republican control, but Trump control, which he has made clear he's the one directing prosecutions or, you know, directing DOJ to decline to prosecute people. There is relatively little recourse on the federal front. However, you know, we always look for a point of light, faint though it may be. It doesn't say in the reporting, or at least I haven't seen it reported out, that the transfer of the big bag of cash. It was reportedly in a cava bag, the fast food chain. Um, the actual physical transfer took place in Texas, but I am inferring that because it was the Texas US Attorney's Office that was running this investigation that suggests that the criminal conduct potential criminal conduct occurred in Texas. So, let's run with that for a minute. if it occurred in Texas and if it violated Texas state law, what looks like this attempted bribery, even if it didn't come to fruition, then Texas state um law enforcement authorities could in theory pick up the criminal investigative ball and run with it. But given that Texas is also largely in control of Republicans, it seems unlikely that that would happen. But that is one possible area where, you know, this investigation could be pursued. Otherwise, Brian, I'm afraid things are very dark on the law enforcement front. When you have a president who the Supreme Court has given absolute presidential immunity, can violate our nation's laws, can commit crimes against the American people, not to not to mention murdering Venezuelans on the high seas without any legal basis to do it. um when you you um realize that the president is above the law, is beyond the reach of the law, and anybody that the president employs in any of his criminal schemes or conduct, he can simply deliver them a pardon. And the Supreme Court has said that that is also virtually untouchable. We are living in the age of lawlessness as sanctioned by the Supreme Court and the criminals who perpetrate that lawlessness are being protected by among others the Supreme Court and their rulings. It doesn't get any darker on the law enforcement front in I would assert the history of our country, but this is where we are. Glenn, is is all of this so subjective that all it takes is prosecutors just declining to prosecute even the most overt blatant crime, like handing somebody a bribe with $50,000 in a bag? Like I is is all of this just up to whether or not a prosecutor is is buds with the person who committed the crime and that's all it takes to bury overt criminality in a lawless United States of America in a lawless um Trump administration. Yes, it and I I hate to say that, Brian, but you know, as long as lawlessness rules when we discuss questions like, well, isn't there some objective standard in evaluating evidence and deciding whether an investigation and possible prosecution should be pursued or not? When people are guided by their oath of office, which I took both as a military uh army service member and as a department of justice prosecutor, you know, I pledged my loyalty to the Constitution and I pledged to support and defend and protect it from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I have rules of ethics as a lawyer, as a prosecutor that require me to charge cases that have enough evidence to charge and decline to charge cases where the evidence is lacking. But in a in a lawless Department of Justice, in a lawless Trump administration, all bets are off. So, you know, I have to answer your question in two ways. If the rule of law applies, there are objective standards when we prosecutors are assessing the quality and quantity of evidence to decide whether to present it to a grand jury for indictment and in the event of indictment, take it to trial. But in a lawless Trump administration, there are no rules. Glenn, I got to ask, do you think that we're ever going to be able to see the video uh that they purportedly have in their possession of of home and accepting this bag of cash? Ryan, I love this question because the answer is we might. So, let let me put some meat on the bones of this answer. Anytime we ask a question, will there be some transparency in the Trump administration and the Pam Bondi Department of Justice, the answer is almost always, are you kidding me? Of course not. However, the main reason that the Department of Justice has for refusing to release information and evidence is it's an ongoing investigation. Well, guess what? Because foyer requests will now be filed by news organizations, I predict, saying, "You need to release the damn tape of Tom Holman accepting $50,000 in cash in a paper bag and promising to criminally steer government contracts to these businessmen who were actually undercover FBI agents." The main reason DOJ can resist releasing that when a FOYA Freedom of Information Act request comes in is pending investigation. Well, guess what friends? Ain't no pending investigation because you corruptly shut it down. So, Brian, it may be that we should start the mantra, not only release the Epstein files, but release the Homman tape. Glenn, can you talk about the statute of limitations for something like this? Let's say we're in a world where where the Trump administration, despite its best efforts, is not in power forever, and Democrats take control, at least of of the federal government, if not the state of Texas. But but is there a world in which Tom Holman's crimes could could at least be prosecuted when folks who actually care about law and order don't just you use it as a bumper sticker to hide their overt criminality uh when they take control? Yeah, the statute of limitations question is not as easy to unravel as it used to be. It used to be that if there was a five-year statute of limitations, and all that is is a fancy way of saying prosecutors have to charge somebody within 5 years of the date of the offense. And if not, it's timed out. Now, crimes like murder have no statute of limitations. That's the mother of all crimes. We can charge somebody 20, 30, 40 years later. And I've been involved in cases like that as a former homicide prosecutor. But most federal crimes, including bribery, I assume I would have to go crack my big ugly blue book of of federal laws, the United States code to double check. Most federal crimes carry a 5-year statute of limitations. So strictly speaking, if you're just looking at the calendar, this one may have timed out because at least the money exchange, the big bag of cash, presumably unmarked bills, because why shouldn't everything sound like a mob movie now, um happened will have happened 5 years before a Democrat takes office in the event a Democrat wins the presidency. And it feels like it would time out. But there are a couple of things at play here that make that answer not definitive. One, when you're engaged in a crime where you've taken some steps to commit the crime, you've taken the cash, but you are waiting a period of time to deliver the quo, deliver the government contracts to the people who paid you 50 grand to do it. the statute of limitations doesn't run until the last act that consummates completes the crime is committed. Now, we know he didn't get a chance to because he was waiting it out and then the Trump administration, I would contend, corruptly shut the investigation down. So, there's an argument that no, the the statute of limitations clock didn't start running until at least the time that the Trump administration corruptly, if it was a corrupt, you know, tossing out of the investigation, shut it down. And let me go a step further. And the reason I can't give our viewers definitive answers is because this stuff hasn't been litigated much because this has not been the way the executive branch of the United States government has operated. There's another argument to be made that a corrupt stopping of the Tom Hman investigation shouldn't give Tom Holman the benefit of the statute of limitations protection. It should continue to run. It should be stayed or paused. Here's one of those instances where a judicial stay or pause might be a good thing. and he can still be prosecuted when a new administration comes in and that administration is determined to and dedicated to um actually applying the law without fear or favor. So many moving pieces. We could write law review articles on these kinds of issues. But what I will say is there's no easy, intuitive or definitive answer to any of this. And again, to your exact point, in a situation where this country wasn't led by these lawless Republicans, we would actually have some movement on this issue. Uh but I fear that that other than the reporting, there's not going to be a lot of movement otherwise. Uh with that said, we will continue to focus on all legal issues. For those who are watching right now, if you'd like to follow along and support our work and support independent media, which has never been more important in light of the failings of legacy media, please make sure to subscribe to both of our channels. It's completely free, but a great way to support our work. I'm going to put the links right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. I'm Brian Taylor Cohen and I'm Glenn Kersner. You're watching the legal breakdown. [Music]