George Stephanopoulos (3:45)

Tom Holman was recorded on an FBI surveillance tape in September 2024 accepting $50,000 in. Did he keep that money or give it back?

Tom Homan Supporter/Defender (3:55)

George, you've covered the story ad nauseum. Tom Homan did not take a bribe. It's a ridiculous smear. And the reason you guys are going after Tom Homan so aggressively is because he's doing the job of enforcing the law. I think it's really preposterous. I know Tom. I think that he's a good man. He gets death threats, he gets attacked. He gets constantly threatened by people because he has the audacity to want to enforce the country's immigration laws. I think that it would be a much more interesting story about why is it that Tom Homan, who is simply enforcing Americans immigration laws, is getting constantly harassed and threatened to the point of death threats? That's a much more interesting question that I think journalists should focus on. We can agree to disagree on that question.

George Stephanopoulos (4:41)

You said he didn't take a bribe, but I'm not sure you answered the question. Are you saying that he did not accept the $50,000?

Tom Homan Supporter/Defender (4:49)

George, this story has been covered ad nauseam. He did not take a bribe. Did he accept $50,000? I'm sure that in the course of Tom Homan's life, he has been paid more than $50,000 for services. The question is, did he do something illegal. And there's absolutely no evidence that Tom Homan has never taken a bribe. I'm asking you, which is why he's working in the administration.

George Stephanopoulos (5:11)

I'm asking you, did he accept the $50,000 that was caught on the surveillance? Did he accept that $50,000 or not?

Tom Homan Supporter/Defender (5:19)

George, I don't know what you're talking about. Did he accept $50,000 for what?

George Stephanopoulos (5:24)

He was recorded on an audio tape in September 2024, an FBI surveillance tape accepting $50,000 in cash. Did he keep that money.

Tom Homan Supporter/Defender (5:35)

Accepting $50,000 for doing what? George, I'm not even sure I understand the question. Is it illegal to take a payment for doing services? The FBI has not prosecuted him. I've never seen any evidence that he's engaged in criminal wrongdoing. Nobody has accused Tom of violating a crime, even the far left media like yourself. So I'm actually not sure what the precise question is. Did he accept $50,000? Honestly, George, I don't know the answer to that question. What I do know is that he didn't violate a crime.

George Stephanopoulos (6:04)

So you don't what was caught on the tape. You're saying right now you don't know whether or not he kept that money.

Tom Homan Supporter/Defender (6:12)

I don't know what tape you're referring to, George. I saw media reports that Tom Homan accepted a bribe. There's no evidence of that. And here's George, why fewer and fewer people watch your program and why you're losing credibility because you're talking for now five minutes with the Vice President, United States about this story regarding Tom Homan, a story that I've read about, but I don't even know the video that you're talking about.

Michael Popak (6:35)

Did you catch it there? Stephanopoulos kept saying audio, audio surveillance, audio. And, and the J.D. vance said, I don't know what video you're talking about because we know there's a video, JD and we know you've seen it. But look at the good. Look at the way they're conflating and alighting around in the new language that they're using around the Tom Holman scandal. It's not that he didn't take 50,000. It's that he deserved it. It's that he earned it and it's that he kept it. It's that he may have kept it, but it's for something. But it's not illegal. The thing he took it for. Right? The FBI undercover agents portraying federal contractors just gave a gift of taxpayer dollars to Tom Homan, who he's Never. Who's never returned it. I want to see Tom Holman's tax returns. I want to see how he's reported that 50,000. I want to see how he deposited it in the bank. Because if you deposit in a whole $50,000, then the bank has to fill out a suspicious transaction report, an STR. And if you bring it in below 50,000, let's say you do 9,000, 9,000, 9,000,. 9,000, whatever, to try to get below the $10,000 reporting requirement that banks have to make to report to the IRS and other things, then you could be guilty of structuring. And that's also a red flag behind a bank. Is it in his mattress that he give it to somebody else who deposited it where? It's not for me. Follow the money. But you hear. You hear the new version. Now, the old version was. Don't you attack the honesty of Tom Homan. He's been investigated by the. By corrupt Department of Justice, says Pam Bondi, and he's been completely cleared. In other words, he didn't make a promise to return for the 50,000. Let's play Pam Bondi back to back. A couple of her beauties, a couple of her testimonies at the Senate last week.

Senator (8:31)

What became of the $50,000 in cash that the FBI delivered, evidently in a paper bag to Mr. Homan?

Pam Bondi (8:40)

Senator, I'd look at your facts.

Senator (8:43)

Are you saying that they did not deliver $50,000 in cash to Mr. Homan?

Pam Bondi (8:46)

Senator, as recently stated, the investigation of Mr. Homan was subjected to a full review.

Senator (8:51)

A different question.

Pam Bondi (8:52)

They found no evidence of wrongdoing.

Senator (8:56)

That's a different question. What became of the $50,000?

Pam Bondi (9:00)

Senator Whitehouse, you're welcome to talk to the FBI.

Senator (9:03)

The report to you. Can't you answer this question?

Pam Bondi (9:06)

Senator Whitehouse, you're welcome to discuss this with Director Patel.

Senator (9:10)

Did homan keep the $50,000?

Pam Bondi (9:14)

As Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche recently stated, the investigation of Mr. Holman. Never mind.

Senator (9:21)

I can see I'm not going to get a straight answer from you. To a very simple.

Pam Bondi (9:24)

Five FBI agents and the doj. They found no credible evidence of wrongdoing.

Interviewer/Questioner (9:31)

I do want to go back to Homan. You know there's a tape, right, with Mr. Homan. I mean, first of all, is there a tape that has audio and video of the transfer of the 50,000?

Pam Bondi (9:43)

You would have to talk to Director Patel about that.

Interviewer/Questioner (9:46)

No, I'm talking to you.

Pam Bondi (9:49)

I don't know the answer.

Interviewer/Questioner (9:50)

Senator, you do know the answer to that.

Pam Bondi (9:52)

Don't call me A liar.

Interviewer/Questioner (9:53)

I didn't call you a liar.

Pam Bondi (9:54)

You just said, I know the answer. I said I don't know the answer.

Interviewer/Questioner (9:56)

You have to talk to.

Pam Bondi (9:57)

Okay, Director Patel, what I said is that investigative.

Interviewer/Questioner (10:02)

If you don't know, why don't you know whether there was a tape and video.

Pam Bondi (10:08)

Senator, I believe that was resolved prior to my confirmation as Attorney General.

Interviewer/Questioner (10:14)

Do you think that it is of public interest for the people to know what happened to the 50 grand that the FBI turned over to Homan?

Pam Bondi (10:22)

Did you hear what I just said? That was resolved prior to my confirmation as Attorney General. That's why I said I would not go.

Interviewer/Questioner (10:29)

It is first it's not resolved. There's $50,000. Homan has it or somebody has it. Do you have no interest in knowing where it is?

Pam Bondi (10:40)

You're not going to sit here and slander Tom Homan, the FBI and Deputy Director Blanch said there was nothing.

Interviewer/Questioner (10:48)

I'm not slamming Tom Homan.

Pam Bondi (10:49)

He got the 50 Tom Holman is doing. How do you know that? Tom Homan is doing a great job. Job as our borders are keeping your border state safe.

Michael Popak (10:58)

Now, Tom Oman hasn't helped himself out either, as we know, because when he was hit with the question, he didn't deny taking the money. In fact, he doubled down that he was entitled to the money. Let's play that clip.

Tom Homan (11:09)

I did nothing criminal. I did nothing illegal. I did nothing wrong. And this is a series of hits against me. Since the beginning of the year, there was. There's been hit pieces about every week. There was a hit piece on my security detail saying I had 30, 31 security detail. I'm wasting millions of dollars. I had about a fraction, a quarter of that. I think I had eight security detail at the time. I had a four car caravan. I had two. Another story about I'm helping certain companies with the contracts. Here's what people need to understand. Day one of the administration. When President Trump asked me to come back and we entered on duty, I met with ethics attorneys and by law you're supposed to recuse yourself from any company you had affiliations with before. But I took it a step further. I recused myself from all federal contracts. I won't have any decision making in any federal contract. But people, including this recent case, people are saying, I'm going to line the pockets of people. The hit pieces keep coming, but I know who's chumming the water. I know who keeps throwing this information out and the media jumps all over it and they're going to see some legal actions. Real soon. I'm working on a legal team. I'm done with it now.

Michael Popak (12:14)

Once again, we got an ABC White House problem. It's really an ABC problem for the White House. ABC infamously paid $15 million several years ago when George Stephanopoulos, during an interview with Eugene Carroll, called Donald Trump a rapist when he should have called him, apparently a sex abuser. Eugene Carroll in her trial 9, 0 in front of a jury, federal jury in New York proved that Donald Trump had sexually abused her. The only reason it wasn't rape under New York law is because at the time, in order to prove rape as a crime, you needed to show that the, that the assailant put his penis inside of the woman. Any other type of penetration did not count as rape. It does now. It didn't then. So the highest crime that Donald Trump could have been charged with and that was the focus of a civil trial, was sex abuse. But I don't think jumping up and down like if you were at a party and somebody pointed their finger at you in the middle of the cocktail party and said you're a rapist. I don't think yelling back, no, I'm not. I'm a sex abuser. I, I don't think that helps you see my point. But to abc, who was worried about the incoming Trump administration, they quickly stroked a check for $15 million, the equivalent of George Stephanopoulos salary. And that's going for some sort of presidential library, you know what I mean, for Donald Trump. And then once you bend the knee, you better just stay down, just stay down on the knee because you're going to have to do it again. Fast forward to Jimmy Kimmel several weeks ago. ABC again. ABC has got a lot of complicated relationships with its TV affiliates because the affiliates are how you see television. The broadcaster is abc. The affiliates and many of them owned by right wing Christian right ownership blocks like Sinclair. They were, some of them were in negotiations with the White House and the Federal Communications Commission over a huge $6.2 billion transaction that needed the White House approval through Brendan Carr, the FCC chairperson. That, that is a major MAGA Trumper project, 2025 person. So of course Brendan Carr, right on cue, attacked ABC. I'm going to take your license away if you keep Jimmy Kimmel on because Jimmy Kimmel made a comment about Charlie Kirk apparently. Apparently dissent is the equivalent of disloyalty and you must be taken out in the back and shot. So ABC folds again, doesn't pay any dime, doesn't pay a stroke of check this time, but takes Jimmy off the air for a couple of days until the public responded. Hulu subscribers responded, Hollywood responded. And suddenly ABC said, okay, Jimmy, come on back. Now you got another George Stephanopoulos problem. We'll see what they're going to do. I mean, they're owned by Disney. It's hard to believe that Disney is the same company. Then the first term stood up against Donald Trump about the LGBTQ+ community. It's hard to believe this is the same company. But you know, a lot has changed the last five years post Covid and that's where we're at. But you know, I can always count on J.D. vance. He goes on to talk about the Epstein scandal. He makes it worse. He goes on and talks about, you know, the Tom Holman bribery scandal. He tries to tap dance his way around. Taking 50,000 isn't a bribe. It's just him accepting cash. He's allowed to have cash. I'm so. I'm sure he's taking another $50,000 in paper bags at a restaurant. Audio, audio, audio. I don't know about audio. There is a video of Tom Holman, but I'm but I don't think you're entitled to it. Just as A side note, PS Democracy Forward, which has about 90 different lawsuits against the Trump administration and is winning at about a 90% clip, has a new lawsuit to get the video slash audio surveillance tape. It's in federal court in D.C. i've had sky Perryman on to talk to me about it. We're going to see exactly the judge assigned and then this was off of a Freedom of Information act request that was rejected by the Trump administration. But now here we are with a lawsuit to get the tape. Thanks for telling us that one exists. J.D. vance, we can always count on you. I'm Michael Popak. We can count on you here on Midas Touch and Legal af. Take a minute, come over to Legal AF substack, hit the free subscribe button and help us with our Legal AF YouTube channel as well. So until my next report, this is Michael. Can't get your fill of Legal af. Me neither. That's why we formed the Legal AF sub stack. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the substack. You'll find the court filing in the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do called Wait for it Morning af. What else? All the other contributors from Legal AO are there as well. We got some new reporting. We got interviews, we got ad free versions of the podcast and hot takes where legal AF on substack. Come over now to free subscribe.

LifeLock/Mint Mobile Advertiser (17:32)

Mint is still $15 a month for premium wireless and if you haven't made the switch yet, here are 15 reasons why you should 1. It's $15 a month.

Interviewer/Questioner (17:41)

2.

LifeLock/Mint Mobile Advertiser (17:42)

Seriously, it's $15 a month. 3. No big contracts.

Tom Homan Supporter/Defender (17:46)

4.

LifeLock/Mint Mobile Advertiser (17:46)

I use it. 5. My mom uses it.

Interviewer/Questioner (17:48)

Are you.

LifeLock/Mint Mobile Advertiser (17:48)

Are you playing me off?

SoFi Advertiser (17:50)

That's what's happening, right?

LifeLock/Mint Mobile Advertiser (17:51)

Okay, give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront.

Mayra Amethyst (Mochi Health Founder) (17:55)

Payment of $45 per 3 month plan $15 per month equivalent required New customer offer first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. Cmnobile.

LifeLock/Mint Mobile Advertiser (18:02)

Com.