By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a hearing, Judge Illston indicated she was likely to grant the plaintiff’s motion. She stated that the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management appeared to be disregarding laws during the government spending lapse. Illston believes the plaintiffs will demonstrate that the actions are both illegal, beyond their authority, and arbitrary. The case was brought by the American Federation of Government Employees and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, representing 800,000 federal workers.
Read the original article here
Tom Homan Suddenly Changes His Story on That $50,000 Cash Bribe
The story surrounding Tom Homan, the White House border czar, has taken a dramatic turn, and it’s difficult to ignore the glaring inconsistencies. It all began with the allegation that Homan accepted a $50,000 cash bribe, a story that was seemingly corroborated by evidence, including what was described as a video recording. Initially, Homan’s defense was a defiant denial of criminal wrongdoing, a claim that, on the surface, seemed to acknowledge the acceptance of the money but attempted to frame it as something not illegal. Now, the narrative has shifted completely.
Now, Homan is categorically denying ever taking the money. On a recent appearance on NewsNation’s “Cuomo” Town Hall, he stated, “I didn’t take $50,000 from anybody.” This stark contradiction raises immediate questions. How can someone, who reportedly appeared on video accepting a bag of cash, suddenly claim they never took the money? The complete denial feels like a significant shift, especially considering the initial defense, which seemed to try and parse the definition of “criminal.”
The question of how the story initially surfaced, as posed by NewsNation’s Bill O’Reilly, is also significant. Homan’s response, that he has “no idea” how the accusations arose and that he’s been subject to “hit pieces” since returning to the administration, feels evasive. He tries to deflect by pointing to past career choices and recusal from government contracts, attempting to create a narrative of innocence based on these factors. While it is true that he made the decision to recuse himself, the fact that he may have been subject to “hit pieces” doesn’t make it any less believable that the allegations are true.
One glaring question is, what happened to the evidence? If Homan is innocent, and if his story is true, shouldn’t the existence of the surveillance video be a non-issue? The evidence, the video itself, should be used to clear his name. The absence of the video, and Homan’s changing story, creates the impression that he is trying to cover something up. It seems like the evidence had to be destroyed before he would be so bold to lie about taking the money.
The fact that Homan is a high-ranking official within the Trump administration also raises critical points. Many believe that the higher one climbs in this particular system, the more the rules don’t apply to them. Those in power seem to be protected, or at least, able to wriggle free of repercussions. This situation, sadly, is not unique, and it seems to reinforce the unfortunate perception that this administration shields its own from accountability.
Adding to the intrigue is the context of his current position. Homan’s role as border czar comes with a substantial salary, nearly $200,000 per year. In an attempt to justify his story, he mentioned that he took a pay cut, and in so doing, made it seem like he has little to gain. But a person’s financial situation, their salary, doesn’t negate the legalities involved, and it certainly doesn’t justify a bribe.
The IRS Form 8300, which is supposed to be filed for cash payments exceeding $10,000 in a trade or business transaction, further complicates matters. If Homan received $50,000 in cash, the question of whether this form was filed is essential. Considering the nature of the allegations, that the payment was a bribe, the question of whether the appropriate form was filed with the IRS is essential.
The sudden shift in Homan’s story feels calculated. The shift from a defensive stance to an outright denial suggests a careful strategic move, possibly based on an assessment of the situation and the availability or destruction of evidence. It’s almost as if he was waiting for the tape to be destroyed, and then changed the story accordingly. The fact that he is now denying taking the money, despite the initial defense that seemed to admit to it, makes a strong argument that Homan is corrupt, and trying to protect himself. This story has all the hallmarks of a political scandal, and only time will tell how it all ends.