Donald Trump’s campaign and the Trump Organization paid off nine witnesses called to testify in criminal cases against Trump, an explosive new report from ProPublica reveals.

https://news.yahoo.com/news/bombshell-report-reveals-team-trump-141058553.html

Donald trump 2024

That is nothing compared to what the Bidens are doing. This was actually published by the government officials but the Bidens are above the law.

https://oversight.house.gov/landing/biden-family-investigation/

In February, Republicans were dealt a massive blow when it was announced that the individual who brought forward the bribery allegations about the president and his son memorialized in an unverified FBI document – which Republicans had been warned not to bank on – was charged with lying about the Bidens.

Republicans charged ahead, insisting they had a closed-door deposition with Hunter Biden to prepare for, even though they had repeatedly put those unverified claims at the center of their case.

But even without cameras, the president’s son failed to deliver the smoking gun Republicans were hoping for, leaving the inquiry at a standstill. Even GOP Rep. Darrell Issa remarked after the first hour of questioning that Hunter Biden was prepared for the interview.

https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-reveals-how-joe-biden-received-laundered-china-money/

Comer also referenced a $40,000 payment to Joe Biden from his brother, Jim. Comer called the payment “laundered China money,” but the check was labeled “loan repayment,” and a similar sum was transferred from a Joe Biden-tied account to his brother less than two months prior.

Comer also argued that a 2018 email from a bank money laundering investigator, who identified red flags about millions of dollars from a Chinese company transferred to a company controlled by Hunter Biden, lent credence to the oversight committee’s accusations of money laundering.

In that email, the bank investigator wrote that Hunter Biden’s company, Owasco PC, received large sums from the Chinese company even though Owasco “does not appear to have any services rendered” and had “no current business purpose.” Given news reports about China “targeting children of politicians and purchase of political influence through ‘sweetheart deals'” and other news reports about Hunter’s “extravagant spending on his own interests (drugs, strip clubs, prostitutes, etc.),” the investigator warned it might be prudent for the bank to reevaluate its relationship with Hunter Biden.

Not mentioned by Comer were subsequent emails in the chain — later released by Democrats on the oversight committee — in which more senior money laundering investigators at the bank concluded the payments were “reasonable and consistent with the business profile” and showed no signs of bribery payments.

CLAIM: It is a double standard that former President Donald Trump may be indicted over alleged hush money payments to a woman who accused him of sexual encounters, while former President Bill Clinton faced no criminal charges for paying a sexual harassment accuser $850,000.

 Clinton and Trump’s cases have key differences, according to legal experts. Clinton’s $850,000 payment to Paula Jones in 1998 settled a civil lawsuit. The payment was public and legal, and the funds did not come from the government, nor did they amount to a campaign contribution. By comparison, the payment in Trump’s case was through a shell company and reimbursed by Trump, whose company logged the reimbursements as legal expenses in the final weeks of his 2016 presidential campaign.

THE FACTS: As a Manhattan grand jury weighs whether to indict Trump over hush money payments made on his behalf during his 2016 presidential campaign, social media users are spreading inaccurate comparisons of Trump’s case and one involving Clinton 25 years ago.