Sen. Rand Paul said Monday that he was informed that the U.S. Attorney in Washington D.C. has declined to pursue an investigation into alleged financing behind the organized mobs that attacked Paul, his wife and put a D.C. Police Officer in the hospital in August, after a White House event.
In a tweet on Monday Paul revealed that “The DC U.S. Attorney today confirmed to me that they will not pursue an investigation of who is funding the thugs who attacked my wife and me and sent a DC police officer to the hospital.”
Sen. Paul told Fox and Friends host Steve Doocy in August after the attack that he believes “there is interstate criminal traffic being paid for across states lines…they flew here on a plane, they all got fresh new clothes, and they were paid to be here. It is a crime to do that and it needs to be traced.”
He said, however, the failure of the D.C. Attorney’s Office led by acting U.S. Attorney Michael R. Sherwin has declined to investigate the incident that took place after he left an event at the White House in August, following President Trump’s Republican convention speech.
In August large groups of rioters poured into the city. According to Paul there was cause and enough evidence to open an investigation into how the rioters were organized and financed. It also appeared that many rioters and protesters had been bused in from outside of Washington D.C. in an effort to target President Trump and his supporters.
That night the situation escalated those who attended the event at the White House and chose to walk back to their vehicles or hotel were met outside by the mobs and targeted.
Paul told Doocy in August, “I truly believe this with every fiber of my being, had they gotten at us they would have gotten us to the ground, we might not have been killed, might just have been injured by being kicked in the head, or kicked in the stomach until we were senseless.”
You can follow Sara A Carter on Parler @SaraCarterOfficial or on Twitter @SaraCarterDC
BREAKING: Trump ordered to pay over $350M, barred from operating his business in NY in civil fraud case ruling
Former President Donald Trump and his business empire faced a significant setback as a New York judge ruled against them in a civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The 92-page ruling, handed down by Judge Arthur Engoron, barred Trump from operating his business in New York for three years and imposed over $350 million in damages.
The case, which unfolded over months of trial proceedings, stemmed from allegations that Trump inflated his assets and engaged in fraudulent practices. Engoron’s ruling cited a litany of charges, including persistent fraud, falsifying records, issuing false financial statements, and conspiracy to commit fraud.
Moreover, the judge imposed restrictions on key figures within the Trump Organization, including Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, barring them from serving in certain corporate roles in New York for a specified period.
Engoron’s scathing assessment of Trump’s testimony during the trial further undermined the former president’s credibility. The judge criticized Trump for evasive responses and irrelevant digressions, highlighting the detrimental effect on his credibility.
In response to the ruling, Trump’s attorney, Christopher Kise, lambasted the court’s decision, alleging political bias and a disregard for established legal principles. Kise argued that the evidence presented during the trial failed to support the allegations of fraud and emphasized Trump’s substantial net worth.
Kise’s assertions were echoed by Alina Habba, another attorney representing Trump, who denounced the verdict as a “manifest injustice” resulting from a politically motivated witch hunt.
Throughout the proceedings, Trump consistently dismissed the trial as politically motivated, accusing both Engoron and James of partisan bias. His legal team also criticized the absence of a jury in the trial, questioning the fairness of the proceedings.
Attorney General Letitia James, who spearheaded the lawsuit against Trump and his organization, portrayed the ruling as a victory for accountability and transparency in business practices. The lawsuit alleged fraudulent conduct and sought substantial financial penalties, a portion of which would contribute to the state treasury.
The fallout from the case extends beyond Trump and his business interests, with implications for the broader business community and the rule of law. The contentious nature of the trial and its outcome underscored deep divisions and raised questions about the integrity of the legal system.
Trump vows to appeal the decision.
Israel5 days ago
Iran-backed Houthis recruiting ‘thousands’ of children after Oct 7 massacre
China7 days ago
Explosive testimony: Bobulinski testifies Joe Biden had ‘central role’ in family’s overseas business
National Security6 days ago
Authorities catch Afghan national on terror watchlist at southern CA border
Immigration7 days ago
BREAKING: House votes to impeach DHS Secretary Mayorkas