$10M cash withdrawal drove secret probe into whether Trump took money from Egypt

Five days before Donald Trump became president in January 2017, a manager at a bank branch in Cairo received an unusual letter from an organization linked to the Egyptian intelligence service. It asked the bank to “kindly withdraw” nearly $10 million from the organization’s account — all in cash.

[OCS: Carefully notice the timeline, the involvement of the intelligence agencies, the $10 million in cash, and the lack of indication of the origin of the original suspicions and allegations.]

Inside the state-run National Bank of Egypt, employees were soon busy placing bundles of $100 bills into two large bags, according to records from the bank. Four men arrived and carried away the bags, which U.S. officials later described in sealed court filings as weighing a combined 200 pounds and containing what was then a sizable share of Egypt’s reserve of U.S. currency.

Federal investigators learned of the withdrawal, which has not been previously reported, early in 2019. The discovery intensified a secret criminal investigation that had begun two years earlier with classified U.S. intelligence indicating that Egyptian President Abdel Fatah El-Sisi sought to give Trump $10 million to boost his 2016 presidential campaign, a Washington Post investigation has found.

[OCS: The Washington Post is a progressive communist democrat media outlet and the recipient of leaks from the White House, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies. It is little more than a transcription service for the progressive communist democrat regime.

Since receiving the intelligence about Sisi, the Justice Department had been examining whether money moved from Cairo to Trump, potentially violating federal law that bans U.S. candidates from taking foreign funds. Investigators had also sought to learn if money from Sisi might have factored into Trump’s decision in the final days of his run for the White House to inject his campaign with $10 million of his own money.

[OCS: One might think that, in five years, the matter could have been investigated and dropped. However, remember it’s the timing of the headlines that does the damage—with exonerations and retractions coming years later, if at all.]

At least in the view of several investigators on the case, those questions would never be answered, The Post found.

[OCS: You can’t prove a negative or exploit a coincidence, so you turn to procedural crimes like obstruction of justice and perjury, which exploit old memory lapses and misstatements.]

Within months of learning of the withdrawal, prosecutors and FBI agents were blocked by top Justice Department officials from obtaining bank records they believed might hold critical evidence, according to interviews with people familiar with the case as well as documents and contemporaneous notes of the investigation. The case ground to a halt by the fall of 2019 as Trump’s then-attorney general, William P. Barr, raised doubts about whether there was sufficient evidence to continue the probe of Trump.

[OCS: And, casting routine office findings and decisions in a suspicious light. This leads to the regime’s creation of media talking points, which will be amplified in the media’s echo chamber and justified by pointing to the story appearing in a “credible” news outlet.]

The behind-the-scenes drama played out during an especially tense time for the Justice Department, with Trump accusing the agency of pursuing a politically biased “witch hunt” against him in its probe of Russian election interference, his appointees seeking to rein in investigators they saw as partisan, and some career supervisors growing wary of plunging the agency into yet another legal battle with the president.

[OCS: Was this a back-up to the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax, which has now been thoroughly discredited as a Hillary Clinton dirty tricks project, or is it a new hoax cobbled together for the 2024 presidential election?]

Barr directed Jessie Liu, the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in D.C., to personally examine the classified intelligence to evaluate if further investigation was warranted. Barr later instructed FBI Director Christopher A. Wray to impose “adult supervision” on FBI agents Barr described as “hell-bent” on pursuing Trump’s records, according to people familiar with the exchange. It is unclear what if any actions Wray, who was also appointed by Trump, took in response.

[OCS: Notice how they impute malign partisan motives based on who appointed the individual and ignore that these individuals have taken an oath to the U.S. Constitution and not the regime in power.

Yes, partisans exist, and they do bad things, but it should not be an automatic assumption that the individual will mindlessly act on behalf of their nominator.

It was also confirmed that, during this period, malign investigators were fishing for dirt on Donald Trump and seeking to sift his records for any smudge available.]

In June of 2020, the prosecutor Barr appointed to take over the office leading the case closed the probe, citing “a lack of sufficient evidence to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt.”

[OCS: A routine finding and decision that did not end in an indictment and should have remained a secret as disclosure would damage the individuals’ reputations.]

That conclusion belied the months of internal disagreements over whether investigators had been allowed to go far enough in seeking that evidence.

[OCS: Nothing would have satisfied investigators seeking dirt on Trump, but it is a useful plot point to allege, without proof, the whiff of special treatment or wrongdoing to justify the current narrative being crafted.]

“Every American should be concerned about how this case ended,” said one of the people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the internal dissension. “The Justice Department is supposed to follow evidence wherever it leads — it does so all the time to determine if a crime occurred or not.”

[OCS: The current attempt to interfere in the 2024 presidential election begins anew—days before the election and with time to marinate in the media. It is all pushed forward by the usual suspects: the regime’s leakers, the “people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the internal dissension.”

Read the rest of the bullshit attack on candidate Trump here.]