Legal AF by MeidasTouch - JD Vance makes Stunning Confession on Live TV

Episode Date: October 16, 2025

Leave it to VP JD Vance to CONFESS on live television that a Tom Homan Bribery VIDEO exists, during his testy interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. Michael Popok caught what others missed, in JD exchange with George, as JD tries to characterize $50,000 in bribe money in a paper bag handed to Homan the Border Czar, as just a run of the mill, garden variety $50,000 bag of cash like others Homan has accepted in the past?!? Subscribe:  @LegalAFMTN  Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! MeidasTouch relies on SnapStream to record, watch, monitor, and clip the news. Get a FREE TRIAL of SnapStream by clicking here: https://go.snapstream.com/affiliate/meidastouch/meidasnews?utm_campaign=4490308-affiliate2025&utm_content=customerpartner Support the MeidasTouch Network: https://patreon.com/meidastouch Add the MeidasTouch Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-meidastouch-podcast/id1510240831 Buy MeidasTouch Merch: https://store.meidastouch.com Follow MeidasTouch on Twitter: https://twitter.com/meidastouch Follow MeidasTouch on Facebook: https://facebook.com/meidastouch Follow MeidasTouch on Instagram: https://instagram.com/meidastouch Follow MeidasTouch on TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@meidastouch Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

While other money managers are holding, Dynamic is hunting. Seeing past the horizon, investing beyond the benchmark, because your money can't grow if it doesn't move. Learn more at dynamic.ca.c slash active. Well, J.D. Vance went on George Stephanopoulos' show and effectively confessed that there is a Tom Holman bribery video. See, George Stephanopoulos kept asking him about all. audio surveillance. And in response, he said, I don't know what video you're talking about. Thanks, J.D. We can always count on you to make scandals get worse for the Trump administration, not better, especially when you go on television. I'm Michael Popock. We're covering the Tom

Holman bribery scandal because nobody on the right wing will dare to touch it with a 10-foot pole because they've been threatened, I'm sure, by the Trump administration. Tom Homan is the borders are. Here are the facts on Midas Touch and legal A.F. Tom Oman was not the Bordersar in November of 2024, but he was already announced that he was going to be the border czar for Donald Trump. He met with two undercover FBI agents he thought were federal contractors. They met at a restaurant named Kava. There was a $50,000 cash shoved into a Kava takeout bag and it was pushed across the table to Tom Homan. According to the FBI, agents and things that have leaked out about it.

Tom Homan said, I'm going to keep the money. I'm going to keep the money in my escrow or trust account. I'm not going to take the money or use it until I deliver on my promises. The promises were in the exchange for the $50,000 that he would help through his role, as the borders are, direct certain federal contracts to certain vendors represented by what he thought were these two gentlemen who were undercover FBI agents. You know there's surveillance video and audio. And ever since we learned about those surveillance videos,

the Democrats of the Senate have tried to get it, and ultimately there's been a lawsuit file to get the video and audio. And every time you ask somebody in an administration position, every time you ask somebody in an administration position about whether the audio or video will be released, they act like they don't know what you're talking about. They're like you're not speaking English. We had Pam Bondi in her Senate confirmation here,

and go, I don't know what audio or video you're talking about. Now we've got J.D. Vance who admits there's a video. Let's run the interview. Tom Homan was recorded on an FBI surveillance tape in September 2024, accepting $50,000 in cash. Did he keep that money or give it back? 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 and 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 one who 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. 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? George, this story has been covered ad nauseum. 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? illegal, and there's absolutely no evidence that Tom Holmes has ever taken a bribe with, anything illegal, which is why is working in the administration. I'm asking you, did he accept the $50,000 that was

caught on the surveillance tape? Did he accept that $50,000 or not? George, I don't know what you're talking about. Did he accept $50,000 for what? He was recorded on an audio tape in September 2024, an FBI surveillance tape accepting $50,000 in cash. Did he keep that money? 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. 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.

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 of 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.

Did you catch it there? Stephanopas kept saying audio, audio, surveillance, audio. And the JD 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 way they're conflating and alighting around in the new language that they're using around the Tom Homan scandal. It's not that he didn't take $50,000. it's that he deserved it, it's that he earned it, 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 returned it. I want to see Tom Homan'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 at STR. And if you bring it in below $50,000, let's say you do $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 can be guilty of structuring. And that's also a red flag behind a bank. Is it in his mattress? Did he give it to somebody else who deposited it?

Where it's not for me, follow the money. But 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 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.

What became of the $50,000 in cash that the FBI delivered, evidently in a paper bag, to Mr. Homan? Senator, I'd look at your facts. Are you saying that they did not deliver $50,000 in cash to Mr. Homan? Senator, as recently stated, the investigation of Mr. Homan was subjected to a full review. They found no evidence of wrongdoing. That's a different question. What became of the $50,000? Senator White House, you're welcome to talk to the FBI.

The report to you, can't you answer this question? Senator White House, you're welcome to discuss this with Director Patel. Did Homan keep the $50,000? As Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche recently stated, the investigation of Mr. Holman was to be a full review by the FBI agents and the DOJ. They found no credible evidence of wrongdoing. 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? You would have to talk to Director Patel about that. No, I'm talking to you. I don't know the answer, Senator. You do know the answer to that. Don't call me a liar. I didn't call you a liar. You just said I know the answer.

I said I don't know the answer. Well, you have to talk to Director Patel. What I said is that investigation was closed. If you don't know, why don't you know whether there was a tape and video? Senator, I believe that was resolved prior to my confirmation as Attorney General. 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 Holman? 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 know. It is, 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? You're not going to sit here and slander Tom Homan. The FBI and Deputy Director Blanche said there was nothing. I'm not slamming Tom Homan. He got to 50 grand. How do you know that? Tom Homan is doing a great job, as our borders are, keeping your borders stay safe. 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. 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'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 recuse myself from all federal contracts. I won't have any decision-making in everything. any federal contract, but people are, including this recent case, people are saying, I'm going to line the pockets of people. The hip pieces keep coming, but I know who's chumming the water.

I know who keeps showing these disinformation out, and the media jumps all over it. And they're going to see some legal actions real soon. I'm working on the legal team. I'm done with it. Now, once again, we got an ABC, a 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 E. Jean Carroll called Donald Trump a rapist when he should have called him apparently a sex abuser. E. Jean 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 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're at a, 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 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's 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's 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 Wright, 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 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 Kim along, because Jimmy Kimmel made a comment about Charlie Kirk, 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've got another George Stephanopoulos problem. We'll see what they're going to do. I mean, owned by Disney. It's hard to believe that Disney is the same company than the first term stood up against Donald Trump about the LGBTQ plus 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 is way around. Taking $50,000 isn't a bribe. It's just an accepting cash. He's loved to have cash. I'm sure he's taking other $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 don't think you're entitled to it. Just as a side note, P.S. 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 Popock. 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 LegalAF YouTube channel as well. So until my next report, this is Michael. Can't get your fill of LegalAF. Me neither.

That's why we form the LegalAF substack. 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 and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do call, wait for it, morning AF. What else? All the other contributors from LegalAF 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 A-F on substack. Come over now to free subscribe.