In the days leading up to Donald Trump‘s inauguration as president in 2017, a $10 million cash withdrawal in Cairo triggered a covert investigation by the Justice Department. The probe aimed to uncover potential financial backing from the Egyptian government to Trump.
What Happened: The investigation focused on a $9.998 million withdrawal from a state-run Egyptian bank. The U.S. intelligence community suspected that the funds might have been intended to support Trump’s campaign.
The withdrawal involved two individuals departing from Cairo’s National Bank of Egypt with large bags filled with $100 bills, weighing a total of 200 pounds.
According to a report by The Washington Post, the disclosure of this transaction in 2019 amplified an ongoing investigation into classified U.S. intelligence suggesting that Egyptian President Abdel Fatah El-Sisi was trying to funnel money to Trump. The internal probe, known as “Team 10,” was discreetly examining the potential of illegal foreign contributions to Trump’s campaign.
Despite the growing evidence, the case encountered significant internal opposition. High-ranking Justice Department officials, including then-Attorney General William Barr, cast doubt on the investigation’s credibility, effectively halting the case by mid-2019.
Barr’s reluctance to advance the investigation was perceived by some as an attempt to stop the DOJ from partaking in what Trump frequently denounced as a politically driven “witch hunt.”
When the investigation officially concluded in June 2020, no direct evidence had been discovered linking Trump’s campaign to the Egyptian funds.
However, some within the Justice Department argued that the case was closed prematurely due to political considerations rather than a lack of evidence, leaving crucial questions unresolved.
Why It Matters: The investigation’s closure without definitive evidence linking the Egyptian funds to Trump’s campaign raises questions about the influence of political considerations on the Justice Department’s decision-making process.
The premature closure of the case, despite the presence of substantial evidence, suggests potential political interference in the department’s operations.
This incident underscores the need for transparency and independence in the Justice Department’s investigations to maintain public trust in the institution.
Check This Out:
- Lawmakers Made Huge Investments This Year. Get Tips On What They Bought And Sold Ahead Of The 2024 Election With Our Easy-to-Use Tool
This content was partially produced with the help of Benzinga Neuro and was reviewed and published by Benzinga editors.
© 2024 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
Comments
Trade confidently with insights and alerts from analyst ratings, free reports and breaking news that affects the stocks you care about.
