The White House Intervened on Behalf of Accused Sex Trafficker Andrew Tate During a Federal Investigation

[essentialsaltes]

Online influencer Andrew Tate, a self-described misogynist who has millions of young male followers, was facing allegations of sex trafficking women in three countries when he and his brother left their home in Romania to visit the United States.

“The Tates will be free, Trump is the president. The good old days are back,” Tate posted on X before the trip in February — one of many times he has sung the president’s praises to his fans.

But when the Tate brothers arrived by private plane in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, they immediately found themselves in the crosshairs of law enforcement once more, as Customs and Border Protection officials seized their electronic devices.

This time, they had a powerful ally come to their aid. Behind the scenes, the White House intervened on their behalf.

Interviews and records reviewed by ProPublica show a White House official told senior Department of Homeland Security officials to return the devices to the brothers several days after they were seized. The official who delivered the message, Paul [Nazi Streak] Ingrassia, is a lawyer who previously represented the Tate brothers before joining the White House, where he was working as its DHS liaison.

The White House declined to answer questions about whether Ingrassia was acting on his own or representing the White House’s wishes.

It’s unclear why law enforcement wanted to examine the devices, what their analysis found or whether Ingrassia’s intervention hindered any investigation. The White House and DHS declined to answer questions about the incident. [the Tates' lawyer-slash-Ingrassia's former boss says they haven't gotten their phones back.]

But law enforcement experts said it is highly unusual for the White House to get involved in particular border seizures or to demand authorities give up custody of potential evidence in an investigation.

Ingrassia’s lawyer, Edward Paltzik, said in a text message: “Mr. Ingrassia never ordered that the Tate Brothers’ devices be returned to them, nor did he say — and nor would he have ever said — that such a directive came from the White House. This story is fiction, simply not true.”

 

[rambot]

I am surprised zero.

I feel like I even had predicted that this was probable...just don't wanna take the time to necro the thread

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What creates a potential "muddying of the waters" is the past documented corruption of the Romanian government itself (and DIICOT in particular)

In a perfect world, various nations all have reputable governance, and their various special agencies (like anti-Organized crime task forces) have credibility.

Often times that information-sharing is used as a basis for how people arriving in another country are handed by that country's customs/border officials.

For example. If a foreign national is arriving in the US from Canada, and Canada's data system shows that the person is on the watchlist and credibly suspected of being a hacker/cyberterrorist, I'd feel pretty confident in that assessment coming from a country like Canada, and it would be completely warranted and reasonable for CBP to seize certain tech devices from them at the border based on Canada's word of "Hey, watch out for this guy"

I don't have the same confidence in Eastern European governments. They're still arguably some of the most corrupt governments on the planet.

With DIICOT in particular, there is past corruption documented involving shenanigans such as (but probably not limited to)
1) Going after journalists who are publishing unflattering things about the "in-power party" on trumped up charges
2) Targeting wealthy people with trumped up charges, and then offering to make those charges go away in exchange for certain "financial arrangements"
3) Going after certain "local powers" at the behest of other "local powers" (in exchange for financial arrangements one would assume)


So while it's completely plausible that Andrew Tate did all of the things DIICOT has alleged...

It's also still plausible that DIICOT targeted him the same way that occurred in this story:

Romania: Former Top Prosecutor Sentenced for Trying to Help Businessman Avoid Prison

Romania's High Court of Cassation and Justice sentenced the former head of the country’s Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT) to four years in prison on Tuesday for attempting to help a businessman dodge jail time for corruption, local media reported.

www.occrp.org

The actual director of DIICOT was engaging in those kinds of shakedown tactics, so there's no reason to believe that the rank-in-file and mid-level people in that organization wouldn't be prone to doing the same type of thing.

 

[rambot]

Corrupt governments protect their monied interests.

Why would they protext a suspected human trafficker?

You are "Welcome to be skeptical of Eastern European governments" but if you are familiar with Andrew Tates ethos, human trafficking is essentially something he encourages. To be "Skeptical of the charges against tate" because the government may not be awesome, really means little.


Also, it bears little relevance to the topic of this thread.

I mean the Tate brother's old lawyer now works for the White House...
And you're worried about random corruption in Romania; implying it happenned with Tate?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Corrupt governments protect their monied interests.

Why would they protext a suspected human trafficker?

You are "Welcome to be skeptical of Eastern European governments" but if you are familiar with Andrew Tates ethos, human trafficking is essentially something he encourages. To be "Skeptical of the charges against tate" because the government may not be awesome, really means little.


Also, it bears little relevance to the topic of this thread.

I mean the Tate brother's old lawyer now works for the White House...
And you're worried about random corruption in Romania; implying it happenned with Tate?

He's still technically a dual citizen (of the US and Great Britain)

I don't like the precedent of "Let's restrict the rights of American citizens and seize property via CBP" based on the word of a corrupt agency in a corrupt country.


Obviously you're a Canadian citizen...

If you'd made some sort of trip to the US for vacation. temporary residency for work, etc... While you're here, participated in some sort of left-leaning protest, or did something else that made some right-leaning enemies while you were here.

When you went to go back to Canada, Canadian customs agents scanned your passport, and found that Trump DOJ has designated you as a potential extremist, and as a result, the customs agents took your phone and laptop so they could go digging around on them.

You comfortable with that arrangement?

Or are you of the mindset that your rights within your own country and entering your own border shouldn't be dictated by the "word" of (what I presume you'd classify as) a corrupt executive branch in another country?

Now, whatever you feel the level of corruption is that exists in the Trump DOJ that would give you concerns with that arrangement...multiply that be a significant factor, and that would explain the concerns with the Romanian agency in question.