New Details: Las Vegas Shooter Suspected of Financing Terrorism
Eight months ago, 64-year old Stephen Paddock opened fire on concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival in Las Vegas. The FBI and local law enforcement have insisted that the shooting, the worst in modern history, was not terrorism-related. Disturbing new court documents suggest that is a lie.
Coming up on the one-year anniversary of the Las Vegas shooting that left 58 people dead and more than 800 injured, we are finally getting answers. And none of them paint a good picture for the FBI and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Just hours after the tragedy, both agencies quickly claimed that Paddock had no ties to ISIS or any other terrorist organization. However, a recently released police report indicates that at least one of Paddock’s bank accounts was closed over suspicions he financed international terrorism.
Worse still, the FBI and Las Vegas PD knew about it before the shooting.
In the report, LVMPD officer Andre Bates (working with DHS) acknowledged that law enforcement knew the bank closed one of his accounts and why.
“With all of the high money withdrawals, they felt it was terrorist-related,” the report states.
Speaking to Laura Loomer, FBI sources confirmed that when a bank suspects an account holder of money laundering or terrorist financing and closes their account, they must report it. Using the suspicious activity report form “a bank reports the suspicious activity to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network or FINCEN.
“If the bank followed protocol in conducting a suspicious activity report which would have been submitted to FINCEN, then the FBI and other federal agencies would have had access to that information, which means the Las Vegas shooting could have possibly been prevented,” said the source.
So, that means that either the FBI never checked FINCEN, or they did and chose to disregard the report. At best, this is total negligence and at worst it wreaks of another cover-up. In light of other questionable decisions in the investigation, the latter makes more sense.