USA v. Barrack, Grimes, etc.

[tek]

Off Topic

Let's hope he isn't 'Epsteined' before he spills the beans on Vanky and the gang.

Sunday will never be the same.

[Phoenix520]

I wonder if Barrak had a hand in the $100 million loan/infusion the OSG’s campaign received from the Egyptian government (allegedly) right before the 2016 election?

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Kate's back!!!!!!!!

[northland10]

Kate's back!!!!!!!!

[AndyinPA]

I don't think there's any amount of bail that would guarantee he can't skip it.

[Azastan]

I don't think there's any amount of bail that would guarantee he can't skip it.

So the federal government would receive the forfeited bail and the bailee would be stuck in where, the UAE? Lebanon?

He'd never clear his name, wouldn't be able to travel to countries where he could be extradited.

[Kendra]

From what I hear, he's used to jet setting all over the world. Being stuck in UAE or whatever would suck big time.

[Maybenaut]

Another question I had was, "how real are these charges? Is the government stretching things to make this all sound worse than it really is?" I'm still not convinced that there isn't some embellishment going on . . . .

The charges are real. Anything the government puts in its pleadings it expects to be able to prove. And the indictment has to allege all of the elements of the offense.

[johnpcapitalist]

Thomas Barrack, Trump Fund-Raiser, Indicted on Lobbying Charge

WASHINGTON — Thomas J. Barrack Jr., a close friend of former President Donald J. Trump and one of his top 2016 campaign fund-raisers, was indicted on Tuesday morning on federal charges of violating a federal law requiring lobbyists for foreign interests to disclose their work to the Justice Department.

The indictment charged Mr. Barrack and two other men with failing to register as agents of the United Arab Emirates government. The other two men charged were Matthew Grimes, a former top executive at Mr. Barrack’s company, and Rashid al-Malik Alshahhi, an Emirati businessman who is close to the U.A.E. rulers.

A lot of the GQP types are going to start screaming "process crimes" again, as they think the FARA law is just a paperwork issue. But it's really the tip of the iceberg in the Barrack case. He clearly got paid off, given the timing and volume of the money flowing in... Management fees of 2% on the $2.5 billion they threw at him means $50 million in his pocket every year. IIRC, though, he sold much of the firm off recently, and only owns 10%, so he only nets $5 million a year off of the increased cash. But what he did set the stage for the F-35 deal that the Trump administration announced in 2020.

UAE has been militarizing heavily, which can destabilize the Arabian peninsula. They're building an air base on Mayyam Island, a Yemeni possession at the southern entrance to the Red Sea, a global shipping choke point for any traffic aiming for the Suez Canal en route from Asia to Europe. Since Yemem is a failed state busily imploding in its civil war, the UAE will be manning the place even though it's nominally on Yemeni soil. That essentially gives them veto power over a huge chunk of global commerce. It also allows them another front in case of a future conflict with Saudi Arabia, surrounding it with Sunnis, even as Iran's strategy is to surround Saudi Arabia with a ring of Shiites.

US policy was to keep the F-35 out of the hands of all but the most loyal allies because of its capabilities. Now putting it in the hands of someone whose interests are not thoroughly aligned with the interests of the US is a big issue with complex nuances. Destabilize the entire region so that a billionaire friend of Trump's can net a few million dollars more. I hope they really hammer him for the consequences he brought about by ignoring the FARA law, not just the paperwork issue.

[Kendra]

Almost forgot. Maddow did a great piece on her show last night, with lots of back history going back to 2016 campaign.

[MN-Skeptic]

OK, I have no idea how to title this thread (suggestions?) but, since it's a federal case, not the State of New York, it deserves its own thread.

Barrack Indictment

Emptywheel has been tweeting about this indictment and has this to say:

[Kendra]

Thanks for starting this thread. We're going to need it

[Kendra]

Tom Barrack is so integral to everything in Trump’s universe. His arrest could affect the Trump family in a very significant way.
@glennkirschner2

@TheRickWilson

@KlasfeldReports

[Chilidog]

i wonder how much he was involved with the UAE 666 Kushner building lease.

i understand that Vornado is part owners of that building as well.

[AndyinPA]

I hope he means that negatively.

I heard the former guy called the victim by some talking head. Maybe. But if the former guy were upset by this at all, it might be that he didn't get a cut.

[somerset]

Another question I had was, "how real are these charges? Is the government stretching things to make this all sound worse than it really is?" I'm still not convinced that there isn't some embellishment going on . . . .

The charges are real. Anything the government puts in its pleadings it expects to be able to prove. And the indictment has to allege all of the elements of the offense.

I see.

I guess a better term would have been "substantial." What I was wondering about wasn't so much if the charges are provable, but whether they're significant crimes or relatively minor infractions ("process crimes," as JPC mentions).

[somerset]

Thomas Barrack, Trump Fund-Raiser, Indicted on Lobbying Charge

WASHINGTON — Thomas J. Barrack Jr., a close friend of former President Donald J. Trump and one of his top 2016 campaign fund-raisers, was indicted on Tuesday morning on federal charges of violating a federal law requiring lobbyists for foreign interests to disclose their work to the Justice Department.

The indictment charged Mr. Barrack and two other men with failing to register as agents of the United Arab Emirates government. The other two men charged were Matthew Grimes, a former top executive at Mr. Barrack’s company, and Rashid al-Malik Alshahhi, an Emirati businessman who is close to the U.A.E. rulers.

A lot of the GQP types are going to start screaming "process crimes" again, as they think the FARA law is just a paperwork issue. But it's really the tip of the iceberg in the Barrack case. He clearly got paid off, given the timing and volume of the money flowing in... Management fees of 2% on the $2.5 billion they threw at him means $50 million in his pocket every year. IIRC, though, he sold much of the firm off recently, and only owns 10%, so he only nets $5 million a year off of the increased cash. But what he did set the stage for the F-35 deal that the Trump administration announced in 2020.

UAE has been militarizing heavily, which can destabilize the Arabian peninsula. They're building an air base on Mayyam Island, a Yemeni possession at the southern entrance to the Red Sea, a global shipping choke point for any traffic aiming for the Suez Canal en route from Asia to Europe. Since Yemem is a failed state busily imploding in its civil war, the UAE will be manning the place even though it's nominally on Yemeni soil. That essentially gives them veto power over a huge chunk of global commerce. It also allows them another front in case of a future conflict with Saudi Arabia, surrounding it with Sunnis, even as Iran's strategy is to surround Saudi Arabia with a ring of Shiites.

US policy was to keep the F-35 out of the hands of all but the most loyal allies because of its capabilities. Now putting it in the hands of someone whose interests are not thoroughly aligned with the interests of the US is a big issue with complex nuances. Destabilize the entire region so that a billionaire friend of Trump's can net a few million dollars more. I hope they really hammer him for the consequences he brought about by ignoring the FARA law, not just the paperwork issue.

On a very different, but possibly related issue, I wonder if the recently announced (potential) sale of GlobalFoundries to Intel might have something to do with this. GF has been trying to position itself as a champion of the US semiconductor industry, but is wholly owned by the Mubadala Investment Company, a sovereign wealth fund of Abu Dhabi, UAE. There's been rumblings for the last several years about Mubadala wanting to divest itself of GF (once it became clear that a fab in Abu Dhabi wasn't going to happen), and the US government wants to have GF be a trusted fab for military product. Having Intel acquire GF (with maybe a little help from the US government) might be a clean way to accomplish both of these goals, plus put some distance between the UAE government and US industry and help undo some of the damage Barrack/Trump caused.

[filly]

Sorry if this is a duplicate but the indictment is here: https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/20/politics ... index.html

As for calling this a "process" crime, one has to ask why the burner phone and lying to the FBI about a "process" crime. No doubt the first defense will be that Barrack was not a foreign agent, therefore did not have to register as one. If the government can prove up the facts alleged in the indictment that should fall fairly easily.

[johnpcapitalist]

On a very different, but possibly related issue, I wonder if the recently announced (potential) sale of GlobalFoundries to Intel might have something to do with this. GF has been trying to position itself as a champion of the US semiconductor industry, but is wholly owned by the Mubadala Investment Company, a sovereign wealth fund of Abu Dhabi, UAE. There's been rumblings for the last several years about Mubadala wanting to divest itself of GF (once it became clear that a fab in Abu Dhabi wasn't going to happen), and the US government wants to have GF be a trusted fab for military product. Having Intel acquire GF (with maybe a little help from the US government) might be a clean way to accomplish both of these goals, plus put some distance between the UAE government and US industry and help undo some of the damage Barrack/Trump caused.

Nice catch. I missed that one, since I don't follow the semiconductor industry anywhere as closely as I used to. Yes, given the concerns about Huawei and other foreign chip sources placing bugs in the hardware that push data to Chinese intelligence, verification of silicon is a big issue. We clearly need to onshore more semi fabs and have them owned by US companies (not TSMC).

I suspect that the decision by the UAE to sell GF could easily have been a function of the fact that nobody's going to place a fab in a country without much tech infrastructure and without guaranteed political stability, given the size of the investment. Putting a fab in a country run by an absolute monarch whose whim is law is an existential risk for even a large chip maker, if he decides to nationalize the asset for whatever reason. There are probably also export regulatory issues as well for some of the highly sophisticated semiconductor manufacturing equipment -- the relevant authorities would not allow cutting-edge equipment to go to a risky country lest it disappear one night and end up on a boat to North Korea or Iran.

[Maybenaut]

Another question I had was, "how real are these charges? Is the government stretching things to make this all sound worse than it really is?" I'm still not convinced that there isn't some embellishment going on . . . .

The charges are real. Anything the government puts in its pleadings it expects to be able to prove. And the indictment has to allege all of the elements of the offense.

I see.

I guess a better term would have been "substantial." What I was wondering about wasn't so much if the charges are provable, but whether they're significant crimes or relatively minor infractions ("process crimes," as JPC mentions).

I’d never heard the term “process crime” until a couple of years ago when people started talking about Mike Flynn, and all anyone could ever point to was a Hofstra University Law Review article.

I really doubt the DOJ treats “process crimes” (if there is such a thing) any differently than any other crime. They charge it or they don’t. If they charge it, they either enter into a plea agreement or they don’t. And in the event of a conviction, whatever sentence they recommend is going to be based on the seriousness of the offense, the defendant’s level of cooperation, and things of that nature, all driven by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. I just don’t think there’s an off-ramp for “process crimes.”

[RVInit]

Former guy is known to get pretty darn mad at anyone besides himself profiting from association with him or his name. So, hard to say which way this will go.

But, he will likely support Barrack on this one because otherwise he would have to admit that Barrack successfully manipulated former guys decision making regarding UAE and the Middle East in general.

[somerset]

I suspect that the decision by the UAE to sell GF could easily have been a function of the fact that nobody's going to place a fab in a country without much tech infrastructure and without guaranteed political stability,

Off Topic

Saudi Arabia seems to be addressing the infrastructure part, with King Abdullah University for Science and Technology (KAUST) aggressively recruiting high-profile professors and promising Ph.D students from outside the Arab world to help boost the quality of the university's research. The labs are new and well funded, the professors very well paid, and the students have great scholarships. Personally, I think this is a much better use of petro-dollars than buying luxury hotel chains across Asia

We should talk about Huawei one of these days. I worked in 2012 Labs in Bantian, Shenzhen 2016-2018. My perspective doesn't at all match what is commonly reported

[noblepa]

The charges are real. Anything the government puts in its pleadings it expects to be able to prove. And the indictment has to allege all of the elements of the offense.

I see.

I guess a better term would have been "substantial." What I was wondering about wasn't so much if the charges are provable, but whether they're significant crimes or relatively minor infractions ("process crimes," as JPC mentions).

I’d never heard the term “process crime” until a couple of years ago when people started talking about Mike Flynn, and all anyone could ever point to was a Hofstra University Law Review article.

I really doubt the DOJ treats “process crimes” (if there is such a thing) any differently than any other crime. They charge it or they don’t. If they charge it, they either enter into a plea agreement or they don’t. And in the event of a conviction, whatever sentence they recommend is going to be based on the seriousness of the offense, the defendant’s level of cooperation, and things of that nature, all driven by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. I just don’t think there’s an off-ramp for “process crimes.”

I'm sure that there are cases when someone simply fails to file the proper form, or does it wrong, but is otherwise not engaging in a nefarious activity. I'm also sure that these cases don't rise to the level of prosecution.

I think that the poots are arguing that Barrack's alleged transgressions fall into that category and that he is being targeted simply because he has been a long-time vocal Trump supporter.

I don't for a minute believe that is true. He operated at a very high level and dealt with enormous sums of money, This is far more than a case of a misplaced comma on a form.

As for this investigation being at the behest of the Biden administration (they haven't specifically said that, but I think it is implied), can such an investigation go from beginning to indictment in six months? If not, that means that the investigation was begun under the Trump administration. Six months seems like a rather short period of time for an investigation of this sort.

[noblepa]

Former guy is known to get pretty darn mad at anyone besides himself profiting from association with him or his name. So, hard to say which way this will go.

But, he will likely support Barrack on this one because otherwise he would have to admit that Barrack successfully manipulated former guys decision making regarding UAE and the Middle East in general.

TFG is entirely capable of holding two mutually exclusive opinions simultaneously. So, he would not admit anything.

[bob]

"Process crimes" refer to crimes against "justice," i.e., perjury, contempt, false statements, etc.

In other words, the underlying act itself is legal; it is the lying/coverup/failure to disclose that's illegal.

In Barrack's case, for example, the lobbying for UAE could be illegal, but lying to the FBI about it would be illegal.