USA v. Barrack, Grimes, etc.

Abandon reality, all ye who enter here. *Democracy*Under*Threat*
chancery
Posts: 442
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:24 pm

Re: USA v. Barrack, Grimes, etc.

#101

Post by chancery »

Thanks FP. And after some thought I guess I'm glad that Barrack isn't required to fund his own watchdogs.

Such arrangements have been roundly denounced, for good reason. Has the government stopped using them?


User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 5644
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: USA v. Barrack, Grimes, etc.

#102

Post by Kendra »

Opinion

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/23/opin ... V3wp9342Xc
Once upon a time, it would have been huge news if the chairman of the former president’s inaugural committee was indicted on charges of acting as an agent of a foreign power.

Donald Trump’s presidency, however, has left us with scandal inflation. At this point many of the leading figures from his 2016 campaign have been either indicted or convicted, even if they were later pardoned. The C.F.O. of Trump’s company was charged with tax fraud less than a month ago.

So when the billionaire real estate investor Tom Barrack, one of Trump’s biggest fund-raisers, was arrested on Tuesday and charged with acting as an unregistered agent of the United Arab Emirates along with other felonies, it might have seemed like a dog-bites-man story. Barrack was once described by longtime Trump strategist Roger Stone — a felon, naturally — as the ex-president’s best friend. If you knew nothing else about Barrack but that, you might have guessed he’d end up in handcuffs.


User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 3415
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation:: We build cars

Re: USA v. Barrack, Grimes, etc.

#103

Post by Gregg »

Frater I*I wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 4:44 pm
Maybenaut wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 10:30 am
Volkonski wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 10:24 am Make him take Amtrak. Lock him in a roomette for the trip. ;)
Make him travel coach.
Amtrak coach is much nicer that Airline coach

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... achcar.jpg

Make him sit with the unwashed masses in United's "Economy" :twisted:
I know Columbian Jail cells better than Airline Coach, especially United "Economy" which is more accurately called "Penal Class"


Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 3415
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation:: We build cars

Re: USA v. Barrack, Grimes, etc.

#104

Post by Gregg »

dan1100 wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 7:01 pm
fierceredpanda wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 10:17 am I'm not super worried about him fleeing given these conditions. What people here need to understand is that Barrack is going to be under round-the-clock surveillance. Contra Jacob Wohl, Barrack is not charged with a FARA violation, he's charged with a much more serious violation of 18 USC 951, or being an active agent of a foreign government. Spies are charged under that statute. He's going to have babysitters everywhere he goes to make sure he doesn't 1) make contact with a foreign handler or 2) attempt to flee the jurisdiction. If he goes near a private jet, he's going to have friends very quickly.
^^^This, if for no other reason than nobody wants to be the AUSA who let Barrack escape. If there aren't 10 guys assigned to watch him full time, I'd be shocked.

My upthread comment notwithstanding, no pilot who ever wants to fly in US Airspace again will fly him so much as to Toronto. They wouldn't shoot him down (its doubtful they could, we don't, for the most part, have armed jets roaming the skies over the US and the "ready intercept" planes on the ground are for national defense, not law enforcement.)

If he was dumb enough to do it, and really dumb enough to fly in say, the DC Protective Airspace or other places that do have armed fighter jets in the air, they'd let him go or at most try to force by maneuver make him land, a tricky little piece of flying under the best of circumstances.

No, if he attempts it, the most likely way they'd stop him is the FBI agents who are trailing him will park a Government Issue Crown Victoria across the runway in front of the jet.


Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
dan1100
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 9:26 am

Re: USA v. Barrack, Grimes, etc.

#105

Post by dan1100 »

Gregg wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 7:51 pm
dan1100 wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 7:01 pm
fierceredpanda wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 10:17 am :snippity: He's going to have babysitters everywhere he goes to make sure he doesn't 1) make contact with a foreign handler or 2) attempt to flee the jurisdiction. If he goes near a private jet, he's going to have friends very quickly.
^^^This, if for no other reason than nobody wants to be the AUSA who let Barrack escape. If there aren't 10 guys assigned to watch him full time, I'd be shocked.
:snippity:

No, if he attempts it, the most likely way they'd stop him is the FBI agents who are trailing him will park a Government Issue Crown Victoria across the runway in front of the jet.
Or they'll stop his limo, yank him out, and cuff him and stuff him on the exit ramp to get to the airport.


User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 5644
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: USA v. Barrack, Grimes, etc.

#106

Post by Kendra »



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 5644
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: USA v. Barrack, Grimes, etc.

#107

Post by Kendra »



:?: The gentleman in the back with the Traitor sign, does anyone else see a resemblance to the white haired/bearded gentleman who protested at the Manafort trials?


User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 5644
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: USA v. Barrack, Grimes, etc.

#108

Post by Kendra »



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 5644
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: USA v. Barrack, Grimes, etc.

#109

Post by Kendra »


Former Trump inaugural chair Tom Barrack's first court appearance since pleading not guilty is slated to begin soon.

Background,
@lawcrimenews


User avatar
orlylicious
Posts: 3756
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: USA v. Barrack, Grimes, etc.

#110

Post by orlylicious »

That was fast :lol: Next stop November 2.

Adam Klasfeld @KlasfeldReports 45m

AUSA: Prosecutors have produced more than 100,000 pages of documents; discovery remains ongoing.

Judge: What percentage of total discovery is that?

AUSA: It's a little difficult to say.

Adam Klasfeld @KlasfeldReports 33m

The brief hearing apprising the court of discovery matters concludes.

The judge wishes everyone a happy Labor Day weekend and for those who celebrate, the upcoming Jewish holidays.

Next court date is tentatively set Nov. 2, with a Nov. 16 backup date.


Fogbowzers 💙 titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot
Official Fogbow Theme™ Edith Massey's "I've Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
Randy Rainbow is Fogbow's Favourite Comedian™
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 5644
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: USA v. Barrack, Grimes, etc.

#111

Post by Kendra »

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/23/politics ... index.html
(CNN)Federal prosecutors in New York have asked a judge to inquire about potential conflicts of interest in their case against an employee of Tom Barrack, a former adviser to then-President Donald Trump who is facing federal foreign lobbying charges.

Matthew Grimes, an assistant to Barrack at his company Colony Capital, was charged along with Barrack in July with acting as a back channel for the United Arab Emirates to influence US policy during Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and his time in office. Prosecutors with the US Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York are now raising questions about potential conflicts of interest after learning that Grimes' co-defendant and former boss is paying his legal fees.

In a letter to the judge on Thursday, the prosecutors advised that they had recently learned about the fee arrangement, in which Barrack "has agreed to advance Grimes' legal fees." They asked the judge to inquire with Grimes whether he understands the potential conflict of interest, including whether his' lawyer will provide the best legal advice for him or for Barrack, who is paying his bill.

"The Fees Agreement, which was executed after the defendants were arrested has the potential to affect defense counsel's advice, including (1) whether to seek possible leniency by cooperating with the government against Barrack (the party who is paying his legal fees), and (2) whether Grimes should testify in his own defense at trial, where such testimony might implicate Barrack," the prosecutors wrote.

Grimes' attorney Abbe Lowell said, "We have discussed this issue with the government and the response we file will make clear that no issue exists here and any concern raised is misplaced."
:oldlady: Didn't Lowell once upon a time represent Jarvanka?


User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 8159
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:06 am
Location: Texoma and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation:: Retired mechanical engineer
Contact:

Re: USA v. Barrack, Grimes, etc.

#112

Post by Volkonski »




Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
2h
Billionaire Tom Barrack, the former Trump inaugural committee chair, is back in court for a pre-trial hearing on allegations that he acted as an unregistered agent of the UAE.

I'll be following live for
@LawCrimeNews
.


“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.” ― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace
User avatar
poplove
Posts: 552
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:20 pm
Location: Las Vegas NV

Re: USA v. Barrack, Grimes, etc.

#113

Post by poplove »

emptywheel
@emptywheel
Just for shits and giggles, I want to post the list of people who might be witnesses or get mentioned at Tom Barrack's trial, which starts in 7 weeks.


User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm

Re: USA v. Barrack, Grimes, etc.

#114

Post by Kriselda Gray »

poplove wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 2:38 am
emptywheel
@emptywheel
Just for shits and giggles, I want to post the list of people who might be witnesses or get mentioned at Tom Barrack's trial, which starts in 7 weeks.
Interesting list - I just wish emptywheel had mentioned that it started on like page 49 out of 52 :mrgreen: :lol:


:thor:
Слава Україні!
Героям слава!

Proud recipient of the Imperial Illuminati Air Force Order of the Golden Wiener with
Device for grammatical valor attached.
User avatar
Phoenix520
Posts: 2551
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:20 pm

Re: USA v. Barrack, Grimes, etc.

#115

Post by Phoenix520 »

Wait, Wilbur Ross is awake?


User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 6038
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps

Re: USA v. Barrack, Grimes, etc.

#116

Post by RTH10260 »

Question: is that a standard type of questionaire? In that length? I would consider that an invasion of privacy, even a job applications does not get to ask such details. I guess I could skip jury duty :think:


User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 6038
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps

Re: USA v. Barrack, Grimes, etc.

#117

Post by RTH10260 »

Kriselda Gray wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 3:47 am
poplove wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 2:38 am
emptywheel
@emptywheel
Just for shits and giggles, I want to post the list of people who might be witnesses or get mentioned at Tom Barrack's trial, which starts in 7 weeks.
Interesting list - I just wish emptywheel had mentioned that it started on like page 49 out of 52 :mrgreen: :lol:
I didn't last so long - thank you for where to look :dance:


User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 5644
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: USA v. Barrack, Grimes, etc.

#118

Post by Kendra »

Thanks for the heads up going to the last pages. George Nader? Yikes.


User avatar
bob
Posts: 2680
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: USA v. Barrack, Grimes, etc.

#119

Post by bob »

RTH10260 wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 7:53 am Question: is that a standard type of questionaire? In that length? I would consider that an invasion of privacy, even a job applications does not get to ask such details. I guess I could skip jury duty :think:
Yes and no: Long, intrusive juror questionnaires are common enough for big, high-stakes trials.

But they are in the judge's discretion; a judge can limit "unnecessary" questions, which is often the case for relatively minor cases.

The invasiveness of the questions also is with the judge's discretion. But in the United States, litigants have a fairly expansive right to inquire about potential jurors' potential biases.

Having said that, it is also common enough for potential jurors to simply not answer particular questions, and suffer no consequences (and no follow up).


Image ImageImage
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 5644
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: USA v. Barrack, Grimes, etc.

#120

Post by Kendra »


Meanwhile, in the Tom Barrack case, Barrack is using the very very remote possibility that the Former President will be a witness in his defense in an attempt to exclude jurors who loathe Donald Trump.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .178.0.pdf

Anyway, here are some more of the comments prospective jurors in Barrack's trial have made about Trump in their questionnaire.


User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 5644
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: USA v. Barrack, Grimes, etc.

#121

Post by Kendra »


During jury selection for the upcoming trial of billionaire Tom Barrack, an ex-Trump inaugural committee chairman, candidates will not be dismissed out of hand for expressing "merely some dislike of former
President Donald Trump" — if they can vow to be fair.


User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 3415
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation:: We build cars

Re: USA v. Barrack, Grimes, etc.

#122

Post by Gregg »

So, with a little luck on which judge you pull, is "jurors with no red hat were seated" be a defect worthy of a reversal on appeal?


Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 2680
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: USA v. Barrack, Grimes, etc.

#123

Post by bob »

The standard is when reviewing jury selection generally is abuse of discretion, which is difficult to prove. As discretion implies the authority to make decisions that you personally might not make. It is more than "I disagree."

The DC Circuit isn't populated entirely by crazies. So getting two on the same panel is uncommon. And any panel decision can be reviewed by the full circuit court.


Image ImageImage
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 5644
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: USA v. Barrack, Grimes, etc.

#124

Post by Kendra »


Jury selection set to begin in Trump ally, Tom Barack’s, foreign agent trial.


User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 5644
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: USA v. Barrack, Grimes, etc.

#125

Post by Kendra »


Key: Trump WH press release produced by UAE. Will prosecutors be able to link that to Barrack, which would be central to FARA charge.
In Tom Barrack's trial, govt's witnesses talks about MBZ & MBS consolidation of power in their countries, & how they pour millions to Barrack's firm
They also found out that White House press release in favor of UAE was actually produced by UAE embassy.
https://politico.com/newsletters/politi ... l-00058483


Post Reply

Return to “The Big Lie & Aftermath of The Former Guy”