Fogbow

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 9:11 am Kate's back!!!!!!!!

AndyinPA wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 10:21 am I don't think there's any amount of bail that would guarantee he can't skip it.

somerset wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 9:34 pm 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 . . . .

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:38 pm

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.

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

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 10:44 am

somerset wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 9:34 pm 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 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 10:50 am

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:38 pm

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.

somerset wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 1:22 pm 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.

somerset wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 1:05 pm

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 10:44 am

somerset wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 9:34 pm 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).

johnpcapitalist wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 1:40 pm

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

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 3:02 pm

somerset wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 1:05 pm

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 10:44 am

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 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 3:25 pm 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.