The “lobbying” case of Trump ally Tom Barak is actually about national security

WASHINGTON – Wealthy businessman Tom Barack is facing criminal charges, which are often described as “illegal foreign lobbying” or violating “foreign lobbying” laws.

But the U.S. Department of Justice used the federal regulations that charged Barack under Section 951 of the U.S. Criminal Code to prosecute spies, not lobbyists. This means that this case is really about national security.

Barack, the founder of Colonial Capital and a close friend of former President Donald Trump, was arrested on Tuesday. Accused of operating as an agent The government of the United Arab Emirates without notifying the Ministry of Justice.

Barak was also charged with conspiracy, obstruction of justice and lying to federal agents.

On Monday, he appeared in court for the first time in this case, pleaded not guilty and was released on bail of $250 million.

Barack will live in his home in Aspen, Colorado, awaiting trial. His movements will be monitored by an electronic anklet and GPS.

Legal experts who have read the indictment said that the case against Barak could have a serious impact on national security.

It also raises new questions about how foreign governments might take advantage of Trump’s preference for implementing foreign policy through opaque back-office channels.

Prosecutors claimed that beginning in April 2016, Barrack and Colony Capital’s junior employee Matthew Grimes conspired with UAE national Rashid Al-Malik to use Barrack’s opportunity to contact Trump to execute what they received from senior UAE government officials Instructions.

As an informal adviser to the Trump campaign, transition and the White House on Middle East issues, Barak used his trusted position to recommend policies that the UAE wants, allowing UAE officials to edit the talking points he subsequently passed on to Trump and advise the White House The prosecutor said that the ideal candidate for the UAE was chosen as the U.S. ambassador to the Gulf States consortium.

According to the emails and text messages contained in the indictment, Barak also passed on information about internal discussions in the White House to UAE government officials through Al-Malik.

Barack and Grimes were arrested in California. On Monday, they appeared before a judge in the Brooklyn Court of the Eastern District of New York, which is prosecuting the case.

After appearing in court, Barack issued a statement, part of which read: “Of course, I am innocent of all these allegations, and we will prove this in court.”

Al-Malik is still at large. According to reports, he returned to the UAE in 2018, and three days later he was interviewed by the FBI as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

Al-Malik, who has received pilot training, reportedly was looking for real estate investment in Los Angeles during 2016-17.

His real estate fund in Dubai has neither a website nor a physical address. It does not appear to have completed any transactions in the United States.

But there may be a good reason for this.

In 2019, Intercept report Al-Malik has been on the payroll of the UAE National Intelligence Agency, which reportedly paid him tens of thousands of dollars a month in 2017 to collect information about the Trump administration.

At that time, the White House Referral question From the interception of Al-Malik to the Central Intelligence Agency.

Part of the reason Barrack’s actions are often described as illegal lobbying is because the language of Section 951 is similar to that of another law, the Foreign Agent Registration Act, or FARA.

They all apply to people working on behalf of non-commercial foreign entities, and they all include disclosure requirements. But they cover very different operations.

FARA is a regulatory reporting rule that applies to anyone acting on behalf of a “foreign principal.” This can be the government, it can be a non-profit organization, tourism bureau, political party or independent organization.

In order to comply with FARA, lobbyists must submit copies of any media they distribute, such as brochures, and disclose the people they contact and their compensation.

“Normally, if you don’t comply with FARA and you work in a foreign country, you can re-compliance by reporting everything you have done and submitting the paperwork you should submit,” Washington lawyer Brett Capel lobbied and influenced Legal experts.

Think of it this way: What is the main focus of the FARA regulations, especially the work done by lobbyists for foreign clients. On the other hand, Article 951 focuses on who the agent does this: foreign government.

For prosecutors, “Allegations 951 are another option to prosecute them under the Espionage Act,” said Michael Atkinson, who served as the inspector general of the intelligence community in 2018-20.

The Inspector General of the Ministry of Justice wrote in the 2016 FARA audit that Article 951 cases “usually involve similar espionage or secret acts, or have other provable links with intelligence agencies, or conduct information collection or procurement on behalf of foreign governments. Activities” law enforcement.

Conviction Article 951 Maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.

The origin of Article 951 predates the origin of the FARA rules and can be traced back to the early days of the First World War. While the United States was debating whether to join the Allied war effort in Europe, the German Empire launched a secret influence campaign against the United States, aimed at weakening public support for the war.

The effort failed, but It shocked U.S. officialsIn 1917, the predecessor of Section 951 was promulgated as part of the Espionage Act.

A century later, Section 951 is still used to prosecute secret foreign agents. In the past ten years, several high-profile cases involving Russian spies have been charged under Section 951.

In 2010, the FBI arrested 10 Russian nationals in New Jersey, New York and Virginia, and charged them with illegally living in the United States. Some of them lived for more than ten years and pretended to be Americans to collect intelligence on behalf of Russian intelligence services. Service, SVR.

One of the spies, Anna Chapman, had a brief notoriety as a TV personality.

them He is accused Conspiring to violate Article 951, they pleaded guilty shortly before being sent back to Russia as part of an international prisoner exchange.

2012, Russia Alexander Fishenko and several accomplices were charged under section 951 Runs a front-line company that purchased approximately US$50 million in US high-tech military equipment and shipped it to Russian defense contractors.

Feishenko pleaded guilty to 19 counts in 2015 and was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

In 2016, another Russian citizen Evgeny Buryakov (Evgeny Buryakov) admitted to violating Article 951 after being arrested. Secretly working on behalf of the Russian intelligence agency SVR, while posing as a development banker in New York.

Briakov was sentenced to two and a half years in prison, but he was allowed to be released early and deported in 2017.

In 2018, Maria Butina, also from Russia, was prosecuted for trying to infiltrate conservative political organizations (especially the National Rifle Association) on behalf of the Russian government and admitted to conspiracy to violate Article 951.

Butina is Sentenced to 18 months in prison She was released and deported at the end of 2019.

The success rate of Section 951 prosecutions in court is often very high. Although the international prisoner exchange meant that the Russians involved did not serve their sentences in the United States, none of these defendants escaped prison.

However, if the goal of these Russian espionage operations is to infiltrate the temple of power and obtain state secrets, they have all failed.

In 2010, members of the espionage organization never made progress in the areas of national security and economics they hoped.

Fesenko bought his military equipment at the counter.

Briakov walked directly into the FBI undercover.

The furthest time Butina gained real power was a meeting with officials of the Ministry of Finance.

But this will only make Barak’s influence, wealth, trust, and direct connection with Trump and the UAE royal family all the more extraordinary.

As the former chairman of Trump’s inaugural committee and one of his most successful campaign teams, Barak used his unique advantages to achieve specific goals for the UAE.

In the fall of 2017, Barak and Malik worked together to undermine the plans of US, UAE, Saudi and Qatar officials to hold a summit at Camp David in the future, aimed at ending the regional blockade of Qatar.

The UAE opposed the summit, and prosecutors described how Barak sent emails to Trump’s personal assistant requesting a phone call with the president. The indictment is unclear whether Barack ever spoke to Trump. But the summit did not take place.

Barak’s case suggests that people close to Trump can influence his direction on major policy issues with relative ease.

“This flow of information is two-way,” said Capel, a lawyer for the District of Columbia. “Barack secretly provided the U.S. government with information that the UAE wants the government to hear, but he also provided the UAE with confidential information about what he learned within the federal government.”

Capel added: “He provided this information through a person working in a foreign intelligence service.”

Atkinson, who is now a partner of Crowell Moring, said that the two-way flow of information from Abu Dhabi helps make Barrack’s arrangements different from traditional foreign principal lobbying work.

“I think this is one of the reasons they chose 951 because they have both, trying to influence American foreign and domestic policies and share information with foreign governments,” he said.

Kappel, who serves as legal counsel at Harmon Curran, said that Article 951 draws a bright red line in the sometimes gloomy world peddled by Washington influence.

“Article 951 actually divides the world into diplomats and spies: diplomats show their certificates and they are officially recognized as representatives of foreign governments. If you represent a foreign government, this is what you should do,” he Say.

“Prosecutors may not be able to prove espionage, which has a high standard,” he said. “But they can prove that this person is operating under the guidance of a foreign government and did not notify the U.S. authorities that they have assumed this role.”