Tom Barrack Acquitted on All Counts
According to multiple outlets, a jury just acquitted Tom Barrack on all counts — both the charges that he acted as a foreign agent of Mohammed bin Zayed and the charges that he lied to obstruct the investigation.
Barrack (and his aide Matthew Grimes) were really well lawyered throughout this case and succeeded in excluding a good deal of critical evidence, including evidence proving venue in EDNY. It’s not inconceivable that the jury acquitted on venue alone.
Barrack argued, at length on the stand, that he did what he did because he wanted to, not because he was acting at the behest of Mohammed bin Zayed. He was charged under 18 USC 951 (not FARA), which covers a gray zone of conduct that really gets to motive.
I’m most interested in why the jury acquitted on the false statements charges, which included basic questions about whether Barrack had dowloaded WhatsApp. His attorneys did a lot of work to question the FBI agent and the production of the 302s from the 2019 FBI interview in question.
At some point down the road, I hope to read the transcripts to get a better sense of what happened (the coverage from the trial was remarkably thin). But it’s a testament to what can happen when DOJ charges an aggressive case against someone with good lawyers.
This is most unfortunate. The Barrack thread is an important one. Now, it will be lost to the sands of time.
OT, but Kash’s immunized GJ appearance was yesterday.
Immunized? May I ask what that means in this context? Thx
Granted immunity for his witness testimony.
I wonder what our local lawyers will say about the venue and exclusions leading to the acquittal. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that Individual-1 will use this in his rants as a complete vindication for himself. Let’s see how it’s played and whether the courtier press fall for it.
Eh, venue in EDNY is what it is, and that is determined pre-trial, not by jurors, so that is kind of irrelevant at this point, and there will be no appeal from an acquittal. Hard to tell about the exclusionary rulings without the full context. The most common bases are lack of relevance or too prejudicial versus probative. Would need the transcript of those motions in limine to really tell though.
Was the judge Trump or Republican appointed?
Who cares? Do you have any, even one iota, of information this trial did not proceed appropriately?
It’s a piece of data which might or might not be meaningful. Some Trump-appointed judges have behaved very honorably, while some have not. I think it’s worth looking at, but understanding as a shade of gray which must be interpreted and not blindly added to the picture.
Who cares? The question was simple: who appointed the judge?
George W. Bush appointed the judge.
Again, that could have been found by a ten second google search by the commenter. Why bring it up here without one scintilla of evidence of impropriety and/or bias.
it was a jury’s decision
The part of me that knows that everyone that Trump is even passingly acquainted with is somehow corrupt is disappointed.
But the part of me that believes in civil liberties, and believes that prosecutors should prove cases beyond a reasonable doubt knows that this is probably a good thing. Whatever evidence they had of impropriety, the jury didn’t think it proved evidence of a crime, and in the big picture, that is probably a good thing.
Always good to remember that the jury sees all the admissible evidence, and gets to judge in person the credibility of all witnesses, and we do not. And they get their verdict right FAR more often than people think.
Yep. That’s my experience. Every time I’ve been in front of a judge and jury I should have been hahaha.
That is they got it right. Previous life I might add.
I have to wonder about the claim that juries get it right more often ‘than people think’. This ‘person’ isn’t so sure.
I’ve sat on a few juries, I’ve experienced juries where the majority of jurists ignored the directions of the court, and ignored the evidence. In some cases the jurists were rightfully dismissed and the judge handled the decision. How many times a judge doesn’t do so is up for speculation.
Welp, I have argued and practiced in front of hundreds, and never on the favored side. That is my experience, you are entitled to yours.
Welp is it?
And you are the one constantly clamoring that you want to take this place somewhere more ‘civil’?
[Welcome back to emptywheel. May I strongly suggest sticking to the topic rather than poking at moderation? /~Rayne]
Is this a “welp” vs “whelp” misunderstanding?
My two as a foreman were very conscientious indeed, no issues with fanaticism in either direction. 1-1 for the prosecution, well deserved in both cases.
To your claim, I would observe that all (IIRC, and it’s true in order to get a conviction)12 jurors had to agree on all counts which means there could be no holdouts that would lead to a mistrial. If all 12 were that biased, I’d look at the voir dire the government did but seriously it’s a very low probability the AUSA would be that incompetent. As bmaz says, this needs evidence, not spitballing.
As for the other possibility that the W-appointed judge put a thumb on the scales, all of the motions and rulings would be in the court records to provide evidence of bias. TBF, Shrub nominated some lulus too (Janice Rogers Brown, and who could forget Harriet for SCOTUS, followed by IIRC Alito) so it’s not a completely bonkers possibility.
However, the documented evidence would be there and FWIW any progressive-leaning outlet (LGM, C&L, EW, etc.) would have flagged such weirdness long ago like was done for Cannon and that TX judge who tried to kill Obamacare by judicial fiat. Remember Dr. Wheeler has been following this case closely for its implications regarding Individual-1 and I doubt she’d miss anything like that.
Lastly, it will be interesting to see how Barrack’s relationship with Individual-1 evolves since it appears TFG left Barrack to be a sacrifice to the judicial bus. That kind of insult sticks around for a while (it would for me, anyway) and Barrack has lots of money and connections to teach Individual-1 a lesson in manners.
My experience is with a locale where the pool of available jurists is small and many of the juries have been made up from that small pool.
The same bias in the jurists shows up repeatedly.
Your experience is with you as foreman.
I’ve seen an elected jury ‘foremen’ choose to isolate themselves in a closet rather than abide by direct orders from a judge.
Not to be too much of a contrarian, but some defense attorneys like pope hat state that maybe 5% of criminal cases ever reach a jury, most of the rest plead guilty to a lesser charge due to pressure from the state. Do the prosecutors generally get those cases right?
The constant barrage of misconduct cases in the news makes me prone to anecdote bias; as with car accidents, prosecutors getting it right just aren’t news.
Plea deals are a scandal of their own, as John Oliver noted (again) a couple of weeks back in a story about cash bail. Alaska’s comment referred to juries, though, not prosecutions in general.
Rugger, I was specifically hoping bmaz, with hundreds of cases of criminal experience would weigh in on whether prosecutors are relatively fair on average with plea deals, since that’s the vast majority of cases and they are usually invisible to the news.
Plea bargains are NOT a scandal, and the entire criminal justice system would collapse without them.
Plea bargains are a symptom of not being able to scale the system to the size of the need. That doesn’t mean they result in the best solution to that problem.
“Plea bargains are a symptom of not being able to scale the system to the size of the need.”
Now please explain what you perceive is, “the need”.
Hint: it is *not* more trials to replace pleas.
Take away plea bargaining and the entire criminal justice system collapses.
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1275&context=alr
In most cases plea bargains aren’t a scandal, but when they are used to leverage someone who cannot afford bail or to stay in pretrial detention, that is a scandal because those deals are done not for admitting actual guilt but to get back to work / kids / etc. unrelated to the crime being charged. It’s a scandal that happens far too often.
Same thing though. The prosecutors may neigh and winnie about dragging your spouse into the muck and so forth but in my experience they tend to keep that off the table when actually moving forward. It’s dirty pool and they know it (unless there’s clear justification of course).
I haven’t looked but I doubt Weisselberg’s kid will face the music because he didn’t cooperate for instance (my experience – YMMV).
I think perhaps a big issue that came out was Barrack being able to sell that for parts of his lobbying, he was in effect lobbying for Quatar against Saudi Arabia instead of on behalf of UAE for Saudi Arabi as charged.
This may be the value of a good attorney, but I would hope even an incompetent attorney would have sold that narrative too. It was his best defense and it may have worked.
DoJ probably screwed up in not addressing it, either in _also_ charging him for his Quatar lobbying too so Barracks defense of that against UAE would by nature further dig hole deeper of Quatar illegal lobbying.
This is all Monda-morning divination, but that defense seemed to muddy DoJ’s entire line of attack in ways it didn’t seem able to recover.
Once I was on a jury with a guy who wasn’t taking things seriously, which worried and annoyed me.
Then he did something that was completely against the rules, so I ratted him out to the judge. He disappeared from the jury shortly thereafter, mid-trial. None of the other jurors knew why, but they weren’t surprised. This did not result in a mistrial.
One of the reasons there are alternates seated. In CA they will not join in deliberations until needed and then the deliberations start all over.
I was second alternate on a grand jury in west Texas (summoned like any other jury). Never had to go in after that first day. I’ve also been on a regular jury for a while, in CA, and that was 11 days scattered over three weeks before being excused. (I had bronchitis at the time.)
In civil cases in various jurisdictions, the parties can waive unanimity down to majority (the question from the Court to the parties is, “Will you accept less than a unanimous verdict?”), and even waive the numbers of jurors (*ex*., 12 to 10).
OT: Did anyone check in on Maggie H’s interview with Ms. Hoover? Apparently Maggie was trying to pretend that Individual-1 wasn’t really an authoritarian because he wants the ‘credit’. Aside from yet another swing-and-a-miss at being an objective reporter, almost every authoritarian in recent history routinely blames underlings or convenient targets for their own failures. At least do the homework, Ms. Haberman.
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2022/11/the-haberman-thesis-of-authoritarianism
OT: Did anyone check in on Maggie H’s interview with Ms. Hoover? Apparently Maggie was trying to pretend that Individual-1 wasn’t really an authoritarian because he wants the ‘credit’. Aside from yet another swing-and-a-miss at being an objective reporter, almost every authoritarian in recent history routinely blames underlings or convenient targets for their own failures. At least do the homework, Ms. Haberman. LGM has it.
What’s in a name? A bully by any other name would do as much damage. But really, only sarcasm is appropriate:
I’m disappointed only because I hoped that a conviction could have pulled at the threads that are connected to the inaugural slush fund filled by Russian donors and Jared Kushner’s Middle East extortion scheme to pay off his NY property.
I guess the Trump mafia will get away with those outrageous felony rackets.
This is bullshit; the Barack trial was never about that.
Adding to user name to comply with length guideline.
I’m disappointed too, for similar reasons. Although this trial wasn’t about Kushner or inauguration gift, I do think DoJs failure with this indictment reduces the viable of future GARA related indictments – TFG related or otherwise
[Thanks for updating your username to meet the 8 letter minimum. /~Rayne]
Thank you for updating. Doubtful this verdict has any impact on future FARA prosecutions. People get acquitted all the time and the crimes they were charged still get charged in future cases.
Thank you for the update, Marcy.
I used to just RT to express my gratitude.
I amuse myself on a Friday afternoon where my only obligation is to myself, and the no-longer-wee-bairn who has left my nest empty, should he need me.
Mea culpa.
Thank you Dr. Marcy. Barrack is a charmer. Perhaps he charmed the jury.
And, perhaps, the jury saw the actual evidence, unlike people on the internet that did not, and reached the right conclusion. Were “you” in the courtroom for every second of the trial? No. And, yet, you are willing to shit on the jury’s verdict. How is that?
I would venture that an inquisitorial model reaches the right conclusion at least as often as a jury does, but lacks the community respect afforded a jury verdict. It is better that 10 guilty go free than one innocent suffer and all that jazz.
https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1810&context=faculty
[Welcome back to emptywheel. Please choose and use a more unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. We also have multiple community members named “Bill” or “Will.” Thanks. /~Rayne]
Pessimists are the happiest people in the world. 80% of the time they are right. The other 20% of the time they are pleasantly surprised.” Unknown Source
Before 2016, I was a Democratic Optimist
I changed uniforms to a Democratic Pessimist
This acquittal was a shock to me. I guess you need juries who never read the news. I admit it took some effort to get the facts of this case. But a jury of your “peers” now means un-engaged and uninterested. This may be sacrilege, but I don’t understand people who can spend whole 24 hour days of a weekend watching sports, but can’t find an hour to get educated on what’s happening in the world. I’m almost 73 years old. Civics was integral to my education, as early as I can remember. Taking responsibility for knowing what’s going on in the world was infused in my upbringing and education. It took GOP 30+ years to undo American education. They’ve succeeded with 50% of the electorate (and jury pools) as dumb and clueless as they could get.
Why was the acquittal “shocking”? No, being on a jury does NOT mean being “unengaged and uninterested”. It means not being biased, which is as it should be. It has nothing whatsoever to do with watching sports. Further news for you, juries have always been a cross section of the public, some highly educated, and some not so much. It has always been that way, and always will be. You have no idea what the evidence set was that was presented at trial and have no idea what the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses in court was, but the actual jury did. Jury verdicts are given the presumption of regularity for a reason. Do you have anything to indicate this one doesn’t deserve that? I’ll take a flyer that you do not.
So any jury, judge or person for that matter, that doesn’t agree with you, is just an uninformed dolt.
Please, get over yourself dude.
You’re on thin ice here, Pedro. Don’t start harassing other community members for their opinions. Express your own opinion about the topic and not other community members’ opinions, or find something else to do.
Thank you. The opportunities for name-calling are Legion elsewhere.
I’m not sure what your experience as a juror is. I’ve been on six, over the years, half civil and half criminal. Jurors from all walks of life, educational levels, etc. And however dumb or clueless, uneducated or unengaged we might have been out there in the world, once the jury room door shut I saw my fellow jurors taking the job ultra-seriously (subjective impression, admittedly). It is, after all, one of the more important decisions you’ll ever make, guilty or not guilty. So I bristle a little bit at the tendency to find fault with a particular jury. As an ancient vaudevillian used to say, “Vas you dere, Sharlie?”
Turning attention to another civic responsibility and opportunity, I voted yesterday at the library. There was a steady stream of people calmly participating. The poll workers were kind, helpful, and professional. There did not appear to be any kind of intimidation.
I voted a couple of days ago too. For some reason my mail-in ballot did not arrive, though my wife’s and daughter’s did? So I voted in person. Same experience. Friendly, unharried poll workers. Easy access and parking. No observers or intimidation outside or in, though the R signs were positioned aggressively close, I suspect toying with the legal minimums? Anyway, I live in one of the blue cities in Arizona, of which there are 3 imho. I think the hassle-free voting experience some of us have, just conjecture and I know that is frowned upon here, is yet another form of privilege? I suspect many people’s experience to be quite different, yet another reason why it is so important for us to vote, and remind your family and your circle to please vote. I persuaded my very apolitical daughter to vote! One more vote, that’s a start! Anyway, I think my anxiousness is showing.
We are here too, in the big blue city. My wife’s ballot came a good two or three day before mine finally arrived. But we filled them out and mailed them back in. Have already confirmed they were received and accepted. Smooth as silk.
so does the television harpy in primary colors have a chance to beat Hobbs or is she auditioning for a job in a bigger market than Phoenix?
No, I think Lake will win. Katie Hobbs ran the most pathetic campaign imaginable.
bleahh.
did the Democratic Governors Association in fact “go all in” to help Hobbs in her campaign, as advertised back in August?
here in Rochester-on-the-Lake, waiting to see if Lee Zeldin will indeed “Save NY.” from the obscenity of bail reform, presumably. which is all he has on his plate.
Hobbs has not had a lot of help. But it is more on her than others. She ran one of the worst campaigns ever, which nobody predicted, but that is what happened.
For example, why wouldn’t Hobbs debate Lake? Even the slick camera personality could have been used against Lake as Obama mentioned when he was there. It would be only a short matter of time before Lake went off the rails.
Yeah, I don’t know, that was stupid of her. Her campaign has been a total clusterfuck.
Well, AZ survived Meacham, Brewer and Ducey but they’ve got to stop rolling the dice. Too bad Giffords didn’t run.
My sympathies.
One more try- In my opinion, regarding this jury verdict, someone who doesn’t agree with me shouldn’t be considered an uninformed dolt.
And in my opinion those who label people that way should sometimes think about getting over themselves.
Have a nice day.
You really don’t want to stick around here do you?
And someone who disagrees with me about focusing on the subject of the post and not on community members’ opinions departs the “Fuck Around” phase and will now enter the “Find Out” stage.
Get the hook.
Looks like I need to use it more than once in this thread. *slaps on goggles* *boots up the proton pack again*
I’m one of those who, for the most part and following Colonel Jessop’s advice, comes here, smiles and says “Thank you”. Plus a tiny pensioner’s mite each month. I receive so, so much more here than I have to offer, and feel no need to prove my ignorance on matters way above my pay grade.
It’s an approach that has served me well here, and that I would recommend to others.
BMAZ
Help me understand the Arizona voter.
We’ve been to Arizona once — to visit Sedona and the Grand Canyon
Sedona was quirky with “enlightenment-seekers wax spiritual about its “vortexes.” and gorgeous views.
So, for fucks sake why would anybody vote for Lake — besides a bad Democratic Campaign message?
Do they believe in UFO’s?
This I cannot answer. But Katie Hobbs ran one of the worst campaigns in history, so there is that.
What aspects specifically made you notice it as “one of the worst campaigns in history”? More specific incidents, or pervasive malaise, or…?
From outside the state, Lake seemed slicker, and Hobbs seemed to suffer a bit from personnel with conflicts, but neither appeared insurmountable obstacles for Hobbs. What aren’t we seeing/hearing that folks in AZ did? Not disputing at all, trying to better understand the local-view specifics.
I will say, from a CA perspective, I did notice that I received far more donation requests from Cortez-Masto’s and Tim Ryan’s campaigns than I ever did about Hobbs’ campaign, and that felt a bit odd. I get the difference in scope of campaigns might explain that difference, though.
Personally, I feel Dems losing gov-ships are every bit as “damaging” as Dems losing Fed legislature positions right now, but prioritization must occur.