Political prosecutions continue as Thomas Barrack is indicted for not registering as a lobbyist for a foreign country and for false statements

During the first Ronald Reagan administration Thomas Barrack was Deputy Undersecretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior from 1982 to 1983. His original Colony Capital company became an organization located in 13 cities and 10 countries. In 2010 he was awarded in France the Chevalier de la Légion d’honneur, the highest award given by the French government on citizens and foreigners.

In May 2018, news articles said that Barrack was interviewed by the Robert Mueller group [2]. Appendix ‘B’ in Volume 2 of the Mueller report is entitled “Glossary”, and “contains names and brief descriptions of individuals and entities referenced in the two volumes of this report”. But the list is “not intended to be comprehensive and is intended only to assist a reader in the reading the rest of the report”. Barrack’s name is not on that list, and after a computerized word search, is not mentioned in the report. However, the reports of his being interviewed by Mueller investigators are probably correct.

The criminal case is against Barrack and two others — Matthew Grimes and Rashid Sultan Rashid al Malik Alshahhi, who is listed first in the indictment. It is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which is essentially Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and Long Island [3].

An intriguing timeline is in the court clerk’s file. The first document, filed on 25 June 2019, is a formerly sealed complaint and affidavit for an arrest warrant only against Rashid al Malik [4]. On 16 August 2019, the FBI agent, as the affiant, signed a supplemental complaint and affidavit to clarify the given name of Malik [5]. The initial affidavit alleges that Malik acted as an agent of a foreign government, the United Arab Emirates, from January 2016 to March 2018. The formal indictment charging all three defendants was not filed under seal until 16 July 2021, a full two years later.

The indictment talks about alleged events from May 2016 into October 2017 in its “introduction”, and count 1 presents a time frame of April 2016 to April 2018 for violations of FARA. The allegation of “conspiracy” to violate FARA in count 2 lists overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy in the form of e-mails and text messages from 2 August 2016 to 11 October 2017.

The Robert Mueller group got started by an authorization paper from then Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on 17 May 2017, and continued on until around 22 March 2019. Its “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election”, in volume 1, page 13, says that–

“During its investigation [Mueller’s] Office issued more than 2,800 subpoenas under the auspices of a grand jury sitting in the District of Columbia; executed nearly 500 search-and-seizure warrants; obtained more than 230 orders for communications records under 18 U.S.C. section 2703(d); obtained almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers; made 13 requests to foreign governments pursuant to Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties; and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses, including almost 80 before a grand jury”.

Whether any of the information gathered by the Mueller group, or provided to them from other departments or agencies, pertained to Thomas Barrack and eventually to this criminal case is not known at this time. The “more than” 230 orders by Mueller under Title 18, U.S. Code, section 2703(d) are for “stored communications” [6]. All of the techniques, including search and surveillance warrants, orders for stored electronic communications, collection of information that does not require a warrant (such as between foreigners overseas), and so forth, could have been used to supplement what was acquired during the Mueller investigation, or gathered and used independently.

An obvious question is: who got the copies of the e-mails and text messages referred to in the indictment, when and where did they get them, and on what basis and authority?

The Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 requires a person, often a lobbyist, to register with the U.S. Attorney General [7]. The failure to do so is defined as a crime in Title 18, U.S. Code, section 951, which is used in the indictment [8].

The proverbial section 1001 of Title 18 is used to charge the making of false statements [9]. The indictment says that Barrack’s interview on 20 June 2019 with the FBI was in the presence of counsel, but it is not clear whether the interview was recorded by audio, or audio and video, or whether Barrack’s attorney insisted that the interview be recorded. Traditionally, certainly starting with FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, two agents will go to an interview, one or both of them will take notes, and then a report is written by the agents using the notes and their recollection stating what you supposedly said. If they say their version of what you said contradicts something, and so you therefore made a false statement, then here comes a criminal charge under section 1001. That is how Gen. Michael Flynn got scammed and jammed. Not only did the FBI not contact the White House staff lawyers before going to interview a White House official (the national security advisor), but Flynn was also lulled into not having a lawyer present.

Count 3, which alleges obstruction of justice, is just a way to pile it on and create an additional charge out of the purported false statements. It does not point to any additional conduct. The remaining counts in the indictment are for the alleged false statements and for forfeiture of money or things of value that may have been acquired as a result of certain types of violations.

Barrack was arrested on Tuesday, 20 July out in California. The Justice Department wanted to keep him detained until he was transported all the way to Brooklyn, New York, where the case was filed. He was released Friday, 23 July after his attorneys agreed to outrageous bail and bond conditions. Otherwise, it would be uncertain what the federal magistrate before whom he was appearing in California might do initially, including refusing any release. Ultimately the terms of bail and any bond are up to the courts in Brooklyn. First, before another federal magistrate. But any decision that magistrate makes can be appealed to the federal district judge in whose court the case is filed.

A hearing was held starting at noon today, Monday, 26 July, before a magistrate in Brooklyn, about conditions of release pending a trial. The papers from the appearance in the Central District of California on 23 July are not yet in the court clerk’s file, and neither are any bail and release papers from the detention hearing today. From other reports, it appears that the conditions of release are similar to the atrocious ones of last Friday.

I listed some of Thomas Barrack’s accomplishments because my guess is that any television stories about his case will not describe him as he has been and is, but will rather try to dirty up Trump by saying Barrack has been charged with crimes and is a friend, confidant, and advisor to Donald Trump. I think that Barrack met Trump while working for Robert Bass and the Bass family of Fort Worth, Texas, from 1986 to 1991. One instance involved the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan, New York City. Bass owned the Plaza Hotel along with John Aoki of Tokyo, Japan, and valued it at around $350 million at the very most, even though a regular market calculation would put it at $300 million. He wanted to get rid of it. He sold it to Trump for considerably more than that, probably for around $407.5 million. For that sale, Barrack was working for Bass and dealing with Trump.

People and groups who lobby parts of the federal government to help a foreign country and who have not registered pursuant to FARA do exist, and investigations could start about countries such as China, Israel, and Russia. And about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden’s brother. But the Department That Calls Itself Justice will do nothing to them. It has double standards to uphold.

The case filed against 74-year-old Thomas Barrack is a venomous and political prosecution.

[1] The indictment of Thomas Barrack and two others filed on 16 July 2021 and now unsealed.

[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mueller-team-questions-longtime-trump-friend-tom-barrack-n8716

[3] https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/about

[4] Complaint and affidavit for arrest warrant dated 25 June 2019 against Rashid al Malik.

[5] Supplemental complaint and affidavit signed on 16 August 2019 against Rashid al Malik.

[6] Title 18, U.S. Code, section 2703. Required disclosure of customer communications or records.


[7] Title 22, U.S. Code, chapter 11, which includes sections 611 (Definitions) and 612 (Registration statement). Foreign Agents and Propaganda.


[8] Title 18, U.S. Code, section 951. Agents of foreign governments.


[9] Title 18, U.S. code, section 1001. Statements or entries generally.


This entry was posted in Current Affairs, government, Justice, Politics and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Political prosecutions continue as Thomas Barrack is indicted for not registering as a lobbyist for a foreign country and for false statements

  1. Razumov says:

    This arrest is the signal that the deep state is going to go after the Trump administration hard for corruption related to UAE, Saudi Arabia and other Gulfies. This corruption was blatant and openly reported on, but usually no one in Washington gets prosecuted for taking Gulf monarchy money.

  2. Barbara Ann says:

    I wish Mr Barrack luck, he’s going to need it in a justice system which looks more and more like it is run by Lavrentiy Beria.

    The Department That Calls Itself Justice has degenerated into a vehicle for partisan & vengeful political theater. Barrack’s indictment is lawfare purely designed to terrify Trump & his associates into submission. The show trials of the 1/6 ‘insurrectionists’ are no better. Here the aim appears to be to throw more red meat to the already hysterical mob, thereby reinforcing the insurrection myth.

    Ron Paul has an excellent piece up on the case of Paul Hodgkins whose sole ‘crime’ was to peacefully enter the Senate and take a selfie. In sentencing Hodgkins was described by Special Assistant US Attorney as a “terrorist”. The sentencing memo admits; “The Government … recognizes that Hodgkins did not personally engage in or espouse violence or property destruction.” It goes on; “we concede that Mr. Hodgkins is not under the legal definition a domestic terrorist”. But, it concludes by saying that he should be considered a terrorist because his actions occurred during an event that the court is “framing…in the context of terrorism”.

    So there you have it. Collective punishment for being in the wrong place at the wrong time is now the law, you don’t even need to commit a thought crime. How much more of this are the America people going to take?


    • Fred says:

      Barbara Ann,

      “the already hysterical mob…”

      What mob are you refering too? There has been no retaliation against antifa, BLM or any elected officials by anything on the right that can be described as a mob.

      • Barbara Ann says:


        I was referring to the folk who believe the propaganda that 1/6 was “the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War” and that Trump supports are the domestic equivalent of the Taliban. Salem level mass hysteria is what the Dems are trying to achieve with this witch hunt and a good proportion of the American public seem to be swallowing it.

    • Barbara Ann says:

      Update re Lavrentiy Beria style justice for the January Sixers:

      “You would not arrest [someone] then gather evidence later. That’s not how this works.”


      If this treatment does not meet the definition of a political prisoner I don’t know what does.

  3. PRC90 says:

    This Viciousness in Victory has a very third world aroma to it, and can be very habit-forming as they in the third world have found.
    The Left does not seem to realise that while Trump may be gone, Trumpism is very much alive and well and will return in a future iteration of Executive government. It’s adherents by then will be far more proficient and practised at government, and will be ready to exert a far greater degree of viciousness unless curtailed by good leadership.

  4. walrus says:

    “Chilling Effect” machinery activated.

Comments are closed.