Lobbying and Lobbyists

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Horse Carriage Ban in New York? De Blasio Wants to Try Again.

      by

      As he enters his final weeks in office, Mayor Bill de Blasio is resurrecting an old campaign promise to ban horse-drawn carriages in New York City.When Bill de Blasio first ran for mayor of New York City, he promised to ban horse-drawn carriages “on Day 1.”Eight years later, with just six weeks left in office, Mr. de Blasio is trying one last time to fulfill that pledge.His administration is developing legislation that would phase out the use of the carriages in Central Park and replace them with “show cars,” according to a series of internal City Hall emails marked “confidential” that were sent between late October and last week and reviewed by The New York Times.The promise to ban horse-drawn carriages, along with an ultimately successful plan to implement universal prekindergarten, was among a handful of major proposals that animated Mr. de Blasio’s successful mayoral bid. Mr. de Blasio and some advocates argue that it is inhumane to use horses for transportation in a modern city filled with cars.Now, as the mayor contemplates a run for governor next year, he has returned to his core campaign issues: In an appearance on MSNBC on Thursday morning, he proposed statewide, year-round, all-day school, a vision that he said would “revolutionize education in the State of New York.”Mr. de Blasio has yet to announce his plan to ban horse-drawn carriages, which would require approval by the City Council, but it has been quietly moving forward. In the emails, city officials said they were aiming to have the legislation ready by Dec. 16, when the City Council is expected to hold its last full meeting of the year.Danielle Filson, a spokeswoman for the mayor, said he had always wanted to ban horse-drawn carriages, and that he hoped the City Council would again consider it.The mayor’s office has directed the Economic Development Corporation to contract with a consulting firm, Langan Engineering, to conduct an analysis of the proposal, with a focus on its environmental, transportation, and socioeconomic impacts, according to the emails. The firm’s managing principal did not respond to requests for comment.It remains unclear if there is any appetite in the City Council to ban horse-drawn carriages. “The Council has not received a proposal from the mayor,” Shirley Limongi, a spokeswoman for the Council, said in a statement. “We will review anything we do receive.”The City Hall emails do not define “show cars,” but proponents of banning the carriages have previously pushed to replace them with electric-powered vehicles resembling old-time carriages.In 2018, Appaloosa Management Charitable Foundation, named for a horse breed and run by the billionaire hedge fund manager David Tepper, retained lobbyists to push for such a plan, according to city records and a city official, who was not authorized to speak publicly. Little came of the effort.This April, New Yorkers for Clean, Livable, and Safe Streets, the leading advocates for the ban, retained the lobbying firm Blue Suit Strategies to push Mr. de Blasio to pursue a similar plan, city lobbying records indicate. The organization is paying the firm $7,000 per month.The group, known as NYCLASS, helped fund a campaign to topple the 2013 mayoral candidacy of Christine Quinn, then the City Council speaker and Mr. de Blasio’s rival, in part because she did not support a ban on horse carriages. The campaign was credited with helping to undermine the candidacy of Ms. Quinn, who was considered the early front-runner.In the ensuing years, NYCLASS pushed Mr. de Blasio to fulfill his promise. But efforts to pass legislation went nowhere, including in 2016, when the mayor failed to push through a bill that would have reduced the number of horses on city streets and confined them to Central Park.The group has gotten involved in more recent political efforts. This year, it supported a super PAC that ran ads targeting Andrew Yang’s mayoral campaign after Mr. Yang responded “no” to a questionnaire asking if he supported efforts “to strengthen welfare protections and increase the standards of care for New York City’s carriage horses.”And in October, after a grisly collision between a horse and a car, NYCLASS ran roughly $200,000 worth of TV and digital ads calling for the elimination of the industry.Steve Nislick, the group’s co-founder, said that New York should follow the example of Guadalajara, Mexico, which replaced horse-drawn carriages with electric vehicles.Takeaways From the 2021 ElectionsCard 1 of 5A G.O.P. pathway in Virginia. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Kathy Hochul Aims to Raise $25 Million as Likely Rivals Eye Challenges

      by

      Governor Hochul hopes to raise the sum for her primary campaign next year, but her recent — and unexpected — ascension has left her little time to hit that goal.Even for the governor of one of the nation’s largest states, it was a whirlwind few days. Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York greeted President Biden, bumped fists with the prime minister of Ireland, shook hands with Jay-Z and escorted British royalty though the World Trade Center site.But perhaps the highest-stakes meeting for the governor’s political future last week took place not at the United Nations General Assembly or the State Capitol, but inside an imposing limestone mansion near Central Park after business hours last Wednesday.Assembled inside were nearly two dozen of New York’s best-connected real estate developers, businessmen and lobbyists — the kind of deep-pocketed donors whose support has been crucial to winning statewide campaigns.There was John Catsimatidis, the Republican grocery store and oil refining magnate; Scott Rechler, whose company owns iconic New York skyscrapers; Alfonse M. D’Amato, a former Republican senator turned lobbyist; and Dennis Mehiel, a cardboard baron who played host for the evening.Mr. Catsimatidis described the fund-raising dinner, where Ms. Hochul raised some $200,000, as a “high-end business get-together to discuss not losing any more people from New York.”But for the new governor and the attendees paying between $10,000 and $25,000 to dine on chicken and salmon with her, the evening also represented something else: the beginning of a delicate courtship that could have huge consequences in next year’s race for governor.Barely a month after she unexpectedly ascended to the governor’s office after Andrew M. Cuomo’s resignation, Ms. Hochul is quietly revving up an aggressive fund-raising apparatus, seeking to build a formidable financial advantage — at least $10 million in donations by year’s end and as much as $25 million by next summer, donors and advisers say — to discourage or defeat potential rivals in what may be a fierce Democratic primary next year.The governor’s political ramp-up, which has involved hiring a campaign manager and other senior aides, has not gone unnoticed. Several of her potential opponents have begun more assertively positioning themselves in recent days, with their allies acknowledging that the longer they wait, the stronger Ms. Hochul may be.John Catsimatidis was among nearly two dozen wealthy donors who recently attended a fund-raising dinner for Governor Hochul.Jeenah Moon for The New York TimesJumaane D. Williams, the left-wing New York City public advocate, made the first public move on Tuesday, launching an exploratory committee. Mayor Bill de Blasio has had conversations with allies about the race; his longtime pollster recently conducted a survey aiming to assess his appeal beyond New York City, and on Tuesday, he told reporters, “I intend to stay in public service” after his second term concludes at the end of the year. Representative Thomas Suozzi, who represents parts of Long Island and Queens, has maintained an active fund-raising schedule, and his team has begun to think through who could staff a potential campaign should he decide to run.But for donors, political consultants and some of the possible candidates, the biggest open question is whether Attorney General Letitia James will enter the contest.Ms. James, who has deep ties across New York City and the potential to forge a diverse coalition, has sounded out party donors and elected officials about the race in recent weeks, leaving the impression that she is gauging possible support for a bid. Some of her allies have begun to sound increasingly confident about the likelihood of a run.And in New York City on Wednesday, Ms. James addressed a room of powerful civic, business and political leaders. She vigorously defended her investigation into Mr. Cuomo, which led to his resignation; she described her career trajectory and her own vision for the state, and, to laughter and applause, dodged a question about her political future.Ms. James has not historically had a reputation as a prolific fund-raiser. But people close to her argue that the nature of her potential candidacy — she could become America’s first Black female governor — would generate national interest, as Stacey Abrams’s run for governor of Georgia did in 2018.“It would be the first time in the history of the United States that we would have an African American woman as a governor — that I think would be very valuable in this country,” said Alan Rubin, a lobbyist in New York City who knows Ms. James and would back her if she ran. “The people who like her would support her a great deal in that effort. So I don’t think there would be difficulty in raising money.”Ms. James is raising money for her re-election as attorney general, including from wealthy donors, but she could transfer that money to another statewide account. She reported having $1.6 million in cash on hand in her most recent campaign filing in July; Ms. Hochul reported having $1.75 million in early August.Some allies of the state attorney general, Letitia James, have been bullish about her potential candidacy for governor.Dave Sanders for The New York TimesThe uncertainty of Ms. James’s status has many of the state’s most prolific donors sitting on the sidelines, or hedging bets with smaller checks while they wait to get a better sense of the field and Ms. Hochul herself. Though she was widely respected as lieutenant governor, Ms. Hochul — a ubiquitous presence at groundbreakings and ribbon cuttings for almost a decade — has only now begun to wield decision-making power in Albany, where she has won praise for taking decisive steps to implement vaccine mandates announced by her predecessor and extend the state’s eviction moratorium.“We are absolutely waiting and seeing,” said John Samuelsen, the international president of the Transport Workers Union, which gave close to half a million dollars to Mr. Cuomo’s campaigns, according to public election records, before a bitter falling out. “When we talk about Tish, we are talking about someone who has a solid record of supporting the trade workers unions and the labor movement,” he said. “Kathy Hochul has made promises that she is a true blue supporter of workers, but we will see if that’s true.”Carlo A. Scissura, the head of the New York Building Congress, said after a recent Zoom meeting with Ms. Hochul that many of the large construction and development firms his organization represents would be inclined to support her if she maintained her predecessor’s focus on large capital projects, like the Port Authority Bus Terminal and Pennsylvania Station in Manhattan and Kennedy Airport in Queens.“If the commitment to all of these things continues, then I think she’s got an opportunity to be a great governor,” he said. “If she chooses to remove projects or change projects, then people will start questioning where the priorities are.”Ms. Hochul is trying to force their hands, planning a fund-raising blitz in the weeks ahead, part of an intense schedule that has also been packed with public events.Invitations have gone out for an October event hosted by the state and city chapters of the building and construction trades councils, with a minimum donation of $5,000 from a “supporter” and $25,000 from a “friend.”Mercury Public Affairs, a lobbying and public relations firm that has a large political practice, is planning another fund-raiser for Ms. Hochul in October. Tickets start at $15,000, and organizers are hopeful it will net a total in the six figures, according to people familiar with the planning. Other fund-raisers are in the works.Earlier stops in August took Ms. Hochul to the Hamptons and Buffalo, where she lives and where there was so much interest in the run-up to her swearing-in that organizers had to turn one fund-raiser into two: an invitation-only cocktail hour honoring her birthday that cost $2,500 to attend and a larger party at a picnic ground that drew hundreds paying $50 and up.The strategy certainly carries risk. Many of her donors have pressing business before the state as she nears her first budget cycle as governor, including union contract negotiations, the fate of large capital projects initiated by Mr. Cuomo and the looming expiration of a common subsidy for housing developers.Ms. Hochul, who took office pledging to prioritize “changing the culture of Albany,” could quickly expose herself to the kind of unseemly alliances and potential conflicts that alienate many voters and some leaders of her own party.“For her to maximize her revenue as quickly as possible means she will be dealing with and talking with all kinds of people who want something from her,” said John Kaehny, the executive director of the good governance group Reinvent Albany. “That is a very slippery slope and the time pressure makes it much harder for her to manage that kind of relationship.”Meredith Kelly, a campaign adviser to Ms. Hochul, said that the governor had spent most of her first month in office focused on policy and governance related to Covid-19 and the destruction caused by the remnants of Hurricane Ida.“Of course, Governor Hochul is also setting up a strong, well-funded campaign to win in 2022, and she is grateful for the outpouring of support she has received thus far,” Ms. Kelly said.Ms. Hochul greeted Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan, at One World Observatory last week.Roy Rochlin/Getty ImagesMr. Cuomo set an extraordinary fund-raising standard for candidates running for governor, raising more than $135 million — most of it from large donors — in three campaigns. Even now, he is sitting on an $18 million war chest, according to the most recent filings, that he could deploy to meddle in the race or try to exact revenge on Ms. James for investigating his harassment and mistreatment of women, including some who worked for him.So far, Ms. Hochul appears to be emulating Mr. Cuomo’s fund-raising approach — though certainly not his domineering style — by primarily relying on donors with large checkbooks rather than the kind of grass-roots contributors who chip in $5 or $25. But her campaign has recently hired Authentic Campaigns, a consulting firm specializing in small-donor online donations that has worked for Mr. Biden and other prominent Democrats, to try to change that.“People gave Andrew money, but nobody liked him,” said Jeffrey Gural, chairman of a large real estate company who gave Mr. Cuomo more than $150,000 over the years before an acrimonious split. “You gave him money because you were afraid of him, as simple as that.”Ms. Hochul, Mr. Gural said, was much more accessible, professional and productive.He is not the only one of Mr. Cuomo’s major backers Ms. Hochul is courting. Among the guests Wednesday night at the 10,000-square-foot home of Mr. Mehiel, himself a former Cuomo donor, were a handful of the former governor’s biggest supporters, including Mr. Rechler and Lester Petracca, another real estate developer.The governor spoke in detail about reducing crime, increasing vaccination rates and restarting the city’s economy after 18 months of being rattled by the coronavirus, attendees said.She also made clear that she intended to work closely with Eric Adams, the Democratic mayoral nominee for New York City mayor who is virtually certain to win November’s general election, in what would be a major shift after years of an extraordinarily toxic relationship between Mr. Cuomo and Mr. de Blasio.Some in the crowd appeared ready for a reset.“Let’s see her actions — she deserves a break to do the right job for all New Yorkers,” said Mr. Catsimatidis, before adding a dose of Empire State realpolitik: “You know why people do fund-raisers? When they call, they want their phone calls returned.”Dana Rubinstein More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Jerry Lewis, Master of the Congressional Earmark, Dies at 86

      by

      A powerful legislator, he became chairman of the House Appropriations Committee in 2005 but faced scrutiny from the Justice Department for his ties to a lobbyist.Jerry Lewis, a powerful House Republican whose largess to his district in California established him as a master of the earmark but led to an investigation of his actions by the Justice Department, died on July 15 at his home in Redlands, Calif. He was 86.His son Dan confirmed the death but said he did not know the cause.Mr. Lewis was elected in 1978 and served 17 terms in the House. A conservative who preferred working with Democrats to confrontational politics, he was a major fund-raiser for Republican candidates; his party’s third-ranking member, as conference chairman; and, briefly, chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee.“He represented a style of politics that no longer dominates the party,” John H. Pitney Jr., an aide of Mr. Lewis’s in the mid-1980s who is now a professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College in California, said by phone. “He was very much an ally of Bob Michel” — the former House minority leader from Maryland — “and never a favorite of the Gingrich faction, which took him down from the chairmanship of the House Republican Conference” in 1992. (Newt Gingrich, then the House minority whip and later the speaker, supported the successful candidacy of Dick Armey of Texas over Mr. Lewis.)Mr. Lewis was best known for sending enormous sums of money back to his district through the use of earmarks, provisions in congressional spending bills that direct funds to a specific recipient. He sent tens of millions of dollars to educational, medical and research institutions, military installations, a dam on the Santa Ana River, extensive tree clearing in the San Bernardino National Forest and other projects in his Southern California district.In 2005, when he became chairman of the Appropriations Committee — after six years as chairman of its defense subcommittee — he told The Press-Enterprise of Riverside about his ambition for his district.“My goal as chairman is not just to create a huge funnel to San Bernardino and Riverside counties,” he said. “But I have a feeling we will in California manage to get our share.”But in 2006, the Justice Department began an investigation into whether Mr. Lewis had improperly steered millions of dollars in earmarks to clients of a lobbyist, Bill Lowery, a former Republican congressman from California and an old friend. Some of the clients donated to Mr. Lewis’s re-election campaign.Subpoenas were issued seeking details about how communities and businesses in Mr. Lewis’s district chose to hire Mr. Lowery’s firm, how much they paid, and the nature of communications between the firm and Mr. Lewis.Four years later, the Justice Department dropped the investigation.Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group that had been critical of Mr. Lewis’s ties to Mr. Lowery, condemned the Justice Department’s decision.“Exactly what will a politician have to do for the Department of Justice to sit up and take notice?” Melanie Sloan, then the group’s executive director, said in an interview with The Associated Press.Looking back on the investigation in 2012, shortly before he retired from the House, Mr. Lewis told the Southern California public radio station KPCC, “It’ll always be there, and the reality is that we have attempted to be a positive impact in public service.”Charles Jeremy Lewis was born on Oct. 21, 1934, in Seattle and moved with his family to San Bernardino, Calif., as a child. His father, Edward, was a civil engineer who worked on the construction of New Deal projects. His mother, Ruth, was a homemaker.After studying veterinary science at the University of California, Berkeley, he transferred to the University of California, Los Angeles, where he received a bachelor’s degree in political science. After working in the insurance business, Mr. Lewis served on the San Bernardino Board of Education and then was elected to the California State Assembly. He served there for a decade. During his tenure, he pushed for voter approval to make a reporter shield law — to protect the confidentiality of sources — an amendment to the state constitution and wrote legislation that established an air pollution control agency in Southern California.Once elected to the House, he was named to the Appropriations Committee in his second term and became chairman of the subcommittee that funds the Department of Veterans Affairs, NASA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Four years later he took over the defense subcommittee. His two years as Appropriations Committee chairman ended in 2007, after Democrats won the House majority.In addition to his son Dan, Mr. Lewis is survived by his wife, Arlene (Willis) Lewis; a daughter, Jenifer Engler; two other sons, Jerry Jr., and Jeff; a stepdaughter, Julie Willis Leon; two stepsons, Jimmy and Marty Willis; six grandchildren; three great-grandchildren; and two brothers, Ray and John. His marriage to Sally Lord ended in divorce.Having the same name as a famous comedian was something that trailed Mr. Lewis throughout his career. “He had a good sense of humor” about it, Dan Lewis said. He recalled his father campaigning at a parade in Apple Valley, Calif., where people were eager to see the funnyman, not the lawmaker. The crowd might have been disappointed, he said, but the congressman “wasn’t annoyed.” More

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Thomas Barrack, Trump Fund-Raiser, Is Indicted on Lobbying Charge

      by

      Mr. Barrack, the chairman of Donald Trump’s inaugural committee, was accused of failing to register as a lobbyist for the United Arab Emirates, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators.WASHINGTON — Thomas J. Barrack Jr., a close friend of former President Donald J. Trump’s and one of his top 2016 campaign fund-raisers, was arrested in California on Tuesday on federal charges of failing to register as a foreign lobbyist, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators.A seven-count indictment accused Mr. Barrack, 74, of using his access to Mr. Trump to advance the foreign policy goals of the United Arab Emirates and then repeatedly misleading federal agents about his activities during a June 2019 interview.Federal prosecutors said Mr. Barrack used his position as an outside adviser to Mr. Trump’s campaign to publicly promote the Emirates’ agenda while soliciting direction, feedback and talking points from senior Emirati officials.Once Mr. Trump was elected, they said, Mr. Barrack invited senior Emirati officials to give him a “wish list” of foreign policy moves they wanted Washington to take within the first 100 days, first six months, first year and by the end of Mr. Trump’s term, prosecutors said.Among other key Emirati objectives, Mr. Barrack pushed for the Trump administration not to hold a summit with Qatar, a rival Persian Gulf power that was under a blockade that the Emirates and Saudi Arabia, an Emirati ally, had organized, they said.Mr. Barrack is latest in a long string of former Trump aides, fund-raisers and associates to face criminal charges. The former president’s company, the Trump Organization, and its chief financial officer were indicted this month on state fraud and tax charges. Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, pleaded guilty in a hush-money scandal.Mr. Trump pardoned his 2016 campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who had been convicted in the special counsel’s investigation, and his former chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, who had been under federal indictment on charges that he misused money he helped raise for a group backing Mr. Trump’s border wall.Authorities have scrutinized a number of Trump aides and associates over suspicions that they improperly provided governments or other foreign interests access to Mr. Trump, his campaign or his administration. The indictment portrayed Mr. Barrack as a flagrant example of abusing such influence.“The defendant is charged with extremely serious offenses based on conduct that strikes at the very heart of our democracy,” the prosecutors in the case wrote to a federal judge in Los Angeles, asking her to detain Mr. Barrack pending his removal to New York for a bail hearing. “The defendant is charged with acting under the direction or control of the most senior leaders of the U.A.E. over a course of years.”Matt Herrington, a lawyer for Mr. Barrack, said: “Tom Barrack has made himself voluntarily available to investigators from the outset. He is not guilty and will be pleading not guilty.”Two other men were also charged with acting as Emirati agents without registering with the Justice Department, as required: Matthew Grimes, a former top executive at Mr. Barrack’s company, and Rashid al-Malik Alshahhi, an Emirati businessman who is close to the Emirates’ rulers.Mr. Grimes, 27, was arrested on Tuesday. Authorities were unable to arrest Mr. al-Malik, 43. An Emirati citizen, he had long lived primarily in California, prosecutors said. But three years ago, after the F.B.I. interviewed him, he left the country and has not returned, prosecutors said in court papers. Lawyers or representatives for the two men could not reached for comment.Prosecutors said Mr. Trump was among those betrayed by Mr. Barrack’s hidden allegiance to a foreign government from early 2016 to early 2018. And Mr. Barrack’s hopes to influence Mr. Trump or his aides were sometimes dashed.For example, Mr. Barrack had hoped that Mr. Trump would name him to be a Middle East envoy or an ambassador to the Emirates. Prosecutors said that Mr. Barrack advised Mr. al-Malik that such posts would empower the Emirates, and that Mr. al-Malik agreed Mr. Barrack could “deliver more” in such roles.But Mr. Trump did not give Mr. Barrack either job, and he remained an outside adviser to the administration.The indictment suggests that Mr. Barrack was working in direct cooperation with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, the de facto ruler of the Emirates and ostensibly one of Washington’s closest partners in the region. That could have implications for current U.S. policy.The indictment does not explicitly name Crown Prince Mohammed, but appears to clearly refer to him as “Emirati Official 1.” For instance, it states that “Emirati Official 1” met with Mr. Trump at the White House on May 15, 2017, the same day Crown Prince Mohammed met with the president. Other descriptions also match that of Crown Prince Mohammed, often referred to by American officials as M.B.Z.The indictment said that “Emirati Official 1” worked with Mr. Barrack to help scuttle U.S. plans for a conference at Camp David, Md., to press the Emirates to mend the rift with Qatar, another American partner.The indictment also referred to Mr. Barrack’s work with “Emirati Official 5,” who appears to fit the description of the Emirates’ influential ambassador to Washington, Yousef al-Otaiba. The indictment said that early in the Trump transition, the official wrote to Mr. Barrack to ask if he had insight into the new administration’s foreign policy appointments.“I do, and we are working through them in real time and I have our regional interest in high profile,” Mr. Barrack wrote back, according to the indictment.Mr. Barrack’s real estate and private equity firm, Colony Capital, profited from substantial investments from the Emirates and Saudi Arabia, countries that are closely aligned. In the three years after Mr. Trump became the Republican Party’s nominee for president in July 2016, Colony Capital received about $1.5 billion from those two Persian Gulf countries through investments or other transactions. Of that, about $474 million came from sovereign wealth funds controlled by their governments.Mr. Barrack stepped down as Colony Capital’s executive chairman in March. The firm was recently renamed DigitalBridge. According to a filing this month with Securities and Exchange Commission, Mr. Barrack owns 10 percent of that firm and is one of its directors.Mr. Barrack has been friends with Mr. Trump since the 1980s. He helped raise money for Mr. Trump’s first presidential campaign and ran his transition team after Mr. Trump won. He was perhaps best known for leading Mr. Trump’s inaugural committee, which raised $107 million — the most money ever collected and spent to celebrate an inauguration.Critics claimed the committee became a hub for peddling access to foreign officials or business leaders, or those acting on their behalf, but investigations by several local jurisdictions into the committee’s activities petered out with no charges filed.The federal inquiry into Mr. Barrack’s ties with foreign leaders was an outgrowth of the investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.The special counsel’s work put a spotlight on violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, known as FARA, and led to a greater effort by the Justice Department to enforce it. The law requires those who work for foreign governments, political parties or other entities to influence American policy or public opinion to disclose their activities to the department.Several former Trump aides who were charged by the special counsel acknowledged violating the statute in guilty pleas, including Mr. Manafort, the 2016 campaign chairman, and Rick Gates, the deputy chairman. Mr. Mueller referred Mr. Barrack’s case to the U.S. attorney’s office in Brooklyn, apparently because the allegations went beyond his investigative mandate.According to the indictment, Mr. al-Malik was a key intermediary between Mr. Barrack and the Emirati leadership. In court papers, prosecutors said Mr. Barrack told State Department officials in 2017 that he did not know where Mr. al-Malik was from or whether he was affiliated with any foreign government. But privately, prosecutors said, Mr. Barrack repeatedly referred to Mr. al-Malik as the Emirates’ “secret weapon” to advance its foreign policy agenda with the Trump campaign and administration.After one media appearance, Mr. Barrack emailed Mr. al-Malik, boasting that he had “nailed it” for the “home team” — meaning the Emirates, the indictment said. The two men repeatedly met personally with high-level leaders of the Emirates and Saudi Arabia, including in May, August and December of 2016, court papers say. Late Tuesday, a federal magistrate detained Mr. Barrack and Mr. Grimes, pending a bail hearing on Monday. Prosecutors had described Mr. Barrack as a flight risk, citing his wealth, Lebanese citizenship, private jet and deep ties to the Emirates and other Persian Gulf countries.The indictment comes at a delicate moment for U.S. diplomacy in the region because the Emirates is waiting for the Biden administration to finalize approval of a $23 billion sale of high-tech weaponry agreed upon under Mr. Trump — including 50 F-35 fighter jets, as well as sophisticated drones.Sharon LaFraniere More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      'Special Master' to Decide if FBI Can Use Giuliani's Data

      by

      A federal judge in Manhattan on Friday ordered the appointment of a so-called special master to review whether materials seized from Rudolph W. Giuliani’s apartment and office during an F.B.I. search in April are protected by attorney-client privilege.The searches were part of a criminal investigation into whether Mr. Giuliani broke lobbying laws in his dealings in Ukraine before the 2020 presidential election. Mr. Giuliani was President Donald J. Trump’s personal lawyer at the time.Mr. Giuliani was seeking to uncover damaging information on President Biden, then a leading presidential candidate. The authorities are examining whether Mr. Giuliani was also lobbying the Trump administration on behalf of Ukrainian officials who were assisting him in his dirt-digging mission, The New York Times has reported.Mr. Giuliani has not been accused of any wrongdoing. He has said he never lobbied on behalf of the Ukrainians.The judge, J. Paul Oetken of Federal District Court in Manhattan, said the appointment of the special master — usually a retired judge or magistrate — was “warranted here to ensure the perception of fairness.”The special master would conduct a review to determine whether any of the material seized from Mr. Giuliani’s cellphones and computers was potentially covered by attorney-client privilege and should be made off-limits to prosecutors.In response to the ruling, one of Mr. Giuliani’s lawyers, Robert J. Costello, said, “We knew that a special master was inevitable, which is why we did not oppose it, so this ruling comes as no surprise to us.”The U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan, which had sought the appointment of the special master, declined to comment.Judge Oetken also denied Mr. Giuliani’s request for copies of the confidential government documents detailing the basis for the warrants issued in support of the searches in April, and an earlier search of Mr. Giuliani’s iCloud account. Typically, such records are only made available to defendants after they are indicted and before a trial.Mr. Giuliani was “not entitled to a preview of the government’s evidence in an ongoing investigation before he has been charged with a crime,” the judge said.Judge Oetken asked that the parties submit to the court proposed candidates for special master by next Friday.Ben Protess More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Troubled Vaccine Maker and Its Founder Gave $2 Million in Political Donations

      by

      Emergent BioSolutions faces scrutiny in Congress for ruining Covid-19 vaccines and securing lucrative federal contracts. Executives will appear before some lawmakers who benefited from the company’s spending.WASHINGTON — When Fuad El-Hibri, founder and executive chairman of Emergent BioSolutions, appears Wednesday before a House subcommittee to explain how the company’s Baltimore plant ruined millions of doses of coronavirus vaccine, he will be questioned by lawmakers he and his employees spent tens of thousands of dollars helping to elect.Since 2018, federal campaign records show, Mr. El-Hibri and his wife, Nancy, have donated at least $150,000 to groups affiliated with the top Republican on the panel, Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, as well as Mr. Scalise’s campaigns. At least two other members of the subcommittee received donations during the 2020 election cycle from the company’s political action committee, which has given about $1.4 million over the past 10 years to members of both parties.Mr. El-Hibri and his wife have made additional donations totaling more than $800,000 over the same period, with the majority going to Republican candidates and organizations.Political giving is nothing new in Washington. But with the federal government as Emergent’s prime customer, Mr. El-Hibri and the company he founded have spent years cultivating ties on Capitol Hill, helping Emergent carve out a lucrative niche market as a government contractor under both Democratic and Republican administrations.Now Emergent and its top executives find themselves under scrutiny from some of the very elected officials they have sought to influence.Members of Congress are demanding answers from the company, which was awarded a $628 million contract last year to manufacture Covid-19 vaccines but has yet to produce a single dose deemed usable by federal regulators. Along with Mr. El-Hibri, Emergent’s chief executive, Robert G. Kramer, will testify beginning at 10:30 a.m. before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, which has opened a sprawling inquiry.Like nearly everything else about the coronavirus pandemic, the hearing is bound to be colored by politics.Democrats, led by Representative Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the panel’s chairman, are expected to use the session to put a spotlight on the company’s relationship with Trump administration officials, including Robert Kadlec, the former assistant secretary of health and human services for preparedness and response, who had previously consulted for Emergent. Dr. Kadlec has said that he was not involved in negotiating the company’s coronavirus contract but that he did sign off on it.Democrats have also signaled that they will zero in on the executives’ stock trades. Emergent’s stock performed so well in 2020 that Mr. El-Hibri cashed in shares and options worth over $42 million, The New York Times reported in March. Mr. Kramer sold slightly more than $10 million in stock this year, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission reported earlier by The Washington Post.“They all made millions in stock transactions while they seem to be hiding stuff from the public,” Mr. Clyburn said in a recent interview with CNN.Republicans, led by Mr. Scalise, who as the No. 2 Republican holds the title of whip, are likely to point out that the company’s contracts date at least to the Obama administration, which designated its Baltimore facility a center for innovation in advanced development and manufacturing — meaning it would be ready to make vaccines and other needed treatments in the event of a crisis.Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana received campaign donations from Mr. El-Hibri and his wife, Nancy.Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesA spokeswoman for Mr. Scalise said that Mr. El-Hibri would receive no special treatment at the hearing. “The Democrats invited him as a witness, and Whip Scalise will treat him as he would any other witness that has been invited before the committee,” the spokeswoman said.Until recently, Emergent was an obscure player in Washington, but a dominant force in the highly specialized market for drugs and vaccines aimed at countering a biological attack. The company burst into the limelight earlier this spring after The Times reported that workers at its Bayview plant in Baltimore had accidentally conflated the ingredients of two vaccines that rely on live viruses, forcing Emergent to discard up to 15 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.Food and Drug Administration inspectors subsequently raised concerns about possible further contamination, and the company has recently submitted a quality improvement plan to regulators. The equivalent of about 70 million more doses of Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine, mostly for domestic use, are on hold and may never be cleared for use in the United States.“The collaboration with BARDA was designed to create a higher probability of success but was not without risk,” an Emergent spokesman, Matt Hartwig, said in a statement to The Times, using the acronym for the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the federal agency that awarded the contract. “Our motivation in collaborating with BARDA was to help play a role in bringing the pandemic to an end and we are proud of the work of Emergent’s employees.”Mr. Kramer, the chief executive, is likely to use the hearing to outline the company’s corrective action plan and to cast Emergent as a company committed to helping the country in crisis. During a recent earnings call with investors, Mr. Kramer announced a management shake-up and took “full responsibility” for the problems in Baltimore.But he also cast some blame on the government, saying that federal officials had asked Emergent to manufacture the two live-virus vaccines — one developed by Johnson & Johnson and the other by AstraZeneca — despite the risk of contamination. He said that the company had taken precautions but that the contamination had most likely occurred when “one or more of these precautions did not function as anticipated.”Emergent’s chief executive, Robert G. Kramer, sold slightly more than $10 million in stock this year, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.Joe Andrucyk/Office of Governor Larry HoganThrough Mr. Hartwig, the Emergent spokesman, the El-Hibris declined to comment.The company is a longtime partner to the federal government. Then known as BioPort, it was founded by Mr. El-Hibri in 1998 after he and some investors paid the state of Michigan $25 million to buy the license for a government-developed anthrax vaccine and an aging manufacturing plant. In the two decades since, the company built its business largely around selling products to the Strategic National Stockpile, the nation’s emergency medical reserve.An investigation by The Times, published in March, found that the company’s anthrax vaccine had in some years accounted for roughly half of the stockpile’s budget and that the company’s aggressive tactics, broad political connections and penchant for undercutting competitors had given it remarkable sway over the government’s purchasing decisions related to the vaccines.The company’s board is stocked with former federal officials, and its lobbyists include former members of Congress and aides from both parties. The company’s government relations shop is similarly stocked with partisans; Chris Frech, its top in-house lobbyist, worked for former President George W. Bush, and Grant Barbosa, a senior director for government affairs, was a legislative assistant to Vice President Kamala Harris when she was a senator.Senate lobbying disclosures show that the company has spent an average of $3 million a year on lobbying over the past decade — much more than similarly sized biotech firms but about the same as two pharmaceutical giants, AstraZeneca and Bristol Myers Squibb, whose annual revenues are at least 17 times higher.During the first three months of this year, Emergent reported spending $1.47 million on lobbying, enlisting the services of more than two dozen lobbyists from 10 firms.Federal campaign disclosure records show that donations to the Emergent BioSolutions Inc. Employees PAC run the gamut. Board members and executives like Mr. El-Hibri give as much as $5,000, the maximum allowable amount per year under federal election rules. Some employees have contributed on a biweekly basis in amounts as small as $3.47. Three former employees said the company offered a payroll deduction program to make giving easier.The employee group tends to spend in small dollar amounts, typically $1,000 to $2,500 on incumbents, including lawmakers representing states where it operates, like Maryland and Michigan. Representative Steny Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the No. 2 Democrat in the House, was a top beneficiary in the 2020 election cycle; he and an affiliated organization received a total of $10,000.Two members of the House panel conducting Wednesday’s hearing — Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio, and Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland — each received $1,000 contributions over the same election cycle.In an interview, Mr. Raskin said that he had been unaware of the donation until he was contacted by a Times reporter and that he had returned the money. A spokesman for Mr. Jordan said that the congressman had raised more than $18 million during the 2020 election cycle and that contributions had no bearing on his work as a legislator.Mr. Hartwig, the Emergent spokesman, said in an email message that the PAC “supports incumbent Members of Congress of both chambers and from both parties who represent our employees and our facilities, and who are committed to preparedness and response for the next biological, chemical, or public health threat.”Sharon LaFraniere contributed reporting. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Giuliani Seeks to Block Review of Evidence From His Phones

      by

      Prosecutors investigating Rudolph W. Giuliani’s work in Ukraine have seized his electronic devices, a move his lawyers are now questioning.Rudolph W. Giuliani on Monday opened a broad attack on the searches that federal investigators conducted of his home, his office and his iCloud account, asking a judge to block any review of the seized records while his lawyers determine whether there was a legitimate basis for the warrants, according a court filing made public on Monday.Mr. Giuliani’s lawyers are seeking copies of the confidential government documents that detail the basis for the search warrants, a legal long shot that they hope could open the door for them to argue for the evidence to be suppressed. Typically, prosecutors only disclose such records after someone is indicted and before a trial, but Mr. Giuliani, who is under investigation for potential lobbying violations, has not been accused of wrongdoing.A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office declined to comment on Monday.In a 17-page letter to the judge who authorized the searches, Mr. Giuliani’s lawyers argued that it would have been more appropriate — and less invasive — for the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan to seek information through a subpoena, which, unlike a warrant, would have given him an opportunity to review the documents and respond.Justice Department policy recommends that prosecutors use subpoenas when seeking information from lawyers, unless there is a concern about destruction of evidence.The defense lawyers wrote that prosecutors “simply chose to treat a distinguished lawyer as if he was the head of a drug cartel or a terrorist, in order to create maximum prejudicial coverage of both Giuliani and his most well-known client — the former president of the United States.”The lawyers also disclosed that the government had claimed in a November 2019 search warrant for Mr. Giuliani’s iCloud account that the search needed to be a secret because of concerns he might destroy records or intimidate witnesses.Though the government routinely cites concern about potential destruction of records when seeking search warrants, Mr. Giuliani’s lawyers attacked the idea that their client, himself a former federal prosecutor and onetime personal lawyer to President Donald J. Trump, would ever destroy evidence.“Such an allegation, on its face, strains credulity,” the lawyers, including Robert J. Costello and Arthur Aidala, wrote. “It is not only false, but extremely damaging to Giuliani’s reputation. It is not supported by any credible facts and is contradicted by Giuliani’s efforts to provide information to the government.”The judge who approved the warrants, J. Paul Oetken of Federal District Court, will ultimately decide whether Mr. Giuliani will have access to the confidential government materials underlying them.Mr. Giuliani’s court filing came in response to the government’s request that Judge Oetken appoint a so-called special master to review cellphones and computers seized in the search of Mr. Giuliani’s home and office in Manhattan on April 28.The special master — usually a retired judge or magistrate — would determine whether the materials contained in the devices are covered by attorney-client privilege and as a result cannot be used as evidence in the case. He or she would filter out privileged communications not only between Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Trump, but also between Mr. Giuliani and his other clients.Mr. Giuliani’s lawyers called the appointment of a special master “premature,” because they are first seeking copies of the search warrant materials.The authorities want to examine the electronic devices for communications that might reveal whether Mr. Giuliani violated lobbying laws in his dealings in Ukraine, The New York Times has reported.While serving as Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer before the 2020 presidential election, Mr. Giuliani sought to uncover damaging information on President Biden, then a leading Democratic contender.At issue is whether Mr. Giuliani was at the same time lobbying the Trump administration on behalf of Ukrainian officials who were assisting him in the search.It is a violation of federal law to lobby the U.S. government on behalf of foreign officials without registering with the Justice Department. Mr. Giuliani never registered as a lobbyist for the Ukrainians. He has maintained that he was working only for Mr. Trump.One day after the search, the U.S. attorney’s office told Judge Oetken in a letter that the F.B.I. had begun to extract materials from the seized devices but had not yet begun reviewing them.In the letter, the prosecutors said the appointment of a special master might be appropriate because of “the unusually sensitive privilege issues” raised by the searches, citing, for example, Mr. Giuliani’s representation of Mr. Trump.Communications between lawyers and their clients are generally shielded from investigators in the United States, and communications between presidents and their aides enjoy a similar protection, known as executive privilege.“Any search may implicate not only the attorney-client privilege but the executive privilege,” the office of Audrey Strauss, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, wrote.In seeking the appointment of a special master to review Mr. Giuliani’s materials, the prosecutors cited their office’s investigation of Michael D. Cohen, another of Mr. Trump’s former lawyers.In that case, federal agents seized documents and electronic devices in an April 2018 search of Mr. Cohen’s office, apartment and hotel room. A judge appointed Barbara S. Jones, a retired judge, to determine whether those materials were off-limits to investigators because of attorney-client privilege.Ms. Jones ultimately concluded that only a fraction of Mr. Cohen’s materials were privileged and that the rest could be provided to the government. That August, Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations and other crimes. More