By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell book
BBC - Honduras - CIA Trial book - NY Mag
EDNY COURTHOUSE, Oct 12 – Thomas Barrack and Matthew Grimes, indicted for illegal lobbying for the United Arab Emirates, were arraigned on July 26, 2021 before U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York Magistrate Judge Sanket Bulsara. Inner City Press live tweeted it here (and podcast here)
On October 4, FBI Special Agent Liz Sidaros was still on the stand, but now for cross examination. Barrack's lawyer asked her what Instagram is, then emphasized that neither Malik nor Barrack were sneaking around. He showed Barrack's disclosure to the US State Department when he applied for the US diplomatic job, as Rex Tillerson testified on October 3. Then Colony Capital marketing materials, including Barrack's links withe First Republic Bank and others.
On Sunday October 9, Judge Cogan tightened the advance notice of witnesses period from four to three days: "ORDER granting in part and denying in part [298] Motion in Limine as to Thomas Joseph Barrack (2), Matthew Grimes (3). The Government is required to disclose its anticipated witnesses for Tuesday and Wednesday today consistent with the Court's oral ruling. Thereafter, the parties are to disclose a list of anticipated witnesses 3 days in advance. Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 10/8/2022."
Docketed on October 11 with the trial resuming, Judge Cogan ruled "The Government’s [271/272] request to exclude certain evidence as inadmissible hearsay is denied in part and granted in part.1 a. BX 170 and BX 183 are admissible for the non-hearsay purpose of demonstrating the nature of the relationship between Barrack and Al Malik.
[FN1 The Court resolved other issues raised in the motion related to defendants’ use of certain exhibits on crossexamination in an oral ruling on October 3, 2022.]
b. BX 180 is admissible for the non-hearsay purpose of showing that Gibbs forwarded the Italian Prime Minister’s contact information to then President-elect Trump’s secretary. c. GE 22 is admissible to show Grimes’ state of mind as an “endlessly loyal servant” of Barrack.
d. GE 28 and GE 29 are admissible as business records. e. GE 61 is admissible so long as defendants establish authenticity. f. GE 75 is admissible because Grimes’ command to “send along – per TJB” is not hearsay. See Cameron v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., No. 15- cv-9900, 2018 WL 1027710, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2018) (“In general, commands are not hearsay unless they are used to prove the truth of an implicit assertion.”). g. GE 92A and GE 92B are admissible to show the state of mind of the declarant in planning the referenced dinner. h. GE 104 is admissible, if not already admitted, to show the state of mind of defendants and the relationship between them. i. GE 134, GE 136, and GE 137 are admissible, if not already admitted, as non-hearsay commands and to show the nature of the relationship between defendants."
On FARA, full order on Patreon here.
Analysis: Because of the possibility of (success) appeal to any conviction under Section 951, on a claim that the jurors confused it with FARA, the attempt is made to keep FARA out of testimony as much as possible. But what about the jury instructions? Watch this site.
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.
Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
