More evidence on UAE interference in American politics. They tried to get Tillerson fired

[MicroBrew]

The UAE tried to get Trump to fire Sec. of State Rex Tillerson, because Tillerson would not support the UAE/Saudi effort to proscribe Qatar.

The Emiratis tried via their American agent Elliot Broidy.
Note: the BBC article does not say Broidy was an "agent", it only states he is a UAE linked business man. All these Americans who work on behalf of foreign powers should be labelled as foreign agents by the FBI and dealt with accordingly.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43281519

Major Trump fundraiser and UAE-linked businessman Elliott Broidy met US President Donald Trump in October 2017 and urged him to sack Mr Tillerson, the emails reveal.

In other emails, he calls the top US diplomat "a tower of Jello", "weak" and says he "needs to be slammed".

 

[7437]

What do you mean dealt with accordingly? Its not illegal to be a foreign agent. Unless you lie about it to become the national security adviser or something.

 

[MicroBrew]

What do you mean dealt with accordingly? Its not illegal to be a foreign agent. Unless you lie about it to become the national security adviser or something.

But was this guy classified as a foreign agent? In the case of AIPAC, their lobbyists are not labelled as foreign agents.

 

[Seaside]

I am sure the US never interferes. now someone will tell me ""soo what we know we do and it is wrong but we just cannot roll over and turn over!!!""" we must respond with war or economic destruction (sanctions) to make them feel pain!!!!!!!!! but yeah the UAE sucks. maybe cut them off from aid and being a ally?

 

[Quipling]

But was this guy classified as a foreign agent? In the case of AIPAC, their lobbyists are not labelled as foreign agents.

One of the requirements of FARA is that the organization be under the control of a foreign government, as opposed to simply working towards their interests.

Broidy is UAE "linked" through his business interests, but nothing in your article indicates that he was acting as an agent (under the control/in the employ of) the UAE.

I'm a little puzzled by why you brought up AIPAC at all.

That said, the basis for AIPAC's nonregistration under FARA is the same as Broidy's. Although they support Israel and lobby for pro-Israel policies, they do so at the request of Americans who form their membership, not the Israeli govt. This is also where most of their clout comes from: the threat of many voters in swing states. There are other pro-israel groups that are registered under FARA, because they are actually controlled by the Israeli govt.

 

[MicroBrew]

One of the requirements of FARA is that the organization be under the control/acting at the request of a foreign government, as opposed to simply working towards their interests.

Broidy is UAE "linked" through his business interests, but nothing in your article indicates that he was acting as an agent (at the request of/in the employ of) the UAE.

I'm a little puzzled by why you brought up AIPAC at all.

That said, thr basis for AIPAC's nonregistration under FARA is the same. Although they support Israel, they do so at the request of Americans who form their membership, not the Israeli govt. This is also where most of their clout comes from: the threat of many voters in swing states. There are other pro-israel groups that are registered under FARA, because they are actually controlled by the Israeli govt.

He is working for the interests of the UAE. That should get him labelled a foreign agent.

I brought up AIPAC as an example because they are best example of a foreign agent who does not get called out as foreign agents. AIPAC's agenda and interests is all about advancing Israel's cause. Them having American members doesn't change this reality.

 

[Quipling]

He is working for the interests of the UAE. That should get him labelled a foreign agent.

I brought up AIPAC as an example because they are best example of a foreign agent who does not get called out as foreign agents. AIPAC's agenda and interests is all about advancing Israel's cause. Them having American members doesn't change this reality.

But working for the interests of a foreign power is not the legal definition of a foreign agent (under FARA, the relevant act). An agent of a foreign government is defined as someone "subject to the direction or control of a foreign government." (18 usc 951(d).). There is no labelling someone a foreign agent such that they should be "dealt with" absent such a statute.

If you voluntarily lobby your congressman about improving ties to Zambia, you aren't an agent. If you do so because you're invested in Zambian companies, or have family ties there, you're not an agent. If you do so because another American told you to do so, you're not an agent (of a foreign government). You only become an agent of the foreign government if you're doing so because the foreign government directed you to do so.

That's why who directed you to act matters, and why whether you act in someone's interests is not the primary question.

 

[MicroBrew]

But working for the interests of a foreign power is not sufficient to make them a foreign agent under FARA. You need to be an agent of a foreign government, which is defined as someone "subject to the direction or control of a foreign government." (18 usc 951(d).). You may want the legal requirements to be different, but that does not change what they are.

If you voluntarily lobby your congressman about improving ties to Zambia, you aren't an agent. If you do so because you're invested in Zambian companies, or have family ties there, you're not an agent. If you do so because another American told you to do so, you're not an agent (of a foreign government). You only become an agent of the foreign government if you're doing so because the foreign government directed you to do so.

That's why who directed you to act matters, and why whether you act in someone's interests is not the primary question.

I am aware that technically this guy and AIPAC may escape the "foreign agent " label, but my point is that for all intents and purposes they are foreign agents.

I highly doubt this guy was pushing the UAE agenda because he likes them. He is an American but is working against American interests and in favor of the interests of another nation. That realistically should classify him a foreign agent. Do you think they guy wanted Tillerson out because he personally believes Tillerson is bad for the US?

 

[Quipling]

I am aware that technically this guy and AIPAC may escape the "foreign agent " label, but my point is that for all intents and purposes they are foreign agents.

I highly doubt this guy was pushing the UAE agenda because he likes them. He is an American but is working against American interests and in favor of the interests of another nation. That realistically should classify him a foreign agent. Do you think they guy wanted Tillerson out because he personally believes Tillerson is bad for the US?

You can certainly think that acting in a way that benefits a foreign government is enough to make someone a foreign agent, but the technical definition is important if you want the "FBI to act." Otherwise acting accordingly means doing nothing at all.

As to his motives, he has a very large amount invested in business in the region. He is acting in his interests, which are close to those of the UAE. I'll set aside the issue of whether opposing Tillerson's appointment is "acting against the interests of the US.". Instead, we have a more interesting issue: should anyone who has a financial interest in the success of foreign countries be considered a foreign agent to the extent that they support policies or hires favoring their interests? I have a modest sum invested in some foreign companies, after all. Many people do.

 

[MicroBrew]

You can certainly think that acting in a way that benefits a foreign government is enough to make someone a foreign agent, but the technical definition is important if you want the "FBI to act." Otherwise acting accordingly means doing nothing at all.

As to his motives, he has a very large amount invested in business in the region. He is acting in his interests, which are close to those of the UAE. I'll set aside the issue of whether opposing Tillerson's appointment is "acting against the interests of the US.". Instead, we have a more interesting issue: should anyone who has a financial interest in the success of foreign countries be considered a foreign agent to the extent that they support policies or hires favoring their interests? I have a modest sum invested in some foreign companies, after all. Many people do.

The Feds should revamp/modify the criteria as to what entails foreign agent status. Such persons have lawyers advise them on just how to keep just inside the line of what is legal and what might bring about Federal action. The government has changed and modified laws. But still some entities are quite adept at finding loopholes , so the government sometimes postures on closing said loopholes- think foreign tax havens.

He is acting in his personal interests and the interests of the UAE. A person engaged in industrial espionage, selling valuable American scientific and commercial secrets to a foreign power is also acting in his/her interest. That doesn't negate the fact they hurt American interests. He is clearly opposing Tillerson only because the UAE directs him to. Most Americans aren't really passionate about Tillerson.

You investing in foreign companies is unrelated to this situation, because you haven't tried to manipulate US politics on the orders of a foreign government.

 

[Quipling]

The Feds should revamp/modify the criteria as to what entails foreign agent status. Such persons have lawyers advise them on just how to keep just inside the line of what is legal and what might bring about Federal action. The government has changed and modified laws. But still some entities are quite adept at finding loopholes, so the government sometimes postures on closing said loopholes- think foreign tax havens.

Sure, but not really relevant here unless you have a stated reason to think that loopholes are being exploited here.

He is acting in his personal interests and the interests of the UAE. A person engaged in industrial espionage, selling valuable American scientific and commercial secrets to a foreign power is also acting in his/her interest. That doesn't negate the fact they hurt American interests.

There are espionage laws relating to that, which are unrelated to lobbying and FARA.

He is clearly opposing Tillerson only because the UAE directs him to.

Citation needed. This is really what it boils down to in the end.

 

[VivaRevolution]

One of the requirements of FARA is that the organization be under the control of a foreign government, as opposed to simply working towards their interests.

Broidy is UAE "linked" through his business interests, but nothing in your article indicates that he was acting as an agent (under the control/in the employ of) the UAE.

I'm a little puzzled by why you brought up AIPAC at all.

That said, the basis for AIPAC's nonregistration under FARA is the same as Broidy's. Although they support Israel and lobby for pro-Israel policies, they do so at the request of Americans who form their membership, not the Israeli govt. This is also where most of their clout comes from: the threat of many voters in swing states. There are other pro-israel groups that are registered under FARA, because they are actually controlled by the Israeli govt.

Bull shit!

 

[7437]

He is working for the interests of the UAE. That should get him labelled a foreign agent.

I brought up AIPAC as an example because they are best example of a foreign agent who does not get called out as foreign agents. AIPAC's agenda and interests is all about advancing Israel's cause. Them having American members doesn't change this reality.

Ive bought foreign bonds before. That was in the interest of their government. Should i be registered as an agent?

 

[MicroBrew]

Ive bought foreign bonds before. That was in the interest of their government. Should i be registered as an agent?

Yes. You should be sent to GITMO asap.

On a serious note: you know there is a difference between investing/buying bonds and proactively trying to get a senior US official fired because he is not doing what a foreign government wants him to do.

 

[MicroBrew]

Sure, but not really relevant here unless you have a stated reason to think that loopholes are being exploited here.

There are espionage laws relating to that, which are unrelated to lobbying and FARA.

Citation needed. This is really what it boils down to in the end.

What needs to be done is changes to US laws, to make such person foreign agents. My loophole comment was an analogy, on how certain entities can skirt the law, and deliberately so, to avoid running foul of the gov.

This isn't espionage, but it is attempting to manipulate/harm US interests , for the benefit of a foreign government.


---
Connect the dots from the below quotes in the BBC article. This guy is clearly against Tillerson because Tillerson is not on-board with the Emirati agenda vis-a-vis Qatar. The Emiratis have impressed upon him to see if he could get Trump to fire Tillerson.


Major Trump fundraiser and UAE-linked businessman Elliott Broidy met US President Donald Trump in October 2017 and urged him to sack Mr Tillerson, the emails reveal.

Mr Broidy's defence company Circinus has hundreds of millions of dollars worth of contracts with the UAE, according to the New York Times newspaper.

He had recently returned from the UAE when he met Mr Trump at the White House in October.

According to a memorandum he prepared of the meeting, Mr Broidy urged continued support of US allies the UAE and Saudi Arabia and advised Mr Trump against getting involved in last year's row with Qatar.

Mr Broidy called Qatar "a television station with a country" - alluding to broadcaster Al Jazeera - and said it was doing "nothing positive", according to the emails.

He said he touted a regional counter-terrorism force being set up by the UAE that his company was involved with, and suggested that the US president "sit down" with Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and a top UAE military commander.

"I offered that MBZ [the crown prince] is available to come to the US very soon and preferred a quiet meeting in New York or New Jersey. President Trump agreed that a meeting with MBZ was a good idea," Mr Broidy wrote in an email.

He also said he advised the president on Mr Tillerson - who was "performing poorly and should be fired at a politically convenient time".

Mr Tillerson had criticised the blockade of Qatar and called for it to be eased, in comments that contrasted with Mr Trump's support for the move.

---

 

[HockeyBjj]

If the Saudis want Tillerson fired that gives me a little bit of reason to support him

 

[Fluffernutter]

CNN International has a hub in the UAE. If you ever watch that channel, their advertisements are made up of three things:

1. Future CNN programming.
2. Government run airlines (Qatar Air, Etihad Airlines, and Emirates Airlines)
3. Government PR campaigns (Invest in Egypt - by the Egypt Investment Ministry; Visit Awesomestan - paid for by the Awesomestan Department of Tourism).

If we limit FARA to simply getting money from a foreign government, then John K. Martin (CEO of Turner Broadcasting) would have some explaining to do.

 

[The Merchant]

But was this guy classified as a foreign agent? In the case of AIPAC, their lobbyists are not labelled as foreign agents.

Bobby Kennedy tried to register them as a foreign agent and a palestinian killed him.

 

[Fluffernutter]

https://theintercept.com/2017/11/09/uae-qatar-oitaba-rowland-banque-havilland-world-cup/

https://theintercept.com/2017/08/30...f-al-otaiba-double-life-prostitutes-sex-work/

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/03...th-pro-israel-neocon-think-tank-against-iran/


Leaked (or "leaked") emails regarding the GCC countries have been going on for a little while now.

 

[ShoelessRye]

Silly Emirates, Russia wants Tillerson.