Trump Ally Barrack Charged With Illegal Lobbying

a week ago. From my simple beginnings of where I came to have the gift and the opportunity to be next to a president of the United States, to have the honor of running an inauguration, to be up close and personal on some issues that affect world order. Now, federal prosecutors alleged that Barrack was too up close and personal on issues affecting world order, specifically affecting the United

Arab Emirates. Barrick was arrested this week on charges of illegal lobbying for a foreign government, and allegation prosecutors have successfully brought against several other Trump associates, in addition to charges of obstruction of justice and lying to the FBI. Joining me as former federal prosecutor. Jimmy Grula a professor at Notre Dame Law School. So, Jimmy, are these charges serious.

They are serious charges. I mean Tom Barrick is charged with seven counts including failing to file as a foreign agent, conspiracy to act as an unregistered agent, obstruction of justice specifically involving obstructing a federal grand jury investigation, and then four counts of making material false statements to a federal agent, specifically FBI agents. They are serious charge. I mean the obstruction of justice charge alone carries some maximum twenty year

sentence of imprisonment. This is what's called a speaking indictment because it provides so much detail. Did some of the incidents charge stand out to you as particularly egregious, Well, the ones I think that the most troublesome is where

Barrick is actually attempting to influence presidential appointments. You know, for example, the U S Ambassador to the U A and where he's been asked by members of the U A government to get information inside information on who the Trump administration is considering for key high level government posts such as the Secretary of State, the director of the CIA, and some other high level officials. And so what that demonstrates is that Barrick is actually acting again on behalf

of the foreign government. But is not being transparent. And so he has this very close relationship with former President Trump, a relationship that he's maintained over I think approximately thirty years. He served as an informal advisor to then presidential candidate Trump,

president elect Trump, and then even as president. And so the conflict here is is he giving the former president advice that's in the best interests of the US government, or again, is he giving advice for the benefit of the U A. Barrack isn't the first of Trump's allies to be charged with violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act or FARAH, But I don't remember many high profile

indictments under FARAH before this was this not enforced much? Well, it's infrequently used, I mean, so it's not the federal charge that we see brought on a regular basis. I mean, it carries a five year sentence of incarceration. So it is a felony, there's no question about it. But often this type of matter might be handled behind the scenes. There might be efforts made. You know there's a problem here, Oh you know I'm being investigated, Ye, let me go register.

But here what ends up happening is not only does Barrick not register as a foreign agent even though he's acting on behalf of the UAE. But then he lies, at least the indictment alleges that he lies to the FBI about the relationship that he has with the UAE, and the effort says he's undertaken on behalf of the UAE, and he does so as a legend the dagon multiple times.

And being a former federal prosecutor, you know that when the FBI is asking those questions, usually there at the point where they have the answers and they just want

to know if you're telling them the truth. That's what's really, I think, kind of mind boggling here, because clearly he had to know or there was just this this inflated sense of arrogance and that I'm smarter than the FBI, you know, for him, first of all to agree to sit down and talk to the FBI and then to respond to these specific questions that he was being asked by the FBI and to deny his involvement of these activities. And you're right, he should have known that the FBI

had the answers to these questions. Probably the more prudent course for him to have taken would have been to refuse the invitation to be interviewed by the FBI, but he didn't. In an interview taped last week with Bloomberg TV, Barrett gave no indication that he was aware of the

impending charges. Would this have been something that that the FBI might have or prosecutors might have told him about that an indictment was coming, Well, certainly he would have been put on notice, I think based upon the the interviews that he had with the FBI, because they clearly, again as alleged in counts fourth through seven of the indictment,

they asked him specific questions. He was asked specific questions by FBI agents regarding his relationship with UAE officials and more specifically, activity specific activities undertaken on behalf of away government officials. For example, he was asked whether a Emarati official had asked him to download a messaging application to communicate directly with these foreign government officials and to acquire a dedicated telephone to communicate directly with you a government officials.

I mean, so here he's being asked specific questions involving the nature of his relationship and activities with you a government officials that clearly should have raised some red flags for Barrack that would cause him to again to know that he's under investigation. Now, whether or not he knew that the investigation was so far along that an indictment was eminent or an indictment would be shortly forthcoming, you know, that's a different question. But he certainly knew that he

was being investigated by the FBI. Does it seem like prosecutors have built a strong case against Barrick. It's incumbents that the FBI the d o J have a very strong, compelling in case, strong credible evidence to convict. And what I find interesting about this indictment is it doesn't depend on percipient witnesses. It doesn't depend on oh, we've got somebody over here and we're going to get this guy to flip and we're going to make promises that will

dismiss charges if he cooperates and testifies. That's not this case. And of course those types of witnesses or credibility is always highly suspect. This is largely a document based case, based upon text messages and other types of communications that they've been able to download. And here the prosecutors detail multiple communications between Barrick and U, a government official. It's extensive,

and they have quotes exact language that he used. It clearly establishes and proves that he was acting on behalf of this foreign government with respect to promoting their interests, promoting the foreign government interests with the Trump and ministertion. So it'll be difficult to see what legal defense they raise in an effort to overcome what appears to be

a very compelling case, at least on paper. Is there a chance of Barrack flipping The Eastern District of New York, which brought these charges, is also investigating fraud in the Trump inaugural campaign, and Barrick was chairman of the inaugural committee. I mean it's it's certainly possible. I think the equation here, the calculation I should say that Barry is going to undertake is what's the likelihood of conviction? A second, if I'm convicted, what kind of sentence am I realistically looking

to receive? And if ultimately he concludes that yeah, I mean, if I'm convicted and I have no prior conviction, I haven't been involved in any criminal activity and therefore based upon the sentencing guidelines. The sentence is going to be, you know, five years, three years, two years, whatever, am

I be? Relatively a short sentence that may not be enough russure, that may not be enough leverage exerted by the Department of Justice to cause him to cooperate and share information that could implicate former President Trump and maybe other allies of former President Trump. Thanks for being on the show, Jimmy. That's Professor Jimmy Garule of Notre Dame Law School. The June heat wave in the Northwest shattered temperature records and caused the deaths of hundreds of people.

More people lie of extreme heat in the US each year than from other natural disasters, but FEMA devotes very little of its resources to deal with extreme heat. Columbia Law School professor Michael Gerard, Faculty director of the Saban Center for Climate Change Law, says FEMA has the authority under law to do more in advance to lower heat related deaths. He's written a piece for Bloomberg Law and he joins me now so to get an idea of just how hot it's been. Tell us about July nine

in Death Valley, California. We're seeing world records being set about heat. It was a hundred and thirty degrees fahrenheit on July ninth, which seems to be the world record for heat. And we're seeing temperatures in the one twenties and various parts of the world which had previously been almost unheard of. I think a lot of people when they think of heat waves, they don't think of heat waves as causing a lot of deaths compared to tornadoes

and hurricanes and floods. But that's just not right, is it. That's right? The National Weather Service counts off the number of people who die every year from natural disasters, and heat is by far the leading cause of death. Heat waves, far ahead of floods or tornadoes or hurricane. A lot of people die, and these numbers are probably underreported because many people who have heart attacks and so forth that aren't directly attributed to heat. How much does FEMA do?

How much time and resources does it devote to heat waves? Right now, FEMA does almost thing on heat waves. They basically have concentrated on declared emergencies and disasters, and there haven't been any about heat waves. Part of the issue is that the conventional kinds of disasters like hurricanes and tornadoes and floods cause a lot of physical damage. Heat waves don't cause so much physical damage, so after they're over,

they don't require a lot of that recovery. But they kill a lot of people, and so far FEMA has not really paid much attention to them. Is that because the real way to battle heat waves would be environmental changes. Well, in the long term, we need to drastically reduce great house gas emissions in order to reduce the heat waste, but that's going to take a very long time, and

that's not femus job. But there are lots of things that FEMA could help with in the short term that would help people cope with heat waves and would greatly reduce the depth toll. One of the things you suggest in your article is cooling centers. That's right. Some cities have set up the centers in convention halls or school auditoriums or lots of other buildings that are air conditioned and people can just go and hang out when it's very hot. Who are seeing temperatures that basically are almost

impossible to endure if you don't have air conditioning. Lots of people don't have air conditioning, it breaks down, So these are centers where people can just go and be cool and drink water and so forth. So we have some of those around the country that is kind of sporadic. They're often not well publicized. People have difficulty in getting there very often. And so that's something that is similar to the emergency shoulders we see after flooding. In that

kind of thing. It's something where FEMA could could help out a great deal. So would FEMA be constructing new centers. No, you don't have to build anything. These are all existing buildings. It's mostly a matter of organization and publicizing it and arranging transportation and maybe some supplies like cots and so forth. That no new instruction group be involved. So it seems pretty easy. So why wouldn't FEMA be doing this already? Well, FEMA didn't used to have the authority to do a

lot of work in advance of disasters. Their focus has been urgency response and then then the aftermath. But in two thousand eighteen, Congress amended the law and provided for a new program for preparing for emergencies. And I'm arguing that FEMA ought to devote a chunk of the money under that new program to preparing for heatwave. Do you have backing behind you? Are there any other groups that

are calling for this. We haven't heard a lot of calls yet, but we're trying to get the word out and I've been in communication with FEMA about this, and i know they're looking at it. You suggest some other simple things that FEMA can do to lower heat related death tolls, like just painting roofs white. That's right. One of the big issues we have is called the urban

heat island effect. It tends to be much hot are in cities than in the countryside, and that's largely because so much of the surface is covered with buildings and pavement and sidewalks and so forth. If you paint the roofs of buildings white, that makes it cooler overall, particularly inside the buildings. If you grow a lot more trees, if you have a lot more vegetation, that can make a very substantial difference. We also see racial disparities here.

It's been shown that the communities that are low income or high proportion of people of color tend to be hotter in the summer because they have more asphalts of tower trees. That's something that can be fixed, and in the scheme of things, it's not that expensive. Why aren't local communities doing this themselves. Well, some local communities are. New York City has something called a Million Trees campaign UH to plant a million trees and they have now

exceeded that. A number of other cities have done it, but not nearly as many have done it. And there's no organized national effort to try to reduce the urban heat island effect. And I think FEMA could really take the lead and trying to make sure this happens. Maybe wouldn't have to pay for all of it, but they could help organize it and provide financial assistance to those communities that really don't have the money to do it themselves. Let's talk about some of the other legal tools that

you discussed. So, California and Oregon have set safety standards. That's right. At the national level, OSHA has not set safety standards for the occupational setting for extreme heat. They've been petitioned to do what. They have studies saying they had to do it, but they haven't done it yet.

They're now looking at it. California and Oregon have set up heat standards, especially for outdoor workers, you know, farm workers, outdoor utility workers, all kinds of other people who have to work outside are exposed to heat and it can be really dangerous for them. So Oregon and California set up standards requiring breaks and shade and water and other ways to help reduce the negative health effects of working outside in the heat. So you think that that's something

that OSHA should do. Yes, OSHA should do that. They've been petitioned by some some groups to do it, and it's something clearly within their authority and it's something that they absolutely should undertake. And you mentioned that Arizona has put some requirements on landlords. Yeah, almost everywhere landlords are required to provide heat in the winter. It's part of what's called the warranty of habitability. Arizona has put that in the in the summer that then it went when

it's very hot, landlords have to provide cooling. That's something that I think also should be expanded nationwide. We've seen in the last few months that places like Washington State and Oregon that are usually not very hot and therefore a lot of people don't have air conditioning, they can oppressively hot. We need to protect the tenants in buildings, and imposing this requirement on landlords is one way to do that. There's another simple solution. Low income people could

be given money to buy air conditioners. That's right. There are programs that have been around a long time to help low income people pay for heating oil so that they don't freeze in the winner. A few states provide money to buy air conditioners, but a problem is that a lot of poor people can't afford the power to run the air conditioners. So in addition to helping them buy the air conditioners, they also need subsidies for the

power bills to run the art conditioners. What do you do to try to get states and the federal government to work on these I think that FEMA is the natural agency to organize a nationwide effort to do this. We've seen in the last few months these killer heat waves that have been hitting parts of the country that are not accustomed to it. I think that's increasing overall consciousness of the need to deal with heat waves, since they are, as I said, the most lethal impact of

climate change in the United States. A lot more people die from heat waves than floods of hurricanes or tourin does and it serves national attention like those other kinds of weather disasters. Ever see for a long time, how has the Biden administration been doing on the environment. I think that Biden has put in place a remarkably strong team in the White House, at E p A, and

the Interior Department and and everywhere else. Of the message has clearly gone out that the administration is working very hard on climate change. Everything that they could do by the stroke of a pen, they've pretty much done. In terms of rescinding the executive orders from Trump that weakened environmental regulations. They're really working very hard that We'll see what happens in Congress. The negotiations that are going on

right now about the Infrastructure Bill. There's a lot that Biden can do, and he's doing with his existing legal authority. There's a lot more that he could do if Congress were to add to that authority and provide the money. And we'll see in the days and weeks to come if that actually happens. Tell me what there is in the Infrastructure Bill that addresses climate change or the environment.

One of the most important proposals is the Clean Energy Standard CIER, a law that a certain percentage, and ultimately one of the electricity has to come from zero emission sources, which would be renewables and a little bit of remaining nuclear. That's one very important issue. There's also money in various versions of that for beating up the electric transmission system, which is needed to take power generated by wind and solar to to where it's needed. There's some money from

mass transit. There's money for improving water systems. So there's a lot of money that it would help the climate situation at various versions of the bills, we don't know what ultimately emerge. I've read that some environmental advocates are disappointed in Biden because they don't think the administration is moving fast enough on environment Yeah, the Sunrise Movement and a number of other progressive organizations are complaining that Biden

hasn't gone far enough. I think it's uh, you know that he's getting a lot of pushback from the right that he's he's also getting pushed back from the left. UM, and Biden is making his judgments about how much he can push through in Congress. We'll see how it how it plays out in Congress. Is this a partisan issue? Oh? Yes, UM, Climate change is one of the most partisan issues we've

ever seen. The statistics show that the current Republican Party has adopted as a matter of doctrine that they don't believe that human cause climate change is happening, or if it is, that, I don't think the government should do anything about that. The Democrats are on exactly the opposite side. So that's one of the major problems we have, and with the Senate split fifty fifty, it's very hard to

get anything done. It almost seems absurd with the different problems we've been having with heat and cold, and that people don't believe in climate change. Well, of course it's not the only issue where it's absurd that people can't

think of, as vaccination being number one. But I think that the increased terrible climate change problems we've seen, the floods and the hurricanes in the US, the catastrophic flooding we're now seeing in Europe and China and parts of Africa, parts of other parts of Asia, they're all adding up. There was a magazine cover the other day saying no

one is safe. It used to be thought that there were parts of the world that were completely immune from climate change, but we know that is no longer the case.

The combination of heat, heat, and wildfires and flooding and everything else mean that there are climate related dangers globally, and hopefully more people will wake up to that and take the decisive action that is needed to drastically reduce screenest gas emissions that are causing most of the climate change, and take actions to prepare for the climate change that is coming regardless of our best efforts. Thanks for being

on the Bloomberg Laws Show. That's Professor Michael Gerard of Columbia Law School, and that's it for the edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg