JURY TO GET BARRACK CASE: "There was 'nothing nefarious' about former private equity executive Tom Barrack's ties with United Arab Emirates officials, Barrack's defense lawyer said during closing arguments on Tuesday," per Reuters' Luc Cohen, "denying prosecutors' charges the onetime ally of former U.S. President Donald Trump was an illegal foreign agent." — "Randall Jackson, Barrack's lawyer, said there was no evidence Barrack agreed to act as a UAE agent during either of his two 2016 meetings with UAE national security adviser Sheikh Tahnoun bin Zayed al-Nahyan, the second of which took place during a bike ride in Morocco." — "'The theory of the government is that they have come to some sort of super secret spy agreement during this first meeting, and during the second meeting they're going to firm it up,' Jackson said. 'No one, if they want to have a serious discussion about an illegal arrangement with a 70-year-old man, says let's do it on a bike ride.'" — Jurors will soon decide the fate of Barrack and his former aide Matthew Grimes, who've both pleaded not guilty to charges of working to advance the Emiratis' interests during the Trump campaign and administration without notifying the attorney general as the law requires. — "'Mr. Barrack traded his political access for a long-term relationship with top UAE officials ... who controlled vast oil wealth,' Ryan Harris , an assistant U.S. attorney in Brooklyn, told jurors in his closing argument on Tuesday. 'In return, the UAE unlocked its purse strings.'" — Earlier in the day, U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan " restricted the legal theories that prosecutors could argue to the jury," in particular relating to charges of lying to the FBI that Barrack also faces, Bloomberg's David Voreacos and Zijia Song report. "Cogan had said Monday that he was considering dismissing some of the nine counts against Barrack altogether, but he didn't toss any charges on Tuesday. The judge in the past has dropped counts following a guilty verdict." ARTISTS PROD DURBIN ON RADIO ROYALTIES BILL: Legendary musicians urged lawmakers today to take up legislation championed by the recording industry that would require large radio broadcasters to pay artists royalties or other compensation when their music is played on AM or FM stations. — Musicians are already entitled to performance royalties when their work is played on digital or streaming services but radio broadcasters, behind the lobbying might of the National Association of Broadcasters, have successfully fought off efforts to require such "performance fees" maintaining that such a move would hurt small, local stations that help launch artists' careers. — But the recording industry is pushing lawmakers to reject those arguments . "For decades now, corporate broadcasters have used an antiquated loophole to play unlimited music for free," five dozen musicians wrote in a letter to Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). The letter was organized by the recording industry coalition musicFIRST, which is chaired by former lawmaker and amateur musician Joe Crowley. — "We have watched as giant radio corporations have continued to grow, raking in billions in advertising dollars while refusing to pay a single cent to us, the artists behind the music that attracts their advertisers in the first place and makes their entire business model possible," the artists wrote to Durbin, contending that the lack of royalties in the U.S., as well as in other countries where royalties are withheld in retaliation for U.S. policy, costs American artists around $200 million in income each year. — Its signatories include Cyndi Lauper, Hanson, Gloria Estefan, Peter Frampton, Jackson Browne and Pat Benatar, who asked Durbin to take up the American Music Fairness Act. Durbin's counterpart in the House, Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), held a hearing this year on the bill's House companion at which Estefan testified, but the bill has yet to see a vote with Congress set to wrap up its work for this year in a matter of weeks. BIDEN PUTS THE SQUEEZE ON OIL COMPANIES: "President Joe Biden accused oil companies of 'war profiteering' Monday after they posted record profits — and urged Congress to impose a windfall tax on the industry if it fails to lower consumers' costs" in his sharpest comments yet against the industry, POLITICO's Josh Siegel writes. — "But his call is most likely a futile one, since Congress won't meet before the election next week that's expected to deliver control of at least one chamber of Congress to Republicans, and the idea is unlikely to draw strong enough political support even among his own party." — "'Their profits are a windfall of war, the windfall from the brutal conflict that's ravaging Ukraine and hurting tens of millions of people around the globe,' Biden said from the White House. He reiterated his call for the oil industry to use the surging profits to increase its oil production and refining capacity, and said it was time they looked beyond 'the narrow self-interest' of their executives and shareholders." — Business groups quickly dismissed Biden's threat as both politically motivated and misplaced. "Experience proves that adding new taxes to punish companies actually hurts consumers," Neil Bradley, the top lobbyist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce , said in a statement. "In this case, it will raise gasoline prices by removing the incentive to produce and refine more oil. To lower our energy costs we need a long-term energy strategy focused on boosting production, not finger-pointing." — "Raising taxes on American energy manufacturers is dangerous and destructive for the American people and the manufacturers who depend on access to reliable energy," National Association of Manufacturers President Jay Timmons said in a statement, echoing Bradley by noting: "History has shown that this is a failed policy that could lead to more imports and even higher prices."
| 
Comments
Post a Comment