Thread by @28Pages

Some thoughts on the @Fahrenthold @OConnellPostbiz story on Saudi lobbyists' use of the Trump hotel, and ensuing conversations about it, from @28Pages editor Brian McGlinchey (thread) washingtonpost.com/politics/saudi…

2. The Post story has led some to what I believe is a false conclusion: that the veterans lobbying campaign against JASTA was contrived for the sole purpose of funneling Saudi money to Trump coffers. E.g., @BessLevin: vanityfair.com/news/2018/12/t…

3. Pause for background: JASTA is the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. It enabled 9/11 families, survivors & insurers to sue Saudi Arabia for its alleged aid to the plotters.

4. Saudi-accommodating opponents of JASTA claimed that, if other countries adopted similar laws, US servicemembers would face trials abroad. That's false, but it worked for @Qorvis in tricking vets to come to DC to oppose it: 28pages.org/2017/02/19/vet…

5. Talking to @Fahrenthold, @allinwithchris also suggested the vet lobbying was a false cover to funnel money to the Trump hotel:

6. In answering Hayes, @Fahrenthold seemed agreeable to that notion, citing participating veterans' observations that the lobbying operation seemed poorly run or hopeless.

7. That is was poorly run is a reflection of how @Qorvis slapped together and supervised the bizarre undertaking. But there's no doubt the veterans lobbying campaign was a whole-hearted and desperate effort by the kingdom and @Qorvis to win support on Capitol Hill.

8. The vet lobbying was part of an enormous, all-out-blitz by Saudi Arabia and @Qorvis that included op-ed pieces in newspapers bylined by veterans (often w identical language), group letters to Congress and even professional lobbying of _state_ government officials.

9. The $270,000 spent at the Trump hotel was a tiny fraction of what Saudi Arabia spent in its campaign against JASTA. These firms and individuals engaged to attack JASTA were paid almost ELEVEN MILLION: 28pages.org/2017/07/13/the…

10. At MOST, the choice of the Trump hotel was influential icing on the cake. But we can't rule out that it reflected location, value in pitching the trips and the fact that @Qorvis seemed to have an unlimited budget to fight the prospect of an enormous 9/11 judgment.

11. Some conclude that since Congress had just overwhelmingly overridden Obama's veto of JASTA, Saudi Arabia couldn't possibly have thought it had any chance of success in attacking it.

12. Keep in mind, the Saudi objective wasn't to repeal JASTA, but to weaken it through amendments that would make it more difficult for 9/11 victims to succeed in their case.

13. At the time, the prospect of that was substantial. On the very day of the veto override, 28 senators--led by Saudi pals Corker, McCain and Graham--declared that JASTA should be amended. corker.senate.gov/public/_cache/…

14. Moving on, this paragraph is unfortunately all too typical of media references to the 9/11 suit. It implies that accusations of Saudi complicity spring from the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. The case has absolutely NOTHING to do with that.

15. Rather, accusations against Saudi Arabia spring from many indications that Saudi officials provided financial, logistical and other support to the hijacking plot. For a taste, browse the 28 declassified pages for which @28Pages is named: 28pages.org/the-declassifi…

16. The WaPo story focuses on questions of influence and emoluments, but it should have at least mentioned that the veterans lobbying campaign appears to have included many violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

17. The fact that DOJ has turned a blind eye to these well-documented FARA violations is a scandal in itself, and has angered the veterans who were victimized by @Qorvis and Saudi Arabia: 28pages.org/2018/10/24/doj…

18. In the wake of the story, @28Pages followers, colleagues and 9/11 victims asked me why the Post acknowledged reporting by Politico and Yahoo but not @28Pages, which has covered the story in more depth than any other outlet.

19. @Fahrenthold contacted me in November, told me how useful the @28Pages catalog of original reporting on the Saudi-JASTA lobbying was, and we talked at length as I answered questions about it.
28pages.org/saudi-lobbying…

20. It was disappointing then, to see the Post choose not acknowledge @28Pages, which---652 days ago--was first to report that vets who'd been flown to Washington by Saudi lobbyists weren't told about the kingdom's role 28pages.org/2017/02/23/exc…

21. Earlier, @DailyCaller's Eric Owens was first to report that Saudi lobbyists were sending veterans to DC to oppose JASTA. He also quoted a vet who had NOT gone on a trip, who said he wasn't told Saudi Arabia was involved. dailycaller.com/2017/02/07/exc…

22. The question remained: At some point in the process, was @Qorvis eventually notifying participating veterans about Saudi sponsorship before they actually went on a trip?

23. It was @28Pages that first tracked down veterans who'd actually gone to DC, finding three (with more to follow) who said they hadn't found out who was behind it until they'd already started lobbying.
28pages.org/2017/02/23/exc…
28pages.org/2017/04/03/fou…
28pages.org/2017/04/19/exc…

24. As the WaPo article is written, the effect of the failure to acknowledge @28Pages is to leave readers with the impression that @Fahrenthold and @OConnellPostbiz were breaking news about the deception of veterans who were brought to Washington.

25. After an email from me asking about the Post's attribution decisions, @Fahrenthold reiterated his gratitude and tweeted this, which I very much appreciate. I stand ready to help him and the Post again.

https://twitter.com/Fahrenthold/status/1070706237971542016