Ex-Trump Fundraiser Overcomes Qatar Effort to Shield Records

Lobbyists for Qatar must share more documents for a hacking lawsuit brought by an ex-President Donald Trump fundraiser, a judge has ruled.

Qatar’s effort to intervene in the case and shield communications under Vienna Convention privileges is “entirely devoid of merit,” Dabney Friedrich of the US District Court for the District of Columbia wrote on Oct. 13.

The ruling is a victory for the former Trump fundraiser, Elliott Broidy. He alleges three US-based lobbyists for Qatar participated in a hacking operation to discredit him because he said the Persian Gulf nation funded terrorist organizations.

The lawsuit targets consulting firm Stonington Strategies, its partners Nicholas D. Muzin and Joey Allaham, and the media strategist Gregory Howard. Qatar is not named as a party in the suit. A California federal court previously dismissed Broidy’s lawsuit against Qatar due to a lack of jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

Allaham, a New York restaurateur who lobbied for Qatar from 2017 to 2018, settled with Broidy in August. Allaham as part of the settlement shared documents with Broidy that led the ex-fundraiser to allege Qatar’s US law firm, Covington & Burling, worked to conceal evidence in the matter.

Broidy stepped down as a Republican National Committee deputy finance chairman in 2018 after it was revealed he had agreed to pay $1.6 million to a former Playboy model to keep quiet about their affair. In 2020 he also pleaded guilty to illegal lobbying on behalf of a Malaysian businessman. Trump later pardoned Broidy, who runs Los Angeles-based Broidy Capital Management.

Hacking Suit

For the last five years Broidy has pursued claims that Qatar led a hacking operation against him because of his criticism of the country and his work with its regional rival, the United Arab Emirates. The alleged hack led to a series of news reports about Broidy’s business relationships and his efforts to lobby the Trump White House. Qatar has repeatedly denied involvement.

Broidy in August escalated the dispute by claiming US lawyers for the Middle East nation helped it hide evidence. He based the allegations on a series of documents provided by Allaham, including ones showing lawyers for Covington suggested Allaham deny admission of the hack.

Craig Engle, the political law chair of ArentFox who represented Allaham, later emailed Allaham that the “draft answers caused a great deal of turmoil at Covington.” But he added that the firm “is doing the right thing for their client and trying to protect us by saying everything we have is privileged.”

Covington and ArentFox, two big law firms with a large presence in Washington, denied wrongdoing, noting that Covington’s edits were suggestions to make sure Allaham’s responses did not contradict his prior sworn statements. Covington has called Broidy’s allegations “baseless and inflammatory.”

Broidy’s lawyers at Kasowitz Benson Torres in September also sought a forensic examination of Qatar and the defendants’ counsel to review whether they complied with discovery.

Judge Friedrich in a separate Oct. 13 ruling called Covington’s proposed changes “aggressive” but said the burden of such an investigation would outweigh its likely benefit. “Discovery has not yet concluded, and Broidy has failed to present evidence—as opposed to ‘conjecture’—that the defendants intentionally” concealed documents, she wrote.

The case is BROIDY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC et al v. MUZIN et al, D.D.C., 1:19-cv-00150, 10/13/23