Broidy hacking controversy lays path for new amendments in judicial standard of US
In May 2018, one of the top Fundraisers for Trump, Elliott Broidy, fetched limelight by filling a lawsuit against Qatar for hacking and leaking his personal emails that costed much of his reputation in the world of lobbying. This case became critical and called for actions from both political and judicial authorities.
Qatar did not share good relations with Elliott Broidy given the fact that he was identified to be key player in the Trump stimulated blockade of Qatar. This costed US-Qatar relations and also affected national interests on regional and global levels for Qatar. Hence, the reason to be make sure that Broidy did play an important role in defaming Qatar. Though Qatari officials kept then denial defense on throughout the case investigation it is certainly not wrong to assume that the gulf nation had a stronger motive to pin down Elliott Broidy.
Qatar at that duration was actively involved in identifying the actors behind cyber and diplomatic warfare launched against it for which it built strong connections with companies and countries having strong technical and diplomatic base. For instance soon after the hack of “Qatar News Agency”, Qatar looked up to its only trustworthy ally Turkey to find the culprits behind it. Similarly, when Qatar discovered the act sheet against Broidy that he has been supporting UAE on so presented business endeavors there was no doubt left that Broidy one of the close Trump aides was also among many actors conspiring against Qatar. Hence, Qatar moved forward its association with the an international security consulting firm, Global Risk Advisors, and its executives — two former Western intelligence officials to help the country to coordinate” email hacks into Broidy’s accounts, as well as distributing the emails to mainstream media.
The recent decision made by District of Columbia court judge Dabney Friedrich regarding legal precedent for future hacking and leaking operation, or HALO, cases .Accused of involvement in leaking disgraced Republican fundraiser Elliott Broidy’s emails to the press, lobbyist Gregory Howard, of Mercury Public Affairs, tried to invoke the first amendment by claiming the content of the emails was a “matter of great public concern”. But the judge said this argument would not stand if it could be proven that the lobbyist knew the information had been obtained through hacking. The decision may have significant ramifications for influence agents and lobbyists who may be held legally responsible alongside hackers when hacked information is spread. As with previous HALO cases Howard initially defended himself by claiming he had found the emails on the dark web.
Broidy claims that Qatar launched a hacking campaign against him and people he is close to, hiring Kevin Chalker’s cyber-intelligence firm Global Risk Advisors to carry it out and Doha’s lobbyists in Washington, Nicolas Muzin, of Stonington Strategies, James Courtovich, of Sphere Consulting, and Gregory Howard to leak the information to the media.