Hat tip Creeping Sharia
Representative Louis Gohmert (R-TX) is one congressman who understands the threat from Islamists who want to subvert our country. Interestingly, the blog, Right-Wing Watch, posted this speech by Gohmert apparently to criticize him. I say thanks for posting this, RWW.
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/congressman-we-didnt-take-an-oath-to-allow-sharia-law/
Here is the actual post by RWW:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/gohmert-cair-isna-are-front-organizations-muslim-brotherhood-want-sharia-law
While Gohmert argued that the Fifth Circuit Court “confirmed” CAIR and ISNA’s Muslim Brotherhood allegiance, the court actually removed their designation as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial and cleared them of such a status. - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/gohmert-cair-isna-are-front-organizations-muslim-brotherhood-want-sharia-law#sthash.nUOpLKa7.dpuf
As far as I know, that is not correct. My most recent information is that Texas federal judge Jorge Solis affirmed the designation.
As far as I know, that is incorrect. Judge Solis affirmed the designation
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Regarding Right-Wing-Watch: They think that if you tell a lie enough, the low information filks will believe the lie. This is what the Obama Progressives have been doing ever since his elections. Thanks to Gohmart, we can get the truth about political Islam out in the public. As far as CAIR, they are in the tank with Obama and visa-vera. When looking at the CAIR tax exempt status, they were denied the status until the IRS got the message that they should be exempt, even thought they had failed to disclosed donors, for years and have been unindicted co-conspirators.
Squid
It is entirely possible that a federal district judge in Texas ruled exactly as you say, and that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals over-ruled that finding.
Let me know if you find that, Siarlys.
http://ztruth.typepad.com/cairoklahomaexposed/2012/10/muneer-awad-falsely-claims-cairs-unindicted-co-conspirator-appeal-was-ruled-in-their-favor.html
As far as I can tell Gary, ALL arguments from ALL sides are bogus. First, the link you provide cites to a 2009 decision by a federal district judge. That neither proves nor disproves whether a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals panel made any finding at all about CAIR.
As far as the Fifth Circuit decision on appeal of the Holy Land Foundation convictions goes, it does not mention CAIR, and the only unindicted co-conspirators are two individuals who appear to hold official positions in Hamas.
I read the district judge's ruling, which a site ideologically inclined your way was honest enough to link to. I found sentences in various places that either side could have taken as "see, this supports what we said." But it is interesting that the court did seal the list of unindicted co-conspirators, because such a list, without any supporting evidence, is not subject to the same scrutiny as evidence submitted at trial. The court stopped short of ordering the names expunged.
Looking further (I always prefer to find the original court documents, rather than taking any blogger or reporter's word for it), I find that the district court judge's ruling was appealed to the 5th circuit (that's a different decision than the appeal of the criminal conviction of the indicted co-conspirators). The government did not contest the district court's ruling that NAIT's 5th amendment rights were violated, or that the attachment (the list of unindicted co-conspirators) should have been filed under seal. The only question was the proper remedy.
Essentially, the government's attachment listing various unindicted co-conspirators "was simply an untested allegation by the government."
So, as usual with making public propaganda use of court documents, EVERYONE is cherry-picking, and NOBODY is laying out the entire context and import of the various court rulings.
Having read through the published opinions, I would summarize as follows: There was sufficient evidence for the government's allegation not to be dismissed out of hand, that there had been some connections between the organizations involved and the actual perpetrators of the crime, but no court has found that the organizations concerned were in fact guilty of a crime. The court found a legitimate basis for preparing the brief, but the list should have been kept sealed because that purpose was not potential prosecution of those named, but giving some context to the scope of the conspiracy for which indictments were issued.
Net: the courts have neither confirmed nor ruled out that the organizations involved were in fact co-conspirators in the crime for which others were indicted. The proceedings of record are no basis for spouting that they have been found to be unindicted co-conspirators. The 5th circuit did observe that federal prosecutors may not defame a person by naming them without indicting them.
NAIT can claim to be a "prevailing party" because they got a ruling that caused the government to back down some, but cannot claim to have been fully cleared of any suspicion. Happy?
I infer that you were unable to find any updated decision that removed CAIR and ISNA from the unindicted co-conspirator label.
There was a story I posted a couple of years back to the effect that the US Attorney's office in Dallas was prepared to issue additional indictments in the Holy Land case, but that it was shut down by the Holder Justice Department-for what it's worth.
Remove them from the label? No, only a decision that said the label wasn't an indictment, merely an unproven allegation. Now if you want to trumpet "there is an unproven allegation on record that these organizations were unindicted co-conspirators, because some U.S. attorney said so" by all means.
But there is no court decision on record finding as a matter of fact that they were guilty of being participants in the conspiracy.
You do have a fascinating way of dancing around facts when they don't fit your narrative.
Oh, I forgot to ask: "When did you stop beating your wife, Gary?"
Siarlys,
I understand the difference. It was something I dealt with as a DEA agent, remember? Nobody is claiming they have been convicted of anything-only that they still bear the label of unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy land Foundation case.
So what does that prove? If Louie Gohmert is prancing around claiming this is a significant revelation, perhaps a retired DEA agent should explain to him that it means nothing at all, establishes no fact as proven, it only means someone in the Justice Department said so.
I don't recall that you have a very high opinion of the pronouncements coming from the Justice Department.
What both the district judge and the Fifth Circuit did say is that the government hasn't proven anything, so the characterization should have been sealed.
What the sites you cite to are claiming is that a quote from a federal district judge's opinion proves that the Fifth Circuit's review of that same decision is wrong.
As a former DEA agent, I'm sure you know which level of court is ordinate to the other.
Post a Comment