I'm very pleased to announce that I have agreed to become a contributing writer for Steven Emerson's Investigative Project -- and here is their report on the Holy Land Foundation verdicts:
"HLF Officials Convicted on All Counts," from IPT News, November 24 (many links in the original):
DALLAS – A jury convicted five former officials at the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) on all counts in the Hamas-support case after 8 days of deliberations.The men, Shukri Abu-Baker, Ghassan Elashi, Mohamed El-Mezain, Mufid Abdulqader and Abdelrahman Odeh, could face up to 20 years in prison for their convictions on conspiracy counts, including conspiring to provide material support to terrorists. The verdicts, read Monday afternoon, ended a two-year saga in what is considered the largest terror financing case since the 9/11 attacks.
In the original trial last year, jurors acquitted El-Mezain on 31 of the 32 counts against him, but could not reach unanimous verdicts on any other counts, prompting a mistrial.
Prosecutors made a series of significant adjustments, from dropping 29 counts each against defendants Mufid Abdulqader and Abdelrahman Odeh, to adding new witnesses who could put the charity support in context. In addition, jurors in this trial saw three exhibits Israeli military officials seized from the Palestinian Authority which showed the PA also considered HLF to be a Hamas financer and that an HLF-supported charity committee was controlled by Hamas.
The result was a much more streamlined case that followed a logical narrative, said Peter Margulies, a law professor at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island. Seeing the Palestinian Authority reach the same conclusion as the U.S. government had to have helped, he said.
In addition, prosecutors provided summary exhibits that served as "a road map" to the case and had to help jurors deliberate, Margulies said. "The jury was able to look at the evidence and get past the perceived biases of any of the witnesses and see the evidence as a whole."
That evidence made clear that the defendants knew where the money raised in the U.S. was going despite legal prohibitions against support for Hamas. [...]
Prosecutors say HLF was part of a Palestine Committee – a conglomerate of U.S. based Muslim organizations and individuals committed to helping Hamas financially and politically. HLF was its fundraising arm, a designation formalized by Hamas deputy political director Mousa Abu Marzook in 1994. Support for Hamas became illegal with a 1995 executive order by President Bill Clinton and subsequent congressional action. [...]
"This is one of the most significant victories the Justice Department has won in the war on terror," said Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted blind cleric Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and 11 others for conspiring to blow up a series of New York landmarks. "Financing is the life-blood of jihadist organizations like Hamas. With the assistance of willing co-conspirators, they conceal their activities and use the Muslim obligation of charitable giving to mask support that is actually channeled to their murderous agenda. Today's verdicts say, loudly and clearly, that Americans aren't fooled and won't tolerate it. As a former federal prosecutor, I am especially proud of the assistant U.S. attorneys who persevered through some real travails in securing justice for the American people."...
Read it all.
Praise God. Justice in the US is not entirely dead.
God bless Andrew McCarthy.
Congratulations Robert. Emerson is - like yourself - a national treasure.
You are one busy guy! What do you do for fun? (Not that jihad-watching isn't quite fun.)
Robert, I love the Nixon era Slackmeyer.
Bravo!
Now let's add HLC's venomous offspring, the Council on American Islamic Relations to Your Hit Parade!
Congratulations, Robert. Hope you are well
Spencer and Emerson working together at IPT? That's excellent news. Superb!
And this verdict? A much-needed boost to the spirits of us who love the ideals of freedom.
May this be the first step in breaking the ice and exposing the sewer below in the form of CAIR, The Islamic Society of North America and the Muslim Student Association. Convicted on all counts!!!Whopeeeeee!
Spencer and Emerson.
Spencer and Horowitz.
You Robert Spencer are a national treasure.
Upward and onward.
Robert,
I love that old Doonesbury comic! I have that on in my favorite (and now near ancient) collection. Ah, Mark's glee over the convictions of the Watergate conspirators, unmatched until now...
Two bonuses in one post! Emerson and Spencer will make a great duo for Investigative Project! And the HLF found guilty guilty guilty!
The sublime encore would be dozens of billboards plastered all over this country that say "Sharia Law threatens America!"
Postscript!
Make that THOUSANDS of billboards!!!
I am happy for Robert, but Emerson is anything but a 'national treasure'. On the contrary, he is someone who thinks that he has the 'terrorism' angle all sewn up and exclusive rights to determine who is or isn't a terrorist, as pointed out by Debbie Schlussel:
I read the shameful account of that Saudi-bought Islamist apologist-shill, John Esposito of Georgetown, testifying on behalf of the defendants, trying hard to whitewash the repulsive truth about alms for jihad, and the vile beliefs and objectives of the Ikhwan.
John Esposito has Jewish blood on his hands; may he rightly be reviled by fair, thinking, clear-minded persons; and may his works and reputation go to Perdition.
Congratulations, Robert. Keep up the excellent work - it is very much appreciated!
IP,
There are two sides to every story. You've just taken Schlussel's as gospel...and it sounded to me like anything but measured and composed.
The wheels of justice grind slow but true.
John Esposito has Jewish blood on his hands; may he rightly be reviled by fair, thinking, clear-minded persons; and may his works and reputation go to Perdition.
Posted by: John C at November 25, 2008 1:51 AM
Oh, he's evil.
Congratulations, Robert. And thank you for all you do.
I used to see Steve Emerson quite a bit on tv and then he all but disappeared. That, or I no longer see him because I stopped watching MSNBC.
I doubt if anyone here has even read all the first trial transcripts, including Robert.
When the verdict was in last year and Judge Joe Fish because it was not the pre-determined outcome the administration wanted when he saw that it was aqcuittals practically accross the board, and a few hung charges, he suddenly sealed the verdict, fled out of town to go cow tow to his masters, then low and behold when he came back two jurors changed their minds ( wait a minute? The verdicts was already in, and then they were prodded by the judge, and then changed their minds? Very suspicious...)
This go around, they streemlined their case, picked the "right" jury, and guided them to the pre-determined outcome...this is and has been a mockery of justice from day one with the seizure of assets and the charges made with no proof whatsoever...none.
The verdict in light of the lack of evidence and all that was produced in the last trial is a suprise to some, but not me. I half expected this kangaroo court to turn out a verdict like this. Seeing all of the pathetic maneuvers the administration went through last year to derail the acquittals this is no suprise.
The major problem now remains, that if this verdict is not over turned, the Red Cross operated under the same license and gave to the same zakat committees, the crux of the prosecution case, that by supplying the zakat committees the HLF somehow became a "terrorist supporter".
The Red Cross was right there with them.
So it follows, empiracally, that the Red Cross be named and indicted now since their partner in charity has been "magicked up" as a terrorist financier for doing the exact same thing the Red Cross did...gave donations to the Zakat committees in palestine.
Think of it like this, a student dirver automobile with two steering wheels and two drivers gets pulled over by the Federal governemnt. The Federal Government says the vehicle was used to commit acrime, and then they only arrest the Muslim driver...the Red Cross driver is not even charged.
Suspicious from day one.
No justice has been served here.
Abdullah Mikail
Abdullah Mikail, I'm confident that you would consider any court not based on Sharia a 'kangaroo court'.
Henrik,
Spell assume...
ASS U ME
Don't make an ass out of you and me with your bias projections.
Any court of law that is fair and just is that, fair and just.
When it is injust, as we have just seen, it is not a court of law, it is a political weapon.
Truth
Abdullah Mikail
End zone dance time!
Normally, one begins to distance oneself abruptly from the guilty party after conviction, or, at least, starts using tentative qualifiers such as "if, in fact...", "however...", "unless", "until", etc., so as to maintain moral high ground. I don't see this in Abdullah's above reproduction of his FrontPage posting. (cue Tammy Wynette's classic, "Stand by your Clan".)
This is how all prosecutions are conducted.
What were they supposed to do in a terror funding trial? Allow business as usual?
That was for the jury to decide, and decide they did. Guilty. The next time a terror funding organization's attorneys pick their "right" jury, they should shoot for "not guilty" instead of "mistrial". It kind of leaves things unresolved.