Dear readers, you are jurors sworn-in to decide a battle of “unindicted co-conspirators.”
On the other side: The Council on American-Islamic Relations is designated an “unindicted co-conspirator” based on “prima facie” evidence in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, wrote a Judge, as detailed below.
The following analysis is presented for your review.
Skip the legalese, define it in plain English
Conspire: “to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement.”
Unindicted: “not charged with a crime by the finding or presentment of a grand jury: not indicted * an unindicted coconspirator.” (sic)
The greatest hoax in U.S. politics against Trump
American jurisprudence requires probable cause – evidence of a crime – which can be a basis for an investigation.
Instead, there is an investigation in search of a crime with the goal to impeach President Trump. The Russian/Trump collusion – the insurance policy – has been alleged without credible evidence by the Deep State – members of the Democratic Party; ex-CIA Director John Brennan; ex-FBI Director James B. Comey; ex-FBI Director, now Special Prosecutor Robert S. Mueller III; Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein; and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, due to his dubious recusal.
The stereotypical prosecutor’s tactic: No evidence against the sought-after, primary target? Then file charges against the target’s associates in business, friends, and family members. With the pressure of potential prison and fines, attorney’s fees, and loss of income, these people are more likely to “flip and sing:” provide actual information or compose fiction.
This tactic is being used against Trump’s associates: Paul Manafort, a brief campaign manager; and Michael Cohen, a lawyer, among others. They are being prosecuted for alleged activity unrelated to “Russian collusion.”
“You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort,” U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III told Mueller’s team. “You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you to lead you to Mr. Trump and an impeachment, or whatever.” (Fox News) A jury returned a verdict of guilty on eight of eighteen counts (Fox News), so let’s see if Manafort sings.
In a plea deal, Michael Cohen pled guilty to charges concerning campaign finance (Fox News); But legal experts challenge: What crime?
Lanny Davis, a surrogate for the Clintons, now Cohen’s lawyer, stated that if “pay[ing] money to keep somebody silent for the principal purpose of political effect, that’s a crime, that’s a felony… If that’s guilty (sic), then the client who instructed and coordinated him doing that, hiding the fact that he was behind it, is also guilty of the same crime.” (Breitbart; MS-NBC) Note the absence of a specific crime, or any evidence other than Cohen first denying, now alleging, hush money.
But that is not a crime, according to Alan Dershowitz: “If the president had paid $280,000 to these two women, even if he had done so in order to help his campaign, that would be no problem … The candidate is entitled to contribute a million dollars to his own campaign, as long as he reports it … You don’t become an unindicted co-conspirator if your action is lawful, even though the action of the other person is unlawful,” explaining the payments could be construed as Cohen’s personal donations in excess to Trump’s campaign. (Fox News)
“A candidate who spends his own money, or even corporate money, for an event that occurred not as a result of the campaign – it is not a campaign expenditure,” explained Mark Levin. “Just because a prosecutor says that somebody violated a campaign law doesn’t make it so. He’s not the judge; he’s not the jury. We didn’t adjudicate anything. It never went to court.” (Fox News)
Judge: There is a “prima facie” case of CAIR’s “conspiracy to support Hamas.”
In a U.S. federal terrorism financing case, “The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (“HLF”) and its leaders were convicted of materially supporting Hamas, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO),” reported Understanding the Threat.
In the Memorandum Opinion Order (07-01-09; citations excluded), the trial level Judge noted:
“The Government also argues that CAIR’s claim is moot because CAIR’s status as a co-conspirator was made a matter of public record at trial through evidence and testimony and thus, striking CAIR’s name from the Trial Brief will not prevent its co-conspirator status from being publicly available and known.
The Government identifies four portions of the record from the first trial that purportedly establish that CAIR was a ‘joint venturer and co-conspirator’:
(1) a Government exhibit showing the objective of the Palestine Committee is to support Hamas;
(2) a Government exhibit showing that CAIR founder Omar Ahmad is part of the Palestine Committee and Mousa Abu Marzook is its head;
(3) a Government exhibit listing CAIR as part of the Palestine Committee; and
(4) the testimony of Special Agent Lara Burns and accompanying exhibits placing the CAIR founder at the 1993 Philadelphia conference and describing the CAIR founder’s mediation of a dispute between HLF and Ashqar over Hamas fundraising.
The four pieces of evidence the government relies on, as discussed below, do create at least a prima facie case as to CAIR’s involvement in a conspiracy to support Hamas.”
The “cat was let out of the bag,” but the list, if made public, could cause a public relations “injury” for these subsidiaries of the Muslim Brotherhood and HAMAS, so the Judge refused to delete, but did seal, a list of co-conspirators in Attachment A to the Government’s Trial Brief.
The appellate court unsealed the trial level Judge’s Order.
The list is hardly a secret: See the Muslim Brotherhood’s Memorandum for “A list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” [p. 18] “This is where the Muslim Brotherhood listed its front groups in the U.S. Note that prominent organizations like CAIR, ISNA, ICNA and others are named here,” reports the Clarion Project.
Prima facie: “A fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved.”
So why did the U.S. Department of Justice designate CAIR as an “unindicted co-conspirator,” but not prosecute CAIR as a co-defendant? The government’s case apparently focused on financial transactions, but not CAIR as a public relations office for HAMAS. The trial was started by the Bush-DoJ, but finished by the Obama-DoJ.
Obama’s administration, specifically the White House, was a revolving door for the Muslim Brotherhood. You should read See Something, Say Nothing by Philip Haney, a Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad.
“Unindicted co-conspirator:” That label is misapplied to Trump, but more accurately applied to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (HAMAS-CAIR).
The U.S. Congress has yet to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Bills were filed but died in committees (2015 and 2017); and there was a hearing (2018); but no further action.
If the United States does designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, then, by implication, that designation would apply to all of its subsidiaries, including HAMAS-CAIR.
Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller