OOTDnews: King demands answers from Holder on DOJ decision not to prosecute Hamas-linked CAIR and other unindicted co-conspirators in jihad terror funding case

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

King demands answers from Holder on DOJ decision not to prosecute Hamas-linked CAIR and other unindicted co-conspirators in jihad terror funding case

Patrick Poole revealed several days ago that the DOJ had decided, apparently for political reasons, not to prosecute Omar Ahmad, cofounder and longtime Board Chairman of Hamas-linked CAIR. Now Peter King is demanding answers. I hope he gets them, or failing that, opens an investigation of his own.

"King Demands Answers from Holder on Decision Not to Prosecute CAIR, its Co-Founder, and other Unindicted Co-Conspirators in Holy Land Foundation Case," from the House Committee on Homeland Security, April 18 (thanks to Weasel Zippers):

Washington, D.C. (Monday, April 18, 2011) – U.S. Rep. Peter T. King (R-NY), Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, has demanded an explanation from Attorney General Eric Holder as to why he decided not to prosecute the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), its co-founder Omar Ahmad, and other named unindicted co-conspirators in the Hamas terror finance case, United States v. Holy Land Foundation. The other unindicted co-conspirators include the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust.

In a letter to Holder, King wrote: “I have been reliably informed that the decision not to seek indictments of the Council on American Islamic Relations (“CAIR”) and its co-founder Omar Ahmad, the Islamic Society of North America (“ISNA”), and the North American Islamic Trust (“NAIT”), was usurped by high-ranking officials at Department of Justice headquarters over the vehement and stated objections of special agents and supervisors of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as the prosecutors at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Dallas, who had investigated and successfully prosecuted the Holy Land Foundation case. Their opposition to this decision raises serious doubt that the decision not to prosecute was a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion.”