We’ve mentioned a few times now that CAIR was labelled an “Unindicted Co-Conspirator” in the Holy Land Foundation terror-support trial, still going on in Dallas. CAIR is not happy about that status at all and filed an amicus brief, pleading to be removed from co-conspirator status.
To bolster their claim that the designation has hurt them, they turned to possibly their least favorite journalist in the whole world, Audrey Hudson of the Washington Times. Hudson had looked at CAIR’s own tax records in June, and noted that their membership was plummeting.
Of course CAIR complained about that article when it came out, calling it inaccurate and Hudson racist. But now that they’re squirming under the “co-conspirator” tag, they’re citing that same Wash Times piece to save their sorry behinds! Hudson herself noted the irony, and that it was a useless comparison anyway, since her article concerned a time period before CAIR was designated a co-conspirator.
Now, Hudson writes today, the prosecution has responded to CAIR’s brief too:
“As support for its alleged injury-in-fact, CAIR provided this court with data solely from a time period prior to the government’s submission of its trial brief, a period when the alleged improper disclosure could not have affected such membership,” the federal government stated in its response, citing The Times.
“Ironically, the very same article, upon which it now relies, was publicly discredited by CAIR executive director, Nihad Awad, who claimed the article was ‘false and misleading,’ ” the government stated.
“All of the harms alleged by CAIR in its memorandum to this Court pertain to its decreasing membership and donations resulting from CAIR”s negative reputation within the United States prior to being named as an unindicted co-conspirator in this prosecution,” the government stated.
That brief was probably a big tactical mistake on CAIR’s part, especially since they’ve now submitted a sworn affidavit that implied Hudson’s article was accurate and legitimated her criticisms against CAIR.
If they deny her facts on this issue again, they would invite questions of whether the claims in the brief were perjured.