Peter King Uses Tax Evasion Case as Proof of Hezbollah Involvement in US

Peter King is having another of his fear-mongering hearings on the Islamic threat in the US–this one focused on “Iran, Hezbollah, and the Threat to the Homeland.” As part of that, they’ve released a whopping 2-page report on that threat, including such claims such as this one:

After 9/11, many in law enforcement and intelligence assumed Hezbollah would only strike inside our borders if Israel or the U.S. attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities. Iran’s unprovoked plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador in Washington has changed that thinking. [emphasis original]

Apparently, Peter King hasn’t read Holder’s legal defense of assassination in response to perceived threats.

More interesting still is the list of “US cases involving Hezbollah,” a list of 19 federal cases. One of the cases is the Scary Car Broker plot, in which the US-based business owners are not alleged to have known of any tie to Hezbollah (if, in fact, one exists).

Even worse, it includes US v. Chahine, the case against Nada Prouty’s brother-in-law Talal Chahine.

The government never accused Chahine of any ties to Hezbollah–not in any legal forum where they’d have to prove their case. Rather, they accused him (and got a guilty plea from Prouty’s sister) of tax evasion. While the tax evasion case was valid, the entire case derived from Prouty’s brother Fadi’s efforts to dig up a crime that would justify his service as an informant, which he was doing to beat his own weapons charges. That is, as so often happens, this was an instance of FBI trading one criminal charge for the hope of netting a terrorist. Along the way, Fadi convinced Chahine not to go clean on his tax evasion, presumably at the direction of the FBI. Ultimately, the only tie between Chahine and Hezbollah consisted of a radical cleric’s presence at a charity event benefiting orphans to which Chahine had donated And, as Prouty lays out, a 4-year investigation into Chahine never showed any ties to terrorism.

In fact, government records would later show that even after a second raid of Talal’s residence in September 2005, no actual evidence of terrorism was obtained, nor was incriminating evidence of terrorism ties ever found in the nearly four years of tapped phones, intercepted faxes, and closely monitored bank activities.

As Prouty also notes, the government let Chahine skip the country (Fadi had warned him he’d be indicted), which she suggests they wouldn’t have done if he were a legitimate terrorist threat.

So apparently, according to Peter King, any time a Lebanese immigrant commits tax evasion, it counts as a Hezbollah case.

As someone who has himself funded a terrorist group, King ought to know it takes more to fund terrorists than that.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

2 Responses to Peter King Uses Tax Evasion Case as Proof of Hezbollah Involvement in US

  • 1
  • 2
Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel DC Press: Ho hum. Rand Paul is running for President on same plank our forefathers revolted against King George. How cynical of him!
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @granick There is one tiny area where DiFi's bill improves on USA F-ReDux tho (but I'm laying low about it) @jakelaperruque
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @attackerman: After a decade reporting on "Guantanamo's Child," @shephardm interviews Omar Khadr. http://t.co/5CecJG8teO
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @JakeLaperruque Bingo. 1) FISC has ALREADY approved 2) we have examples of summaries fr Vaughn 3) FISC proven unreliable arbiter @granick
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @JakeLaperruque Once you've defined bulk as "all" then it's very easy for IC to get to "not-bulk" w/in terms of law. @granick
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @JakeLaperruque But that's fine. We're allowed to disagree. My larger issue is w/adoption of IC def of "bulk" which is meaningless @granick
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @JakeLaperruque Again, NOT excluding explicitly corporate selectors we know FISC already approved seems like sanction to me. YMMV @granick
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Marshall Stacks ->>>>>than Marshall Islands #JustAskJimiRichieAndBuckDharma
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @JakeLaperruque Suffice it to say I find it unpersuasive. Moreover, if intent was to prohibit it, say so explicitly. @granick
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @JakeLaperruque Yes, I'm familiar w/claim that terms not prohibiting something might be interpreted to prohibit something. @granick
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @JakeLaperruque Actually he expands it to ratify Bates' DRAS ruling. You might ask why! @granick
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @JakeLaperruque Btw, have you considered that section dedicated to CIA dragnet was in IG Report? @granick
2hreplyretweetfavorite