What is Fauci Up To!?

[INSIDE JW]

Judicial Watch Victory: Court Rules against Democratic Partisan
Gerrymander in Maryland

[[link removed]]

We scored a significant victory for clean elections: the Circuit Court
for Anne Arundel County ruled in favor
[[link removed]]
of our challenge to Maryland’s congressional redistricting plan. In
its ruling, the court permanently barred Maryland’s use of its
current plan.

We filed the lawsuit
[[link removed]]
on behalf
of 12 registered Maryland voters who object to Maryland’s 2021
congressional redistricting plan on the grounds that it is a partisan
gerrymander that diminishes their rights to participate in free, fair
elections for the U.S. Congress on an equal basis with other Maryland
voters, in violation of the Maryland Constitution (_Parrott et al. v
Lamone et al._
[[link removed]]
(No.
C-02-CV-21-001773)). The trial also included plaintiffs from a
separate lawsuit.

In June 2015, we filed a lawsuit
[[link removed]]
challenging the constitutionality of Maryland’s gerrymandered
congressional district map in federal court. The lawsuit was filed on
behalf of voters in each of Maryland’s congressional
districts—including Maryland Delegate Neil Parrott, who is also the
lead plaintiff in this new state-court lawsuit. In December 2016, we
filed a brief
[[link removed]]
in
the U.S. Supreme Court in response to Maryland’s attempt to retain
the gerrymandered voter districting plan.

After conducting a trial last week in Annapolis, MD, the Circuit Court
for Anne Arundel County ruled
[[link removed]

With regard to Article 7 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights ... the
Plaintiffs, based upon the evidence adduced at trial, proved that the
2021 Plan was drawn with “partisanship as predominant intent, to the
exclusion of traditional redistricting criteria” … by the party in
power, to suppress the voice of Republican voters. The right for all
[to] political participation in Congressional elections … was
violated by the 2021 Plan …
***
As result, this Court will enter declaratory judgment in favor of the
Plaintiffs, declaring the 2021 Plan unconstitutional, and permanently
enjoining its operation, and giving the General Assembly an
opportunity to develop a new Congressional Plan that is
constitutional. A separate declaratory judgment will be entered as
of today’s date.
Our lawsuit
[[link removed]]
details:

Maryland’s recent history of partisan gerrymandering is no secret.
[its 2011] congressional district map … remains one of the most
notorious partisan gerrymanders in U.S. history. A federal district
judge openly doubted that it could provide “fair and effective
representation for all citizens.” Another called it “absurd”
to suggest ‘that there is a community of interest” in a district
described as a “Rorschach-like eyesore.” [A federal appeals court]
famously described the same district as “a broken-winged
pterodactyl, lying prostrate across the center of the state.”
The lawsuit relates that a bipartisan commission recommended a map to
Maryland Governor Larry Hogan on November 5 that he approved, but the
legislature passed a different proposal in a straight party-line vote.
On December 9, 2021, Hogan vetoed this proposal, and, the same day,
the state legislature overrode his veto on another party-line vote.

Outside experts agreed that the plan was flawed, with the nonpartisan
Princeton Gerrymandering Project giving it a grade of “F” for
fairness and geographic compactness. In 2020, Republicans accounted
for approximately 35% of Maryland’s congressional votes, but
they’re unlikely to win even a single seat under this plan. This
outcome wouldn’t be possible without political gerrymandering.

This key court victory against abusive partisan gerrymandering by
Democrats in Maryland could set a national precedent.

In June 2015, we filed a lawsuit
[[link removed]]
challenging
the constitutionality of Maryland’s gerrymandered congressional
district map in federal court. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of
voters in each of Maryland’s congressional districts—including
Maryland Delegate Neil Parrott, who is also the lead plaintiff in this
new state-court lawsuit. In December 2016, we filed a brief
[[link removed]]
in
the U.S. Supreme Court in response to Maryland’s attempt to retain
the gerrymandered voter districting plan.


RECORDS REVEAL FAUCI EMAILS ABOUT HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE AND COVID

Dr. Fauci and his colleagues continue to dodge transparency, but we
are systematically prying loose more details about their
behind-the-curtain deliberations on Americans’ health. There’s
more this week.

We received 199 pages
[[link removed]]
of records from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that
include emails between National Institutes of Health (NIH)
then-Director Francis Collins
[[link removed]]
and Anthony Fauci
about hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19.

We obtained the records as the result of a FOIA lawsuit
[[link removed]]
for Collins’
emails (_Judicial Watch v U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:21-cv-02302)). We sued after the Department of Health and Human
Services failed to respond to a June 8, 2021, FOIA request for:

All emails sent to and from Director Francis Collins related to
“gain of function”, “hydroxychloroquine”, “HCQ”, and/or
“Wuhan Institute of Virology”
In a June 19, 2020, email
[[link removed]]
current acting Director of the NIH Lawrence Tabak
[[link removed]]
writes to NIH then-Director
Francis Collins about an NIH-sponsored randomized control trial of the
effectiveness of using hydroxychloroquine to treat patients
hospitalized with COVID-19

Based on the recommendations from the DSMB [Data and Safety Monitoring
Board of NIH] that met late today, NHLBI [National Heart, Lung, and
Blood Institute] is stopping … the randomized controlled trial
comparing hydroxychloroquine vs. placebo/Standard of care in
hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV2 infection. This was a
scheduled interim analysis – actually the 4th in a series –
looking at both safety and outcomes data. BOTTOM LINE: There was no
harm signal. [Emphasis in original] However, based on the conditional
power analysis there is less than a 1% probability that HCQ would
prove more effective than standard of care even if we enrolled twice
the number of patients. Therefore, we are concurring with the DSMB’s
recommendation and stopping the trial in accordance with standard
trial monitoring and oversight practices. The trial was almost
completed (475 patients enrolled out of 510 target); however, based on
these results there is no need to continue the study.
Collins replies on June 20, 2020, and copies Dr. Fauci: “Well,
that fits with the outcome of the RECOVERY trial. [Emphasis in
original] I hope NHLBI will quickly publish the results. Looping in
Tony.”

Fauci responds the same day: “Thanks. Not unexpected, but good to
have [t]o have solid evidence behind our recommendations. We now need
results of the trials for prophylaxis.”

In May 2020, Nakela Cook authored an NIH report
[[link removed]]
called, “Update on COVID-19 Initiatives and Request for Additional
Funding.” According to Cook, a unit of NIH called the
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) launched a large
trial to study the effect of the use of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a
prophylactic treatment in healthcare workers (HCWs) against COVID-19.
The study was called the “HERO [Healthcare Worker Exposure Response
and Outcomes]-HCQ Trial.”

Cook claims that the study’s creators wanted to, “Create a
community of healthcare workers (HCWs) who may be at risk of COVID-19
infection.” And then, “randomize 15,000 at-risk HCWs into a
randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of
hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to prevent COVID-19 clinical infection in
HCWs.”

According to Cook, secondary goals of the scientists include, “To
evaluate the efficacy of HCQ to prevent viral shedding of SARS-CoV-2
among HCWs.” And “Evaluate safety and tolerability of HCQ.”

The records include a June 26, 2020, letter
[[link removed]]
from a group of Democrat congressmen to then-HHS Secretary Alex Azar.
The representatives write:

We write with strong concerns surrounding the Administration’s
termination of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant to
EcoHealth Alliance on April 24, 2020. In the letter communicating
the grant’s termination, NIH Deputy Director for Extramural
Research, Dr. Michael Lauer, wrote that “At this time, NIH does not
believe the current project outcomes align with the program goals and
agency priorities.” However, press reports indicate that the grant
was canceled because a small portion of the funding was to be given to
the Wuhan Institute of Virology for on-the-ground sample collection
and analysis. Given the potential for this study to inform our
knowledge of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transmission, it is
deeply concerning that it may have been canceled for political reasons
in the midst of the current pandemic.
In a heavily redacted July 21, 2020, email exchange
[[link removed]]
with the subject line “EcoHealth [EcoHealth Alliance
[[link removed]]]
oversight
response” Adrienne Hallett
[[link removed]]
writes: “We are going to
draft a response to the letter [redacted]. Mike [Lauer
[[link removed]]],
can you help with the draft?”

Collins responds, “Sounds like a plan. [Redacted].”

Hallett’s response is completely redacted, then Lauer replies,
“Thanks so much Adrienne! I’ll draft something today.”

Fauci’s agency is slow-rolling the release of documents about COVID,
Wuhan, and gain-of-function research. At this rate, Fauci will be long
retired before we get even a partial accounting for its activities.
But Judicial Watch will keep on pushing for the full truth.

JUDICIAL WATCH VICTORY: SIXTH CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COUNCIL VACATES ORDER
PUNISHING FEDERAL JUDGE WHO PUSHED FOR TIMELY JUSTICE IN SOCIAL
SECURITY BENEFITS CASES

As part of the settlement of a historic federal lawsuit, the federal
Sixth Circuit Judicial Council is vacating an unprecedented and
entirely unwarranted order by a disciplinary panel that found U.S.
District Court Judge John R. Adams committed misconduct by objecting
to undergoing a psychiatric examination and ordered him to submit to
the examination.

In September 2017, Judicial Watch filed
[[link removed]]
a federal lawsuit challenging the discipline on behalf of Akron,
Ohio-based Judge Adams (_The Hon. John R. Adams v. The Judicial
Council of the Sixth Circuit, et al.
[[link removed]
(No. 17-1984)). The Sixth Circuit oversees and hears appeals from
federal trial courts in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

Here’s what happened.

On August 14, 2017, the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability
of the Judicial Conference of the United States upheld an
administrative ruling by the Sixth Circuit Judicial Council finding
that Judge Adams committed misconduct when he issued a show cause
order to a magistrate judge who missed a deadline in a Social Security
benefits case. Judge Adams had long been concerned about the efficient
use and supervision of his court’s magistrates and the timeliness of
magistrates’ decisions, particularly in Social Security cases. To
reduce delays in such cases, he began issuing orders setting deadlines
for magistrates’ “reports and recommendations” – analyses by
magistrates on how a judge should rule.

The magistrates resisted Judge Adams’ efforts and, when one
magistrate missed a deadline, Judge Adams issued the show cause order.
After the magistrate explained that the missed deadline resulted from
a simple calendaring error, Judge Adams accepted the explanation and
placed both the order and the explanation under seal.

Some of Judge Adams’ colleagues on the Ohio Federal District Court
filed an ethics complaint claiming that Judge Adams’ deadlines and
show cause order caused the magistrates to give priority to his cases
over theirs. As a result, Judge Adams was subjected to a years-long
ethics investigation so vengeful and vitriolic that even his mental
health was questioned. Despite the complete absence of any medical
evidence suggesting he suffered from a mental disability, Judge Adams
was ordered to undergo a psychiatric examination, including a
three-hour battery of psychological testing. When he objected, he was
accused of undermining the investigation.

In addition to his efforts to ensure timely processing of Social
Security appeals, Judge Adams also has spoken out numerous times about
the Ohio Federal District Court’s wasteful use of taxpayer dollars,
such as the spending of thousands of dollars to purchase iPads for
judges and other court staff while simultaneously threatening cutbacks
and furloughs for essential staff, such as probation officers. He also
questioned reimbursing judges for travel expenses incurred attending
ceremonial portrait unveilings of their colleagues.

No case had ever decided whether a sitting federal judge can be
compelled to undergo a psychiatric examination, but the Committee on
Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the
United States held it was misconduct for Judge Adams to object to this
unprecedented demand. It also ordered him to endure two years of
monitoring by a judicial committee and threatened to reassign his
current caseload and ban him from being assigned new cases.

After over four years of federal litigation, including an appeal, the
Judicial Council agreed to finally vacate the unprecedented orders
targeting Judge Adams.

The courts are not above the law. Judge Adams is a fine jurist
committed to the highest standards of judicial ethics and has served
with distinction for over 19 years. No other federal judge should ever
have to go through what Judge Adams went through. That the bureaucracy
of the federal judiciary retreated from its abuse of him is a
remarkable victory for the rule of law and our constitutional system.

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES OVER COVID-19 TRAVEL EXEMPTIONS FOR BIDEN
OFFICIALS

Rules for thee, but not for me? Too often that’s the case in
Washington. Now we want to know if government employees under the
Biden administration enjoyed privileges withheld from ordinary
Americans when it came to COVID-19 travel restrictions.

We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA suit) against the State
Department for all documents related to national interest travel
exemptions from the Biden administration given to federal employees
and their families related to the COVID-19 pandemic (_Judicial Watch
v. U.S. Department of State
[[link removed]
(No. 1:22-cv-00736)).

Here’s the background. On January 25, 2021, President Joe Biden
issued a presidential proclamation
[[link removed]]
prohibiting the entry of non-residents to America if they have been in
the Schengen Area
[[link removed]],
the
United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Brazil, or the Republic of
South Africa in the 14 days prior. The stated objective of this order
was to “prevent further spread” of COVID-19. On April 30, 2021,
President Biden extended this proclamation to cover those who had been
in the Republic of India.

Although these directives would potentially cause Americans to be
separated from loved ones abroad, federal employees could have
potentially used their positions and connections to circumvent the
travel bans by obtaining National Interest Exemptions (NIE).

Through this FOIA request, we hope to obtain information and
statistics regarding the total number of NIE requests made during the
public health emergency from federal and non-federal employees, as
well as the number of rejections and approvals of these requests.

We sued after the State Department failed to respond to a September
21, 2021, FOIA request seeking:

* All records of the number of applications, granted and denied, for
a National Interest Exemption to any of the COVID-19 related travel
restrictions implemented by the U.S. Government, including the
restrictions announced, by President Biden on January 25, 2021 and
April 30, 2021.
* All records depicting the number of applications, granted or
denied, to a family member of an employee of any office of the U.S.
Government.
* All records of communication between any official of the
Department of State and any official of any other office of the U.S.
Government regarding applications for exemptions made by family
members.
* All records of policies related to the processing of applications
for a National Interest Exemptions.

COVID restrictions have been too often ignored by government
officials, and Americans have a right to know if federal employees
used their positions of power to see their families when others could
not.

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES HHS FOR COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT VACCINE SIDE EFFECTS

The Centers for Disease Control is being scrutinized
[[link removed]]
for being less than forthcoming about what it knows about the COVID-19
vaccines. Judicial Watch is pushing back on this lack of transparency
with lawsuit after lawsuit to enforce Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) accountability.

We just filed a FOIA lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) for communications related to adverse events
caused by COVID-19 vaccines (_Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:22-cv-00660)).

We sued after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) failed to respond
to an August 30, 2021, FOIA request for:

All emails sent to and from members of the Vaccines and Related
Biological Products Advisory Committee regarding adverse events,
deaths and/or injuries caused by investigatory vaccines for the
prevention or treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and/or COVID-19 currently
produced by Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna and/or Johnson & Johnson.
The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee
[[link removed]]
“reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety, effectiveness,
and appropriate use of vaccines and related biological products which
are intended for use in the prevention, treatment, or diagnosis of
human diseases, and, as required, any other products for which the
Food and Drug Administration has regulatory responsibility.”

Americans have a right to know about any and all safety issues tied to
the COVID vaccines. The government’s unlawful stonewalling, which
will now take a federal FOIA lawsuit to resolve, suggests that there
is something to hide.

CITY UNDER SIEGE: STAGGERING NEW YORK CRIME WAVE ROILS POLITICS

It’s been said that, “As goes New York, so goes the nation.”
Unfortunately, that seems all too true regarding leftist leniency for
criminals. However, as Micah Morrison, our chief investigative
reporter, describes
[[link removed]]
in
_Investigative Bulletin_, even leftist politicians have been forced to
take action.

The NYPD’s new anti-gun units hit the streets last week and not a
moment too soon. New York City is in the midst of a staggering crime
wave. Over the past weekend, 29 people were shot in 24 separate
incidents, the Daily News reported
[[link removed]].
According to the latest NYPD statistics, major felonies in the city
increased 58% in February 2022, in year over year comparisons to
February 2021. Murders rose 10%. Felony assaults rose 22%. Rapes
increased 35%. Robberies increased 56%. Hate crimes—largely against
Jews and Asian-Americans—surged 189%. Crimes in the transit
systems—mainly the subways—were up 73%.

New York is a city under siege. Every day brings a new horror story. A
child is assaulted in Times Square. A young woman is stabbed to death
in her Chinatown apartment. A senior citizen is hacked to death by a
wheelchair-bound transgender two-time convicted murderer
[[link removed]].
A madman smears feces on a woman’s face in a subway station, is
released on bail, and is arrested again
[[link removed]]
after hurling a dumbbell through a window. A woman is shoved in front
of a subway train and killed. Another woman is attacked with a hammer.
A teen is shot to death in front of a Brooklyn high school. A baby is
shot in the face in the Bronx. A teenage cashier at a Burger King in
Manhattan is shot and killed during a robbery. Two police officers are
killed by gunfire
[[link removed]]
in Harlem.

At Judicial Watch, we warned for years that New York was slipping
toward a crisis of crime and disorder
[[link removed]].
The reasons were not difficult to discern. Progressive policy makers
were denigrating and defunding the police at every opportunity,
dismantling successful policing units, decriminalizing quality-of-life
crimes, emptying jails, and launching a disastrous program of bail
reform.

Under Mayor Bill de Blasio, New York abandoned the successful policing
strategy of enforcing quality-of-life laws. This was the “Broken
Windows” theory of policing, a key factor in crime reduction during
the mayoral tenure of Rudy Giuliani.

“Broken Windows” is a metaphor for urban decline. The building
with an unrepaired broken window soon leads to the other windows being
broken and more disorderly conduct. “A neighborhood where minor
offenses go unchallenged soon becomes a breeding ground for more
serious criminal activity and, ultimately, violence,” writes
[[link removed]]
Giuliani police commissioner William Bratton and George Kelling, the
father of Broken Windows theory.

New York decriminalized quality-of-life crimes under de Blasio. Public
urination, public drinking, littering, and subway turnstile jumping
were no longer illegal. Incidents of harassment, menacing, petty
theft, public urination and public intoxication began to increase.
That distant tremor in the urban air was the sound of windows
breaking.

Meanwhile, progressives rammed through the state legislature in Albany
a reform package that eliminated bail for a wide range of offenses
[[link removed]
assault, arson and child abuse to manslaughter, robbery and riot—and
removed judicial discretion in holding suspects. The reform
legislation took effect January 2020. Many more offenders walked. Some
of them were poor first-time offenders on minor crimes who simply
could not afford bail and deserved to walk; others were violent
personalities or career criminals who did not. Crime rates jumped.

The public backlash was swift. In November 2021, New York elected a
new mayor, a former police officer who had campaigned on a platform of
public safety, Eric Adams. The new mayor’s plans include a refreshed
version of the successful but controversial NYPD anti-crime unit,
which was disbanded in 2020 in the midst of social justice protests.
The new six-person anti-gun units, launched last week, will
aggressively tackle gun crime in New York. About 170 police officers
have been deployed so far, focusing on high crime areas, with 300 more
to follow.

Adams also is advocating for reform of radical bail laws, tougher gun
possession charges for youthful offenders, and a crackdown on transit
crime with an increased police presence in the subways.

Initially stunned by the Adams electoral victory, New York’s
powerful progressive factions have begun to push back hard
[[link removed]]
on the new mayor. Adams’ appeal to Democratic leaders in Albany for
bail reform—largely focused on giving judges more discretion to hold
potentially violent offenders—was quickly shot down. Progressive
politicians in New York argue
[[link removed]]
that there is not a proven connection between the new bail laws and
increased crime; conservatives disagree
[[link removed]].


Adams, meanwhile, gained an important ally in the bail reform fight:
New York Governor Kathy Hochul. The former lieutenant governor took
over after Andrew Cuomo resigned. Last week, she sent the state
legislature a “confidential” ten-point public safety plan
[[link removed]]
that backed the Adams proposal to give judges more discretion in
setting bail. The plan quickly leaked, infuriating the Left. Perhaps
not coincidentally, Hochul will be asking the voters for a full term
as governor in November.

Back in New York City, the new NYPD anti-gun teams acted quickly,
making the first arrest just two hours into the first patrol—an
alleged member of the Bloods crime gang with a loaded 9mm handgun. By
the end of the first week, the anti-gun units had arrested thirty more
suspects and taken ten illegal guns off the streets.

PUBLIC COLLEGE HOSTS COP KILLER, CALLING HIM A ‘POLITICAL
PRISONER’

Our colleges have turned against the society that funds and protects
them, bestowing honor on all manner of miscreants. Our _Corruption
Chronicles_ blog reports
[[link removed]]
on
the latest outrage.

In a scandalous example of leftwing dominance in higher education, a
public university in New York will hold an event next month featuring
a convicted cop killer promoted by the taxpayer-funded institution as
a “political prisoner.” The April 6 event at State University of
New York (SUNY) at Brockport is titled “History of Black Resistance,
U.S. Political Prisoners & Genocide: A Conversation with Jalil
Muntaqim
[[link removed]
and the
school’s announcement conveniently omits Muntaqim’s crimes, though
it mentions he “was an avid educator” in prison. Formerly known as
Anthony Bottom, Muntaqim was convicted for the murder of two New York
Police Department (NYPD) officers in 1971. At the time he was a member
of the radical Black Panther Party and Black Liberation Army.

Muntaqim and two of his Black Liberation Army comrades ambushed and
killed
[[link removed]]
the officers, Waverly Jones, who was black, and Joseph Piagentini in
Harlem. The officers were on foot patrol in a public housing complex.
As they returned to their police vehicle, the three suspects attacked
them from behind and shot them. Jones was killed instantly after
getting shot in the back of the head. Piagentini was shot multiple
times and died on the way to the hospital. One of the cop murderers
died in prison, the other was granted parole in 2018 and Muntaqim was
paroled in 2020, after being denied parole 11 times and serving nearly
five decades. Piagentini’s widow was rightfully outraged that her
husband’s murderer was freed, saying this in a local news report
[[link removed]
“My husband, they shot him, there were 22 bullet holes in my
husband, and Bottom [Muntaqim] just kept on shooting,” she said.
“My husband looked at him, turned and said ‘I have a wife, I have
children,’ but he continued to shoot.”

The media has downplayed Muntaqim’s crimes, instead celebrating him
as an author, activist, and local civil rights organizer
[[link removed]]
who is featured in a documentary released just weeks ago. In a review
of the film, titled “Conversations: The Black Radical Tradition,”
one media outlet describes the film as “first-hand accounts of Black
resistance in America in the 20th and 21st centuries from more than a
dozen activists, scholars, politicians, writers, and others involved
in resistance and community-building movements.” In the article
Muntaqim says “there has been an unbroken history of resistance
against white supremacy, institutional racism, and capitalist
exploitation of our communities, but the engagement in activism has at
times gone dormant. So it’s important for us to understand the
history and resurrect that tradition of resistance.” Another
newspaper article
[[link removed]]
describes the cop killer fondly: “During his incarceration, Muntaqim
became a father, a grandfather, a great-grandfather, a mentor, a
scholar, a several-times-over published author and a faith leader.”

SUNY Brockport was actually going to compensate the felon to appear at
the upcoming event, but public outrage forced university officials to
revoke the payment. They have, however, refused calls to cancel
Muntaqim’s appearance, which is being billed by the school as an
“intellectual conversation” about his time with the Black Panthers
and as a political prisoner. In a letter published by a local news
outlet
[[link removed]]
in the aftermath of the public outrage, SUNY Brockport President Heidi
Macpherson explains that Muntaqim was invited by a faculty member who
was approved for a “Promoting Excellence in Diversity” grant.
“We do not support the violence exhibited in Mr. Muntaqim’s
previous crimes, and his presence on campus does not imply endorsement
of his views or past actions,” Macpherson, writes, adding that his
appearance will provide an opportunity to learn about his perspective
and what may have contributed to his past experiences. Macpherson
assures individuals will have the opportunity to ask difficult
questions such as “why he chooses to identify as a former political
prisoner.”

At least one New York state legislator blasted the university, issuing
a statement
[[link removed]]
saying that it is incredibly inappropriate and downright wrong to give
Muntaqim a platform at a taxpayer-funded institution. “What type of
message would we be sending to young college students to call someone
who played a role in the assassination of two members of law
enforcement a “political prisoner?” What message does it send to
criminal justice majors on campus? What message does it send to our
law enforcement?” Academic freedom and diversity are important, the
lawmaker, Assemblyman Josh Jensen writes, but “granting this
opportunity to a convicted cop killer is wholly misguided.” In its
promotional material, the university portrays Muntaqim as a civil
rights hero, stating that he was a teen activist for the NAACP and
Black Panther Party at age 18. The school further describes him as a
“grandfather, father, mentor to many, and loving human being.”
Until next week …



[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


<a
href="[link removed]"
target="_blank"><img alt="WU01"
src="[link removed]"
style="width:100%; height:auto;" /></a>

[32x32x1]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x2]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172



© 2017 - 2022, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]