Judging Chris Christie

We have been unabashed admirers of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in his mission to get state obligations under control. At Sultan Knish, Daniel Greenfield reviews the troubling history behind Governor Christie’s appointment of an attorney who is a pillar of the Islamist establishment in New Jersey (as I think Greenfield makes out) to the state bench. Jonathan Tobin comments further on “Chris Christie’s troubling appointment.” The attorney’s name is Mohammed, first name Sohail — Sohail Mohammed.
The Associated Press reports on the appointment here and adds these piquant notes: “Mr. Mohammed helped arrange a law enforcement job fair at a Paterson mosque in which young Muslims were encouraged to apply for jobs with law enforcement agencies. The session also featured a question-and-answer session for mosque members with the police and prosecutors. He was also asked to give many training sessions to F.B.I. agents on Islam and Muslim culture.”
NOTE: I should add that, for my assessment of the American Muslim Union, I rely on Joel Mowbray. I think the AMU is fairly described as part of the Islamist establishment along with CAIR, ISNA, et al.
UPDATE: Steven Emerson has more here.
JOHN adds: It’s an interesting question–who is the dimmest-witted of all the pundits of whom some people have actually heard? There are many candidates–Richard Cohen and Frank Rich come immediately to mind. But Andrew Sullivan may take the crown. He linked to this post and nominated it for the “Malkin Award”–he apparently thinks that is an insult–but attributed it to “Scott Hinderaker.” After all these years, Andrew still can’t keep us straight! As a matter of basic journalistic competence, if you’re going to attack someone you should at least get his name right. Beyond that, Sullivan is dishonest as usual:

The judge’s flaw? Defending those innocents swept up in the police sweep after 9/11.

This is ridiculous. None of the linked articles criticizes Mohammed for “defending innocents” who were “swept up in the police sweep after 9/11.” Instead, they raise serious questions about Mohammed and the American Muslim Union and their ties to Islamic extremism. The only legal representation that was criticized in any of the linked articles was that of Mohammed Qatanani, who, far from being an “innocent” who was “swept up in [a] police sweep,” was a member of Hamas who lied on his application for permanent residency, which was prepared with the assistance of Mohammed’s law firm.
Of course, it is easy to understand why Sullivan doesn’t have time to get his facts straight. He is way too busy obsessing over the Palin family to bother with minor topics like terrorism. (How’s your investigation of Trig going, Andrew?) Instead of bothering to get his facts right about Scott’s post, Sullivan was writing this:

Bristol may have been engaging in hyperbole when she said she’d changed Tripp’s last name to Palin. The evidence shows that Tripp is still a Johnston. But stay tuned …

Yeah, we’re all waiting breathlessly for your next update, Andrew. Keep up the great work!

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.