Molotov Cocktail Ex-Lawyer Urooj Rahman Spotted Spewing Hate at Anti-Israel, Anti-American Protest on July 4th
If you needed any further proof that the rioters then and the rioters now are basically the same crowd of people, here you go.
You may remember Urooj Rahman. She is the disbarred lawyer who was sentenced to a conspicuously short jail term for hurling a Molotov Cocktail at a police car in New York City during the George Floyd riots in 2020.
Now she was seen joining in with the anti-Israel and anti-American protests we saw this week on July 4th. These folks sure are fond of throwing up their middle finger at people who notice them. Watch:
Is anyone surprised that Urooj Rahman (the lawyer who was arrested in 2020 for throwing Molotov cocktails at NYPD) is attending WOL protests?
— Jason Curtis Anderson (@JCAndersonNYC) July 5, 2024
Margaret Clark writes at RedState:
Video of July 4th Mob Includes Lawyer Let Off the Hook After Throwing Molotov Cocktail at Police in 2020
Rahman is an immigrant from Pakistan and she was facing life in prison when Judge Cogan gave her only 15 months of prison time. He said at her sentencing that she was a “remarkable person who did a terrible thing on one night”.
Rahman claimed that she got caught up in the emotion of the moment but had since reconnected with her faith and spirituality and sought treatment for alcohol abuse and psychiatric issues. It sounded like a wonderful story of redemption, for anyone gullible enough to believe it, until we see her gleeful face four years later in this antisemitic mob on July 4th.
Rahman was there on behalf of Nerdeen Kiswani’s group Within Our Lifetime, who were responsible for the Colombia mob occupation and encampment. Kiswani is a piece of work herself…
At what point does a person’s actions qualify as a breach of naturalization? At what point should a person be considered a terrorist?
This is a person who cried and begged for a second chance when she was facing a serious prison sentence in 2022.
The Associated Press reported:
A New York City attorney was sentenced to 15 months behind bars on Friday for firebombing an empty New York City police vehicle with another lawyer during protests over the murder of George Floyd.
Before hearing her sentence, Urooj Rahman asked a judge to spare her prison time and give her a “second chance” to redeem herself for what she called a momentary lapse of judgement.
“I’m so incredibly sorry for my reckless and wrong actions,” a tearful Rahman said in federal court in Brooklyn. “I don’t think there’s enough words to express my sorrow and regret. … I completely lost my way in the emotion of the night.”
If you needed any further proof that the rioters then and the rioters now are basically the same crowd of people, here you go.
In the summer of 2020, Urooj Rahman threw a Molotov cocktail at a police car.
Then, the Biden Justice Dept struck a sweetheart plea deal with her, giving her a slap on the wrist.
Now she's a pro-Hamas activist calling Jews "Ugly Zionist Nazis".pic.twitter.com/MiP5HbGsBI
— Shelley G (@ShelleyGldschmt) July 5, 2024
Meet Urooj Rahman, an attorney who was at the pro-Palestine protest on July 4th where protesters burned American flags and chanted "d*ath to America."
Rahman was sentenced to 15 months in prison and two years of supervised release in 2022 for throwing a Molotov cocktail into a… pic.twitter.com/PJx8NdRmti
— Chaya Raichik (@ChayaRaichik10) July 5, 2024
“Ugly a** Zionist Nazi” – Urooj Rahman at a July 4th mob event organized by Nerdeen Kiswani’s group WOL.
Does Rahman look familiar?
It’s because she was one of the lawyers arrested in 2020 for throwing Molotov cocktails at NYPD!pic.twitter.com/fZ5h34PJma
— StopAntisemitism (@StopAntisemites) July 5, 2024
🚨 UPDATE: This domestic terrorist seen harassing a Jewish individual has been IDENTIFIED as Urooj Rahman. She was arrested in 2020 for throwing Molotov cocktails at NYPD.
Thank you @ManhattanMingle @StopAntisemites for exposing her. https://t.co/acdKJbPgbN pic.twitter.com/2Kn6RaNhWA
— Awesome Jew (@Jewsarethegoat) July 5, 2024
Good thing for her she isn’t a Trump supporter or she’d probably be in jail right now.
Had enough?
Featured image via Twitter video.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“Ex-lawyer Urooj spewing hate”
I think she’s Biden’s speech writer.
Biden is known for spewing two things:
1. Hate
2. Lies
I agree about the two, but there are far more things wrong with the Biden can.
Urooj Rahman is another Affirmative, dumb POS. America should not tolerate people like her.
Another good, solid patriot and blue voter. If she hadn’t been disbarred, she would fit in perfectly with Biden’s DOJ.
She’s probably a consultant.
Well she looks happy as an anti-Semitic thug. Proves the old saying. Enjoy what you do and you’ll never work a day in your life.
Several people including a geriatric man and woman, have been sentenced to a decade in prison for praying to close to an abortion clinic while this arsonist walks around freely. Our ‘justice’ system is anything but.
It’s the new definition of “justice;” vote for D, go free; vote for R, go behind bars.
She’s walking around freely because she served her time. The prosecution asked for 18 months, she got 15.
She’s walking around freely because the “prosecutor” is a treasonous POS who should have been sitting in prison alongside her or decades.
She could and should have gotten many years for what she did willfully.
While you are correct, Milhouse, that is likely one of the most tone deaf comments I’ve seen you make. She received special treatment and then pleaded for reduction from the already super-lenient plea deal she agreed to, claiming she “got religion”. You may, or may not, believe we have a dual system of “justice”, but she is a prime example of the system being “just us” for those with the right “story”.
She looks like she gained a lot of weight. Kinda hard to tell through that tent she’s wearing.
Lots of carbs in prison
Sorry, I duplicated your weight gain observation.
No worries. Great eyes see alike.
Urooj Rahman: get the f#@! out of my country.
I thank she is a prime candidate for deporting back to Pakistan.
Nope. She’s a US citizen.
She’s naturalized. She should have had her citizenship revoked and been shipped back to Pakistan, where she belongs.
She took part in an attempted insurrection – the only real insurrections that were attempted were the Boy George criminal and arson-fests of 2020. That should have been enough to strip her of citizenship and put her on a dinghy headed back to the Indian Ocean.
US citizenship cannot be revoked. Ever, under any circumstances. Once someone is validly a citizen, it doesn’t matter what crimes they commit, they’re still a citizen.
Of course if you can prove the person is only pretending to be a citizen and never really was one, then there’s nothing to revoke. They’re not a citizen because they never were. But that’s not the case here. There was no flaw in her naturalization, so she’s a citizen and that’s that.
Nah. Renouncement by conduct. Which is what we have here. Next subject?
How many times do you need to be corrected on this point before you admit your wrong? I even posted the ways that a person’s naturalization can be revoked and that person removed from the US straight out of US Code. Give it up insisting on a lie.
You are lying. There are no such ways. What you posted was the obvious fact that if a person was never a citizen, and has only been falsely claiming to be one, then when you prove the claim false you can deport them. But if the person is a citizen then there is no way to deport them, ever, no matter what they’ve done.
And that’s the case here. There is no reason to suspect any flaws in her naturalization, so she’s a citizen. End of story. You can keep lying if you like, but no matter how many times you tell a lie it won’t become any truer.
Last time. 8 USC 1451.
I post the Code, you call me a liar. Who wins? Pssst…not you, troll.
You are a liar. 8 USC 1451 doesn’t say what you claim it does. I’ve read it, you either haven’t read it, or are lying about it. Nothing in it provides for revoking a validly obtained naturalization.
But it wouldn’t matter if it did say what you claim, because if so it would be unconstitutional and thus invalid, and the courts would have struck it down long ago. They haven’t, because it doesn’t.
What it says is that, where the evidence shows so, US Attorneys should bring suit “for the purpose of revoking and setting aside the order admitting such person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of naturalization on the ground that such order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured or were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation,” This is perfectly clear: if a US Attorney finds that someone fraudulently obtained an order allowing him to be naturalized, and a certificate of naturalization, then the order and certificate should be canceled. The naturalization itself does not need to be canceled because it was always invalid.
This is exactly the same as saying that if a US Attorney finds evidence that someone was born in Kenya but his parents managed to get a birth certificate issued for him purporting that he was born in Hawaii, he should sue to have the fake certificate canceled. This would not result in the person’s citizenship being revoked, because he never had citizenship in the first place.
The headline is not very self-aware.
She’s not even wearing a mask
They k is they have nothing to fear
How is this ok with probation?
Their violence is “speech” because it’s the speech of the “oppressed” or something.
“…they have nothing to fear…”
That much is obvious. The real questions are, “Was her treatment by the court, and the lenient treatment too many leftists receive, meant to teach her she has nothing to fear? Are our courts now encouraging anti-American activity?”
What probation? She served her time. There’s no such thing as federal probation.
In any event, even probation can’t prevent someone from exercising their constitutional rights.
Not quite. There is federal Probation. It is imposed at sentencing and is in lieu of imprisonment. She was not on probation. There is also Supervised Release, also imposed as part of the sentencing and is in addition to a term of imprisonment. She was on 2 years of Supervised Release, the article is mistaken in calling it “probation” (which it would be in a state situation). My other comment was written before I checked (once again I wish we had edit capability).
Four years ago, according to the article. Sentenced to 15 months and 2 years probation (again, according to the article). She isn’t on probation any longer.
the rubber stamping of dei affirm action “lawyers” doctors” judges pilots etc etc etc ”
opened the floodgates of an uncivilized america open and ripe for takeover by the very same who never earned the degree(s)
that sent the message loud and clear that america will pass the baton to the communistnazi flamers
you would think all the fisting would have kept her slim
I don’t think that word means what I suspect you think it means.
Please keep you private fantasies to yourself.
Jealous you didn’t think of it first, Junior?
Mark my words: this will not be the last time you hear from her, either.
Why? Because that which you subsidize you get more of.
Leopards, spots. Assembly not required because they don’t change, folks.
For that assault with the Molotov Cocktail she should have been sentenced to a term encompassing most of her remaining adult life in prison.
She’ll act out violently again. You’ll see.
Huh? How do you reckon such a sentence could possibly have been justified for arson against property?
She’ll act out violently again. You’ll see.
____________________________________
believe you are correct–she’s emboldened now and such personalities typically escalate their offenses / behaviour–not to worry though, the next offense she commits might be interdicted by an armed citizen who lawfully puts her down
Looks like she’s gained a few kilos since the last time we saw her smiling face. She’s a keeper!
Compare this to the disgusting treatment Rudy got.
Another argument in favor of mandatory minimum sentences. We can still have a system where a Judge could suspend some portion of the mandatory minimum BUT any additional criminal conviction for an offense occurring during the suspension should automatically revoke the suspension. Then add a scorecard for Judges who show poor ‘judgement’ when a certain #/% of those who were granted suspended sentences reoffend above which they are automatically removed from the bench for felony/civil trials and relegated to traffic CT or some such.
Like the scorecard for judges idea. They need to be held accountable.
I don’t know how widespread this practice is — Arizona is the first place I’ve lived that has it — but every election here the vast majority of ballot real-estate (at the tail end) is taken up with scores of individual “judicial retention votes” for every judge in your county plus statewide courts. It’s unusual for any judge to get less than 50%, but in egregious cases it has happened.
Of course our legislature, in its wisdom, put a ballot question on the upcoming ballot to gut this entire safeguard and give judges lifetime sinecures instead, HELL, no.
Most States elect Judges to fixed terms then they run for re-election. A few States have an appointment+retention election model. Life tenure for Judges has always seemed bizarre to me b/c Judges are human beings and the person initially appointed may ‘evolve’ over time as we have seen with many SCOTUS GoP appointments. ‘Good behavior’ in Art III does one Heck of a heavy lift to transform into life tenure IMO especially when coupled with the reluctance to impeach.
“James Trusty, a former prosecutor in the Justice Department’s criminal division, told the Washington Free Beacon that Rahman received “extraordinarily unusual treatment by the DOJ.”
This is by design. The JoeBama regime wants this dystopian hellscape of a society: violence, anger, destruction, etc., and needs auxiliary black shirts, like this Pakistani POS, to fill out the antifa ranks. Money laundered thru Ukraine helps fund it all.
It’s also why a wide open border with millions of military aged men invading the USA is such a priority for this regime. If Trump avoids assassination – and get re-elected, we’ll all long for the mostly peaceful protest days of 2020.
It’s coming. We are at war. Prepare accordingly.
“Had enough?”
Yes. Have you?
There is no such thing. Once someone has been validly naturalized, that’s it. It can never be revoked, for any reason.
Of course if the naturalization was never valid in the first place, then it never happened and the person is not a citizen. So if you can prove that, it would be exactly the same as proving that someone who claims citizenship by having been born in the USA was in fact born somewhere else.
Conduct immediately after naturalization can sometimes be used as evidence that statements made during the naturalization were false, and thus the naturalization was invalid. But conduct years or decades later can’t possibly be evidence of that.
No information is available on when Rahman was naturalized. In all likelihood she was included in her parents’ naturalization, so she wouldn’t have made any statements at all, and thus there was nothing to invalidate. Otherwise she probably was naturalized when she turned 18, and if she made false material statements at that time it would invalidate the naturalization, but a crime she committed more than a decade later doesn’t tell us anything about the truth of the statements she made then.
LOL.
That’s ridiculous. You are a poor shill. I hope Soros isn’t paying you too much … then again, I hope he is – better that his money should be wasted.
It’s not my fault that you are ignorant of the constitution. This is not even controversial. The supreme court has been very clear about it, for many decades. Citizenship, once validly obtained, can only be lost by voluntary renunciation.
LOL.
Cite the exact Constitutional reference.
14th amendment. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” There are no ifs or buts, no exceptions, no loopholes. If you were validly naturalized in the United States, you are a citizen. On its face this would mean even if you voluntarily renounced it, but the courts have said that is wrong, and you always have the right to renounce your citizenship if you like. They could hardly say otherwise, since that is the principle for which we officially fought the War of 1812. (There were other reasons for the war, such as our desire to conquer Canada, and to steal all the Indians’ land, but they were not officially acknowledged.)
LOL, milhouse. That is utterly ridiculous. The amendment stating people who GET citizenship says absolutely NOTHING about how they can lose it. You are tying yourself up into a pretzel trying to claim that it does. But … IT DOES NOT.
LOL. Had to get your little “hate America” note in there … for absolutely no Earthly reason other than your idiocy.
You are wrong. It says these people are citizens. Not that they become citizens but that they are citizens. They are defined as citizens. And that means they can never lose it.
The plain language would mean that they can’t even voluntarily renounce it, but the courts have said that they can.
I’m not tying myself into anything, I’m telling you the undisputed law. It’s what the courts have been saying, consistently and unanimously, for longer than either of us has been alive. It’s not my fault that you are simply ignorant of it. Go look it up and you’ll see that I am right.
How dare you accuse me of hating America? What I wrote is the plain and simple truth. It’s what happened. Does that not matter at all to you?! Are you that deeply corrupt and rotten to your core as to not care about the truth, and to attack anyone who tells it?! How do you even live with yourself, with such an attitude?
From the idiot Milhouse:
LOL. Nice pretzeling, there. Your argument is completely nonsensical, and the fact that you claim that the Constitution declares that one cannot relinquish citizenship voluntarily is the biggest joke of all. You would contend that the Constitution makes ownership claims on people. You are an idiot.
And now you’re blatantly lying. I did not claim that the constitution doesn’t allow renouncing citizenship; I wrote the exact opposite.
But you cannot deny that that is what the plain language clearly says. It’s the courts that have ruled that it can’t mean that, in part because that would contradict the principle for which we officially fought the War of 1812.
So yes, you can voluntarily renounce citizenship, despite the constitution’s plain language. But that is the only exception the courts have allowed. Otherwise the language rules, and it says very clearly that anyone born or naturalized in the united states and subject to their jurisdiction is defined as a citizen, regardless of any other consideration. There are no other exceptions. That’s what the constitution says, that’s what the courts all say, and that’s what every single legal expert says.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Again. Just friggen stop.
You stop, because you are wrong and you know you’re wrong. All the information you have cited about so-called “denaturalization” has been very clear about what it refers to, and that it does not refer to revoking a naturalization that was valid, but only to proving that a purported naturalization was always invalid.
That is no different from proving that a person claiming citizenship by birth wasn’t actually born a citizen. There was a case like that just a few years ago, where a woman who was definitely born in the USA was declared an alien because at the time of her birth her father was registered with the State Department as a foreign diplomat with immunity from US law. The courts ruled that that meant she was never a citizen, and her US passport had been issued by mistake, and she could be deported. Proving someone’s naturalization was invalid is exactly like that.
Stop, already. Your just digging your troll hole deeper.
Nope. Every word I wrote is the plain and simple truth, not even controversial. I am simply reporting what every court that has ever considered the question has said.
The (likely) protective detail of a sitting US Supreme Court justice was involved in a shooting this after after assailants apparently tried to carjack one of them outside of the Justice’s home. The specific justice hasn’t been named. But, was referred to as a ‘her’ in local reporting. I don’t believe Comey-Barrett lives in DC. So, it’s almost certainly Jackson, Kagan or Sotomayor. I’m not sure where they live.
https://mpdc.dc.gov/release/mpd-investigating-us-marshals-involved-shooting
What happens if you marry your brother and later become a member of the US House of Representatives?
Should your citizenship be revoked and sent back to:
(1) your original refugee camp
(2) back to your homeland
Omar’s fake “marriage” has nothing to do with her citizenship or her congressional seat. Her citizenship cannot be revoked; anyone who says otherwise is a lying liar who lies. She could literally commit treason and her citizenship still couldn’t be revoked. And her congressional seat can only be revoked by her constituents at the next election. Two thirds of the House could expel her, but (at least according to the position Congress has held consistently for well over a century, and which the Supreme Court has officially taken note of without endorsing) only for an offense committed within the current term; anything before the last election is out of bounds.
She is unfit to practice law
And indeed she isn’t. She was disbarred.
Rahman is an immigrant from Pakistan
And that might be the very beginning of the “chain of causation” (as some accident investigators would call it).
Professor Jacobson,
Are you ever bothered by the number of fascists who post comments on this site?