B.S. again.
Owning an interest in a company isn’t the same thing as funding a mosque. The funding should be investigated - as should the imam’s taxpayer-funded trip to Muslim countries for “outreach.”
You conclusively say it’s different, but you don’t say why. I think that’s because the entire “terrorist-funded” controversy is a rouse.
The Saudi prince has the legal right to buy interest in a publicly traded company, News Corp. As a major stockholder, he has a right to give substantial input in the company. Whether or not he’s a terrorist, he funded the company and provides substantial input into board elections, etc. He also has a right to buy private property in Manhattan and use it as he wants. Do I disagree with his proposed use in Manhattan? Hell yes. But if he’s a terrorist (and I sincerely believe that labeling him that was nothing more than trumped up wedge-issue BS), he’s a terrorist as co-owner of Fox and as a major donor to the mosque.
“The funding should be investigated - as should the imam’s taxpayer-funded trip to Muslim countries for “outreach.””
Worth repeating. Additionally, the network digging into the funding is none other than FOX, which would appear to blow a hole into Schussel’s theory.