Prosecutor says at trial that Iran put $500,000 bounty on head of Iranian-American journalist
The government of Iran put a $500,000 bounty on the head of an outspoken Iranian-American journalist to fund an assassination plot to silence her, a prosecutor told jurors Wednesday at the closing of a murder-for-hire trial.
The purported hitman was arrested in July 2022 before he could kill journalist Masih Alinejad, leading to a trial of two Russian mobsters who organized the murder plot, Assistant US Attorney Michael Lockard told a Manhattan federal jury.
Lockard spoke a day after Alinejad testified that she endured a barrage of threats after launching online campaigns from her Brooklyn home to inspire women in Iran to rebel against government edicts.
Alinejad left Iran for America in 2009 after the country's disputed presidential election, quickly building a social media following of millions of people worldwide.
She said she got deluged by videos sent to her by women in Iran after she challenged them to film themselves with their hair exposed when Iran's morality police were not around.
Her campaign, dubbed 'My Stealthy Freedom,' encouraged women to rebel against Iran's edict that their hair must always be covered in public with a hijab to conform to religious requirements.
Lockard said the government of Iran labeled the journalist as an enemy of the state and for years tried to harass, smear and intimidate Alinejad.
'When those efforts failed, the government of Iran put a $500,000 bounty on her head,' he said.
He said two high-level members of the Russian mob — Rafat Amirov and Polad Omarov — were paid by the government of Iran to organize a plot to kill Alinejad in 2022. The evidence, he added, was overwhelming.
The men, both natives of Azerbaijan, did not commit any of the multiple crimes they were charged with, their lawyers told the jury in closing arguments.
Attorney Michael Martin, representing Amirov, said there was no dispute that Iran was targeting Alinejad, but his client was not part of any plot.
He attacked the credibility of Khalid Mehdiyev, who testified last week that he was paid $30,000 to kill Alinejad, but his task was interrupted when police pulled him over for rolling through a stop sign. A loaded AK-47 was in his backseat.
Martin called Mehdiyev a 'manipulative, violent, lying person.'
Attorney Elena Fast, representing Omarov, said Mehdiyev was a 'clown as a hitman' who never intended to kill Alinejad.
'This was a plan to scam and not to murder,' she said, claiming that anyone communicating about a plot was merely trying to collect money offered for a killing with no intent to do anything in return.
After prosecutors deliver a rebuttal argument on Thursday, instructions on the law will be read to the jury, which will begin to deliberate afterward.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
16 minutes ago
- Forbes
U.S.-China Trade Deal ‘Done,' Trump Says
President Donald Trump on Wednesday said a trade agreement was reached between the U.S. and China, pending final approval from him and Chinese President Xi Jinping, following weeks of escalated tensions between both countries as trade negotiations were carried out. The trade agreement includes full magnets and 'any necessary rare earths' from China as the U.S. ... More makes concessions on student visas. Trump, in a post on Truth Social, said a deal was 'done' between the U.S. and China, which will supply 'any necessary rare earths' and full magnets as the U.S. makes concessions on allowing Chinese students to attend American universities. This is a developing story.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mass. governor's race intensifies as GOP candidates seize on LA protests
If you're a member of the Bay State's political and chattering class, and you needed a reminder that Massachusetts is officially in the thick of a gubernatorial campaign season, then you didn't have to look much further than your email inbox on Monday. There, you would have found dueling press releases from Mike Kennealy and Brian Shortsleeve, the two former Baker administration officials dueling for the GOP nomination for the Corner Office in 2026. The target, inevitably, was Democratic Gov. Maura Healey, who'd signed onto a statement with her fellow Democratic governors criticizing the Trump administration's decision to federalize National Guard forces in response to immigration protests in Los Angeles. The statement, issued through the Democratic Governors Association, took the Republican White House to task for its unusual decision to sidestep Golden State Gov. Gavin Newsom when it called in the National Guard — which 700 U.S. Marines have since supplemented. The White House's end-run was 'an alarming abuse of power. Governors are the commanders-in-chief of their National Guard, and activating them within their own borders without consulting or working with a state's governor is ineffective and dangerous,' the DGA's statement asserted. Kennealy, who served as Baker's housing and economic development czar, was first out of the gate at little after 4 p.m., arguing that, by opposing the federal response, the Democratic incumbent was 'legitimizing criminal behavior under the guise of protest.' Shortsleeve, who ran the MBTA under Baker, followed up around 6:30 p.m. He got in a similar shot, condemning Healey for appearing to side with 'rioting protesters waving foreign flags' who were 'violently attacking American law enforcement officers.' Shortsleeve also slammed Healey for her management of the state's hugely expensive migrant crisis and, by implication, her criticism of the aggressive tactics of federal immigration agents as they've rounded up undocumented people across the state. 'If cooperation between the federal and state governments is what she wants, you wouldn't know it by her refusal to work in an orderly way to ensure criminal illegal immigrants in our state were delivered to federal law enforcement for deportation instead of released onto our streets,' Shortsleeve said. Kennealy, who didn't explicitly mention the migrant crisis, but who has been publicly critical, observed that 'when the federal government offers help to restore order and protect citizens, we take it — because doing the right thing for our people should always come before scoring partisan points.' Read More: Rümeysa Öztürk chose grace over bitterness. What we can learn | John L. Micek Taken together, the broadsides from the two Republican hopefuls were a reminder that the migrant crisis, which has subsided in its intensity, remains a potent line of attack, and that the Democratic incumbent remains vulnerable on the issue. More than half of respondents (52%) to a UMass Amherst/WCVB-TV poll in February, for instance, said they disapproved of the Arlington Democrat's management of the shelter crisis. Their mood was reflective of national trends. A broader UMass poll in April found Americans to be of 'two minds' on the issue, supporting a path to citizenship, even as they supported the White House's moves against migrants with criminal records. A CBS News poll completed before Saturday's unrest in Los Angeles, however, provided a reminder that public patience for the White House's tactics extends only so far. That's because support for enforcement against non-criminals drops off precipitously, the poll found. While 55% of respondents approved of Trump's deportation goals, only 44% approved of his approach to the deportation effort. Healey, in public appearances, repeatedly has drawn that line. She's stressed that she supports taking criminals off the streets, even as she's decried the apparent shroud of secrecy that's enveloped the apprehension of such noncriminal migrants as Tufts University graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk and Milford High School student-athlete Marcelo Gomes da Silva. Read More: Gov. Healey demands answers after ICE arrests Mass. high school student 'This is part of the problem that we're seeing with ICE across the country. And certainly here in Massachusetts, people are being picked up. We have no information about their circumstances,' Healey said after an unrelated news conference at the State House last month. 'There have been real questions raised about due process and whether or not ICE and immigration officials are ... complying with due process here and in other states. And we need answers.' It's not clear, however, if the Massachusetts voters were grasping the subtlety of that policy fine line. An internal poll by Kennealy's campaign pointed to a similar vulnerability for Healey on immigration issues, The Boston Herald reported last month. And 49% of respondents to a University of New Hampshire poll last week said they approved of her job performance, compared to 45% who said they disapproved. With the poll's 3.3% margin of error, that's a statistical dead heat. Even still, Healey's loyalists pounced on the UNH canvass, dismissing it as an outlier, as they pointed to other public polling that showed her more broadly popular overall. 'Governor Healey is going to earn reelection because she understands Massachusetts people need someone who's going to fight to lower costs for them, going to fight to increase housing opportunities for them, going to fight back against Donald Trump,' state Democratic Party Chairperson Steve Kerrigan said during an interview on WBZ-TV's 'Keller @ Large' program that aired last weekend. 'And frankly, neither Mike Kennealy nor Brian Shortsleeve are willing to do any of that.' The lingering question is what happens if Massachusetts, which already has been targeted by the White House, finds itself facing a Los Angeles-style protest that results in Trump doing a gubernatorial end-run by federalizing the state National Guard or, at its extreme end, dispatching U.S. troops to Boston or some other city. If elected, would Kennealy or Shortsleeve acquiesce in the face of such an action? Or would they protest a usurpation of their executive authority? At that point, the question moves from political to practical. Healey staked out her territory with that DGA statement. The responses from Shortsleeve and Kennealy would speak volumes about how they intend to lead during what presumably would be the final two years of Trump's term. That's something that Massachusetts voters would have to decide for themselves. Which makes their answers bear watching. Can the Mass. GOP flip this Taunton state House seat? | Bay State Briefing Mass. lawmakers get bad grades on industry report card. But who's failing whom? | John L. Micek Math is hard. Midterm math is harder. The lessons Mass. needs to learn for 2026 | John L. Micek Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
I fought for the Constitution. Using Marines against protests disgraces it.
I am a Marine combat veteran. I wore the uniform with pride. Not for glory or politics, but to serve something greater than myself: the Constitution of the United States. I saw war up close. I lost brothers. I lived with the weight of what it means to take a life in the name of liberty. But I never imagined I'd live to see the same Marine Corps deployed on American soil — not to protect life or respond to disaster, but to stand guard against the very people we swore to protect. That is not leadership. That is not patriotism. That is cowardice. And it's a disgrace. Let me be clear: the U.S. military is not a private security force for any president or politician. Our loyalty is not to the office of power, but to the American people and the Constitution we swore to defend. That oath doesn't end when we hang up our uniform. It lives on, and it binds us to speak out when power is abused — even when it's our own. Especially when it's our own. Throughout our history, the military has been a symbol of honor and restraint. We've always drawn a sacred line: we do not turn our force inward against civilians. To cross that line is not only a constitutional crisis — it's a moral collapse. But now, we see uniformed Marines stationed around government buildings — not to serve, but to suppress. We see military force used to intimidate protesters, stifle dissent, and project strength where there should be humility. We see our brothers and sisters in arms being told, directly or indirectly, that their duty is to silence fellow Americans. That's not defense. That's not order. That's not justice. That is repression. Some Americans cheer this on. They call it 'law and order,' as if safety is more valuable than freedom. But order without justice is not peace — it is submission. Security without liberty is not safety — it is fear. We don't salute uniforms because they exist — we salute the principles they're supposed to uphold. The founders of this country understood the danger of turning soldiers into political tools. That's why we have the Posse Comitatus Act. That's why our system separates civilian and military power. Because when the military becomes a weapon of domestic politics, democracy dies with a boot on its neck. To the commandant of the Marine Corps: you are failing your Marines. Allowing this misuse of the Corps is not a neutral act. It's complicity. You dishonor the memory of those who died believing we were fighting for something nobler. I say this not out of bitterness, but out of love for what the Corps meant to me — what it's supposed to mean to all of us. To every American: this moment is not just about troops on streets. It's about the soul of our republic. It's about whether we still believe that power must answer to the people, not the other way around. Because if we stay silent now, if we normalize this erosion of liberty, we will wake up in a country where democracy exists in name only, guarded by soldiers who forgot what they were fighting for. I fought for the Constitution. I still would. But I will never stand by while it's trampled by the very institution I once called family. We are better than this. And if we still believe in America, we must demand better — before it's too late. Robert Rolls Highland Park This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: LA ICE protests don't need US Marines. It's a disgrace | Opinion
