Explosive devices sent to Bill/Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, George Soros, CNN

[bluefirecorp_]

We have already been over this once smart guy, you know I sourced the law. Why are you going to make yourself look dumb arguing this again?

Mailing weapons of mass destruction through USPS... only a fucking insane tard would believe that they'd be charged with "weapon of mass destruction"

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1047180.html

Oh, hey, look at that! Someone else sent working bombs through the USPS and they WEREN'T classified as weapons of mass destruction.

Who'd thunk?  


Just because you fail at understanding law doesn't mean the courts fail at understanding law.  

[1714774253]

1714774253

[TECSHARE]

We have already been over this once smart guy, you know I sourced the law. Why are you going to make yourself look dumb arguing this again?

Mailing weapons of mass destruction through USPS... only a fucking insane tard would believe that they'd be charged with "weapon of mass destruction"

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1047180.html

Oh, hey, look at that! Someone else sent working bombs through the USPS and they WEREN'T classified as weapons of mass destruction.

Who'd thunk?  


Just because you fail at understanding law doesn't mean the courts fail at understanding law.  

Well first of all the law says nothing about a requirement of mailing, simply possessing a functional explosive device is enough for the charge. Also, I know so little about law that I noticed that the laws against "weapons of mass destruction" came during and after Kazinski's bombings, and you can't charge some one with a law that was passed AFTER the act was committed.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a#c_2

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

[bluefirecorp_]

We have already been over this once smart guy, you know I sourced the law. Why are you going to make yourself look dumb arguing this again?

Mailing weapons of mass destruction through USPS... only a fucking insane tard would believe that they'd be charged with "weapon of mass destruction"

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1047180.html

Oh, hey, look at that! Someone else sent working bombs through the USPS and they WEREN'T classified as weapons of mass destruction.

Who'd thunk?  


Just because you fail at understanding law doesn't mean the courts fail at understanding law.  

Well first of all the law says nothing about a requirement of mailing, simply possessing a functional explosive device is enough for the charge. Also, I know so little about law that I noticed that the laws against "weapons of mass destruction" came during and after Kazinski's bombings, and you can't charge some one with a law that was passed AFTER the act was committed.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a#c_2

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

Uhhh... if you actually read; https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3355

2001 came after 1994 my friend.

I know numbers are hard; but just because it has more "9s" in it doesn't mean it's a greater number.

Here's the change log;

2004—Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(b)(1), struck out “certain” before “weapons” in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(b)(2), struck out “(other than a chemical weapon as that term is defined in section 229F)” after “mass destruction” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(a)(1), amended par. (2) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (2) read as follows: “against any person within the United States, and the results of such use affect interstate or foreign commerce or, in the case of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy, would have affected interstate or foreign commerce; or”.

Subsec. (a)(4). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(a)(2), (3), added par. (4).

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(b)(3), struck out “(other than a chemical weapon (as that term is defined in section 229F))” after “mass destruction”.

Subsec. (c)(3). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(a)(4)–(6), added par. (3).

2002—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–188, § 231(d)(1), substituted “section 229F)—” for “section 229F), including any biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178)—” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (c)(2)(C). Pub. L. 107–188, § 231(d)(2), substituted “a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title)” for “a disease organism”.

1998—Pub. L. 105–277, § 201(b)(1)(A), inserted “certain” before “weapons” in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–277, § 201(b)(1)(B), inserted “(other than a chemical weapon as that term is defined in section 229F)” after “weapon of mass destruction” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 105–277, § 201(b)(1)(C), inserted “(other than a chemical weapon (as that term is defined in section 229F))” after “weapon of mass destruction”.

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–132, §§ 511(c), 725(1)(A), (B), in heading, inserted “Against a National of the United States or Within the United States” after “Offense”, and in introductory provisions, substituted “, without lawful authority, uses, threatens, or attempts” for “uses, or attempts” and inserted “, including any biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178)” after “mass destruction”.

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 104–132, § 725(1)(C), inserted before semicolon at end “, and the results of such use affect interstate or foreign commerce or, in the case of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy, would have affected interstate or foreign commerce”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–132, § 725(4), added subsec. (b). Former subsec. (b) redesignated (c).

Subsec. (b)(2)(B). Pub. L. 104–132, § 725(2), as amended by Pub. L. 104–294, § 605(m), added subpar. (B) and struck out former subpar. (B) which read as follows: “poison gas;”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–132, § 725(3), redesignated subsec. (b) as (c).

Nope, not redefining it, other than biological/chemical weaponry post 2001

[TECSHARE]

We have already been over this once smart guy, you know I sourced the law. Why are you going to make yourself look dumb arguing this again?

Mailing weapons of mass destruction through USPS... only a fucking insane tard would believe that they'd be charged with "weapon of mass destruction"

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1047180.html

Oh, hey, look at that! Someone else sent working bombs through the USPS and they WEREN'T classified as weapons of mass destruction.

Who'd thunk?  


Just because you fail at understanding law doesn't mean the courts fail at understanding law.  

Well first of all the law says nothing about a requirement of mailing, simply possessing a functional explosive device is enough for the charge. Also, I know so little about law that I noticed that the laws against "weapons of mass destruction" came during and after Kazinski's bombings, and you can't charge some one with a law that was passed AFTER the act was committed.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a#c_2

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

Uhhh... if you actually read; https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3355

2001 came after 1994 my friend.

I know numbers are hard; but just because it has more "9s" in it doesn't mean it's a greater number.

Here's the change log;

2004—Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(b)(1), struck out “certain” before “weapons” in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(b)(2), struck out “(other than a chemical weapon as that term is defined in section 229F)” after “mass destruction” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(a)(1), amended par. (2) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (2) read as follows: “against any person within the United States, and the results of such use affect interstate or foreign commerce or, in the case of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy, would have affected interstate or foreign commerce; or”.

Subsec. (a)(4). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(a)(2), (3), added par. (4).

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(b)(3), struck out “(other than a chemical weapon (as that term is defined in section 229F))” after “mass destruction”.

Subsec. (c)(3). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(a)(4)–(6), added par. (3).

2002—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–188, § 231(d)(1), substituted “section 229F)—” for “section 229F), including any biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178)—” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (c)(2)(C). Pub. L. 107–188, § 231(d)(2), substituted “a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title)” for “a disease organism”.

1998—Pub. L. 105–277, § 201(b)(1)(A), inserted “certain” before “weapons” in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–277, § 201(b)(1)(B), inserted “(other than a chemical weapon as that term is defined in section 229F)” after “weapon of mass destruction” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 105–277, § 201(b)(1)(C), inserted “(other than a chemical weapon (as that term is defined in section 229F))” after “weapon of mass destruction”.

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–132, §§ 511(c), 725(1)(A), (B), in heading, inserted “Against a National of the United States or Within the United States” after “Offense”, and in introductory provisions, substituted “, without lawful authority, uses, threatens, or attempts” for “uses, or attempts” and inserted “, including any biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178)” after “mass destruction”.

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 104–132, § 725(1)(C), inserted before semicolon at end “, and the results of such use affect interstate or foreign commerce or, in the case of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy, would have affected interstate or foreign commerce”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–132, § 725(4), added subsec. (b). Former subsec. (b) redesignated (c).

Subsec. (b)(2)(B). Pub. L. 104–132, § 725(2), as amended by Pub. L. 104–294, § 605(m), added subpar. (B) and struck out former subpar. (B) which read as follows: “poison gas;”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–132, § 725(3), redesignated subsec. (b) as (c).

Nope, not redefining it, other than biological/chemical weaponry post 2001

I never said anything about redefining anything, you did. So is your argument that the law was passed after Kazinski committed his acts? That argument sounds familiar. The crimes he committed as far as I have seen are committed BEFORE the "weapons of mass destruction" legislation was passed. Therefore he would not legally be able to be charged under this statute. None of this proves anything about my point anyway that Sayoc was not charged with "weapons of mass destruction" the standard charge for anyone in possession of a functional explosive device.


Feel free to do more mental gymnastics tho, I hear The Special Olympics is having an event for that this year. You can never get enough practice.

[bluefirecorp_]

I never said anything about redefining anything, you did. So is your argument that the law was passed after Kazinski committed his acts? That argument sounds familiar. The crimes he committed as far as I have seen are committed BEFORE the "weapons of mass destruction" legislation was passed. Therefore he would not legally be able to be charged under this statute. None of this proves anything about my point anyway that Sayoc was not charged with "weapons of mass destruction" the standard charge for anyone in possession of a functional explosive device.

1994 - https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3355
1996 arrest, 1998 plea deal - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

After his arrest in 1996, Kaczynski tried unsuccessfully to dismiss his court-appointed lawyers because they wanted him to plead insanity in order to avoid the death penalty, and he did not believe he was insane. In 1998 a plea bargain was reached, under which he pleaded guilty to all charges and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

He was arrested after the law passed. Cause time works that way... Did ya know 1996 occurs after 1994?

I'm pretty sure you're just purposely misconstruing arguments, and because you've been proven wrong time and time again about this issue (and pretty much every single issue you troll on); you're just digging yourself a deeper hole.

But we're pretty off-topic, pretty sure this topic was about a radical dis-attached individual attacking leftist... crazy dude be crazy. It does make me wonder if GOP's hate rhetoric is much different than that same hate rhetoric from ISIS.

[TECSHARE]

I never said anything about redefining anything, you did. So is your argument that the law was passed after Kazinski committed his acts? That argument sounds familiar. The crimes he committed as far as I have seen are committed BEFORE the "weapons of mass destruction" legislation was passed. Therefore he would not legally be able to be charged under this statute. None of this proves anything about my point anyway that Sayoc was not charged with "weapons of mass destruction" the standard charge for anyone in possession of a functional explosive device.

1994 - https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3355
1996 arrest, 1998 plea deal - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

After his arrest in 1996, Kaczynski tried unsuccessfully to dismiss his court-appointed lawyers because they wanted him to plead insanity in order to avoid the death penalty, and he did not believe he was insane. In 1998 a plea bargain was reached, under which he pleaded guilty to all charges and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

He was arrested after the law passed. Cause time works that way... Did ya know 1996 occurs after 1994?

I'm pretty sure you're just purposely misconstruing arguments, and because you've been proven wrong time and time again about this issue (and pretty much every single issue you troll on); you're just digging yourself a deeper hole.

But we're pretty off-topic, pretty sure this topic was about a radical dis-attached individual attacking leftist... crazy dude be crazy. It does make me wonder if GOP's hate rhetoric is much different than that same hate rhetoric from ISIS.

That's not how the law works. You can't be charged with laws that were passed AFTER the act was committed. The date of his arrest is irrelevant. I am on topic. The premise is the fact that Cesar Sayok was not charged with a "weapons of mass destruction" charge demonstrates the devices were not functional and there is some thing else going on here. You are off topic with this unibomber bullshit, and you are wrong about that anyway.

[bluefirecorp_]

So, the GOP hate rhetoric...

Is that the reason this crazy guy chose his targets?

[TECSHARE]

So, the GOP hate rhetoric...

Is that the reason this crazy guy chose his targets?

AAAAnd thank you for your version of admitting you were wrong (changing the subject). Anyone with a functional explosive device will be charged under "weapons of mass destruction" which Cesar Sayok was not. This demonstrates the media was purposely misrepresenting this situation to create maximum fear as well as distract from the horrible failure that was the Kavanaugh witch hunt that blew up in the Democrats faces.

[Spendulus]

So, the GOP hate rhetoric...

Is that the reason this crazy guy chose his targets?

AAAAnd thank you for your version of admitting you were wrong (changing the subject). Anyone with a functional explosive device will be charged under "weapons of mass destruction" which Cesar Sayok was not. This demonstrates the media was purposely misrepresenting this situation to create maximum fear as well as distract from the horrible failure that was the Kavanaugh witch hunt that blew up in the Democrats faces.

I thought it was totally obvious the "bombs" were a total joke, but I guess some of the propaganda that I don't pay attention to was being taken seriously by some people.

For what it's worth if someone's batshit crazy, it doesn't really make sense to try to impute a political affiliation and/or a political motive to their actions.

[bluefirecorp_]

So, the GOP hate rhetoric...

Is that the reason this crazy guy chose his targets?

AAAAnd thank you for your version of admitting you were wrong

Just gave up arguing. It's not worth arguing legal battles with a non-lawyer. It's just bird shit thrown around without any precedence. The shit you say, if you asked /r/asklegal would get you pretty much banned.

But I'd like to actually point out Cesar Sayoc was taken in by alt-right and right wing hate narratives. It seems that he also pushed a narrative. He went to attack and lash out.

Scott Leader and Steve Leader

Curtis Allen, Gavin Wright, and Patrick Eugene Stein

Alexandre Bissonnette

Michael Hari, Michael McWhorter, and Joe Morris

James Alex Fields Jr.

Brandon Griesemer

Nikolas Cruz

(https://theintercept.com/2018/10/27/here-is-a-list-of-far-right-attackers-trump-inspired-cesar-sayoc-wasnt-the-first-and-wont-be-the-last/ source for the names)

That's a lot of people radicalized by the same hate driven narrative. Literally to the extent to harm others.

[TECSHARE]

So, the GOP hate rhetoric...

Is that the reason this crazy guy chose his targets?

AAAAnd thank you for your version of admitting you were wrong

Just gave up arguing. It's not worth arguing legal battles with a non-lawyer. It's just bird shit thrown around without any precedence. The shit you say, if you asked /r/asklegal would get you pretty much banned.

But I'd like to actually point out Cesar Sayoc was taken in by alt-right and right wing hate narratives. It seems that he also pushed a narrative. He went to attack and lash out.

Scott Leader and Steve Leader

Curtis Allen, Gavin Wright, and Patrick Eugene Stein

Alexandre Bissonnette

Michael Hari, Michael McWhorter, and Joe Morris

James Alex Fields Jr.

Brandon Griesemer

Nikolas Cruz

(https://theintercept.com/2018/10/27/here-is-a-list-of-far-right-attackers-trump-inspired-cesar-sayoc-wasnt-the-first-and-wont-be-the-last/ source for the names)

That's a lot of people radicalized by the same hate driven narrative. Literally to the extent to harm others.

So, the GOP hate rhetoric...

Is that the reason this crazy guy chose his targets?

AAAAnd thank you for your version of admitting you were wrong (changing the subject). Anyone with a functional explosive device will be charged under "weapons of mass destruction" which Cesar Sayok was not. This demonstrates the media was purposely misrepresenting this situation to create maximum fear as well as distract from the horrible failure that was the Kavanaugh witch hunt that blew up in the Democrats faces.

Don't edit my quotes to make yourself look better and try to distract from the subject of discussion to yet another topic.

So you are a lawyer now? Your appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Of course you don't want to discuss it. Why would you want to admit you were wrong, ever?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

[bluefirecorp_]

None of this proves anything about my point anyway that Sayoc was not charged with "weapons of mass destruction" the standard charge for anyone in possession of a functional explosive device.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/mail-bombing-suspect-cesar-sayoc-indicted-30-counts/story?id=59088285

The charges include the use of a weapon of mass destruction, interstate transportation of explosives, illegal mailing of explosives and threatening interstate communications.

[TECSHARE]

None of this proves anything about my point anyway that Sayoc was not charged with "weapons of mass destruction" the standard charge for anyone in possession of a functional explosive device.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/mail-bombing-suspect-cesar-sayoc-indicted-30-counts/story?id=59088285

The charges include the use of a weapon of mass destruction, interstate transportation of explosives, illegal mailing of explosives and threatening interstate communications.

Fake news. Here are the ACTUAL CHARGES: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5022036/Charges-against-Cesar-Sayoc.pdf

You will notice weapons of mass destruction is not included.

Good job for staying on topic for a change though! Although I suspect you only did it because you thought you were right, but it is progress anyway.

[bluefirecorp_]

Fake news. Here are the ACTUAL CHARGES: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5022036/Charges-against-Cesar-Sayoc.pdf

You will notice weapons of mass destruction is not included.

Actually real news.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/cesar-altieri-sayoc-charged-30-count-indictment-mailing-improvised-explosive-devices

No idea where you pulled up that paperwork. Here are the REAL charges;

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1110121/download

[TECSHARE]

Fake news. Here are the ACTUAL CHARGES: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5022036/Charges-against-Cesar-Sayoc.pdf

You will notice weapons of mass destruction is not included.

Actually real news.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/cesar-altieri-sayoc-charged-30-count-indictment-mailing-improvised-explosive-devices

No idea where you pulled up that paperwork. Here are the REAL charges;

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1110121/download

Congrats on learning to source and do your own research. Really, I am actually impressed. Regardless this is 100% designed to distract from the total failure that was the Kavanaugh investigation, real or not.

[bluefirecorp_]

Fake news. Here are the ACTUAL CHARGES: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5022036/Charges-against-Cesar-Sayoc.pdf

You will notice weapons of mass destruction is not included.

Actually real news.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/cesar-altieri-sayoc-charged-30-count-indictment-mailing-improvised-explosive-devices

No idea where you pulled up that paperwork. Here are the REAL charges;

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1110121/download

Congrats on learning to source and do your own research. Really, I am actually impressed. Regardless this is 100% designed to distract from the total failure that was the Kavanaugh investigation, real or not.

So, a crazy right wing bomber was a distraction from a political nomination? Alright. I don't know what tin foil you wear, but it must be some high quality stuff

[TECSHARE]

Congrats on learning to source and do your own research. Really, I am actually impressed. Regardless this is 100% designed to distract from the total failure that was the Kavanaugh investigation, real or not.

So, a crazy right wing bomber was a distraction from a political nomination? Alright. I don't know what tin foil you wear, but it must be some high quality stuff

I say it was to distract from the backfiring of the slandering of Kavanugh perpetrated by the dems, and then you just write something I didn't say, pretend I said it, then argue that. I bet you got all the gold stars in debate class. Maybe if you leave me some more butt hurt negative trust ratings it will change my mind

[Spendulus]

Congrats on learning to source and do your own research. Really, I am actually impressed. Regardless this is 100% designed to distract from the total failure that was the Kavanaugh investigation, real or not.

So, a crazy right wing bomber was a distraction from a political nomination? Alright. I don't know what tin foil you wear, but it must be some high quality stuff

I say it was to distract from the backfiring of the slandering of Kavanugh perpetrated by the dems, and then you just write something I didn't say, pretend I said it, then argue that. I bet you got all the gold stars in debate class......

You are joking, right? The tactics used by blue would be disqualifying in debate. As an example...

http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm

1. There are two teams, each consisting of two or three speakers.

2. Each team has two or three constructive speeches, and two to three rebuttal speeches. The affirmative gives the first constructive speech, and the rebuttals alternate: negative, affirmative, negative, affirmative. The affirmative has both the first and last speeches of the debate.

3. When worded as a proposition of policy, the topic requires the affirmative to support some specified action by some particular individual or group. The affirmative has the right to make any reasonable definition of each of the terms of the proposition. If the negative challenges the reasonableness of a definition by the affirmative, the judge must accept the definition of the team that shows better grounds for its interpretation of the term.

4. The affirmative must advocate everything required by the topic itself. No revision of position of a team is permitted during the debate.

5. He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.

6. In the questioning period, the questioner may ask any fair, clear question that has a direct bearing on the debate. The questioner may use the period to build up any part of his own case, to tear down any part of his opposition's case, or to ascertain facts, such as the opposition's position on a certain issue, that can be used later in the debate. The questioner must confine himself to questions and not make statements, comments, or ask rhetorical questions.

7. Each speaker is questioned as soon as he concludes his constructive speech. The witness must answer the questions without consulting his colleagues.

8. No new constructive arguments may be introduced in the rebuttal period. The affirmative must, if possible, reply to the major negative arguments before the last rebuttal.

9. The judge must base his decision entirely on the material presented, without regard for other material which he may happen to possess.

10. Any gains made outside of the established procedure are disallowed.

[bluefirecorp_]

6. In the questioning period, the questioner may ask any fair, clear question that has a direct bearing on the debate.

Ahaha, and that's why you've lost

[Flying Hellfish]

This intellectual mongoloid show's how naive people can be and how easy it is to mis direct a stupid person's anger.

I wonder if sayoc knows that the current secretary of the treasury was the man who ran the company who "roboclosed" on his house and obviously a big part of the reason for him living in his Trump truck!  It wasn't the DEMS, gays, jews, soros, hilary, obama, it in fact was a Trump ball cupper, a big part of the fucking swamp that was supposed to get drained...

Mnuchin helped run the biggest robosigning company of the 08' banking scam and walked away with 10's (100's?) of millions of dollars personally while avoiding any criminal liability, no wonder Trump loves him!

But hey Trump says fake news, build the wall, drain the swamp what ever gets the mouth breathers frothing!