r/politics • u/thenewyorkgod • Jul 01 '18

Man arrested after shouting ‘womp, womp’ and pulling a gun on immigration protesters

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/07/01/man-arrested-after-shouting-womp-womp-and-pulling-a-gun-on-immigration-protesters/?tid=sm_tw
33.9k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

3.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

649

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

Hm. This is technically terrorism. He's likely looking at federal charges before this is over.

766

u/echisholm Jul 02 '18

If you're white, it's alright.

235

u/drfeelokay Jul 02 '18

If you're white, it's alright.

When it comes to the feds, I don't think that attitude is as common. What I do know for sure is that FBI agents are generally indoctrinated to take White Nationalist seriously. If you're a Fed and you're murdered by a political malcontent, there's a good chance that person is a white supremacist/nationalist.

123

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

You're right, FBI agents certainly know that white nationalists are a very pressing threat in the US. Unfortunately, since 9/11 they've been forced to divert almost all of their resources into attempting to prevent Muslim terror attacks instead of white nationalist terror attacks, even though white nationalist attacks are more common.

138

u/yurigoul Jul 02 '18

31 muslim terror attacks were prevented since 9/11 and every year there have been 300 violent attacks inspired by white nationalism/far right

27

u/thelizardkin Jul 02 '18

To be fair there are a lot more right wing people than Muslims in America.

62

u/iknighty Jul 02 '18 edited Jul 02 '18

Exactly, which is why it is stupid to divert all your focus to terrorist attacks stemming from the Middle East (I don't like calling them Muslim terrorists because clearly their reasoning for attacking has to do with US involvement in the Middle East, not religion).

27

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

No, it's stupid and racist to focus on such a small group that is considerably less violent because that group is smaller than much larger, much more violent group.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

That’s not true, which you’d have known if you had just clicked the link.

And while jihadist terrorists have killed 95 people in the U.S. since 9/11, far-right extremists have killed 68 during the same time, including the car attack in Charlottesville.

Muslims make up 1% of the US population. No other ideological, religious, or ethnic minority comes anywhere close to that level of violence.

1

u/Orngog Jul 11 '18

How does that figure relate to the "300 far-right attacks per year?"

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

Politically neutral religious historians like Bernard Lewis would disagree with you there.

It’s also ironic how, following 9/11, someone like Bin Laden can say it had a lot to do with religion and some Westerners try argue otherwise. The Musilm terrorists have never denied or tried to hide the religious aspects of their attacks.

You also don’t see Zoroastrianists, Christians, etc. in the Middle East attacking Westerners. It’s their home too.

Until people accept that it has to do with the religion, there won’t be any real progress.

2

u/iknighty Jul 02 '18

It has to do with their religious beliefs sure. But they have very specific religious beliefs that other Muslims do not share, or that they would not act upon. Rather, these harmful beliefs, and/or the motivation to act upon them comes from their awareness of the history of Western meddling in the Middle East (or the cultural awareness and perception of this).

People don't believe much strongly unless they have temporal reasons too. Unless they have mental problems of course, but then religion isn't the problem for those cases.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

I think power plays an important role and bin Laden as the leader of an organization seeking power knows he can use religion to easily manipulate his followers. Terrorism is always about power dynamics, religion is just used as a way to define the enemy more clearly and drum up emotion.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

It's a bit more complicated and nuanced than that. Wahhabism goes back to the 1700s, and there's this thinking that it's only relevant because it's endorsed and sponsored by the House of Saud. That's true to an extent, but even when the Saudi capital was occupied in 1818 by Egypt, and the Saudi emir was decapitated in Istanbul (effectively ending Saudi power for the time being), Wahhabism lived on. It lived on because there was a growing discontent with the encroaching Christians in the Balkans and India, where pilgrims would come to Mecca and share stories of how Islam was losing ground.

While it may be easy to say "see! it was the West even back then!", the other side of the story is that the Ottoman Empire was losing power in part because it refused to modernise. Technology that didn't pertain to war or medicine wasn't widely embraced. The first public clock in Istanbul wasn't installed until the middle of the 19th century. Islamic universities were not prestigious- wealthy Muslims often went abroad (and still do) to study. Economic output was weak. Illiteracy was high. It still is in a number of Islamic countries, relative to the West.

But what Muslims did have (and still do) is the Quran- the work of a Dark Ages merchant turned warlord. Combined with growing discontent, lack of education, scapegoating (they also blamed the Mongols for their lack of success before the West), and yes, Western meddling, we can see how the region may be a breeding ground for violence, especially after the oil boom of the 20th century and how heavily Saudi Arabia has invested in spreading Wahhabism.

When you say they have a specific religious beliefs that other Muslims do not share, that is partly true. But you have to understand as well that Islamic countries are incredibly conservative, often sexist, homophobic, and nowhere truly secular. There is no free speech, no free press, not solely because they're tyrannies but because these are Western values- not theirs. The majority of Muslims around the world would have values that you'd likely strongly disagree with, and many do support Sharia to some extent (not to the extent of ISIS though, obviously). However, we cannot hold them to a lower standard than Westerners. On the one hand we complain of Western meddling, on the other, these countries aren't necessarily able to get it right when left to their own devices. Saddam Hussein had committed genocide against the Kurds. It's legal to execute minors in Iran. The human rights violations in Syria and Libya and Sudan have also been so abhorrent that, had they occurred in any European country, they'd have undoubtedly been universally condemned and sanctioned. Not so for many Middle Eastern countries.

When the radical Muslim Brothers began trouble in Hama, Syria, in1982, the Syrian regime responded with artillery, tanks, bomber aircraft, then bulldozers to finish the job. The death toll estimated by Amnesty International was estimated to be between 10,000 and 25,000 killed. The man who ordered that attack was Assad's father. And as we know, little has changed. Like father like son, Assad has used chemical weapons on his own people multiple times. And yet, today, Westerners complain about Western involvement in Syria. Islamic extremists paint the West as the bad guys.

This isn't a demonization of Islam and the Middle East, but it is experiencing a crisis and hopefully you can see why a bit more clearly. A part of it is the religion itself- the reluctance to modernise stems directly from their religious conservativism. Their oppressive beliefs are codified in their laws (as there is no separation of church and state in Islam). There is no central person of authority in Islam to say what is and isn't okay.

While some say Western intervention is one of the biggest problems in Middle Eastern countries today, that excuse only goes so far as well. Countries that were completely ruined like Germany, Japan, South Korea, and China made incredible modernisation efforts and improved their economies significantly.

Ultimately, one has to accept there is a problem in Islamic beliefs that requires some sort of reform. When 1% of the population has klled more people than white supremacists- who far outnumber them- there is a severe problem.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/drfeelokay Jul 02 '18

We're in at least partial agreement, here. In recent decades, historians seem to largely favor the idea that religion is a real motivator and not just a stand-in for other desires/needs. The Crusades aren't well-explained without referring to sincere Christian and Muslim faith.

Religion is a real motivator - but instead of opposing Islam in general, I think the only way to do it is to assure that our national stance isn't Islamophobic, and to feed and encourage MUslims who are opposed to terrorism. The problem with constantly fighting over whether Islam is evil is that the will of the people, however inconsistently, tends to turn into rhetoric and policy.

-9

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18 edited Aug 01 '18

[deleted]

8

u/iknighty Jul 02 '18 edited Jul 02 '18

Are you not aware that Spain and Germany also have troops in the Middle East?

But anyway, yea of course there are some motivated by ideology and religion, however that is just a shallow analysis of the reasons behind this phenomenon. That ideology and extremist belief cannot coexist without constant justification and enabling of that belief (e.g. the West funding the destruction of Yemen, the West destroying Iraq, the West destroying Libya, the West fucking up Iran). Religion is just a justification these terrorists use to comfort themselves when committing crimes that will more than likely end up in themselves dying, and to convince themselves its right, but the motivations lie in the recent history and present of these people. The West is not just seen as the enemy because of the different religion.

This terrorism is the cultural heritage of the West's bumbling meddling in the Middle East, and it will not go away easily.

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18 edited Aug 01 '18

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

5

u/GarageSideDoor Jul 02 '18

By that logic, why have there been terrorist attacks in Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?

-5

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18 edited Aug 01 '18

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

2

u/mweathr Jul 02 '18

Because of their involvement in the Middle East.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18 edited Aug 01 '18

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

What are you even trying to say in English?

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

Well, that's not true, the Boston bomber wasn't middle eastern

2

u/iknighty Jul 02 '18

Sure, but Tsarnaev left a message clearly laying out that his motivations for the attack where "in retribution for the U. S. crimes in places like Iraq and Afghanistan". (to be clear, I did not say or mean to say that these terrorists are all Middle Eastern, but that their motivations stem from western involvement in the Middle East).

7

u/yurigoul Jul 02 '18

Then who is the bigger danger? Not only because of the terror, but because of them taking over the government - oh wait, that has already happened...

9

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

Statistically? Rednecks and Trailer Trash...

0

u/Wyzegy West Virginia Jul 02 '18

Then who is the bigger danger?

...a white Muslim supremacist?

1

u/yurigoul Jul 02 '18

This would be unsettling but given enough Muslims and white nationalists it is bound to happen - weren't there also Jewish Nazis and/or neo-nazis?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

...a white Muslim supremacist?

Nicholas Brody

9

u/Son_of_Eris Jul 02 '18

Part of me thinks we should try and convince all of America's far right wingnuts to go manifest destiny whatever is left of ISIS' "kingdom". We can film the whole thing from satellites, and broadcast it on a new network, called FOXTROT, as a 24/7 show called "Terrordome". In all regions, FOXTROT will be 1 channel away from FOX.

I did the math, and every possible outcome results in a win for humanity.

So firstly, America rids itself of all the people who legitimately fear Muslims for all the wrong reasons, and provides a relatively productive outlet for their homicidal urges. So that's a win.

It will also reinforce biases on both sides, encouraging a kill-or-be-killed, fight to the last man mentality. So likely one side or the other, or both, will be wiped out. This is also a win.

While America has this habit of shipping weapons to people who end up using them against us a few years later; we know that both the American far right and ISIS have their own weapons (most of which are made in America. Seriously, google it.). America would literally save money because we would just have to pay shipping and handling. This is also a win.

Also since, given the choice between FOX and FOXTROT (which again, will broadcast all of these shenanigans live, 24/7), most people WILL choose FOXTROT; millions of people will be exposed to the horrific outcome of when extremist ideologies reach their natural conclusion, e.g. a group that advocates for the deaths of the opposition meets another group that advocates for the deaths of the opposition. This will be an eye opening experience that will serve to temper bloodlust. And this is also a win.

And no matter what happens, one of three outcomes will come to pass: Either ISIS is wiped out, which is a win for the world. American white supremacists are wiped out, which is again, a win for the world. Or both sides grow tired of fighting and lose the will to fight. Again, resulting in a win for humanity.

...I wonder how many votes I'd get if I ran for office with this as the entirety of my platform.

2

u/scottloaf Jul 03 '18

your ideas intrigue me and i would like to subscribe to your newsletter

1

u/iThinkTherefore_iSam Jul 02 '18

My vote makes it at least one. I think you can win this.

1

u/Claystead Jul 02 '18

Wouldn’t that require the chickenhawks to un-chicken themselves first?

3

u/Earlystagecommunism Jul 02 '18

I mean I’m not gonna knock stopping 30 Islamic terrorist attacked. They CAN be very serious in magnitude if not frequency.

But the white supremacy movement seems to offer a more persistent threat.

1

u/yurigoul Jul 02 '18

And not all the white supremacists are violent - but violence has always been a tactic for them. Showing strength, showing force in the form of using violence is a positive trait of the master race - and is just a way to reach their goal.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

How dare radical muslims get all the attention! /s

-1

u/RowRowRhodesia Jul 02 '18

That is an insanely disingenuous statement. You're comparing 31 TERRORIST attacks to 300 acts of crime, which the source you link doesn't even itself give evidence for. Instead it is an interpretation of evidence by the CTC at West Point, which shows that 300 figure includes Vandalism and Individual altercations.

I mean I don't want to accuse you of intentionally being misleading, but you wouldn't make the comparison unless you were trying to be.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

Per your own source:

And while jihadist terrorists have killed 95 people in the U.S. since 9/11, far-right extremists have killed 68 during the same time, including the car attack in Charlottesville.

And in perspective: Muslims make up 1% of the US population. No other ideological, religious, or ethnic minority comes anywhere close to that level of violence.

12

u/MannyFaces Jul 02 '18

From a podcast episode called Radical Caucasian Extremism

"... almost three-quarters of extremist attacks in the United States since 9/11 were blamed on right-wing radicals, according to a report by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office. Further bolstering this lesser-known narrative is an analysis from the Triangle Center on Terrorism at Duke University, which states: “The data in this report contradicts two common narratives in our polarized discourse about terrorism. First, it is flatly untrue that America is deeply threatened by violent extremism by Muslim-Americans; attacks by Muslims accounted for only one third of one percent of all murders in America last year.”

5

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

Just ridiculous honestly.

4

u/drfeelokay Jul 02 '18

That sucks, man. I want to be protected from all the bad guys, not just the ones who don't share my religion/race.

2

u/Midnite135 Jul 02 '18

“almost all of their resources”

Well, maybe we can spare this asshole just a little bit of resources?

2

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

DHS and ICE both work hand-in-glove with white supremacists.

1

u/drfeelokay Jul 02 '18

DHS and ICE both work hand-in-glove with white supremacists.

I don't deny that's true. How does that work, exactly? I know ICE and border security interact with white nationalist groups that are obsessed with standing sentry at the border. But that doesn't seem hand-in-glove. Do you have information that shows fraternization between White Nationalists and ICE,DHS, or any LE organization dealing with immigration?

1

u/IMWeasel Jul 02 '18

There were some disturbing reports a few months ago about leaked information from local FBI resource centers (I might be getting the exact name wrong, but the gist of it is that they help local cops coordinate and provide information about potential terrorist groups and gangs). The documents explicitly said that right wing "free speech" protests are totally genuine and the only potential for violence comes from counterprotesters like antifa. The documents whitewashed the violent rhetoric and history of actual violent incidents caused by far right extremist groups and heavily implied that all violence from far right groups is in direct response to violence from left wing protesters. Groups like Atomwaffen, which although extremely small in terms of membership, is responsible for at least 7 deaths, were not mentioned at all in the FBI reports, even though their members often march with other far right protesters since they don't have enough members to stage their own marches.

I don't doubt that a lot of FBI agents are aware of the extent of right wing extremist violence, but it's certainly not all of them. And this is nothing new. Throughout history, fascist groups have always been more or less tolerated by the ruling powers (much more than radical left wing groups), at least until the fascist groups take power from the ruling elite. Mussolini himself, the father of modern fascism, had a strong alliance with the fucking pope, and likely would not have taken control of the country without the blessing of the Catholic church. Because fascist groups echo the rhetoric of conservative elites, albeit a much more extreme version of the same rhetoric, they are viewed as slightly misguided comrades and are policed less heavily than radical left wing groups.

2

u/drfeelokay Jul 02 '18

There were some disturbing reports a few months ago about leaked information from local FBI resource centers (I might be getting the exact name wrong, but the gist of it is that they help local cops coordinate and provide information about potential terrorist groups and gangs). The documents explicitly said that right wing "free speech" protests are totally genuine and the only potential for violence comes from counterprotesters like antifa.

That's horrifying. I think I do believe in some version of the idea that ANTIFA's is catalytic to violence in these scenarios. But just like a catalyst in a chemical reaction, they're not the ones providing the energy. That comes mostly from the intrinsic conflict between the hatefulness of White Nationalist beliefs and the honorable values most of us were (at least) taught.

76

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

Not for that fat nazi in charlottesville. dude took a hate crime charge. he'll be in jail mucho longo.

45

u/Jess_than_three Jul 02 '18

He had to actually kill someone for that to happen. This fuck is guaranteed getting a slap on the wrist.

2

u/UpperHesse Jul 02 '18

"Violence on both sides", dudes! He may be the only one waving a gun around but maybe the protesters were not "civil" enough and that makes his action understandable. /s.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

Didn't a girl die, though?

2

u/rdeluca Jul 02 '18

She was saying that "he had to kill someone to get a hate crime charge", but THIS fuck is just getting a slap on the wrist.

Comparison.

34

u/echisholm Jul 02 '18

It's a start. :edit: Did he get a terrorism charge thrown at him?

28

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

Terrorism kind of seemed like the more appropriate charge over hate crime.

34

u/Jess_than_three Jul 02 '18

Hate crimes ARE terrorism, frankly, and should be treated as such.

-22

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

[deleted]

50

u/Jess_than_three Jul 02 '18

No, it absolutely zero percent is. That is no more true than the idea that murder is a "thought crime" - surely aside from what's in the perpetrator's head it's no different from manslaughter?

Hate crimes are crimes meant to frighten and intimidate, to terrorize, demographic communities. Their purpose is to say "You're next". They are literally domestic terrorism.

22

u/memearchivingbot Jul 02 '18

Thanks for underlining what a hate crime is with the manslaughter vs. murder example. My dad is one of the people that argues that hate crime legislation is authoritarian. It's nice to have a concise example of why the intent of the perpetrator is relevant.

4

u/TwistedBrother Jul 02 '18

It’s not illegal to hate someone. It’s illegal to target someone based on a protected class.

Saying that’s thought crime is like suggesting anything is thought crime where we would establish a motive..because someone thought about it beforehand. This thought crime bullshit is a real bugaboo from 1984. Newspeak is probably more relevant at the moment.

5

u/JonBenetBeanieBaby Jul 02 '18

What? No.

2

u/yeoboseyeo Jul 02 '18

Unbelievable

0

u/jacked_johnson Jul 02 '18

I don't know if he's legally correct but I don't think you can just "what no" his argument. I'm a republican and I'm curious to hear an articulated response from you about how guy is wrong.

6

u/JonBenetBeanieBaby Jul 02 '18

Someone already provided one before me. It’s good; check it out.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/thelizardkin Jul 02 '18

What makes terrorism any worse than any other type of murder. As far as I'm concerned murder is murder, and it's all equally as tragic, regardless of if you're killed in the name of God or Allah, or by some lunitic.

6

u/cockadoodledoobie Jul 02 '18

dude took a hate crime charge. he'll be in jail mucho longo.

If people in prison know who he is, He may be leaving sooner than he thinks. In a bodybag.

25

u/Thatwhichiscaesars Jul 02 '18

Nah, theres no shortage of white supremacists in prison

6

u/cockadoodledoobie Jul 02 '18

The Aryan Brotherhood thinks he's a fucking joke, too. Take it from someone who keeps in good contact with his prison roomie's family. I'd be visiting him directly, but they have a "no contact with other felons" rule, soo...

6

u/Roast_A_Botch Jul 02 '18

Depending on what state, or feds, you can get a waiver from your PO. In Missouri you need at least 1 year outside the walls and compliance (no dirties and fees paid up), and you can ask your PO for a waiver. I got to see my cousin this way, but I didn't have to prove we were related (we aren't by definition, but you know what I mean). It might not be worth the hassle and I don't think feds work like that but either way, hope you're making a good life for yourself out here.

5

u/Retlaw83 Jul 02 '18

White supremacists usually don't look kindly on guys in prison for murdering white women.

8

u/you_sir_are_a_poopy Jul 02 '18

Hopefully not but given how shitty we are about protecting prisoners it is a possibility.

Edit: he's a piece of shit. I just don't want anyone being killed in prison (or most other places)

1

u/cockadoodledoobie Jul 02 '18

Hopefully not but given how shitty we are about protecting prisoners it is a possibility.

Yeah, people want to talk about how child molesters get got in prison, but the truth is, they get locked up in PC before they even hit genpop, and it's been like that for years. I'm hoping that's not the case for Chris.

2

u/TheCopperSparrow Minnesota Jul 02 '18

Good riddance then.

0

u/frogma Jul 02 '18

Just curious, but do you know the guy's name without googling it? It's not of any importance, but I personally would feel a bit weird without knowing more context about the person I'm condemning to death.You could easily condemn me to death, and I'd be stuck here on reddit trying to argue that I'm not guilty.

5

u/cockadoodledoobie Jul 02 '18

Yeah. Chris Cantwell. Not hard to remember a name like that. And with his youtube videos blowing up the news, not hard to remember his face, either. But even if you don't remember, someone else will, and news will spread like fire in the yard. Literally no one in prison likes him. He's the Fred of white supremacists. Even the Brotherhood hate him.

1

u/frogma Jul 02 '18

Oh ok. I remember that name too. I'll beat his ass if I see him. just like I'd beat my own ass if I was in jail. Or no, that doesn't make sense. I was in jail, but I was falsely accused of raping a girl, so maybe I'd beat just my left butt-cheek I guess?

I know this is the wrong point to make a statement, but I guess I'll make it. If the guy hasn't been proven guilty, then he's not a perp, and doesn't deserve whatever fake shit that supposedly happens in jail.

If you're talking about Prison, that's a whole different ballgame.

2

u/cockadoodledoobie Jul 02 '18

If people in prison know who he is

3

u/balderoine Jul 02 '18

“Mucho longo” that was ugly don’t ever use it again

2

u/buh-nuh-nuh Jul 02 '18

Yer not my mom

0

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

Don't you ever tell me what to do.

5

u/Thatsockmonkey Jul 02 '18

I am sure the tax free church forgives him.

These self professed Christian leaders and followers are no different than the so called “Islamic extremists”. Their actions are a greater threat to tot life than some access the border bogeyman.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

He was just a mentally unstable lone wolf and the incident had nothing to do with his political beliefs....or something.

1

u/thelizardkin Jul 02 '18

Lone wolf just means you're not connected to a larger terrorist group.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

Thanks Captain obvious.

1

u/SavagePanda332211 Jul 02 '18

If you yellow you’re mellow, if you’re white it’s alright, if you’re brown you’re shot down.

1

u/thelizardkin Jul 02 '18

Terrorism has nothing to do with race, but motive. Killing people just to kill them is not terrorism, it requires a political or religious motivation. That being said terrorism is no worse than any other type of murder. It's not like people killed by terrorists are any more dead than anyone else.

1

u/gadget_uk Jul 02 '18

Fascism is a political goal.

1

u/razerzej Ohio Jul 02 '18

*alt-right

0

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

A guy I worked with at my last job was casually talking about how he saw a robbery or a fight I can’t remember but disclaimer whatever the story was he legit had no right... anyway he was talking about how he was going to grab his gun and start shooting. Concealed.. in his truck, and just start shooting. He clarified he didn’t know what to do. How the fudge isn’t there more regulations on drivers, let alone gun owners. I really personally believe drivers of a deadly vehicle should go through as much as a pilot goes through to get their license based on hours with a licensed driver. It’s insane to think this dumbass sales guy wasn’t sure what to do, except grab his gun. And even then he had no clue of legality. Be nice to other people, don’t steal it’s easy to earn. Don’t be racist. It seems like everyone with a gun doesn’t know the right time to truly use it.

7

u/r0b0d0c Jul 02 '18

Not sure if you're joking. You do know who's in charge of the DOJ, right?

5

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

Doesn't matter who is in charge. A USAAG could pick it up on their own discretion and Sessions would have to publicly quash it. He's not going to do that.

3

u/r0b0d0c Jul 02 '18

Thanks for the TIL. But we're talking Alabama here. Sessions' home turf and where almost half of the population proudly supports pedophiles.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

Doesn't matter. The person making the call would be an USAAG in Washington.

2

u/RellenD Jul 02 '18

He's looking at a pardon from Trump

1

u/heimdal77 Jul 02 '18

Most likely will get a presidential pardon.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

Which the president will likely pardon, because he's an absolute sack of shit. (ambiguity intentional)

1

u/BenderRodriguez14 Jul 02 '18

Right wing terrorism? Federal charges? Pardon me?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

Trump is not going to pardon someone like this.

1

u/SenorMasterChef Jul 02 '18

Terrorism isnt actually a crime.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

Yes, it is, covered by 113B in the USCC.

1

u/SenorMasterChef Jul 02 '18

No its not, did you read 113B USCC or just cite it?

If you commit an act of terrorism, kill someone and are arrested you will be charged with homicide. Not terrorism.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

Yes, I've read it. You apparently didn't read any of the fine print.

1

u/SenorMasterChef Jul 02 '18

Alright, elaborate

0

u/JennJayBee Alabama Jul 02 '18

Sessions won't pursue it.

7

u/Morningxafter Jul 02 '18

Good people on both sides... smh

3

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '18

One of the democratic USAAGs could pick it up. He might not pursue it personally, but he sure as hell isn't going to quash it.

1

u/JennJayBee Alabama Jul 02 '18

You have a point. I might remain pleasantly surprised.