Man threatens to commit mass murder against CNN

[Indeependent]

Feds: Man threatened to kill CNN employees

He claimed "fake news" and all that, it is pretty clear how he stands politically.

But can you BLAME HIM?

Photoshop...Taylor is flatter than an ironing board.
But I like it.

 

[equalizer_0]

You are the one who wrote about "getting out of the man's bed" as such.

Yet you admit

I happen to be heterosexual,

You are getting too excited about another person's excited utterances simply because of the person's gender, your own, and your own sexuality. The phrase "excited utterance" has a certain meaning in law precisely because excited utterances are not willful and intentional, and therefore lack the mens rea necessary for prosecuting a actual criminal act, not a mere thought or idea or communication of a criminal act without the intent to carry it out.

Also, any operator at CNN can recount what was said during the call to law-enforcement officers.

So, the witnesses have discussed their prospective testimony not only among themselves but with others, and all their stories do agree on exactly what took place when.

18 U.S. Code § 1622 - Subornation of perjury, 18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant, and it goes on and on.

Notwithstanding the basic failure to distinguish a perceived threat of a criminal act from the criminal act itself, which is not even alleged yet to have taken place.

George Orwell. Thoughtcrime. Precrime.

 

[Lysistrata]

You are the one who wrote about "getting out of the man's bed" as such.

Yet you admit

I happen to be heterosexual,

You are getting too excited about another person's excited utterances simply because of the person's gender, your own, and your own sexuality. The phrase "excited utterance" has a certain meaning in law precisely because excited utterances are not willful and intentional, and therefore lack the mens rea necessary for prosecuting a actual criminal act, not a mere thought or idea or communication of a criminal act without the intent to carry it out.

Also, any operator at CNN can recount what was said during the call to law-enforcement officers.

So, the witnesses have discussed their prospective testimony not only among themselves but with others, and all their stories do agree on exactly what took place when.

18 U.S. Code § 1622 - Subornation of perjury, 18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant, and it goes on and on.

Notwithstanding the basic failure to distinguish a perceived threat of a criminal act from the criminal act itself, which is not even alleged yet to have taken place.

George Orwell. Thoughtcrime. Precrime.

Where is the "tampering" or "perjury"? Who took any oath here? Threatening people IS a criminal act. If you have first-hand involvement in an occurrence, you are free to speak to law enforcement.
You are still spouting moronic phony legalese. Finish high school, go to college, go to law school.
You still haven't explained your interest in this little criminal bitch, who could be associated with Nazis or goodness knows who else.
BTW: just how close are you to this investigation, since you know everybody's lying? You must have an inside at CNN.

 

[tigerred59]

I'm gonna say it before Trump does....NOT ALL CRAZY WHITE PEOPLE WHO FOLLOW ME AND EVERY TWEET WHO THREATEN TO KILL MF'S IS BAD.

I'm gonna ax your a question...how come Trump got more Blacks and Latinos to vote for him than Romney?

Trump did better with Blacks and Hispanics than Romney in 2012

Dude, (sigh).....tell you what, let the mf run again and we'll see who's truly loyal.....rednecks, stupid white women, old white fucks and trash cans......LOLOLOL.

 

[Roudy]

I'm gonna say it before Trump does....NOT ALL CRAZY WHITE PEOPLE WHO FOLLOW ME AND EVERY TWEET WHO THREATEN TO KILL MF'S IS BAD.

I'm gonna ax your a question...how come Trump got more Blacks and Latinos to vote for him than Romney?

Trump did better with Blacks and Hispanics than Romney in 2012

Dude, (sigh).....tell you what, let the mf run again and we'll see who's truly loyal.....rednecks, stupid white women, old white fucks and trash cans......LOLOLOL.

Same trash talking occured before getting humiliated in November of 2016. This time it will be much worse, since Trump has turned the economy around, crushed ISIS, provided tax breaks, and black and Latino unemployment is record lows.

Keep pissing in the wind.

 

[Roudy]

Feds: Man threatened to kill CNN employees

He claimed "fake news" and all that, it is pretty clear how he stands politically.

But can you BLAME HIM?

Photoshop...Taylor is flatter than an ironing board.
But I like it.

I think the look of the guy in the background says it all.

 

[JimBowie1958]

But can you BLAME HIM?

Photoshop...Taylor is flatter than an ironing board.
But I like it.

push-up, padded bras most likely, maybe surgically enhanced,lol

 

[JimBowie1958]

Feds: Man threatened to kill CNN employees

He claimed "fake news" and all that, it is pretty clear how he stands politically.

But can you BLAME HIM?

Photoshop...Taylor is flatter than an ironing board.
But I like it.

I think the look of the guy in the background says it all.

You sayin he's a tail-gater?

 

[equalizer_1]

The thing about "exited utterances" is they are one of the few exceptions to the admissibility of hearsay as evidence in court.

She said he said something threatening is not normally admissible as evidence, particularly when it is something alleged to be said willfully and intentionally -- which certainly rules out of possibility of "excited utterance."

 

[equalizer_0]

I happen to be heterosexual

Irrelevant, inappropriate, you've already said it, and this is not a forum for discussing personal sexual preferences.

I only believe in socialism in a hybrid mix of socialism and capitalism.

That may be interpreted as a state-corporate fascism, as for example Holocaust-era Italy under Benito Mussolini. There are plenty of other threads here to discuss the specifics of all these "-isms."

Also, any operator at CNN can recount what was said during the call to law-enforcement officers.

Hearsay is generally, as a rule of thumb, inadmissible in court as evidence.

Whereas a warrant from a federal judge for wiretapping and recording the calls would presumably require a higher and better purpose than simply to trap a man in his own words in the very phone calls to be recorded.

This particular bar is not really that high, and it is not really being met here.

 

[Lysistrata]

You don't understand the concept of "hearsay" any more than you have understood any other of the legal concepts that you have fished out of the sky. "Hearsay" can be used to impeach testimony in a court of law, but there is no legal proceeding underway right now. Also, "hearsay" is not involved when a person is a direct participant. The CNN operator(s) who answered these calls are direct participants. You are just complaining that the people who received these calls reported them to law enforcement, as well they should have.

I don't understand your comments about "wiretapping" and so forth. The FBI merely traced the calls. You are confusing this issue with the wiretaps associated with FISA courts.

As for "trapping" a person with this his "own words," what else is to be done? Are we to believe that what comes out of someone's own mouth does not "trap" him?

I still don't understand why you are so upset that a person who made 22 threatening calls to an organization was arrested. What is your connection to him?

 

[sedwin]

Feds: Man threatened to kill CNN employees

He claimed "fake news" and all that, it is pretty clear how he stands politically.

So a man who hates our freedoms (1st amendment freedoms) plans to kill American's? Isn't that terrorism? Whoops.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I dont condone this type of behavior...

Although I wouldnt be opposed to a freak airplane crash with the entire crew of CNN on board.

 

[xyz]

You are the one who wrote about "getting out of the man's bed" as such.

Yet you admit

I happen to be heterosexual,

You are getting too excited about another person's excited utterances simply because of the person's gender, your own, and your own sexuality. The phrase "excited utterance" has a certain meaning in law precisely because excited utterances are not willful and intentional, and therefore lack the mens rea necessary for prosecuting a actual criminal act, not a mere thought or idea or communication of a criminal act without the intent to carry it out.

Also, any operator at CNN can recount what was said during the call to law-enforcement officers.

So, the witnesses have discussed their prospective testimony not only among themselves but with others, and all their stories do agree on exactly what took place when.

18 U.S. Code § 1622 - Subornation of perjury, 18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant, and it goes on and on.

Notwithstanding the basic failure to distinguish a perceived threat of a criminal act from the criminal act itself, which is not even alleged yet to have taken place.

George Orwell. Thoughtcrime. Precrime.

So according to you, the FBI should not investigate threats of violence made to the POTUS or anyone in the White House, and it should be completely legal to make those threats?

 

[equalizer_0]

As for "trapping" a person with this his "own words," what else is to be done? Are we to believe that what comes out of someone's own mouth does not "trap" him?

Entrapment is not O.K. Also, there is a past-vs.-future problem with the wiretapping warrant. A warrant cannot be made retroactive for phone conversations presumed to be already recorded without a warrant. Alleged threats made in the past are not sufficient probable cause to wiretap future telephone calls merely to make an arrest without warning for future speech that may be also deemed threatening or harassing -- that is far too specious -- unless there is reasonable cause to believe that the man actually has some thought-out intention or plan or scheme put together of acting out the murders he is alleged to have threatened.

But then that is a different matter altogether, and the FBI should not have spilled the beans and made such an insignificant charge in court over some allegedly far more serious matter for which there was not sufficient evidence at the time.

I still don't understand why you are so upset that a person who made 22 threatening calls to an organization was arrested. What is your connection to him?

Because the Mafia spiked my coffee with rohypnol, alcohol, and other drugs and then falsely charged me with making threatening speech myself and denied any semblance of due process while the mobsters who threatened and later stabbed me with a knife and broke into my hotel room and broke my rib in the middle of the night were not even charged. Similar cases; otherwise no connection.

Such allegations are not of crimes per se; these are accusations of violations of the Mafia's Code of Omertà, which demands (1) silence; (2) total complicity and willingness to "take the fall" without defending oneself legally; and (3) an obsequious, overdone "respect" for women, almost as if a gentleman were required to tip a wide sombrero for the ladies.

It is not at all clear to me why the FBI holds the Mafia's Omertà higher than the U.S. Constitution and persists so intently on prosecuting violations of the Mafia's Code of Omertà rather than violations of United States law.

Apparently FBI, under OPM's strictures, hired newbs who passed the Myers-Briggs exam but fell asleep in history class.

 

[equalizer_0]

So according to you, the FBI should not investigate threats of violence made to the POTUS or anyone in the White House, and it should be completely legal to make those threats?

Some of the things said on TV by the current President, well, SCOTUS has already said rather emphatically, 'Them's fightin' words!"

And if Secret Service cannot stop eavesdropping for "lèse-majesté" and focus on actual "threats" against the president, perhaps private security at Mar-a-Lago can swing an extra shift or two now and then.

 

[Lysistrata]

As for "trapping" a person with this his "own words," what else is to be done? Are we to believe that what comes out of someone's own mouth does not "trap" him?

Entrapment is not O.K. Also, there is a past-vs.-future problem with the wiretapping warrant. A warrant cannot be made retroactive for phone conversations presumed to be already recorded without a warrant. Alleged threats made in the past are not sufficient probable cause to wiretap future telephone calls merely to make an arrest without warning for future speech that may be also deemed threatening or harassing -- that is far too specious -- unless there is reasonable cause to believe that the man actually has some thought-out intention or plan or scheme put together of acting out the murders he is alleged to have threatened.

But then that is a different matter altogether, and the FBI should not have spilled the beans and made such an insignificant charge in court over some allegedly far more serious matter for which there was not sufficient evidence at the time.

I still don't understand why you are so upset that a person who made 22 threatening calls to an organization was arrested. What is your connection to him?

Because the Mafia spiked my coffee with rohypnol, alcohol, and other drugs and then falsely charged me with making threatening speech myself and denied any semblance of due process while the mobsters who threatened and later stabbed me with a knife and broke into my hotel room and broke my rib in the middle of the night were not even charged. Similar cases; otherwise no connection.

Such allegations are not of crimes per se; these are accusations of violations of the Mafia's Code of Omertà, which demands (1) silence; (2) total complicity and willingness to "take the fall" without defending oneself legally; and (3) an obsequious, overdone "respect" for women, almost as if a gentleman were required to tip a wide sombrero for the ladies.

It is not at all clear to me why the FBI holds the Mafia's Omertà higher than the U.S. Constitution and persists so intently on prosecuting violations of the Mafia's Code of Omertà rather than violations of United States law.

Apparently FBI, under OPM's strictures, hired newbs who passed the Myers-Briggs exam but fell asleep in history class.

You are a true nutter. Still making up legal theories that have no basis in fact and making up "facts" for yourself. The FBI got a complaint, its agents investigated, they found good cause to make an arrest, they filed a sworn affidavit, the arrest was carried out. End of story.

 

[equalizer_0]

You are a true nutter.

Ad hominem. Unjustified. As the Finns would ask, "Onko se totta?" and, well, if you have to make such an assertion of the veracity of the very assertion you are attempting to make, well, the answer is probably a rather simple, unqualified, "Ei."

The FBI got a complaint, its agents investigated, they found good cause to make an arrest, they filed a sworn affidavit, the arrest was carried out. End of story.

Not so fast, lady. Justice simply is not so smooth and slick in the U.S.A. The "deal" is off. There is a bar complaint and a mistrial if counsel for the defense waived the probable cause hearing. It ain't over till it's over.

 

[equalizer_0]

You are a true nutter. Still making up legal theories that have no basis in fact and making up "facts" for yourself.

Ad hominem. Your own "facts" have a shifting basis in political surrealism.

The FBI got a complaint, its agents investigated, they found good cause to make an arrest, they filed a sworn affidavit, the arrest was carried out. End of story.

Not so fast, there. Justice in America simply is not that smooth, slick, and "efficient." Something smells a little bit off with this "deal." For one thing, there is a bar complaint if counsel for the defense waived the probable cause hearing. Second, there is a mistrial, if the case even got as far as trial, except it sounds as though counsel for the defense waived defense entirely.

Definitely not end of story, because you can't even put someone away for more than a month or two on a charge like that, unless you are planning murder in prison, which possibility is now attracting the attention of other investigators.

The feebies are playing Little League here, and now the Big League is starting to get involved. The thing is, someone literally made a *federal case* out of some purely verbal argument that never went beyond harsh words, nothing illegitimate obtained or even so much as an attempt to gain or influence anything wrongfully by any alleged force or threat of force.

Astounding. Sick. David has not so much as a sling or even one smooth stone in his sack against this news media Goliath.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Oops.

The male "knowingly and willfully transmitted in interstate and foreign commerce a cellular phone communication to Cable News Network (CNN), and that communication contained a threat to injure employees of CNN, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §875(c)."

Probable cause. Agent Smith found the number in an online database and analyzed the recorded audio.

Fucking idiots. Fake news, fake criminal charge.

Proper response: keep an eye on the situation for a while, try to find out why the man is so angry; maybe he had too much to drink or CNN spiked his coffee or something like that, or, like most Americans, he was angry at the fake news. If the man presents a credible threat, keep an eye on the general situation, not on him alone, and if not, drop it and move on, because you have more important work to do at the FBI.

CNN is a big company with plenty of competent private security and plenty of competent private investigators; they do not need to be molly-coddled by the FBI like some cute girl with a complaint that some guy is like sort of creepy and she just doesn't want to see him around her block.

So then someone can threaten the occupants of the White House, because there are many Secret Service personnel around? That would seem to be your conclusion.

That probably happens a lot.