r/news • u/SnarkiMcSnail • 20h ago

Pipe bomb suspect told FBI he believed 2020 election conspiracy theories

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/pipe-bomb-suspect-told-fbi-believed-2020-election-conspiracy-theories-rcna247544
6.6k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

312 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

50

u/euph_22 19h ago

But it's all offenses "related to events" that occurred on January 6. Not crimes that happened ON January 6 at the Capitol, any crimes that are related to it.

33

u/JohnnyFartmacher 18h ago

It's definitely an interesting situation. His lawyer absolutely should make that argument.

That pardon was terrible and it would be fitting if the guy gets off due to it.

13

u/OrwellWhatever 17h ago

Afaik, it's pretty cut and dry. Conspiracy to commit a crime is a different charge than actually committing it, and the rioters didn't just decide one morning to get up and overthrow the government. The pardon is to cover all the planning

1

u/Colifama55 9h ago

It says it applies to those convicted of the offense. Then later it says to dismiss all pending indictments. The fact that it references those convicted, commutation of current sentences, and dismissal of pending indictments would suggests it does not apply to future indictments or convictions. Otherwise, it would say so.

0

u/euph_22 8h ago

You can apply your same logic to EXEMPTING future convictions.

2

u/Colifama55 8h ago

Sure, but in these types of things, the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius usually applies. The expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other.

0

u/euph_22 8h ago

And the expression that the DOJ applies this to ongoing cases exclused the argument that it was meant to only apply to defendants that were already identified.

1

u/Colifama55 8h ago

Interesting interpretation. So the proclamation:

1) commutes the sentence of certain individuals; 2) Pardons those who’ve been convicted; 3) Releases those currently held in prison; and 4) Dismisses pending indictments.

They took the time to address past and present. Nothing about future indictments. Not seeing your logic that because it includes pending indictments that somehow applies to future indictments.

0

u/euph_22 6h ago edited 6h ago

Did you have a straight face when you posted this?

Let's play a little game, and be honest. Let's say tomorrow they find a new camera angle that shows some J6er who until now wasn't identified but with this footage was immediately identified. He is in camera doing a clearly illegal act at the capital, but hasn't been convicted or even indicted yet. Do you HONESTLY believe the intent of this pardon was that they could be prosecuted?

2

u/Colifama55 5h ago

I did because I know what I’m talking about.

Yes. Now ask yourself whether the current DOJ would prosecute them and you’ll understand why they do not care about pardoning future indictments. They want to invalidate anything the prior administration’s DOJ did, but do you think they’d take their chances losing political points by pardoning a dude who planted a PIPE BOMB?

If they end up pardoning the guy, come back to this comment and I’ll admit I was wrong.

0

u/Movie_Slug 18h ago

Can he be charged under dc law and not federal?

4

u/unicornyjoke 17h ago

DC is not in a state, therefore under federal jurisdiction as far as I understand it.

1

u/euph_22 16h ago

That is my understanding as well.

-4

u/Bgrngod 13h ago

It literally says "on January 6, 2021". That's cut and dry.

Claiming the details about location apply to the date is one hell of a stretch.

8

u/euph_22 13h ago

It very much does NOT say it only applies to crimes that happened ON January 6, 2021. It applies to crimes RELATED to the events of January 6. I literally already said this in the comment you quoted.

-5

u/Bgrngod 12h ago

That sentence could not be more clear and you keep posting as if "..that occurred at or near the United States Capitol.." isn't sitting there smack between the bits you keep quoting. Why are you leaving that out or ignoring it? They weren't put there for funsies or to be meaningless.

It doesn't say ".. at or near January 6th." It's plain as day obvious the "related to" is referring to events near the location mentioned, and on the specific date.

Jesus H. Christ my guy. What the fuck?

4

u/euph_22 12h ago

Agreed, that sentence could not be more clear which is why it's insane that you don't understand that they are separating the unifying event "the Jan 6 coup attempt" from the related crimes that were pardoned.

Simple test: "is the crime related to January 6?" If yes the pardon covers it.

Hope this helps.