NationStates Jolt Archive

Remember those three white supremacists who were arrested after planning to kill Obama?

Well, Colorado Attorney General dismissed the conspiracy and attempted murder charges, saying that there wasn't any "credible threat" to Obama. But the FBI thought otherwise (http://coloradoindependent.com/6857/court-docs-suicide-mission-planned-in-plot-to-kill-obama-at-dnc).

Court docs: Suicide mission planned in plot to kill Obama at DNC
By Ernest Luning 9/3/08 1:12 PM

Denver’s 9NEWS reports the FBI asked for more serious charges to be filed against at least one of the suspects arrested last week in a suspected plot to kill Barack Obama during the Democratic National Convention. Federal court documents obtained by reporter Jace Larson describe a plot to assassinate Obama in a suicide mission using a gun hidden inside a camera.

Colorado’s U.S. attorney said last week the three suspects — facing federal drug and weapons charges — didn’t pose a “credible threat” to Obama, calling their plans “more aspirational, perhaps, than operational.” But, according to court documents, FBI Special Agent Robert Sawyer believed there was sufficient evidence to charge the men with a criminal conspiracy to kill Obama.

Tharin Gartrell, 28; Shawn Robert Adolf, 33; and Nathan Johnson, 32, were apprehended the morning of Aug. 24. Gartell, stopped by Aurora police for erratic driving, had sniper rifles, bulletproof vests and disguises in his rented pickup truck. He led authorities to the other suspects, including Adolf, who jumped through the sixth-story window of his Glendale hotel, breaking his ankle, when police came knocking.

The court documents said the underage girlfriend of one of the suspects described the plot as a suicide mission. Another woman told police Adolf was a member of the Sons of Silence, a white nationalist group, and described all three men as racists.

Johnson, Shawn Adolf and Tharin Gartrell all thought that Obama had a suite in the third floor of the Hyatt Hotel, where they were staying. In fact, the senator was staying in another Denver Hotel.

The men were doing meth inside the hotel with two women on Aug. 23 discussing the plot to kill Obama, according to federal records.

Adolf said “it would not matter if he killed Senator Obama because police would simply add a murder charge to his pending charges,” according to the records. There were seven outstanding warrants for Adolf’s arrest.

Adolf, who was wearing a swastika ring when he was arrested, was being held on $1 million bond based on multiple outstanding charges, including drug offenses, burglary, larceny and aggravated motor vehicle theft.

9NEWS notes the plot could have had origins in a popular movie:

The plot is similar to that in the 1992 movie “The Bodyguard” starring actors Kevin Costner and Whitney Houston. In the movie, Costner stops an assassination attempt against Houston by spotting a weapon hidden inside a gutted-out TV camera.


So, how about that?

I really don't want to see Obama get killed, the riots would be horrible.

I really don't want to see Obama get killed, the riots would be horrible.


There would be no riots, maybe some angry protests by idiots looking to start a race war....But I don't think Obama will get killed.

There would be no riots, maybe some angry protests by idiots looking to start a race war....But I don't think Obama will get killed.

People rioted when MLK died.
People rioted when Rodney King got beat.
You think people won't riot over Obama?

Hopefully it won't happen, but all it take s is one lucky bullet.

If Obama dies, the races riots will be like nothing we've ever seen. Then will come an indefinite period of time in which the last shards of optimisim, hope, and idealism disappear from the American left, and the Republicans can reign over a Democratic Party which has been once and for all, thoughrly whipped.

What sickens me the most is that state officials dismissed an obviously credible threat (they had taken the time to aquire sniper rifles, disguises, and body armor). This is even more disturbing in light of the fact that Colorado usually goes Red, but is now a swing state that might conceivably decide the election. It's as if these officials in Colorado were turning a blind eye towards threats against legitimate political opposision.

Palin gets her account hacked because she doesn't use propper security, and its a big deal that must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But when some white supremisists try to assassinate the first serious African American Presidential candadite, and the officials in a predominantly red state let them off the hook, its no big deal.

If their is any justice, the Colorado Attorney General will be hung up by his balls for this(figuratively speaking). When's he up for election? I used to live in Colorado, and I know some people there who should know exactly what kind of people they need to remove from their state government next election.

If Obama dies, the races riots will be like nothing we've ever seen. Then will come an indefinite period of time in which the last shards of optimisim, hope, and idealism disappear from the American left, and the Republicans can reign over a Democratic Party which has been once and for all, thoughrly whipped.

What sickens me the most is that state officials dismissed an obviously credible threat (they had taken the time to aquire sniper rifles, disguises, and body armor). This is even more disturbing in light of the fact that Colorado usually goes Red, but is now a swing state that might conceivably decide the election. It's as if these officials in Colorado were turning a blind eye towards threats against legitimate political opposision.

Palin gets her account hacked because she doesn't use propper security, and its a big deal that must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But when some white supremisists try to assassinate the first serious African American Presidential candadite, and the officials in a predominantly red state let them off the hook, its no big deal.

If their is any justice, the Colorado Attorney General will be hung up by his balls for this(figuratively speaking). When's he up for election? I used to live in Colorado, and I know some people there who should know exactly what kind of people they need to remove from their state government next election.

The AG could merely be continuing a tradition originating from the South of looking the other way while the lynch mob comes for that uppity *****r.

So, how about that?

bush appointees standing in the way of justice?! that unpossible!!

People rioted when MLK died.
People rioted when Rodney King got beat.
You think people won't riot over Obama?

Hopefully it won't happen, but all it take s is one lucky bullet.



MLK was a civil rights leader in the 60's who died fighting for his peoples right to be free...Obama isn't and this isn't the 60's.


Hmm. Didn't the people riot because the cops who did it got off? There was also decades of racial tension involved.

Comparing the situations, time, people involved...No.

The AG could merely be continuing a tradition originating from the South of looking the other way while the lynch mob comes for that uppity *****r.

Indeed. The cynic in me sees this as being typical.

The AG could merely be continuing a tradition originating from the South of looking the other way while the lynch mob comes for that uppity *****r.

While its certainly a possiblity, if the Attorney General of Colorado is in the GOP (quite likely), it raises another, almost more disturbing prospect: that the politics of America has become such that certain politicians would rather see a Senator murdered than lose an election.

In a way their's something perhaps more chilling about a cold, calculated, politically motivated crime than one inspired by irrational fanaticism. Its the difference, in my mind, between insanity and evil.

MLK was a civil rights leader in the 60's who died fighting for his peoples right to be free...Obama isn't and this isn't the 60's.

Hmm. Didn't the people riot because the cops who did it got off? There was also decades of racial tension involved.

Comparing the situations, time, people involved...No.

Is Obama MLK? No, but he doesn't have to be MLK, we've already had him. What Obama is to me and to a lot of fellow black people in the U.S. especially the deep south, is the confirmation of MLK's dream being valid. He is the proof that America can in fact look past skin color and be able to fight for and achieve not just equality, but leadership, should we so choose. They're just different points on the same timeline.

Secondly, you want to talk about decades of racial tension? I live in Anniston, Alabama. It's 47% white, 48% black. We have a history in supression with the most famous event being the Freedom Riders bus burning in 1961,

During the American civil rights movement, a group known as the Freedom Riders was riding an integrated bus in protest of southern segregation laws. One of the buses was fire-bombed outside of Anniston on Mother's Day Sunday May 14, 1961. As the bus burned, the mob held the doors shut, intent on burning the riders to death. An exploding fuel tank caused the mob to retreat, allowing the riders to escape the bus. The Riders were viciously beaten as they fled the burning bus, and only warning shots fired into the air by highway patrolmen prevented the riders from being lynched on the spot. [4] The site is now home to a marker along Alabama Highway 202 west about five miles west of downtown.

Is Obama MLK? No, but he doesn't have to be MLK, we've already had him. What Obama is to me and to a lot of fellow black people in the U.S. especially the deep south, is the confirmation of MLK's dream being valid. He is the proof that America can in fact look past skin color and be able to fight for and achieve not just equality, but leadership, should we so choose. They're just different points on the same timeline.

Secondly, you want to talk about decades of racial tension? I live in Anniston, Alabama. It's 47% white, 48% black. We have a history in supression with the most famous event being the Freedom Riders bus burning in 1961,


Eh, I already look past his color and just don't think he is a good canidate. I don't want him winning because he is half black, that is a disrespect to what MLK died for, voting for him because he is half black and not based on his ability.

Racial tension? I am half black and live in SOCAL..Want current tension we got racial tension between Whites, Black and Hispanics. Try living in that time bomb.

Eh, I already look past his color and just don't think he is a good canidate. I don't want him winning because he is half black, that is a disrespect to what MLK died for, voting for him because he is half black and not based on his ability.

Racial tension? I am half black and live in SOCAL..Want current tension we got racial tension between Whites, Black and Hispanics. Try living in that time bomb.

Though I'm inclined to disagree that Obama's not a good candadite, I do concure that one should not vote for him because of his racial background any more than they should vote against him based on that same background. Making Obama into an affirmative action candadite would, after all, be a deep betrayal of his message and ideals of a United, perhaps even a "post racial" America.

I'm going to vote for him because I'm worse off than I was in 2004, and much worse off than I was in 2000, and a majority of that is directly due to the Republican Party of America. I'd vote for him if he was blue, black, yellow, green with ocher polka dots.

Not really relevant to this thread though, the point is that under the normal way of thinking down south Obama is black. Half-black, quarter-black, the rule was, "One drop of black blood makes you black." So as far as I'm concerned, he's worthy of carrying the MLK mantle. At least someone's doing it.

I'm going to vote for him because I'm worse off than I was in 2004, and much worse off than I was in 2000, and a majority of that is directly due to the Republican Party of America. I'd vote for him if he was blue, black, yellow, green with ocher polka dots.

Not really relevant to this thread though, the point is that under the normal way of thinking down south Obama is black. Half-black, quarter-black, the rule was, "One drop of black blood makes you black." So as far as I'm concerned, he's worthy of carrying the MLK mantle. At least someone's doing it.

If their's one thing I still have not lost faith in through all the months of attacks, flip-flops, and poll swings, its that Obama represents a chance to carry the civil rights movement, if not to its conclusion, at least through its next logical step.

During the 60's the civil rights movement made great strides in ensuring that everyone had equal legal rights. Now I'll grant a lot of improvement is needed, but progress has been made. Now, however, I see an increasingly large portion of the civil rights movement which doesn't beleive real equality is possible. We see many who seem to beleive that only through artificial reballancing (ie, affirmative action), and by highlighting our differences can a semballance of equality be maintained.

To me this represents a loss idealism, of the belief, so hard fought for, that we can all be equal regardless of race. I see three directions we can go on the issue of race. We can either go back, hover forever in a state of perpetual racial devides and conflict, or we can go forward. Obama has stepped forward and said: we don't have to be divided by race, we are all just Americans. He is a member of a visible minority who has stepped forward as, essentially, the post-racial candadite. Obama is taking the next step to bring us towards a post-racial world, or as close as we can ever hope to come to that goal.

This is not to say that Obama ignores the issue of race. But he sees solutions in unity, in recognizing that we are all Americans, and in improving education. And he is also living proof, that regardless of race, you can succede.

That some racist scum would want to kill him is unsurprising, but tragic. I beleive that the loss of Obama would be a serious setback in American race relations and civil rights.

Sorry for the long post, which I am aware has wandered considerably off topic. But this is a very important issue to me, and when the discussion of Obama's place in relation to the civil rights movement comes up, I have to speak my mind.

Abso-fucking-lutely ridiculous. Does the U.S. even have a justice system any more, or is it just a bunch of appointed pundits wiping their ass with taxpayer money?

The AG could merely be continuing a tradition originating from the South of looking the other way while the lynch mob comes for that uppity *****r.

Indeed. The cynic in me sees this as being typical.
Me too. My first thought on reading the OP was, "Ah, hm, so the CO AG sees three white guys trying to kill a black guy and says, 'What's the problem?' Heh, yeah, color me surprised."

EDIT: I'm just going to come out and say it already: 9/11 revealed just how many radical authoritarians there are in the US, and the Obama campaign is going to reveal at least a little of how many hardcore racists we've still got, too. Let's just call it out already.

Abso-fucking-lutely ridiculous. Does the U.S. even have a justice system any more, or is it just a bunch of appointed pundits wiping their ass with taxpayer money?

No, its a bunch of appointed authoritarians wiping their ass with the Constitution.

Remember those three white supremacists who were arrested after planning to kill Obama?

Well, Colorado Attorney General dismissed the conspiracy and attempted murder charges, saying that there wasn't any "credible threat" to Obama. But the FBI thought otherwise (http://coloradoindependent.com/6857/court-docs-suicide-mission-planned-in-plot-to-kill-obama-at-dnc).

So, how about that?

First, one niggling point that no one but me will care about: It wasn't the Colorado Attorney General acting in this case, it was the U.S. Attorney for Colorado. The first is a state official subject to election, the second is a federal appointee. (Note: either way they are Republicans).

Second, I don't have enough data to judge who is right here, but this wouldn't be the first time law enforcement personnel wanted/collected evidence supporting more charges than a prosecutor believes are warranted and/or can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Third, although the dismissal of the conspiracy and attempted murder charges may be a mistake, it is not like these guys are getting off lightly (at least so far). They still face a shitload of other charges.

First, one niggling point that no one but me will care about: It wasn't the Colorado Attorney General acting in this case, it was the U.S. Attorney for Colorado. The first is a state official subject to election, the second is a federal appointee. (Note: either way they are Republicans).

Second, I don't have enough data to judge who is right here, but this wouldn't be the first time law enforcement personnel wanted/collected evidence supporting more charges than a prosecutor believes are warranted and/or can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Third, although the dismissal of the conspiracy and attempted murder charges may be a mistake, it is not like these guys are getting off lightly (at least so far). They still face a shitload of other charges.
I don't think it's so much that which is bothering me, as the public display of "meh" about it. I really do not believe we would be seeing that much "meh" if the attempt had been made on McCain or Palin.

My sense of it is that the attempt in question never got anywhere close to Obama, so he was never in real danger, but to me whether there was danger or not is not the point of talking about it. Rather it's the question of whether there is a sense that Obama is not getting the protection any Senator and presidential candidate deserves. Now I know he is getting it from the Secret Service detailed to him -- they take their responsibilities very seriously indeed -- but it does bother me to see other law enforcement officials getting into the media to shrug things like this off. Shrugging it off is a bit different from assuring the public there was no danger.

First, one niggling point that no one but me will care about: It wasn't the Colorado Attorney General acting in this case, it was the U.S. Attorney for Colorado. The first is a state official subject to election, the second is a federal appointee. (Note: either way they are Republicans).

Second, I don't have enough data to judge who is right here, but this wouldn't be the first time law enforcement personnel wanted/collected evidence supporting more charges than a prosecutor believes are warranted and/or can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Third, although the dismissal of the conspiracy and attempted murder charges may be a mistake, it is not like these guys are getting off lightly (at least so far). They still face a shitload of other charges.

So that moves the turning a blind eye to attempted assassination of a political oponant to the Federal level. Lovely. And while its true that charges are sometimes dropped for lack of evidence, Assassination attempts against Presidential Candadites usually get treated rather seriously, if I'm not mistaken.

I don't think it's so much that which is bothering me, as the public display of "meh" about it. I really do not believe we would be seeing that much "meh" if the attempt had been made on McCain or Palin.

My sense of it is that the attempt in question never got anywhere close to Obama, so he was never in real danger, but to me whether there was danger or not is not the point of talking about it. Rather it's the question of whether there is a sense that Obama is not getting the protection any Senator and presidential candidate deserves. Now I know he is getting it from the Secret Service detailed to him -- they take their responsibilities very seriously indeed -- but it does bother me to see other law enforcement officials getting into the media to shrug things like this off. Shrugging it off is a bit different from assuring the public there was no danger.

So that moves the turning a blind eye to attempted assassination of a political oponant to the Federal level. Lovely. And while its true that charges are sometimes dropped for lack of evidence, Assassination attempts against Presidential Candadites usually get treated rather seriously, if I'm not mistaken.

Let me first be clear that I'm not saying the U.S. Attorney made the correct call here, I'm just saying it isn't necessarily a political conspiracy just becausee the U.S. Attorney and an FBI officer disagree on the charges.

That said, unless you have evidence I'm not aware of and hasn't been posted in this thread, there WAS NO ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT. The only real dispute is whether there is sufficient evidence that these jackasses talking about killing Obama really did something concrete enough to support conspiracy or attempted murder charges. That is a fair dispute and one I'm not sure who is right about.

But let's not act like this is a cover-up of an real attempt to kill Obama. The facts simply aren't there.

While its certainly a possiblity, if the Attorney General of Colorado is in the GOP (quite likely), it raises another, almost more disturbing prospect: that the politics of America has become such that certain politicians would rather see a Senator murdered than lose an election.

In a way their's something perhaps more chilling about a cold, calculated, politically motivated crime than one inspired by irrational fanaticism. Its the difference, in my mind, between insanity and evil.

Because someone who acts out of irrational fanaticism thinks they are doing right. In the other case, the person knows that it is wrong, and it doesn't bother them.

Let me first be clear that I'm not saying the U.S. Attorney made the correct call here, I'm just saying it isn't necessarily a political conspiracy just becausee the U.S. Attorney and an FBI officer disagree on the charges.

That said, unless you have evidence I'm not aware of and hasn't been posted in this thread, there WAS NO ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT. The only real dispute is whether there is sufficient evidence that these jackasses talking about killing Obama really did something concrete enough to support conspiracy or attempted murder charges. That is a fair dispute and one I'm not sure who is right about.

But let's not act like this is a cover-up of an real attempt to kill Obama. The facts simply aren't there.
I believe it is still an open question as to what those three morons were trying to attempt. But again, that is not my point.

You have a Senator and a presidential candidate. Something happens that raises significant concerns about his safety. It gets all over the media and there are questions about it.

Do you, as an official of the legal system, get in front of the media and explain why you are bringing some charges and not others and what you think happened so as to allay fears that something did happen and you're not doing anything about it?

Or do you get in front of the media and just say, in effect, "It was nothing, no need for any more action, forget what the FBI says, what do they know? Nothing to see here, move along"?

And now ask yourself what you personally think the official response would have been if the pol in question had been McCain rather than Obama.

...

Okay, granted, this is Colorado, so the response from this particular AG could have been just as shoddy in either case, but I hope I'm making my point clear. To me, whatever issue is here is a political and social one, rather than a law enforcement one.

Do you, as an official of the legal system, get in front of the media and explain why you are bringing some charges and not others and what you think happened so as to allay fears that something did happen and you're not doing anything about it?

Um. Isn't that pretty much what happened?

More info (http://cbs4denver.com/local/obama.plot.assassination.2.803689.html) (emphasis added):

A group of suspected drug users arrested in Denver this weekend with methamphetamine, guns and bulletproof vests made racist threats against Barack Obama but posed no true danger to the presidential candidate as he accepts the Democratic nomination here this week, federal authorities said Tuesday.

The three men -- all high on methamphetamine when arrested -- are the subject of an assassination investigation but so far, authorities say, it appears that they had no capacity to carry out any attack on Obama.

"The law recognizes a difference between a true threat -- one that can be carried out -- and the reported racist rantings of a drug addict," U.S. Attorney Troy Eid said.

He said the men's plans were "more aspirational, perhaps, than operational."

The three have been charged with drug and weapons offenses but not with threatening to assassinate Obama or with other national-security-related crimes.

Obama will become the first black nominee for president by a major party at this week's convention.

Eid insisted that the vague racist threats from the men would continue to be investigated. He said he didn't know whether Obama had been briefed on the arrests or whether security plans would change for Obama's acceptance speech Thursday.

An affidavit released by Eid's office Tuesday showed the investigation into alleged threats began with an unnamed female who was with the men -- Tharin Gartrell, 28; Shawn Robert Adolf, 33; and Nathan Johnson, 32 -- while they were doing drugs in a Denver hotel room last weekend.

The woman told police that the men were calling Obama the N-word and saying he shouldn't live in the White House.

Johnson later told a federal agent that the only reason the men talked about assassinating Obama "is because Obama is black," according to a federal arrest affidavit. Johnson said he also heard Adolf say he wanted to kill Obama "on the day of his inauguration" and that he would "find high ground to set up and shoot Obama," the affidavit said.

Eid said authorities determined there was no firm plot to harm Obama. Asked what else they could plan to do with the weapons, Eid said, "I don't know what they were for."

"A bunch of meth heads get together, we don't know why they do what they do. ... People do lots of stupid things on meth," Eid said. "If you're talking about a true threat, there has to be some evidence they're not just talking about it or thinking about it, especially in a drug-induced state."

The Homeland Security Department has no specific information about threats to the presidential conventions, but officials say the biggest domestic terror threat would come from the "lone wolf" -- someone who is generally sympathetic to white supremacist groups and inspired by racist beliefs, according to an Aug. 22 intelligence assessment obtained by The Associated Press.

In an AP interview last week, the head of the Secret Service's Protective division said the white supremacist threat to Obama has been exaggerated.

"I think that it's something that, at times, the media tried to make more of," Nick Trotta said. "We've always watched them, as we watch all the other groups."

Gartrell was arrested after police in Aurora, a suburb east of Denver, stopped a truck that was swerving erratically around 1:30 a.m. Sunday. He had a suspended driver's license and the truck was rented in the name of another person, said Aurora police Detective Marcus Dudley.

Aurora police Lt. Bob Stef said police saw two scoped rifles, two wigs, camouflage clothing, a bulletproof vest and two walkie-talkies in the truck. A search also revealed 4.4 grams of what police believed to be methamphetamine and three IDs in other people's names, Stef said.

Johnson and Adolf were arrested in area hotel rooms after interviews with Gartrell. Adolf jumped out a sixth-story window of a hotel when police arrived Sunday. He broke his ankle in the fall but tried to run before police found him a short distance away.

Adolf was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of body armor by a violent felon and possession of methamphetamine with to intent to distribute, according to a criminal complaint filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Denver. Gartrell and Johnson were charged with simple possession of meth, meaning the amount involved was less than 5 grams, and Johnson also was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

Three senior FBI officials said it's unclear whether shooters could have had a clear path to hit the stage from outside the convention hall. At least two of the men may have had white supremacist ties, the officials said, adding that it was unclear whether any of them were serious about carrying out threats. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case.

A fourth federal official familiar with the investigation said an assassination attempt was unlikely.

"The capability and their opportunity and what they had for their weaponry -- I don't see that they would have been able to carry it out," the official said on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.

Adolf was hospitalized and was being held on $1 million bond for several outstanding warrants involving drug charges. Adolf had a handcuff key in one hand and a swastika ring on the other when he was arrested, a senior FBI official said. Adolf was listed on the "Most Wanted" list of the Weld County, Colo., sheriff's department for burglary, larceny, aggravated motor vehicle theft and other charges.

Gartrell, who has no known address, was being held at the Arapahoe County jail on $50,000 bail on drug and weapons charges. The jail said he was due in court Thursday.

Eid would not describe the woman who was allegedly doing drugs with the men or say whether she was charged with a crime.

Law enforcement officials were also investigating whether the men were linked to vandalism shootings that targeted at least two federal buildings in Denver over the past two weeks. Windows were shot at the U.S. Custom House and the U.S. Military Entrance Processing Station on the same street in Denver's downtown Federal District.

Additionally, a bullet was recovered from a Hertz rental car that was hit on Aug. 15, and authorities are now looking to see if it could have matched the guns seized from the men.

Gartrell lived in rural Nevada in the 1990s with his father, a journeyman ranch hand and heavy equipment operator, Lincoln County Sheriff Kerry Lee said Tuesday.

Lee told the AP that Gartrell was run over by a truck as a child and that "it was absolutely amazing that he wasn't hurt badly."

As a teen, Gartrell tried to enroll at a high school about 80 miles north of Las Vegas, but provided transcripts from a high school in Colorado that showed "quite a bit of disciplinary action," said Debi Smallwood, administrative aide to school Principal Steve Hansen. Gartrell was told he'd have to enroll in an alternative high school but never did, Smallwood said.

If Obama dies, the races riots will be like nothing we've ever seen. Then will come an indefinite period of time in which the last shards of optimisim, hope, and idealism disappear from the American left, and the Republicans can reign over a Democratic Party which has been once and for all, thoughrly whipped.

What sickens me the most is that state officials dismissed an obviously credible threat (they had taken the time to aquire sniper rifles, disguises, and body armor). This is even more disturbing in light of the fact that Colorado usually goes Red, but is now a swing state that might conceivably decide the election. It's as if these officials in Colorado were turning a blind eye towards threats against legitimate political opposision.

Palin gets her account hacked because she doesn't use propper security, and its a big deal that must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But when some white supremisists try to assassinate the first serious African American Presidential candadite, and the officials in a predominantly red state let them off the hook, its no big deal.

If their is any justice, the Colorado Attorney General will be hung up by his balls for this(figuratively speaking). When's he up for election? I used to live in Colorado, and I know some people there who should know exactly what kind of people they need to remove from their state government next election.

Is there a picture of these "sniper" rifles? Are they really anything more than scoped hunting rifles?

There would be no riots, maybe some angry protests by idiots looking to start a race war....But I don't think Obama will get killed.

Please. I would start the fucking riots in IL if no one else did.

If Obama dies, the races riots will be like nothing we've ever seen. Then will come an indefinite period of time in which the last shards of optimisim, hope, and idealism disappear from the American left, and the Republicans can reign over a Democratic Party which has been once and for all, thoughrly whipped.

What sickens me the most is that state officials dismissed an obviously credible threat (they had taken the time to aquire sniper rifles, disguises, and body armor). This is even more disturbing in light of the fact that Colorado usually goes Red, but is now a swing state that might conceivably decide the election. It's as if these officials in Colorado were turning a blind eye towards threats against legitimate political opposision.

Palin gets her account hacked because she doesn't use propper security, and its a big deal that must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But when some white supremisists try to assassinate the first serious African American Presidential candadite, and the officials in a predominantly red state let them off the hook, its no big deal.

If their is any justice, the Colorado Attorney General will be hung up by his balls for this(figuratively speaking). When's he up for election? I used to live in Colorado, and I know some people there who should know exactly what kind of people they need to remove from their state government next election.

This. Especially the bolded.

The AG could merely be continuing a tradition originating from the South of looking the other way while the lynch mob comes for that uppity *****r.

And this.

People have been charged for terrorism despite not having the means to commit it. The Liberty Seven, for example. And they were even more poorly equipped than these people.

People have been charged for terrorism despite not having the means to commit it. The Liberty Seven, for example. And they were even more poorly equipped than these people.

That's a very good point.

But Cat-Tribes also raises a valid argument, that there may not have been anything close enough to an assassination attempt against Obama that would constitute a legal challenge on those grounds.

Thankfully, they're still getting the book thrown at them for everything else.

In the instance of terrorism charges, I would agree, and say it is inconsistent that people such as the Liberty Seven get charged for terrorism when these guys don't get attempted murder, but I'd still say these guys don't necessarily need to be charged as attempted assassins.

Um. Isn't that pretty much what happened?

More info (http://cbs4denver.com/local/obama.plot.assassination.2.803689.html) (emphasis added):
CT, I already knew this. That's why I said that it was my understanding that there never had been any real threat to Obama. I am talking about something that is not directly related to the case itself. I'm talking about attitudes. You have the media pushing a story about a discrepancy between what the FBI says and what the AG says, and the AG appears to be shrugging off the discrepancy. If it were me, I would be all over that to make sure there was NO appearance of a lack of concern from my office. But this AG seems not to be bothered if people think he's just treating this as three drunken hillbillies acting all silly and stuff.

And my point is that I personally do not believe he would be so calm and cavalier about it, if the target had been McCain rather than Obama. Is it because the CO AG can't work up the energy to act as if he cares about a black presidential candidate or just a Democratic one? Either way, I don't believe I would be hearing "meh, it was just aspirational" if they'd been "aspiring" to attack McCain.

And my point is that I personally do not believe he would be so calm and cavalier about it, if the target had been McCain rather than Obama. Is it because the CO AG can't work up the energy to act as if he cares about a black presidential candidate or just a Democratic one? Either way, I don't believe I would be hearing "meh, it was just aspirational" if they'd been "aspiring" to attack McCain.

Wait... I thought it was the job of the neo-conservative Republicans to drum up media attention for something that may have deserved a little snippet in the 10 o'clock news?

What good does it serve the public if the AG for Colorado (or for the US, for that matter) comes out saying that this was, indeed, a credible threat against Obama? Will it ease them? Make them angry? Change their votes? Any kind of public statement made about this point, beyond there being a trial date and what kind of evidence, plea, agreement, or ruling there was, is for the media and public only and should not be construed as a statement of opinion.

Okay, granted, this is Colorado, so the response from this particular AG could have been just as shoddy in either case, but I hope I'm making my point clear.

And just what is that supposed to mean?

Let me first be clear that I'm not saying the U.S. Attorney made the correct call here, I'm just saying it isn't necessarily a political conspiracy just becausee the U.S. Attorney and an FBI officer disagree on the charges.

That said, unless you have evidence I'm not aware of and hasn't been posted in this thread, there WAS NO ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT. The only real dispute is whether there is sufficient evidence that these jackasses talking about killing Obama really did something concrete enough to support conspiracy or attempted murder charges. That is a fair dispute and one I'm not sure who is right about.

But let's not act like this is a cover-up of an real attempt to kill Obama. The facts simply aren't there.


Well, they were clearly planning to kill him. I'm not sure what the legal definition of an assassination attempt is as regards how close they have to have come to succeding, but I'd say they were well on their way to attempting it, at the very least.

As for weather its a conspiricy, I doubt McCain or Bush ordered them to overlook this. More likely, its a racist and or far right winger failing in his duty more or less on his own initiative. At least I hope that's the case.

At any rate, he should still lose his job, for incompitance if nothing else.

And just what is that supposed to mean?

Well, their was the big screw up a year or two back when they arrested that guy for killing that child beauty queen (can't spell her name).

Is there a picture of these "sniper" rifles? Are they really anything more than scoped hunting rifles?

Is there a quantifiable difference?

It may be the FBI trying to get in good with the likely next president. Whats the Secret Service got to say since it is there job to protect presidents and presidential candidates.

Is there a quantifiable difference?

yes higher caliber rounds with more powder behind them. more turns in the rifling to make the bullet spin more.

Thank you for so fully educating us as to what those differences are.

read the edit accidentally hit submit while tabbing back and forth.

Is there a quantifiable difference?
Sniper rifles are specifically designed for sniping. In practice I can't find there being much difference aside from weight. Granted I know very little about the subject and suck at search engines so I'm most likely horribly wrong.

yes higher caliber rounds with more powder behind them. more turns in the rifling to make the bullet spin more.

Are these changes to add range or to deal with body armor? An unarmored human body doesn't need more punch than a deer.

Are these changes to add range or to deal with body armor? An unarmored human body doesn't need more punch than a deer.
I'm not expert on this, but I believe both factors (more powder -> more velocity, more spin -> staying on a straight line longer) are for the range, to make it easier to kill from a sneaky hiding place.

People have been charged for terrorism despite not having the means to commit it. The Liberty Seven, for example. And they were even more poorly equipped than these people.

The prosecution of the Liberty City Seven is hardly an example of either responsible or successful prosecutorial discretion.

Are are you saying these jackasses that threatened Obama should face charges not supported by the evidence?

Well, they were clearly planning to kill him. I'm not sure what the legal definition of an assassination attempt is as regards how close they have to have come to succeding, but I'd say they were well on their way to attempting it, at the very least.

As for weather its a conspiricy, I doubt McCain or Bush ordered them to overlook this. More likely, its a racist and or far right winger failing in his duty more or less on his own initiative. At least I hope that's the case.

At any rate, he should still lose his job, for incompitance if nothing else.

On what facts are you basing the bolded statements?

EDIT: source (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/co/press_releases/2008/August08/8_26_08.html) for more relevant data, including what these racist meth heads were actually charged with

bush appointees standing in the way of justice?! that unpossible!!

It's funny suddenly we all see the FBI as "justice."
I agree with what The Cat-Tribe said: the Attorney General's disagreement with the FBI is at worst a sign of incompetence, not malice. It could also very well be he's right, although that's admittedly less likely than the force that investigated the incident being right.

CT, I already knew this. That's why I said that it was my understanding that there never had been any real threat to Obama. I am talking about something that is not directly related to the case itself. I'm talking about attitudes. You have the media pushing a story about a discrepancy between what the FBI says and what the AG says, and the AG appears to be shrugging off the discrepancy. If it were me, I would be all over that to make sure there was NO appearance of a lack of concern from my office. But this AG seems not to be bothered if people think he's just treating this as three drunken hillbillies acting all silly and stuff.

And my point is that I personally do not believe he would be so calm and cavalier about it, if the target had been McCain rather than Obama. Is it because the CO AG can't work up the energy to act as if he cares about a black presidential candidate or just a Democratic one? Either way, I don't believe I would be hearing "meh, it was just aspirational" if they'd been "aspiring" to attack McCain.

Perhaps you can point out where the US Attorney for Colorado's remarks (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/co/press_releases/2008/August08/Remarks_082608.pdf) (pdf) differ from what you said you wanted to hear from him? Here is a relevant tid-bit (emphasis added):

As for the alleged threat to Senator Obama, the bottom line is this. We've conducted an intensive investigation, chased down numerous leads, and carefully reviewed the evidence to date. It is a very serious federal crime to threaten a Presidential candidate. In this case, however, there is insufficient evidence at this time to indicate a true threat, plot, or conspiracy against Senator Obama. The reported threats, hateful and bigoted though they were, involved a group of "meth heads"--methamphetamine users--all of whom were impaired at the time, and cannot be independently corroborated. The evidence involving the alleged threats does not warrant federal charges at this time. However, the investigation is still ongoing and we are all keeping an open mind.

And we've heard precious little detail about the alleged discrepency between the US Attorney and the FBI other than the OP article claiming at least one agent thought there should be "more serious charges to be filed against at least one of the suspects."

I would note that numerous federal charges have been brought against the men involved in the so-called plot and more could be brought later. The US Attorney just didn't file every possible charge against these guys without some evidence.

Again, I'm not saying the US Attorney got it right. I'm asking for actual data that indicates he got it wrong or has acted improperly.

On what facts are you basing the bolded statements?

Well, technically according to the rule that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, you're right that we don't know they were planning to kill him. I hate it when Nancy Grace ignores that fact, and I should perhaps have kept it more in mind. But all the evidence points that way, and the fact that they had sniper rifels, disguises, and body armor is suggestive of a certain ammount of preperation having already taken place.

And you know, we can give the Attorney the bennefit of the doubt. Perhaps he genuinely thought the evidence was insignificant. But it really isn't looking that way to me, and though I'm not a lawyer, it seems to me that he was overly quick to dismiss certain charges, and that at best that is indicitive of incompitance.

Is there a picture of these "sniper" rifles? Are they really anything more than scoped hunting rifles?

I don't know. Here is a description of the weapons:

A search of the vehicle following the arrest uncovered a loaded Ruger Model M77 Mark II 22-250 bolt-action rifle with a scope attached and a bi-pod. Also recovered was an unloaded Remington, Model 721 270 bolt-action rifle with an attached hunting scope, two boxes of ammunition, and a bullet proof/ballistic vest, among other things.

And just what is that supposed to mean?
Nothing. I was just being snotty to Colorado.

Perhaps you can point out where the US Attorney for Colorado's remarks (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/co/press_releases/2008/August08/Remarks_082608.pdf) (pdf) differ from what you said you wanted to hear from him?

And we've heard precious little detail about the alleged discrepency between the US Attorney and the FBI other than the OP article claiming at least one agent thought there should be "more serious charges to be filed against at least one of the suspects."

Again, I'm not saying the US Attorney got it right. I'm asking for actual data that indicates he got it wrong or has acted improperly.
Obviously I can't because, as I told you three times (now), I don't think he got it wrong, in terms of his actual case. I'm complaining about attitude.

Obviously, it is too minor a point for me to try to make. No doubt what bothered me about his statements is bothering only me and no one else. So forget I said anything. Just let it stand that the CO AG's tone bothers me. OK?

Well, technically according to the rule that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, you're right that we don't know they were planning to kill him.
Well, hypertechnically, the obligation to presume innocence until guilt is proven only applies to jurors or judges. We don't have any power to take away their liberty, so it doesn't matter so much if we reach wrong conclusions based on our limited knowledge.

Well, technically according to the rule that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, you're right that we don't know they were planning to kill him. I hate it when Nancy Grace ignores that fact, and I should perhaps have kept it more in mind. But all the evidence points that way, and the fact that they had sniper rifels, disguises, and body armor is suggestive of a certain ammount of preperation having already taken place.

And you know, we can give the Attorney the bennefit of the doubt. Perhaps he genuinely thought the evidence was insignificant. But it really isn't looking that way to me, and though I'm not a lawyer, it seems to me that he was overly quick to dismiss certain charges, and that at best that is indicitive of incompitance.

No charges have been dismissed. They just haven't been brought yet. At least according to the US Attorney, if facts sufficient to bring additional charges surface, additional charges will be filed.

I'm looking at the FBI affidavits now. I'm not talking about the presumption of innocence when I ask for facts supporting more serious charges. I'm asking what facts could reasonably be alleged to support attempted murder charges.

Nothing. I was just being snotty to Colorado.


Obviously I can't because, as I told you three times (now), I don't think he got it wrong, in terms of his actual case. I'm complaining about attitude.

Obviously, it is too minor a point for me to try to make. No doubt what bothered me about his statements is bothering only me and no one else. So forget I said anything. Just let it stand that the CO AG's tone bothers me. OK?

Oops. Please look at my updated post with more information. link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14033799&postcount=45)

Further investigation of the facts reveal the alleged "disagreement" between the FBI and the U.S. Attorney is, if not fictional, a major stretch.

The "federal court documents" referred to in the OP is the affidavit that one FBI agent filled out in order to get a search warrant on August 25, 2008 for the hotel room where the so-called plotting happened. In asking for the search warrant, the FBI agent said that there was probable cause to believe the defendants might have committed conspiracy or attempted murder, among other crimes.

Anyone familiar with search warrant applications will know that they include every possible allegation under the sun and are far from law enforcement's honest (let alone final) evaluation of a case.

Regardless, the FBI, Secret Service, ATF, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and local police departments together investigated these alleged threats against Obama for several days. The evidence of a threat to Obama amounts primarily to various contradictory statements made by the meth-heads about each other threatening to kill Obama.

So far, the result of those investigations are numerous federal charges against the three alleged plotters. Those charges don't happen to include conspiracy or attempted murder AT THIS TIME. The case is still being investigated.

Further investigation of the facts reveal the alleged "disagreement" between the FBI and the U.S. Attorney is, if not fictional, a major stretch.

The "federal court documents" referred to in the OP is the affidavit that one FBI agent filled out in order to get a search warrant on August 25, 2008 for the hotel room where the so-called plotting happened. In asking for the search warrant, the FBI agent said that there was probable cause to believe the defendants might have committed conspiracy or attempted murder, among other crimes.

Anyone familiar with search warrant applications will know that they include every possible allegation under the sun and are far from law enforcement's honest (let alone final) evaluation of a case.

Regardless, the FBI, Secret Service, ATF, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and local police departments together investigated these alleged threats against Obama for several days. The evidence of a threat to Obama amounts primarily to various contradictory statements made by the meth-heads about each other threatening to kill Obama.

So far, the result of those investigations are numerous federal charges against the three alleged plotters. Those charges don't happen to include conspiracy or attempted murder AT THIS TIME. The case is still being investigated.

Wait wait wait... you looked into the empirical facts about what happened and reached a conclusion based on those facts? Shame on you, sir. Shame.

Nothing. I was just being snotty to Colorado.


Oh. :(

Is there a quantifiable difference?

Sniper rifles may be accurized (lapped bolt faces, blueprinted receiver, tight fitting chamber, receiver bedding, free floating barrel, crystal clear optics with multiple adjustments for elevation and windage, etc), whereas a scoped hunting rifle is more than likely an off the shelf rifle with an off the shelf scope. In a media context however, the difference is which one sounds more evil.

The prosecution of the Liberty City Seven is hardly an example of either responsible or successful prosecutorial discretion.

Are are you saying these jackasses that threatened Obama should face charges not supported by the evidence?

Personally, I'd argue for neither getting charges not supported by the evidence. Just pointed out what looked like a precedent for pressing charges like that.

I don't know. Here is a description of the weapons:

A search of the vehicle following the arrest uncovered a loaded Ruger Model M77 Mark II 22-250 bolt-action rifle with a scope attached and a bi-pod. Also recovered was an unloaded Remington, Model 721 270 bolt-action rifle with an attached hunting scope, two boxes of ammunition, and a bullet proof/ballistic vest, among other things.

So they were hunting rifles (one of which had a bipod).

Well, looking at what TCT has posted, I was mislead by the source and my previous belief was in error. I should have investigated this more thoroughly before starting this thread.

Are these changes to add range or to deal with body armor? An unarmored human body doesn't need more punch than a deer.

Most modern centerfire rifle cartridges can penetrate soft armor already (including the common hunting calibers listed as recovered from the suspects).

Are these changes to add range or to deal with body armor? An unarmored human body doesn't need more punch than a deer.

range(shooting someone from 1 km away is better then 500 M), lethality(even unarmored people tend to survive gun shots with swift medical attention look at Reagan), and accuracy(best way to insure leathlity is to hit a vital area instead of the gut or arms). hunting rifles are rarely accurate past 500m off the self the scope just helps novices be more accurate. sniper rifles are often accurate to to 3 or more KM. Sniper rifles are also made for a certain optimal range. to work below that range would require changing out parts like the barrel.

Also the bullet flies faster at longer ranges giving more time delay between when the sound from when the target is hit and the sound wave arrives (1 second could be vital to escape).