Discussion for article #223333
Send him home.
They probably will after he finishes his prison sentence.
3 Likes
Great to hear from all the freedom fighters here at TPM.
Looks like the Feds couldn’t make this guy turn on imaginary co-conspirators – had to charge him up.
Welcome to Leavenworth kid.
1 Like
Sounds kinda ridiculous.
3 Likes
I don’t know who wrote the headline, but it is pretty crappy. I am already at your page and don’t need phony link bait to click through and read the article. Nothing about the indictment has anything to do with the fact the guy had dinner with the bombers. It has to do with his lying afterwards about what he did and did not know. The headline suggests that. And it was either just stupid or else falsely crass to write it that way.
3 Likes
“Feds charge man who cut Tsarnaev’s hair day after bombing. Toupee terrierism plot suspected,”
“Feds charge man who looked at Tsarnaev cross eyed in 7-11 Suspect in sawdust hot dog ring.”
“Feds charge Man who spits on sidewalk where Tsarnaev walked. Vow to clean up international crime.”
“Feds charge man who took same cab as Tsarnaev. Suspected of obstructing traffic.”
At what point does “guilt by association” become too comical for words?
When you’re desperate to build a “plot” or a “cell” around an event or a person for reasons other than justice. Like government funding for example.
3 Likes
“Guilt by association” becomes actual guilt when you start lying about it in police statements.
The only people that lie in police statements are the police.
Police statements, right?
Ever hear of a cop prosecuted for false statements on a police report?
2 Likes
Dear citizens, let’s keep in mind that we are just a definition of terrorism and a circumstance away from similar legal jeopardy.
As I recall, Sean Hannity called anyone who opposed the Iraq War a terrorist. Even Dr. Phil called them terrorist sympathizers.
So I might be paranoid, but… you know the rest.
1 Like
And anyone with an open mind and an interest in genuine justice (Like a first year law student) is going to ask:
a) Under what conditions were these statements made?
b) Was legal council available at the time?
c) Was the suspect under threat of having a large number of bullet holes put into his body if he said the wrong thing, or just happen to say, sneeze, during the course of “being interviewed.”(This is nominally called being under duress.)
These charges strike me as flimsy, and yet another crude attempt to find the “necessary” mountain" where the “Mole hill” was horrible enough as it is. They are trying to turn someone, and if this is the best they can do, given the case, it sounds like something out of “Night Court.”
1 Like
I’m not a lawyer, but the charges look rather weak to me. Call me crazy, but I have trust in the US legal system (most of the time), and if the charges are actually as weak as they seem to be, a Federal Court will probably come to the same conclusion. The case should be spectacular enough to attract a good pro bono lawyer for the defendent.
Did you merely read the headline, and not the article itself? He wasn’t charged for having dinner with them. From the article:
“The indictment charges Matanov with one count of destroying, altering, and falsifying records, documents, and tangible objects in a federal investigation – for trying to get rid of information on his computer – and three counts of making materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements in a federal terrorism investigation.”
Yes. It has happened.
Your “legal” opinion based on what? This article doesn’t detail the evidence they have, so the only thing flimsy is your comment.
Exactly. Not only did this kid lie in police statement, he expressed SUPPORT for the bombings on a few occasions as long as they were “for Islam”. A POS, and some clowns in here are defending him.
He expressed SUPPORT for the bombings several times as long as they were “for Islam”, and he lied to police several times. I’d say that crosses the line, and has nothing whatsoever to do with your detached analogies that have ZERO to do with this.
Why?
You might not be paranoid, but you obviously did not read the article or indictment. He expressed SUPPORT for the bombings on several occasions as long as they were “for Islam”. And he lied to police several times. Anyone who supported that bombing serves no useful purpose on this earth.