2 defendants acquitted in Michigan governor kidnapping case; mistrial declared for 2 others

Moon said:

(CNN) - A federal jury on Friday found two men accused of plotting to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer not guilty of kidnapping conspiracy and a mistrial was declared for two other defendants.

Adam Fox, Barry Croft, Daniel Harris and Brandon Caserta faced federal charges for allegedly conspiring to kidnap the Democratic governor.

Harris and Caserta were found not guilty of kidnapping conspiracy. The jury also found Harris not guilty on other charges. The jury could not reach a verdict for Fox and Croft, after which US District Judge Robert Jonker declared a mistrial for those defendants.


https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/08/politics/whitmer-trial/index.html


That was unexpected. It will be interesting to see the analysis of the verdicts.

Click to expand...

At the time, there was talk of the group having been composed of some civilians and some FBI plants.

I'll be interested to hear if the FBI guys were the prime movers in this.

If so, that opens up a whole additional direction of questions to consider.

jmotivator said:

Whether BUsh/RUmsfeld claimed they could is immaterial, you tried to pull in Guantanamo as if there were defendents from FBI stings in GITMO. There aren't.



Actually, no you didn't answer it. That isn't an answer to the question I asked. I asked if you support the policy of the FBI to take active roles in recruitment and development of conspiracies in order to catch people who might possibly have eventually committed the crime on their own. So do you?

Incarceratinng people who might never have committed a crime if left to themselves is a perversion of the justice system.



No, I did not. Do you EVER bother checking your stupid claims? Trump was brought to that discussion IN THE FIRST POST. Go back and read that thread from the beginning... I count Trump's name being tied to the militia over 20 times on the first page.



You are incapable of having an honest debate.

Click to expand...

No, I admit I was wrong, the thread was full of posts blaming Trump stoking far right extremist groups (probably a "stand down and stand by" related response, I wasn't among the crowd but I see why they mentioned it). So I admit I missed that one. Now you repeatedly said you didn't call the group antifa. Sooooooooo you said THIS in the thread:

Is t that specific set of crime and target? No. It's assassination sometimes, it's Senate leaders. But plots that never happen always get less press than plots that do. I'm still amazed at how fast the Bernie Bro shooting up the Republican baseball practice fell out of the news.

And it's not bigger news because the kidnappers were Antifa anarchists who hated Trump.

Maybe you can admit you might have not quite accurately represented your posts. The topic of FBI and police overreach is bigger than this one story. I said a million times, why do you care about this story so much but you have never spoken out about those who are in prison because they were entrapped? You don't support them. You rant about commies and ISIS and America hating pinkos all the time. I am 100% against the FBI entrapping people. No tricks. VERY SPECIFICALLY, the fbi informant went too far because the charges should have related to the group's violent plans which are well documented. However, my condemnation extends to other cases. You? Nah. Condemn this. You can say "I'm against all of them," but that means nada. You aren't informed and for the one millionth time you STILL CAN'T DEFINE ENTRAPMENT correctly and you don't know the facts of this case. The fbi didn't come up with the kidnapping plot, you said so yourself. It was just the silly homeless crackhead! Innocent amirite? No, bad fbi informant, obvious domestic terrorists who were plotting to overthrow the michigan legislature. That's not a thought crime, they were actively recruiting for the plot.

I responded to every single question you asked me multiple times and you still didn't answer my questions. Are they terrorists? Why treat them differently from the Newburgh Four? You want to argue semantics, because I used the word "race" and "muslim" in the same paragraph? Come on. Weak. But keep trying to have the last word and "win points" even though anybody reading this would see that you argue from the perspective of partisan hack, ignorant onlooker, and uninformed flip flopper. And you never correctly defined entrapment, described a cohesive viewpoint of law enforcement overreach or corrected any of the many, many mistakes you made. I corrected my mistake. Up there. Now you'll run away but I'm sure you'll call me at least two names first.

dcsports said:

You are horribly mixing issues. The enemy combatants housed at Guantanamo were captured in a combat zone - not the US. They never entered US soil. They were not US citizens. Their actions didn't occur in the US. They were brought to Guantanamo (in a process I don't fully agree with) to keep them off US soil so that US law wouldn't apply.

People who commit crimes in the US are committed to the US court system.

Click to expand...

You liked the post that said I don't know what I'm talking about and ignored my post showing you that american citizens have mysteriously vanished and been found in guantanamo. That's one way to remain ignorant.

Mustachio said:

You liked the post that said I don't know what I'm talking about and ignored my post showing you that american citizens have mysteriously vanished and been found in guantanamo.

Click to expand...

OK.

What American citizens were moved from the US to Guantanamo? Sounds like something for the CT forum.

dcsports said:

OK.

What American citizens were moved from the US to Guantanamo? Sounds like something for the CT forum.

Click to expand...

My first reply to you had an article about it. Exceedingly rare, but gray area per the provisions of the national defense authorization act. Rumsfeld argued it was legal to declare American citizens enemy combatants, the courts disagree but as in the case I linked to they held him for 4 years before a judge saw him. Us citizens overseas have been targeted by drones and certainly are fair game. But domestic terrorists are mysteriously exempt. No us citizen should be refused due process and few are. But it does happen

And thank you for the measured response I’m a little disappointed by things in general and I try to be civil.

Mustachio said:

Oh is that so?

Click to expand...

Broken link. Is this the article?


If so... it refers to an American captured in Iraq (not the US) who was with a terrorist group in Iraq, and held in Iraq (not Cuba).

Mustachio said:

My first reply to you had an article about it. Exceedingly rare, but gray area per the provisions of the national defense authorization act. Rumsfeld argued it was legal to declare American citizens enemy combatants, the courts disagree but as in the case I linked to they held him for 4 years before a judge saw him. Us citizens overseas have been targeted by drones and certainly are fair game. But domestic terrorists are mysteriously exempt. No us citizen should be refused due process and few are. But it does happen

And thank you for the measured response I’m a little disappointed by things in general and I try to be civil.

Click to expand...

I think I found what you are referring to, although there's a broken link. Doesn't appear to be someone moved from the US to Guantanamo though. Big difference between a US citizen captured committing crimes in another country and being held there, vs committing crimes in the US.

Thank you for the civil discussion as well. Too many people here like to just throw poo.

dcsports said:

I think I found what you are referring to, although there's a broken link. Doesn't appear to be someone moved from the US to Guantanamo though. Big difference between a US citizen captured committing crimes in another country and being held there, vs committing crimes in the US.

Thank you for the civil discussion as well. Too many people here like to just throw poo.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree, here's an article aboout the Rumsfeld "opinion" which is that the constitution means whatever they want. Again, the courts say no, but twice a president has said "sure" and.... nobody is held accountable, "illegal," "legal," he was there for years