It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Why did George H.W. Bush and his cabinet determine that John W. Hinckley Jr. — the man who in 1981 tried to kill the newly inaugurated President Ronald Reagan — was a lone nut, and no conspiracy, foreign or domestic, was involved? How did they arrive at this conclusion just five hours after the shooting, without any thorough examination?
And why won’t the Federal Bureau of Investigation release its documents on the shooter?
The Hinckleys and the Bushes have been friendly for decades, going back to the days when both families set down stakes in the dusty town of Midland, Texas, a magnet for the children of wealthy, East Coast families seeking to cash in on the oil boom.
The Hinckleys were donors to Poppy Bush’s political campaigns over the years, and they gave to support the first, unsuccessful bid for Congress of the young George W. Bush, in 1978. The families lived close to each other, they socialized; I saw indications that, at one point, they may have shared the same lawyer.
Even more strangely, Neil Bush, son of the vice president, was scheduled to have dinner with Hinckley’s brother, Scott, the day after the shooting.
Genealogy chart showing how George W. Bush (43rd U.S. President) is the 9th cousin to John Hinckley, Jr. (Shot President Ronald Reagan) via their common ...
John Hinckley Jr., who shot Ronald Reagan, freed for good from .... Sep 10, 2016 - The man who shot President Ronald Reagan is scheduled to leave a Washington mental hospital for good today. Reported to have been driven by an obsessive fixation on Jodie Foster, Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity and remained under institutional psychiatric care until September 2016. Public outcry over the verdict led to the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, which altered the rules for consideration of mental illness of defendants in Federal Criminal Court proceedings in the United States. He was released from institutional psychiatric care on September 10, 2016, and lives with his mother.
originally posted by: LordAhriman
Oh here we go. Defend all MAGA!
originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: seeker1963
I condemn any and all acts of violence unless it is me against those that harm my family.
In regards to this “Antifa” bunch I believe that is a self proclaimed thingy. Not an organized group. That could by why they are not labeled as a threat. Plus who is scared of a bunch of liberal cry babies anyways? Certainly not I.
originally posted by: darkbake
If the bombs were meant to go off, I would have a LOT of trouble seeing the guy as NOT a domestic terrorist. He was targeting political figures. But the bombs were likely not meant to harm anyone, so I can see the gray area.
(( a long term sleeper ?
“Sayoc” may be an alias. There are now many corroborated reports that “Sayoc” is not his real last name, that his real name is Cesar Altieri Randazzo, which could explain how whoever Sayoc is is a registered Republican
originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover ""domestic,"" as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act "dangerous to human life" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.
The first question is, the 13 devices that were mailed, were the functional bombs? If they were not functional, then there was never any action ‘"dangerous to human life". So that he mean he’s not a domestic terrorist.
(i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
I would say yes to intimidate, but I think saying the civilian population is a stretch.
(ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;
This is a No, unless you want to say the bombing was to make Trump go after democrats that break the laws. Like, it the governement isn’t going to enforce the law. We, the people, we deal justice. That’s thin, very thin and wouldn’t get play in the MSM
or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.
If the devices were not functional, then all of iii is out too.
I don’t see how one can call him a domestic terrorist, lots of other things, yeah, but tomestic terrorist...no
What day you ATS?
Is Cesar Sayoc a domestic terrorist??
originally posted by: stonerwilliam
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
I posted this in another thread last night imgur.com... and everybody seems to be going over the stickers in the back right hand window of his vehicle ?
Something is amiss here , maybe we should be looking at other things NOT getting reported Did Saudis, CIA Fear Khashoggi 9/11 Bombshell
Did the Government of Canada and the City of Toronto Cover Up A Terrorist Plot to Commit Mass Murder?
Are things to Google