From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Judges Fear for Their Safety Amid a Wave of Threats from Trump
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 08:52:40 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 2025-03-22 22:21, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2025 19:15:26 -0700, Alan says...
>
>>
>> On 2025-03-22 14:51, Skeeter wrote:
>>> In article <vrn8fu$or5h$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On 2025-03-22 10:37, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>> In article <vrmqcc$8osm$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2025-03-19 19:07, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 14:15:46 -0700, Rudy Canoza, forever the mental and
>>>>>>> physical midget, who was *NEVER* a three sport letterman, like me, and who
>>>>>>> was *NEVER* a bouncer, like me, and who was *NEVER* an assistant golf pro,
>>>>>>> like me, and who was *NEVER* a lifeguard, like me, and who *NEVER* dunked a
>>>>>>> basketball, like me, and has *NEVER* laid as many women as me, says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> President Trump?s angry call on Tuesday for the impeachment of a federal judge
>>>>>>>> who ruled against his administration...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Illegally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Judges, who commit crimes, shouldn't be, impeached?
>>>>>> What "crimes", Phil?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ruling against Trump isn't a crime.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is burning Teslas a crime?
>>>>
>>>> Of course it is.
>>>>
>>>> What a stupid question.
>>>>
>>>> What it isn't is domestic terrorism.
>>>
>>> Yes I think it is and I support that. The party of equality and joy is a
>>> fucking joke.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Why is vandalism suddenly "domestic terrorism"?
>
> "Yes, burning someone's property can be considered domestic terrorism if it
> is DONE TO FURTHER IDEOLOGICAL GOALS and INVOLVES VIOLENT ACTS. Such actions
> are often prosecuted under laws related to arson AND terrorism."
>
> "In the United States, for example, domestic terrorism is generally defined
> under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2331) as involving ACTS DANGEROUS TO HUMAN
> LIFE that VIOLATE CRIMINAL LAWS, INTENDED TO INTIMIDATE OR COERCE a civilian
> population (civilian's cars are being burned), INFLUENCE GOVERNMENT POLICY
> THROUGH INTIMIDATION, or AFFECT GOVERNMENT CONDUCT by mass destruction.
>
> Burning someone's property could fit this definition if it's done with the
> intent to terrorize A GROUP OF PEOPLE, SEND A BROADER MESSAGE, OR COERCE SOME
> SOCIETAL OR GOVERNMENTAL CHANGE-like, say, targeting a specific community's
> homes... (and in this case, their cars.)"
If that's a quote as you claim, who are you quoting?