Portland mosque of kid FBI set up with fake bombs gets burned

[High_Gravity]

Reasonable doubt.....that's a Commie concept, isn't it?

He prefers the legal system where you are guilty until proven innocent.

Now you're really showing your stupidity.

Not even 10 years after 9/11, we have now reached the point where Americans feel sorry for the terrorists. People have more compassion for the Somali than the potential victims in this attack.

 

[AllieBaba]

The MSM was trying to slant the story the day after 9/11. It's not new.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't have to, anyone reading this post can see what your trying to do, talking about stuff like reasonable doubt. You sound like that Somalis lawyer.

Pointing out that the FBI has a history of entrapping young, Muslim, men into terror plots is bad because............

How did they entrap him into anything? this sick bastard wanted to kill as many Americans as possible. The FBI didn't brainwash him to think this way. Would you rather the FBI waited until he actually killed someone before they arrested him?

Let me try using smaller words. Wait, nothing I said was over two syllables, whay are you having trouble understanding?

The FBI has a history of entrapping people. The courts have consistently ruled that this is unconstitutional. The FBI is getting better at entrapping people without making the courts upset. These are simple facts. This in no way construes that the FBI entrapped Mohamud, nor does it count as sympathy for him.

The FBI obviously played politics and went for the grandstanding here. Portland has a long held practice of keeping their police under civilian control, which is why they opted out of the Joint Terrorism Task Force in the first place. Suddenly the FBI finds a terror plot happening in downtown Portland, with the mayor of said city in on at least part of the investigation, and the FBI feels the need to go as far as letting the guy send a signal to blow up the fake bomb. The only reason they did this was for headlines, and to promote the career of the involved agents. There is no other rational for carrying this plot as far as they did. This idiot could have caught on at any point and gone off the grid, and then you would be screaming that they let a terrorist run free instead of arresting him.

My position at least has the benefit of being both consistent and intellectually honest. They were wrong for not arresting him before they carried it this far, yet you think they did a great job. You are wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm basing my opinion on the reported facts. If you have a counter story that is backed up with eyewitness affidavits. I'd surely consider them and may reconsider my opinion. But I'm guessing you have nothing other than speculation.

I'm willing to wager that this kid will be found guilty in a court of law.

No you are not, you are basing your opinion on an affidavit. The facts will come out at the trial. I fail to see why you do not grasp the difference, even after it was explained to you.

I don't see how you cannot grasp the fact that I formed my opinion based on the emails, videos and eyewitness statements. You're willing to give this terrorist the benefit of the doubt without any supporting evidence. When he's convicted I expect you to eat some crow.

I cannot see how you fail to realize you have not seen the emails, videos, and witness statements. All you have seen is what the FBI says about them. The way the system works is that we give everyone the benefit of the doubt until all the evidence is in. He is not required to prove his innocence, the government is required to prove he is guilty. If he is convicted there will be no need for me to eat any crow, because the evidence will be out there for the jury, and us, to examine, and draw conclusions based on it, unlike what you are doing now, and basing your conclusion on nothing more than hearsay and one side of the story.

 

[High_Gravity]

Pointing out that the FBI has a history of entrapping young, Muslim, men into terror plots is bad because............

How did they entrap him into anything? this sick bastard wanted to kill as many Americans as possible. The FBI didn't brainwash him to think this way. Would you rather the FBI waited until he actually killed someone before they arrested him?

Let me try using smaller words. Wait, nothing I said was over two syllables, whay are you having trouble understanding?

The FBI has a history of entrapping people. The courts have consistently ruled that this is unconstitutional. The FBI is getting better at entrapping people without making the courts upset. These are simple facts. This in no way construes that the FBI entrapped Mohamud, nor does it count as sympathy for him.

The FBI obviously played politics and went for the grandstanding here. Portland has a long held practice of keeping their police under civilian control, which is why they opted out of the Joint Terrorism Task Force in the first place. Suddenly the FBI finds a terror plot happening in downtown Portland, with the mayor of said city in on at least part of the investigation, and the FBI feels the need to go as far as letting the guy send a signal to blow up the fake bomb. The only reason they did this was for headlines, and to promote the career of the involved agents. There is no other rational for carrying this plot as far as they did. This idiot could have caught on at any point and gone off the grid, and then you would be screaming that they let a terrorist run free instead of arresting him.

My position at least has the benefit of being both consistent and intellectually honest. They were wrong for not arresting him before they carried it this far, yet you think they did a great job. You are wrong.

I don't see what the FBI did here that was wrong, they were the ones who gave the explosives to the Somali so they knew it would not detonate. What did you want them to do, arrest the Somali before he even attempted to do anything so he could get off on a technicality? you would love that wouldn't you? your just mad your precious little terrorist is off the streets.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't have to, anyone reading this post can see what your trying to do, talking about stuff like reasonable doubt. You sound like that Somalis lawyer.

Pointing out that the FBI has a history of entrapping young, Muslim, men into terror plots is bad because............

Let's see some evidence of this alleged history. Cite some cases that were thrown out because of so-called "entrapment".

Seriously? Do you think somebody just made up the legal definition of entrapment in case it ever happened? What the fuck is wrong with the school system in this country?

Other states, however, had already begun reversing convictions on entrapment grounds.[5] Federal courts recognized entrapment as a defense starting with Woo Wai v. United States, 223 F.1d 412 (9th Cir. 1915).[6] The U.S. Supreme Court first declined to consider the question of entrapment in Casey v. United States, 276 U.S. 413
(1928), since the facts in the case were too vague to definitively rule on the question. Four years later, it did and in Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435
(1932) unanimously reversed the conviction of a North Carolina factory worker who gave in to an undercover Prohibition officer's repeated entreaties to get him some liquor. It identified the controlling question as "whether the defendant is a person otherwise innocent whom the government is seeking to punish for an alleged offense which is the product of the creative activity of its own officials".[7]
In Sherman v. United States (356 U.S. 369
(1958)), the Court considered a similar case in which one recovering drug addict working with federal agents from the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (a predecessor agency to today's Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)) solicited another to sell him drugs on the premise that his own efforts were failing. Again unanimous, its opinion focused more clearly on the defendant's predisposition to commit the offense, and on that basis overturned Sherman's conviction as well, since although he had two prior drug convictions, the most recent dated back five years. He was also attempting to rehabilitate himself, had made no profit on the sales and no drugs were found in his apartment when it was searched, suggesting the absence of a predisposition to break drug laws. "To determine whether entrapment has been established," it said, "a line must be drawn between the trap for the unwary innocent and the trap for the unwary criminal".[8]
Prosecutors won the next two times entrapment came before the Court, in United States v. Russell (411 U.S. 423
(1973)) and Hampton v. United States (425 U.S. 484
(1976)), albeit by narrow margins. In the former, the Court upheld the conviction of a Washington man for manufacturing methamphetamine even though an undercover agent had supplied some of the ingredients, and also pondered an "outrageous government conduct" defense, though it did not enable it. Hampton let stand, by a similar margin, the conviction of a Missouri man who had, upon seeing track marks on a DEA informant's arms, expressed interest in selling him heroin. After several sales to the informant and undercover agents, he was arrested. The defendant alleged he had been led to believe by the informant that he was not selling heroin but a counterfeit. The Court found he was adequately predisposed to sell heroin in any event.
This became known as the "subjective" test of entrapment, since it focused on the defendant's state of mind. However, in all cases, concurring opinions had advocated an "objective" test, focusing instead on whether the conduct of the police or other investigators would catch only those "ready and willing to commit crime."[9] Under the objective approach the defendant's personality (i.e., his predisposition to commit the crime) would be immaterial, and the potential for the police conduct to induce a law-abiding person considered in the abstract would be the test. This, supporters argued, avoided the dubious issue of an unexpressed legislative intent on which the Sorrells court had relied and instead grounded the entrapment defense, like the exclusionary rule, in the court's supervisory role over law enforcement. And like the exclusionary rule, they would have had judges, not juries, decide whether a defendant had been entrapped as a matter of law.[10]

Entrapment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[High_Gravity]

No you are not, you are basing your opinion on an affidavit. The facts will come out at the trial. I fail to see why you do not grasp the difference, even after it was explained to you.

I don't see how you cannot grasp the fact that I formed my opinion based on the emails, videos and eyewitness statements. You're willing to give this terrorist the benefit of the doubt without any supporting evidence. When he's convicted I expect you to eat some crow.

I cannot see how you fail to realize you have not seen the emails, videos, and witness statements. All you have seen is what the FBI says about them. The way the system works is that we give everyone the benefit of the doubt until all the evidence is in. He is not required to prove his innocence, the government is required to prove he is guilty. If he is convicted there will be no need for me to eat any crow, because the evidence will be out there for the jury, and us, to examine, and draw conclusions based on it, unlike what you are doing now, and basing your conclusion on nothing more than hearsay and one side of the story.

Your post is proof of how spoiled and whiney Americans have become, the FBI caught the Somali and you bitch and whine about how they did it, if they didn't bring in the Somali and he was actually successful in his attack you would still be on here bitching and whining about it. You should just be glad that they caught this guy but your not and you just want to complain.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No you are not, you are basing your opinion on an affidavit. The facts will come out at the trial. I fail to see why you do not grasp the difference, even after it was explained to you.

I don't see how you cannot grasp the fact that I formed my opinion based on the emails, videos and eyewitness statements. You're willing to give this terrorist the benefit of the doubt without any supporting evidence. When he's convicted I expect you to eat some crow.

I cannot see how you fail to realize you have not seen the emails, videos, and witness statements. All you have seen is what the FBI says about them. The way the system works is that we give everyone the benefit of the doubt until all the evidence is in. He is not required to prove his innocence, the government is required to prove he is guilty. If he is convicted there will be no need for me to eat any crow, because the evidence will be out there for the jury, and us, to examine, and draw conclusions based on it, unlike what you are doing now, and basing your conclusion on nothing more than hearsay and one side of the story.

Are you willing to wager he'll be exonerated?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Pointing out that the FBI has a history of entrapping young, Muslim, men into terror plots is bad because............

How did they entrap him into anything? this sick bastard wanted to kill as many Americans as possible. The FBI didn't brainwash him to think this way. Would you rather the FBI waited until he actually killed someone before they arrested him?

Let me try using smaller words. Wait, nothing I said was over two syllables, whay are you having trouble understanding?

The FBI has a history of entrapping people. The courts have consistently ruled that this is unconstitutional. The FBI is getting better at entrapping people without making the courts upset. These are simple facts. This in no way construes that the FBI entrapped Mohamud, nor does it count as sympathy for him.

The FBI obviously played politics and went for the grandstanding here. Portland has a long held practice of keeping their police under civilian control, which is why they opted out of the Joint Terrorism Task Force in the first place. Suddenly the FBI finds a terror plot happening in downtown Portland, with the mayor of said city in on at least part of the investigation, and the FBI feels the need to go as far as letting the guy send a signal to blow up the fake bomb. The only reason they did this was for headlines, and to promote the career of the involved agents. There is no other rational for carrying this plot as far as they did. This idiot could have caught on at any point and gone off the grid, and then you would be screaming that they let a terrorist run free instead of arresting him.

My position at least has the benefit of being both consistent and intellectually honest. They were wrong for not arresting him before they carried it this far, yet you think they did a great job. You are wrong.

This is the second time you said the FBI has a history of entrapping people. Let's see your evidence!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Pointing out that the FBI has a history of entrapping young, Muslim, men into terror plots is bad because............

Let's see some evidence of this alleged history. Cite some cases that were thrown out because of so-called "entrapment".

Seriously? Do you think somebody just made up the legal definition of entrapment in case it ever happened? What the fuck is wrong with the school system in this country?

Other states, however, had already begun reversing convictions on entrapment grounds.[5] Federal courts recognized entrapment as a defense starting with Woo Wai v. United States, 223 F.1d 412 (9th Cir. 1915).[6] The U.S. Supreme Court first declined to consider the question of entrapment in Casey v. United States, 276 U.S. 413
(1928), since the facts in the case were too vague to definitively rule on the question. Four years later, it did and in Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435
(1932) unanimously reversed the conviction of a North Carolina factory worker who gave in to an undercover Prohibition officer's repeated entreaties to get him some liquor. It identified the controlling question as "whether the defendant is a person otherwise innocent whom the government is seeking to punish for an alleged offense which is the product of the creative activity of its own officials".[7]
In Sherman v. United States (356 U.S. 369
(1958)), the Court considered a similar case in which one recovering drug addict working with federal agents from the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (a predecessor agency to today's Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)) solicited another to sell him drugs on the premise that his own efforts were failing. Again unanimous, its opinion focused more clearly on the defendant's predisposition to commit the offense, and on that basis overturned Sherman's conviction as well, since although he had two prior drug convictions, the most recent dated back five years. He was also attempting to rehabilitate himself, had made no profit on the sales and no drugs were found in his apartment when it was searched, suggesting the absence of a predisposition to break drug laws. "To determine whether entrapment has been established," it said, "a line must be drawn between the trap for the unwary innocent and the trap for the unwary criminal".[8]
Prosecutors won the next two times entrapment came before the Court, in United States v. Russell (411 U.S. 423
(1973)) and Hampton v. United States (425 U.S. 484
(1976)), albeit by narrow margins. In the former, the Court upheld the conviction of a Washington man for manufacturing methamphetamine even though an undercover agent had supplied some of the ingredients, and also pondered an "outrageous government conduct" defense, though it did not enable it. Hampton let stand, by a similar margin, the conviction of a Missouri man who had, upon seeing track marks on a DEA informant's arms, expressed interest in selling him heroin. After several sales to the informant and undercover agents, he was arrested. The defendant alleged he had been led to believe by the informant that he was not selling heroin but a counterfeit. The Court found he was adequately predisposed to sell heroin in any event.
This became known as the "subjective" test of entrapment, since it focused on the defendant's state of mind. However, in all cases, concurring opinions had advocated an "objective" test, focusing instead on whether the conduct of the police or other investigators would catch only those "ready and willing to commit crime."[9] Under the objective approach the defendant's personality (i.e., his predisposition to commit the crime) would be immaterial, and the potential for the police conduct to induce a law-abiding person considered in the abstract would be the test. This, supporters argued, avoided the dubious issue of an unexpressed legislative intent on which the Sorrells court had relied and instead grounded the entrapment defense, like the exclusionary rule, in the court's supervisory role over law enforcement. And like the exclusionary rule, they would have had judges, not juries, decide whether a defendant had been entrapped as a matter of law.[10]

Entrapment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And how many involved the FBI?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't see how you cannot grasp the fact that I formed my opinion based on the emails, videos and eyewitness statements. You're willing to give this terrorist the benefit of the doubt without any supporting evidence. When he's convicted I expect you to eat some crow.

I cannot see how you fail to realize you have not seen the emails, videos, and witness statements. All you have seen is what the FBI says about them. The way the system works is that we give everyone the benefit of the doubt until all the evidence is in. He is not required to prove his innocence, the government is required to prove he is guilty. If he is convicted there will be no need for me to eat any crow, because the evidence will be out there for the jury, and us, to examine, and draw conclusions based on it, unlike what you are doing now, and basing your conclusion on nothing more than hearsay and one side of the story.

Your post is proof of how spoiled and whiney Americans have become, the FBI caught the Somali and you bitch and whine about how they did it, if they didn't bring in the Somali and he was actually successful in his attack you would still be on here bitching and whining about it. You should just be glad that they caught this guy but your not and you just want to complain.

Insisting that any law enforcement agency that represents me follow the Constitution of the United States is bitching and whining? The weird thing about this is you think I am whacked.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't see how you cannot grasp the fact that I formed my opinion based on the emails, videos and eyewitness statements. You're willing to give this terrorist the benefit of the doubt without any supporting evidence. When he's convicted I expect you to eat some crow.

I cannot see how you fail to realize you have not seen the emails, videos, and witness statements. All you have seen is what the FBI says about them. The way the system works is that we give everyone the benefit of the doubt until all the evidence is in. He is not required to prove his innocence, the government is required to prove he is guilty. If he is convicted there will be no need for me to eat any crow, because the evidence will be out there for the jury, and us, to examine, and draw conclusions based on it, unlike what you are doing now, and basing your conclusion on nothing more than hearsay and one side of the story.

Are you willing to wager he'll be exonerated?

Why would I want to bet on something I think is unlikely? I have said more than once the FBI probably has enough evidence to get a conviction, yet you are running around accusing me of supporting terrorism, and all sorts of other things. The reason so many people here are laughing about that is that I have posted here that we may have to go to war with Islam because it is a clear and present danger to our way of life. Every time you try to paint me as a bleeding heart liberal with no common sense you just look more silly.

Enjoy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let's see some evidence of this alleged history. Cite some cases that were thrown out because of so-called "entrapment".

Seriously? Do you think somebody just made up the legal definition of entrapment in case it ever happened? What the fuck is wrong with the school system in this country?

Other states, however, had already begun reversing convictions on entrapment grounds.[5] Federal courts recognized entrapment as a defense starting with Woo Wai v. United States, 223 F.1d 412 (9th Cir. 1915).[6] The U.S. Supreme Court first declined to consider the question of entrapment in Casey v. United States, 276 U.S. 413
(1928), since the facts in the case were too vague to definitively rule on the question. Four years later, it did and in Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435
(1932) unanimously reversed the conviction of a North Carolina factory worker who gave in to an undercover Prohibition officer's repeated entreaties to get him some liquor. It identified the controlling question as "whether the defendant is a person otherwise innocent whom the government is seeking to punish for an alleged offense which is the product of the creative activity of its own officials".[7]
In Sherman v. United States (356 U.S. 369
(1958)), the Court considered a similar case in which one recovering drug addict working with federal agents from the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (a predecessor agency to today's Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)) solicited another to sell him drugs on the premise that his own efforts were failing. Again unanimous, its opinion focused more clearly on the defendant's predisposition to commit the offense, and on that basis overturned Sherman's conviction as well, since although he had two prior drug convictions, the most recent dated back five years. He was also attempting to rehabilitate himself, had made no profit on the sales and no drugs were found in his apartment when it was searched, suggesting the absence of a predisposition to break drug laws. "To determine whether entrapment has been established," it said, "a line must be drawn between the trap for the unwary innocent and the trap for the unwary criminal".[8]
Prosecutors won the next two times entrapment came before the Court, in United States v. Russell (411 U.S. 423
(1973)) and Hampton v. United States (425 U.S. 484
(1976)), albeit by narrow margins. In the former, the Court upheld the conviction of a Washington man for manufacturing methamphetamine even though an undercover agent had supplied some of the ingredients, and also pondered an "outrageous government conduct" defense, though it did not enable it. Hampton let stand, by a similar margin, the conviction of a Missouri man who had, upon seeing track marks on a DEA informant's arms, expressed interest in selling him heroin. After several sales to the informant and undercover agents, he was arrested. The defendant alleged he had been led to believe by the informant that he was not selling heroin but a counterfeit. The Court found he was adequately predisposed to sell heroin in any event.
This became known as the "subjective" test of entrapment, since it focused on the defendant's state of mind. However, in all cases, concurring opinions had advocated an "objective" test, focusing instead on whether the conduct of the police or other investigators would catch only those "ready and willing to commit crime."[9] Under the objective approach the defendant's personality (i.e., his predisposition to commit the crime) would be immaterial, and the potential for the police conduct to induce a law-abiding person considered in the abstract would be the test. This, supporters argued, avoided the dubious issue of an unexpressed legislative intent on which the Sorrells court had relied and instead grounded the entrapment defense, like the exclusionary rule, in the court's supervisory role over law enforcement. And like the exclusionary rule, they would have had judges, not juries, decide whether a defendant had been entrapped as a matter of law.[10]

Entrapment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And how many involved the FBI?

You must have excelled in school at getting other people to do your homework for you. My guess is that you were a star athlete, and would not even have graduated without that going for you. Do the research yourself.

 

[DiveCon]

I cannot see how you fail to realize you have not seen the emails, videos, and witness statements. All you have seen is what the FBI says about them. The way the system works is that we give everyone the benefit of the doubt until all the evidence is in. He is not required to prove his innocence, the government is required to prove he is guilty. If he is convicted there will be no need for me to eat any crow, because the evidence will be out there for the jury, and us, to examine, and draw conclusions based on it, unlike what you are doing now, and basing your conclusion on nothing more than hearsay and one side of the story.

Are you willing to wager he'll be exonerated?

Why would I want to bet on something I think is unlikely? I have said more than once the FBI probably has enough evidence to get a conviction, yet you are running around accusing me of supporting terrorism, and all sorts of other things. The reason so many people here are laughing about that is that I have posted here that we may have to go to war with Islam because it is a clear and present danger to our way of life. Every time you try to paint me as a bleeding heart liberal with no common sense you just look more silly.

Enjoy.

i dont see you are a liberal at all
but i think you are being paranoid in thinking this guy was entrapped

 

[AllieBaba]

At this point, I'm totally confused.
I think I've thanked or repped both sides at least once.

What were they arguing about again?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you willing to wager he'll be exonerated?

Why would I want to bet on something I think is unlikely? I have said more than once the FBI probably has enough evidence to get a conviction, yet you are running around accusing me of supporting terrorism, and all sorts of other things. The reason so many people here are laughing about that is that I have posted here that we may have to go to war with Islam because it is a clear and present danger to our way of life. Every time you try to paint me as a bleeding heart liberal with no common sense you just look more silly.

Enjoy.

i dont see you are a liberal at all
but i think you are being paranoid in thinking this guy was entrapped

I think the FBI was very careful to ensure they did not entrap him, hence the missing recording form the first meeting.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I cannot see how you fail to realize you have not seen the emails, videos, and witness statements. All you have seen is what the FBI says about them. The way the system works is that we give everyone the benefit of the doubt until all the evidence is in. He is not required to prove his innocence, the government is required to prove he is guilty. If he is convicted there will be no need for me to eat any crow, because the evidence will be out there for the jury, and us, to examine, and draw conclusions based on it, unlike what you are doing now, and basing your conclusion on nothing more than hearsay and one side of the story.

Are you willing to wager he'll be exonerated?

Why would I want to bet on something I think is unlikely? I have said more than once the FBI probably has enough evidence to get a conviction, yet you are running around accusing me of supporting terrorism, and all sorts of other things. The reason so many people here are laughing about that is that I have posted here that we may have to go to war with Islam because it is a clear and present danger to our way of life. Every time you try to paint me as a bleeding heart liberal with no common sense you just look more silly.

Enjoy.

I never accused you of any such thing. But I find it odd that on one hand you defend the terrorist and are willling to give him the benefit of the doubt but then expect a conviction on the other.

If you're painted as a bleeding heart liberal that is of your own doing and I must say that coming to the defense of a terrorist probably helped.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Seriously? Do you think somebody just made up the legal definition of entrapment in case it ever happened? What the fuck is wrong with the school system in this country?

Entrapment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And how many involved the FBI?

You must have excelled in school at getting other people to do your homework for you. My guess is that you were a star athlete, and would not even have graduated without that going for you. Do the research yourself.

In other words, you can't support your claim.

You're concession is duly noted.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you willing to wager he'll be exonerated?

Why would I want to bet on something I think is unlikely? I have said more than once the FBI probably has enough evidence to get a conviction, yet you are running around accusing me of supporting terrorism, and all sorts of other things. The reason so many people here are laughing about that is that I have posted here that we may have to go to war with Islam because it is a clear and present danger to our way of life. Every time you try to paint me as a bleeding heart liberal with no common sense you just look more silly.

Enjoy.

I never accused you of any such thing. But I find it odd that on one hand you defend the terrorist and are willling to give him the benefit of the doubt but then expect a conviction on the other.

If you're painted as a bleeding heart liberal that is of your own doing and I must say that coming to the defense of a terrorist probably helped.

Why? He is innocent until proven guilty, that is a fact. Another fact is that the government rarely looses when it decides to go after someone, even if they are innocent. That is because the entire system is set up to favor the prosecution, and the defense is not allowed to tell the jury that they have a right to decide issues of law, and nullify any law they think is unconstitutional. The first is being principled, and the second is being cynical. I am a principled cynic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And how many involved the FBI?

You must have excelled in school at getting other people to do your homework for you. My guess is that you were a star athlete, and would not even have graduated without that going for you. Do the research yourself.

In other words, you can't support your claim.

You're concession is duly noted.

I did support my claim, your confusion is duly noted.