10 ms·

The FBI Team Sent to ‘Exploit’ Protesters’ Phones in Portland

182 points by panic 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rshnotsecure 6y ago
I encourage all to look at the DNS hosting records for fbi.gov. They are bizarre. There is a big identity question with who the FBI is right now. I'm not confident any unit or person is from the FBI until I see strong evidence / identification they bring with them. A good example is how more and more subdomains keep slipping behind CloudFlare. Those could be hosted anywhere. Another example, which I spoke to the FBI Los Angeles office this morning about, is Infragard Los Angeles. They literally have subdomains hosted in mainland China. What is going on here? [1] [1] - https://www.infragardlosangeles.org/ https://www.infragardlosangeles.org/
- Der_Einzige 6y ago
  Looks like the glowies and spooks are already out and doing damage control based on the color of your post. :(
  - chance_state 6y ago
    Yes, it's well known that the FBI deploys teams of agents to downvote comments on posts on HN. It's definitely not that most people think this kind of talk is insane. Definitely not that. It's the FBI.
    - balancer 6y ago
      No gaslighting, please. It's called COINTELPRO. Here is a great resource for those that aren't aware: https://archive.is/YpeXZ https://archive.is/YpeXZ
      - Natsu 6y ago
        If you really want to go down rabbit holes, COINTELPRO was run by Mark Felt, who is better known as Deep Throat.
      - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
        No, it’s not called COINTELPRO. That was a program from half a century ago. Nobody left at the current FBI even worked there when that program existed.
        balancer 6y ago
        COINTELPRO is common online vernacular for "spooks on the internet". In the the linked article it makes this clear, the programs have new names and the paper trail is minimized. In any case, it is clear as day when shills start shilling. Like I said, please, no gaslighting.
  - themodelplumber 6y ago
    I DV'd after reading the first three sentences. DNS records are not ample evidence that a government organization's identity is in question. I can think of a lot of reasons why the records would be so diverse. So to me this is not only illogical, irrational, and invalid on its face, but it's also muddying already-muddy waters while failing to meet that qualitative standard. By all means update us again when there's more credible evidence.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    Jumping from DNS records to massive efforts to undermine/impersonate/subvert parts of the FBI is quite a leap. I'm sure the OP's LA FBI contact appreciated the laugh they had when their local Dwight Schrute called them to complain about the web hosting of the "private" part of a public-private partnership.
malwarebytess 6y ago
>Among the special powers granted exclusively to the FBI under a Reagan-era executive order (No. 12333) are authorizations to conduct “unconsented physical searches” and “physical surveillance” for intelligence purposes in the US. The Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment generally requires law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant before searching cell phone data, but there is an exception for “exigent circumstances,” which is supposed to apply only to extreme situations in which lives are in danger. It seems like a clear cut abuse of power. These aren't exigent circumstances, they're protests, and besides that it's not a federal problem. It seems like the 4th amendment doesn't have any power any more.
- 2bitencryption 6y ago
  I feel like programmers/engineers/technical-minded people have an easier time being terrified at this kind of "exception" for "exigent circumtances". Because that type of person is well aware that an "exception to a rule" really just means the rule is formally worthless, since it provides no guarantee whatsoever. or maybe I'm just projecting how I think.
  - roughly 6y ago
    You'd think this would generalize, but ask anyone who does security or has more than 10 minutes of social science education about programmers' general ability to ignore side effects and unintentional consequences...
  - gruez 6y ago
    > Because that type of person is well aware that an "exception to a rule" really just means the rule is formally worthless, since it provides no guarantee whatsoever. If you think about it, rules themselves provide no guarantee whatsoever. They're only as strong as the institutions (aka. people) enforcing them. Some text in a book somewhere provides zero guarantee that some cop isn't going to assault you for talking back at him, or some general isn't going to turn the country into a dictatorship.
    - 6y ago
bladegash 6y ago
This article seems highly misleading in its conclusions. For example, quoting, "initial exploitation of phones, or other communication devices" without any of the context in the e-mail makes it appear far worse than what seems to have taken place. The context for that quote, is that an individual was arrested for Misdemeanor Assault on a federal officer, specifically due to shining laser pointers at their eyes. Upon physical search of the individual, it was found he was, "carrying a machete, a large mortar firework and a section of galvanized pipe with endcaps and fuze assembly". Lastly, and likely most importantly, the individual consented to his phone being searched. Now, to the original quote: "CTD is sending Fly Team Agents to cover the interviews of individuals arrested during the night and early-morning hours this weekend. They will also conduct initial exploitation of phones, or other communication devices they are carrying. These Agents may uncover a situation like the one described in the previous paragraph...". There is nothing in here that implies they intended to search the phones without a search warrant of consent. Law enforcement officals do not make it a routine matter to specify, "They will also conduct initial exploitation of phones, or other communication devices they are carrying once they have a search warrant or consent from the individual". That would be equivalent to me saying to a SWE, "I need you to go and complete X task", then qualifying it with, "and make sure you do x, y, z, a, b, c task that I already know you know and were taught to do". The title of this article should really read, "FBI Team Sent to 'Exploit' Criminal's Phones in Portland". The fact that the individual(s) also happened to be protestors, is really irrelevant and highly connotative. There is nothing in the First Amendment that gives someone the right to threaten and/or carry out actual violence against another individual, nor should it allow for that. Not to mention, there are specific Federal statutes regarding assault against federal officials. Frankly, if I was a protestor exercising my First Amendment rights, I'd be pissed that someone was carrying what appears to be a pipe-bomb to what was supposed to be a peaceful protest.
- jtxx 6y ago
  I do think most people protesting are of the sentiment you note in your last paragraph
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
rglover 6y ago
Important part: > "Nothing in the emails indicates that the DHS or the FBI exceeded its legal authorities in Portland. But it is not generally understood how extensive those authorities in fact are—they go far beyond those held by the DHS, especially if the president and attorney general get involved. Among the special powers granted exclusively to the FBI under a Reagan-era executive order (No. 12333) are authorizations to conduct “unconsented physical searches” and “physical surveillance” for intelligence purposes in the US. The Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment generally requires law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant before searching cell phone data, but there is an exception for “exigent circumstances,” which is supposed to apply only to extreme situations in which lives are in danger." Despite the constant repetition of the "peaceful protestors" falsehood (a clever tactic to sweep the destruction and violence under the rug), peoples lives were being put in danger. Not just in Portland, but all over the country, and local law enforcement weren't doing their jobs. > “It’s high time for the FBI and DHS to give Oregonians a straight answer about what their agents have been up to in Portland,” he said in a statement. “The full extent of federal surveillance in Portland remains unknown, but it would be outrageous if Oregonians were targeted because of their political activities.” "Political activities" is just more clever turn-of-phrase to say "lighting things on fire and destroying private and public property with [politics] as a convenient excuse." There's a big gap between organizing, speaking, and holding up signs and throwing molotov cocktails into crowds. A lot of what happened was/is domestic terrorism and the only reason it's being tiptoed around is because we're in an election year.
- gowld 6y ago
  Why isn't it domestic terrorism when the police are breaking in and killing people in their own homes?
- ksm1717 6y ago
  Domestic terrorism versus civil unrest is just a matter of perspective
- SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
  > A lot of what happened was/is domestic terrorism Check your facts. This is so wildly off base I'm surprised this comment is still here. This is the pumped up FOX/alt-right narrative. Domestic terrorism is the alt-right creating militias to abduct governors (yesterday) or kill state senators (see: Oregon last summer). Smashing a Starbucks window or starting a fire in a garbage can (or a half-assed molotove cocktail) is faaaaar from opening fire nightly on thousands of protestors, gassing them with banned CS gas, and trying to disappear them in unmarked cars, done by unmarked goons with no badges.
doggydogs94 6y ago
If you were arrested in Portland and the authorities had custody of your phone for any period of time, assume that anything “interesting” on your phone is in their database. What’s interesting ... contacts, text messages, pictures/videos, email, ... everything.
- waheoo 6y ago
  Don't criminals usually use burners? Or is that just the smart ones?
  - BEEdwards 6y ago
    you know they literally snatched innocent people off the street right? calling them criminals isn't just a stretch it's propaganda.
    - waheoo 6y ago
      Its not propaganda, cut that double speak shit out. They knew exactly what they were doing. The fact they act up when they get remotely held accountable doesn't change that. It just makes them naive enough to think the law is on their side. Its not, and most people want them to just fucking stop.
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      Kind of makes me wonder if the whole purpose of snatching those people was to get physical access to their phones for surveillance.
    - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
      Oh please. There is now over 100 days of videos of them attacking federal buildings and lighting the fucking mayor’s condo building on fire. The lasers they are shining into police eyes are powerful enough to ignite a piece of paper. That’s instant permanent eye damage if you get hit. You either have no idea what is actually going on or you’re spreading propaganda. This is a violent unhinged mob of proud antifa anarchists (and before some ignorant person says antifa is “an idea”, Portland antifa has their own website and wikipedia article - look up Rose City Antifa). Knock it off. They openly espouse their beliefs that property should be destroyed and that anyone opposing them is fair game for violence.
ecommerceguy 6y ago
It sure seems like both sides politically really hate the FBI. I ask, when are they going to be evaluated? We should be rethinking the Intelligence Community in America, it has failed us. JFK knew this all too well.
tijuco2 6y ago
Looking at other articles of the same website, they sound like they are the ones being investigated. It's just a beta behind a keyboard. Terrorists must not have rights.
engineer_22 6y ago
The FBI's job is to investigate crimes "in the United States". So far as protesters were engaged in crimes worthy of arrest the FBI is within it's pervue. That said: if arrests were made outside of criminal investigation we would hope the data collected was not retained. Understood that the portland protests are a politically sensitive topic... But the fact the FBI was using all of its capabilities in a situation that seems to have the hallmarks of one interesting to federal prosecutors is not surprising (to me). Hope the downvoters can see my point.......
- koheripbal 6y ago
  I'm not sure I'd call someone with a pipe bomb a "protestor". Using a bomb for political purposes... that's terrorism, not protesting.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  I think you are wrong in general, though I am not an American and won't pretend I know about the US protests in portland or elsewhere... Why do I think you're wrong? The purvue of the FBI needs to be a lot more specific than any crime in the US. We've seen more than enough times that such a wide purvue leaves them ripe for abuse (look up their treatment of MLK). The only practical way for this to happen is for the FBI to actively justify their decisions on what and who to investigate. "Why are these people being investigated?" is a very fair question to ask and one the FBI should happily answer. The only alternative to this is that whoever is in charge (POTUS) gets to decide with no oversight, no checks or balances, and no accountability. We've had that in the past. It didn't end well. Respectfully "it's their job to do this" is a really bad defense, it's the opening line to basically every abuse of power and likely will be part of the defense for all future ones. If the FBI have a good reason to spend time on this, they can tell us and I'll happily support it. If they don't, they need to stop. But either way, they should not get a blank cheque to use a huge budget and enhanced police powers without having to answer to "we the people". This should be an apolitical position, whether you're right or left, extreme or centrist.
  - engineer_22 6y ago
    In America you're allowed to think I'm wrong. But you need a permit to protest. Riotous action is not permissible. Enter the FBI.
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
Looks like they spelled “anarchists” and “rioters” wrong. Obviously the FBI do not care about the regular protesters. It’s the ones organizing to try and light buildings on fire that require a response.
8bitsrule 6y ago
I guess that if you've got a lot of toys to use against terrorists, and there are no terrorists on the radar, you go out and see if you can find some. Or invent some. And if the other countries won't let you in to play...
- fareesh 6y ago
  From what I see on social media, the events at Portland is a bit of protest and a bit of terrorism (if defined as political violence, which is a legal definition), so if there are laws on the books (whether or not we agree with those laws), they would be applicable to the violent ones. There was a federal courthouse building which was under attack for several days - I find the idea a bit racist that if there are Saudis or Pakistanis attacking the building, then it's terrorism, but if it's white people from Portland then it's not terrorism.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  The subject of the investigation was carrying a pipe bomb to a political rally. I'm not sure it doesn't fit the definition of terrorist.
Oricle 6y ago
Jews sent collumbas to 'america' and said take it no matter the cost so they could create mysterious babylon which is even mentioned in the bible! U. S. S. A has always been controlled by them has they created it. They've owned and controlled Britain for over 500 years now lol Educate yourselves! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xc9msnvRyJ0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xc9msnvRyJ0
LatteLazy 6y ago
Now watch as scores of protestors are suddenly arrested for failing to declare gift certificates from their grandmother's on their taxes a decade ago...

182 points by panic 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

I encourage all to look at the DNS hosting records for fbi.gov. They are bizarre. There is a big identity question with who the FBI is right now. I'm not confident any unit or person is from the FBI until I see strong evidence / identification they bring with them. A good example is how more and more subdomains keep slipping behind CloudFlare. Those could be hosted anywhere. Another example, which I spoke to the FBI Los Angeles office this morning about, is Infragard Los Angeles. They literally have subdomains hosted in mainland China. What is going on here? [1] [1] - https://www.infragardlosangeles.org/ https://www.infragardlosangeles.org/

Der_Einzige 6y ago
Looks like the glowies and spooks are already out and doing damage control based on the color of your post. :(
- chance_state 6y ago
  Yes, it's well known that the FBI deploys teams of agents to downvote comments on posts on HN. It's definitely not that most people think this kind of talk is insane. Definitely not that. It's the FBI.
  - balancer 6y ago
    No gaslighting, please. It's called COINTELPRO. Here is a great resource for those that aren't aware: https://archive.is/YpeXZ https://archive.is/YpeXZ
    - Natsu 6y ago
      If you really want to go down rabbit holes, COINTELPRO was run by Mark Felt, who is better known as Deep Throat.
    - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
      No, it’s not called COINTELPRO. That was a program from half a century ago. Nobody left at the current FBI even worked there when that program existed.
      - balancer 6y ago
        COINTELPRO is common online vernacular for "spooks on the internet". In the the linked article it makes this clear, the programs have new names and the paper trail is minimized. In any case, it is clear as day when shills start shilling. Like I said, please, no gaslighting.
- themodelplumber 6y ago
  I DV'd after reading the first three sentences. DNS records are not ample evidence that a government organization's identity is in question. I can think of a lot of reasons why the records would be so diverse. So to me this is not only illogical, irrational, and invalid on its face, but it's also muddying already-muddy waters while failing to meet that qualitative standard. By all means update us again when there's more credible evidence.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  Jumping from DNS records to massive efforts to undermine/impersonate/subvert parts of the FBI is quite a leap. I'm sure the OP's LA FBI contact appreciated the laugh they had when their local Dwight Schrute called them to complain about the web hosting of the "private" part of a public-private partnership.

malwarebytess 6y ago

>Among the special powers granted exclusively to the FBI under a Reagan-era executive order (No. 12333) are authorizations to conduct “unconsented physical searches” and “physical surveillance” for intelligence purposes in the US. The Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment generally requires law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant before searching cell phone data, but there is an exception for “exigent circumstances,” which is supposed to apply only to extreme situations in which lives are in danger. It seems like a clear cut abuse of power. These aren't exigent circumstances, they're protests, and besides that it's not a federal problem. It seems like the 4th amendment doesn't have any power any more.

2bitencryption 6y ago
I feel like programmers/engineers/technical-minded people have an easier time being terrified at this kind of "exception" for "exigent circumtances". Because that type of person is well aware that an "exception to a rule" really just means the rule is formally worthless, since it provides no guarantee whatsoever. or maybe I'm just projecting how I think.
- roughly 6y ago
  You'd think this would generalize, but ask anyone who does security or has more than 10 minutes of social science education about programmers' general ability to ignore side effects and unintentional consequences...
- gruez 6y ago
  > Because that type of person is well aware that an "exception to a rule" really just means the rule is formally worthless, since it provides no guarantee whatsoever. If you think about it, rules themselves provide no guarantee whatsoever. They're only as strong as the institutions (aka. people) enforcing them. Some text in a book somewhere provides zero guarantee that some cop isn't going to assault you for talking back at him, or some general isn't going to turn the country into a dictatorship.
  - 6y ago

bladegash 6y ago

This article seems highly misleading in its conclusions. For example, quoting, "initial exploitation of phones, or other communication devices" without any of the context in the e-mail makes it appear far worse than what seems to have taken place. The context for that quote, is that an individual was arrested for Misdemeanor Assault on a federal officer, specifically due to shining laser pointers at their eyes. Upon physical search of the individual, it was found he was, "carrying a machete, a large mortar firework and a section of galvanized pipe with endcaps and fuze assembly". Lastly, and likely most importantly, the individual consented to his phone being searched. Now, to the original quote: "CTD is sending Fly Team Agents to cover the interviews of individuals arrested during the night and early-morning hours this weekend. They will also conduct initial exploitation of phones, or other communication devices they are carrying. These Agents may uncover a situation like the one described in the previous paragraph...". There is nothing in here that implies they intended to search the phones without a search warrant of consent. Law enforcement officals do not make it a routine matter to specify, "They will also conduct initial exploitation of phones, or other communication devices they are carrying once they have a search warrant or consent from the individual". That would be equivalent to me saying to a SWE, "I need you to go and complete X task", then qualifying it with, "and make sure you do x, y, z, a, b, c task that I already know you know and were taught to do". The title of this article should really read, "FBI Team Sent to 'Exploit' Criminal's Phones in Portland". The fact that the individual(s) also happened to be protestors, is really irrelevant and highly connotative. There is nothing in the First Amendment that gives someone the right to threaten and/or carry out actual violence against another individual, nor should it allow for that. Not to mention, there are specific Federal statutes regarding assault against federal officials. Frankly, if I was a protestor exercising my First Amendment rights, I'd be pissed that someone was carrying what appears to be a pipe-bomb to what was supposed to be a peaceful protest.

jtxx 6y ago
I do think most people protesting are of the sentiment you note in your last paragraph
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

rglover 6y ago

Important part: > "Nothing in the emails indicates that the DHS or the FBI exceeded its legal authorities in Portland. But it is not generally understood how extensive those authorities in fact are—they go far beyond those held by the DHS, especially if the president and attorney general get involved. Among the special powers granted exclusively to the FBI under a Reagan-era executive order (No. 12333) are authorizations to conduct “unconsented physical searches” and “physical surveillance” for intelligence purposes in the US. The Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment generally requires law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant before searching cell phone data, but there is an exception for “exigent circumstances,” which is supposed to apply only to extreme situations in which lives are in danger." Despite the constant repetition of the "peaceful protestors" falsehood (a clever tactic to sweep the destruction and violence under the rug), peoples lives were being put in danger. Not just in Portland, but all over the country, and local law enforcement weren't doing their jobs. > “It’s high time for the FBI and DHS to give Oregonians a straight answer about what their agents have been up to in Portland,” he said in a statement. “The full extent of federal surveillance in Portland remains unknown, but it would be outrageous if Oregonians were targeted because of their political activities.” "Political activities" is just more clever turn-of-phrase to say "lighting things on fire and destroying private and public property with [politics] as a convenient excuse." There's a big gap between organizing, speaking, and holding up signs and throwing molotov cocktails into crowds. A lot of what happened was/is domestic terrorism and the only reason it's being tiptoed around is because we're in an election year.

gowld 6y ago
Why isn't it domestic terrorism when the police are breaking in and killing people in their own homes?
ksm1717 6y ago
Domestic terrorism versus civil unrest is just a matter of perspective
SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
> A lot of what happened was/is domestic terrorism Check your facts. This is so wildly off base I'm surprised this comment is still here. This is the pumped up FOX/alt-right narrative. Domestic terrorism is the alt-right creating militias to abduct governors (yesterday) or kill state senators (see: Oregon last summer). Smashing a Starbucks window or starting a fire in a garbage can (or a half-assed molotove cocktail) is faaaaar from opening fire nightly on thousands of protestors, gassing them with banned CS gas, and trying to disappear them in unmarked cars, done by unmarked goons with no badges.

doggydogs94 6y ago

If you were arrested in Portland and the authorities had custody of your phone for any period of time, assume that anything “interesting” on your phone is in their database. What’s interesting ... contacts, text messages, pictures/videos, email, ... everything.

waheoo 6y ago
Don't criminals usually use burners? Or is that just the smart ones?
- BEEdwards 6y ago
  you know they literally snatched innocent people off the street right? calling them criminals isn't just a stretch it's propaganda.
  - waheoo 6y ago
    Its not propaganda, cut that double speak shit out. They knew exactly what they were doing. The fact they act up when they get remotely held accountable doesn't change that. It just makes them naive enough to think the law is on their side. Its not, and most people want them to just fucking stop.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    Kind of makes me wonder if the whole purpose of snatching those people was to get physical access to their phones for surveillance.
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    Oh please. There is now over 100 days of videos of them attacking federal buildings and lighting the fucking mayor’s condo building on fire. The lasers they are shining into police eyes are powerful enough to ignite a piece of paper. That’s instant permanent eye damage if you get hit. You either have no idea what is actually going on or you’re spreading propaganda. This is a violent unhinged mob of proud antifa anarchists (and before some ignorant person says antifa is “an idea”, Portland antifa has their own website and wikipedia article - look up Rose City Antifa). Knock it off. They openly espouse their beliefs that property should be destroyed and that anyone opposing them is fair game for violence.

ecommerceguy 6y ago

It sure seems like both sides politically really hate the FBI. I ask, when are they going to be evaluated? We should be rethinking the Intelligence Community in America, it has failed us. JFK knew this all too well.

tijuco2 6y ago

Looking at other articles of the same website, they sound like they are the ones being investigated. It's just a beta behind a keyboard. Terrorists must not have rights.

engineer_22 6y ago

The FBI's job is to investigate crimes "in the United States". So far as protesters were engaged in crimes worthy of arrest the FBI is within it's pervue. That said: if arrests were made outside of criminal investigation we would hope the data collected was not retained. Understood that the portland protests are a politically sensitive topic... But the fact the FBI was using all of its capabilities in a situation that seems to have the hallmarks of one interesting to federal prosecutors is not surprising (to me). Hope the downvoters can see my point.......

koheripbal 6y ago
I'm not sure I'd call someone with a pipe bomb a "protestor". Using a bomb for political purposes... that's terrorism, not protesting.
LatteLazy 6y ago
I think you are wrong in general, though I am not an American and won't pretend I know about the US protests in portland or elsewhere... Why do I think you're wrong? The purvue of the FBI needs to be a lot more specific than any crime in the US. We've seen more than enough times that such a wide purvue leaves them ripe for abuse (look up their treatment of MLK). The only practical way for this to happen is for the FBI to actively justify their decisions on what and who to investigate. "Why are these people being investigated?" is a very fair question to ask and one the FBI should happily answer. The only alternative to this is that whoever is in charge (POTUS) gets to decide with no oversight, no checks or balances, and no accountability. We've had that in the past. It didn't end well. Respectfully "it's their job to do this" is a really bad defense, it's the opening line to basically every abuse of power and likely will be part of the defense for all future ones. If the FBI have a good reason to spend time on this, they can tell us and I'll happily support it. If they don't, they need to stop. But either way, they should not get a blank cheque to use a huge budget and enhanced police powers without having to answer to "we the people". This should be an apolitical position, whether you're right or left, extreme or centrist.
- engineer_22 6y ago
  In America you're allowed to think I'm wrong. But you need a permit to protest. Riotous action is not permissible. Enter the FBI.

lawnchair_larry 6y ago

Looks like they spelled “anarchists” and “rioters” wrong. Obviously the FBI do not care about the regular protesters. It’s the ones organizing to try and light buildings on fire that require a response.

8bitsrule 6y ago

I guess that if you've got a lot of toys to use against terrorists, and there are no terrorists on the radar, you go out and see if you can find some. Or invent some. And if the other countries won't let you in to play...

fareesh 6y ago
From what I see on social media, the events at Portland is a bit of protest and a bit of terrorism (if defined as political violence, which is a legal definition), so if there are laws on the books (whether or not we agree with those laws), they would be applicable to the violent ones. There was a federal courthouse building which was under attack for several days - I find the idea a bit racist that if there are Saudis or Pakistanis attacking the building, then it's terrorism, but if it's white people from Portland then it's not terrorism.
koheripbal 6y ago
The subject of the investigation was carrying a pipe bomb to a political rally. I'm not sure it doesn't fit the definition of terrorist.

Oricle 6y ago

Jews sent collumbas to 'america' and said take it no matter the cost so they could create mysterious babylon which is even mentioned in the bible! U. S. S. A has always been controlled by them has they created it. They've owned and controlled Britain for over 500 years now lol Educate yourselves! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xc9msnvRyJ0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xc9msnvRyJ0

LatteLazy 6y ago

Now watch as scores of protestors are suddenly arrested for failing to declare gift certificates from their grandmother's on their taxes a decade ago...