[Video] The Judge vs. Bill O'Reilly on "Christmas Tree Bomber"

[jct74]

pretty heated discussion, Bill being his typical obnoxious self.

YouTube - Is It Ok For FBI To 'Cultivate' A Terror Pasty To Bust At Just The Right Time In A High Profile Way? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mclVabhiGrY)
.

[Cdn_for_liberty]

was this interview taped and broadcasted on O'Reilly's show?

[jct74]

was this interview taped and broadcasted on O'Reilly's show?

yeah, it wasn't Freedom Watch.

[low preference guy]

i think the judge won

[MRoCkEd]

BillO is such a sleazebag

[libertybrewcity]

lol, Judge looked pissed. Any chance we could get judge higher ratings than Oreilly? Pinhead show? Pshh..

[Matt Collins]

The Judge made an "ass" out of the Leprechaun!

[Sentient Void]

Judge was calm, respectful, and logical, as always.

BillO was a pinhead, as usual. I notice he projects a lot, calling others a pinhead when he himself is one.

He calls it 'theory' but ultimately it comes down to *logical consistency*. What *precedent* would be set if 'thought-crime' or 'pre-crime' becomes a crime? What slippery slope is created?

Our system of law is based on precedents. O'reilly would be willing to set a dangerous precedent, indeed. It's easy to engage in emotionalism and not be able to see but 2 steps past your face and the unintended consequences that would result.

[Kregisen]

Judge didn't completely destroy him, but he won no doubt.

[Matt Collins]

I would've walked out when the Pinhead said "or whatever you do on your dopey little show over there" :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[ClayTrainor]

I like how the judge pretty much just laughed in his face, at one point.

[mczerone]

Posted on other thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=3008037&postcount=5), but in case that gets buried:

buh, buh, buh, buh...

Just speechless after watching that, but yet I can't help myself from going back to find the most absurd - laughably absurd - incomprehensible things O'R said.

O'R: "Let's stay out of the world of theory... If we assume the FBI's case is true..."

Nice playing by your own rules.

Judge: "The USA doesn't punish thought crimes, we're not East Germany"
O'R: "HEY! That's a theory!"
...
Judge: "I've seen what the FBI says they did, and that's not the proper role of government"
O'R: "Now you're falling back on theory again."

Really? WTF? It's a "theory" that if the US started punishing intent, we'd be more like East Germany? It's a "theory" that the US gov't has no constitutionally granted power to train terrorists to later arrest them? Does he even fucking know what the word theory means in common English?

O'R: "You can wander into the land of theory on your dopey show, but not here."

Nice fucking cross promotion. I hope Fox fires him for that crack.

Judge: "Even if we assume all the FBI's statements are true, we can't punish intent alone!"
O'R: "Well here's the Supreme Court [saying that the defense of entrapment cannot be raised if independent intent is shown]"

That's a different fucking legal issue you retard. They must still be prosecuting an actual crime, but the defendant can say that there was entrapment that made him do it. Here, there was no crime. Shooting a statue that you thought was your target is not attempted murder. Calling a phone number you thought would trigger a bomb isn't a crime if there is no bomb. O'R even says "If [the defendant's lawyers] can prove he didn't have intent, the jury should acquit" - um, has he ever seen Law and Order? Heard the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty? O'R is in over his fucking head, and can't do anything but call the Judge names: "Pin-head Judge", "Stubborn", "Irresponsible".

I think the Judge would be well-served playing this back on his show, and ripping O'R apart.


Thanks for Posting

[heavenlyboy34]

Judge was calm, respectful, and logical, as always.

BillO was a pinhead, as usual. I notice he projects a lot, calling others a pinhead when he himself is one.

He calls it 'theory' but ultimately it comes down to *logical consistency*. What *precedent* would be set if 'thought-crime' or 'pre-crime' becomes a crime? What slippery slope is created?

Our system of law is based on precedents. O'reilly would be willing to set a dangerous precedent, indeed. It's easy to engage in emotionalism and not be able to see but 2 steps past your face and the unintended consequences that would result.

Billy O is a Statist and tool. This^^ doesn't surprise me at all.

[tangent4ronpaul]

lol, Judge looked pissed. Any chance we could get judge higher ratings than Oreilly? Pinhead show? Pshh..

Yes, but FOX is in twice as many homes as FBN. We would need to get them on at least equal footing for that to happen. The best way to make that happen is as a action item in supporters "welcome back" packets when we kickstart the movement.

Ask them to check if their provider carries FBN, and if so contact and thank them. If they don't, ask them to carry FBN or at least pick up Freedom Watch and Stossol on another channel. If they get flooded with thousands of calls, they will pick it up. Then they need to watch to boost ratings.

The O'Reilly factor peaked at 3.1 million viewers which was an increase of 37% from the previous year

Instead, Freedom Watch has been more volatile, occasionally reaching into the 90,000 total viewer range but more often averaging around 44,000, like it did July 24. From what we’re told the encores average in the 40,000-50,000 total viewer range. In the A25-54 demographic, the program got 9,000 July 24.

No ratings available since it went full time.

-t

[Matt Collins]

Isn't there an old quote about arguing with a fool only producing foolishness or something? :confused: The thought escapes me at the moment :(

[ravedown]

i liked how the judge totally pwned him and later- when o reilly asked a guest lawyer who won the discussion, she pretty much said the judge kicked your ass d-bag, ha.

[Michigan11]

After watching this, O'Really who invited him on, uses typical liberal left insults and an authority the "supreme court" to make his points...

I would think anyone who normally watches O'Really would be a bit confused watching this episode. In other words sending this video around to those on the fence would be a great offensive.

[TNforPaul45]

It's funny how BILLO says that the "Supreme Court has proved you wrong" on punishing thought crimes, and then he turns around in other discussions and says that Roe V. Wade is an abomination, and that courts are "Legislating from the bench."

See, it only takes a bit of thought to extract the insipid hypocrisy of these idiots.

I do not honestly know why anyone takes what BillO says seriously any more. How much more based on hatred and purile anger can a man's thought processes be?

[Teaser Rate]

I know I’m probably going to be in the minority here, but I think Bill won the argument here.

The fact is that the FBI neutralized a potential threat in a safe and discrete manner. The guy though his actions were going to lead to the death of many innocent people and still "pulled the trigger", he is without doubt a criminal and belongs in jail.

As a libertarian, I’m sympathetic to the argument that the government shouldn’t infiltrate terrorist groups, but I don’t know of a better way to deal with 17yr old lunatics who are trying to join Al Qaeda.

[mczerone]

It's funny how BILLO says that the "Supreme Court has proved you wrong" on punishing thought crimes, and then he turns around in other discussions and says that Roe V. Wade is an abomination, and that courts are "Legislating from the bench."

See, it only takes a bit of thought to extract the insipid hypocrisy of these idiots.

I do not honestly know why anyone takes what BillO says seriously any more. How much more based on hatred and purile anger can a man's thought processes be?

As I watched that video to the end for the third time in making my response post, I had a strange thought. I know O'R is just a character, he's putting on a show that isn't 100% the Bill O'Reilly from real life. What if he really did this interview so badly, so over-the-top, because he couldn't honestly make any better arguments against the Judge? What if Bill O'Reilly, the human, agrees that this case is total crap - but his O'R TV persona has to toe the party line?

It would seem to explain why he could be so unconvincing in his points, so obviously resorting to slander to win the argument, so horribly getting basic principles of law wrong, and so blatantly dismissive of the Judge's "theories".

Does Bill O'Reilly know that many people who catch his show can't stand the O'R character, so he purposely derided the Judge's show to actually promote it? Is O'R trying to out-act Colbert as a crazy "I say exactly what I don't mean" pundit?

It seems to me to be the only way any sane person could present what you correctly called "insipid hypocrisy." So I guess the other option is to question O'R's sanity.

[tangent4ronpaul]

As I watched that video to the end for the third time in making my response post, I had a strange thought. I know O'R is just a character, he's putting on a show that isn't 100% the Bill O'Reilly from real life. What if he really did this interview so badly, so over-the-top, because he couldn't honestly make any better arguments against the Judge? What if Bill O'Reilly, the human, agrees that this case is total crap - but his O'R TV persona has to toe the party line?

It would seem to explain why he could be so unconvincing in his points, so obviously resorting to slander to win the argument, so horribly getting basic principles of law wrong, and so blatantly dismissive of the Judge's "theories".

Does Bill O'Reilly know that many people who catch his show can't stand the O'R character, so he purposely derided the Judge's show to actually promote it? Is O'R trying to out-act Colbert as a crazy "I say exactly what I don't mean" pundit?

It seems to me to be the only way any sane person could present what you correctly called "insipid hypocrisy." So I guess the other option is to question O'R's sanity.

To quote the movie "War Games":

"Sometimes the only logical choice is not to play".

Maybe if someone showed that movie to a few people, like Obama, Clinton and most of Congress, our foreign policy would be a lot better...

-t

[mczerone]

I know I’m probably going to be in the minority here, but I think Bill won the argument here.

The fact is that the FBI neutralized a potential threat in a safe and discrete manner. The guy though his actions were going to lead to the death of many innocent people and still "pulled the trigger", he is without doubt a criminal and belongs in jail.

As a libertarian, I’m sympathetic to the argument that the government shouldn’t infiltrate terrorist groups, but I don’t know of a better way to deal with 17yr old lunatics who are trying to join Al Qaeda.

The facts are that the FBI alleged that he was a potential (not actual) threat, made him more dangerous, themselves detonated illegal weapons, gave him a "gun" filled with "blanks", then said "you don't really have to pull the trigger".

So can the FBI "neutralize" you, if they think you might have the potential to be a threat some time down the road?

If the preliminary facts are true, and this kid wanted to be a terrorist (he never was one) - why try to turn him into one? Why not try to send him presents from the US gov't, with a nice card:

"We've heard you are considering becoming a terrorist. Here are some reasons that might be a bad choice for you. Here are some local Muslim organizations that might answer your concerns. Resorting to violence is never the answer. Please take this PS3 and gift cards worth $300 as a symbol of our appreciation of you being a productive, peaceful, spiritual individual."

No. The FBI spent how much money training operatives to entrap this kid? They spent how much money getting an actual bomb to detonate, that actually could've killed, hurt, or at least panicked people? They spent how much time and money actually radicalizing this kid, who could have, at any time, backed out - either to return to his normal life as an Engineering Undergrad or to take his newly learned skills to the actual terrorists?

I might think that mixing 100 gallons of water with a ton of baking soda in Times Square will "lead to the death of many innocent people". I could even mix the ingredients in a giant tub in public while screaming "Glory to the Flying Spaghetti Monster!". It wouldn't make me a criminal. It might make me deranged. It might suggest people should intervene to try to talk some sense into me. But it does not without a doubt make me a criminal or suggest that I belong in jail.

There were 1000 better ways to handle this kid if he were an actual threat. And the way they actually are going about it makes a complete mockery out of the DHS, FBI, and the Federal Court system, not to mention blow-hard taking heads.

[talkingpointes]

After watching this, O'Really who invited him on, uses typical liberal left insults and an authority the "supreme court" to make his points...

I would think anyone who normally watches O'Really would be a bit confused watching this episode. In other words sending this video around to those on the fence would be a great offensive.

Right, he concedes to the "supreme court" but asks the judge to side-step his own title. lol. Also bill is a complete ass hat, what a rude smug jerk.

[Teaser Rate]

The facts are that the FBI alleged that he was a [non-potential] threat, made him more dangerous, themselves detonated illegal weapons, gave him a "gun" filled with "blanks", then said "you don't really have to pull the trigger".

So can the FBI "neutralize" you, if they think you might have the potential to be a threat some time down the road?

If the preliminary facts are true, and this kid wanted to be a terrorist (he never was one) - why try to turn him into one? Why not try to send him presents from the US gov't, with a nice card:

"We've heard you are considering becoming a terrorist. Here are some reasons that might be a bad choice for you. Here are some local Muslim organizations that might answer your concerns. Resorting to violence is never the answer. Please take this PS3 and gift cards worth $300 as a symbol of our appreciation of you being a productive, peaceful, spiritual individual."

No. The FBI spent how much money training operatives to entrap this kid? They spent how much money getting an actual bomb to detonate, that actually could've killed, hurt, or at least panicked people? They spent how much time and money actually radicalizing this kid, who could have, at any time, backed out - either to return to his normal life as an Engineering Undergrad or to take his newly learned skills to the actual terrorists?

I might think that mixing 100 gallons of water with a ton of baking soda in Times Square will "lead to the death of many innocent people". I could even mix the ingredients in a giant tub in public while screaming "Glory to the Flying Spaghetti Monster!". It wouldn't make me a criminal. It might make me deranged. It might suggest people should intervene to try to talk some sense into me. But it does not without a doubt make me a criminal or suggest that I belong in jail.

There were 1000 better ways to handle this kid if he were an actual threat. And the way they actually are going about it makes a complete mockery out of the DHS, FBI, and the Federal Court system, not to mention blow-hard taking heads.

The guy was a lunatic who had made multiple attempts to join terrorist organizations. The FBI merely put him in a place where he could act out his intentions without hurting anyone.

If you think sending him a present or being nice to him was going to deter him, then I’d say you really don’t understand the motivation behind western bread terrorists. There have been numerous examples of perfectly normal teenagers living good lives in western countries who turned into violent terrorists. Sending them an Xbox wasn't going to make them change their ways.

If the guy was trying to get his hands on a gun in order to shoot people, the FBI provided him with blanks and a dummy to shoot at. His actions are 100% his own.

[Promontorium]

I liked the analogy someone made about this being like a cop overhearing a guy saying he might like to be with a prostitute, so the cop drives the guy to a whorehouse gives him a condom, pays for the sex, and then slaps some cuffs on him on the way out.

Then I remembered sex isn't a terrible and monstrous act, and shouldn't be a crime. This piece of overpriviliged scum should be air dropped back into Somalia without a chute. Fuck him, I will pray God eats his soul.

Still, in my constitution I explicitly forbid sting operations. I think they are in themselves a crime, the FBI should be shut down.

But fuck that kid. Seriously.

[driege]

I have some questions about this debate and the Judge's position.

I agree that we should not prosecute thought crimes, but that doesn't seem like it is what happened this case. Isn't the kid being prosecuted for his actions (purchasing what he thought were explosives and attempting to detonate them)? I'm just a little confused - it seemed like the Judge was arguing with a different set of facts.

[Fredom101]

Calling names is what Billo resorts too, because using his brain would be too difficult.

[Matt Collins]

It's funny how BILLO says that the "Supreme Court has proved you wrong" on punishing thought crimes, According to a good friend of mine at one of the top law schools in the country:



No Supreme Court opinion contains the "quote" read by O'Reilly. The closest I could find to what either of them were saying is the following:

"It is only when the Government's deception actually implants the criminal design in the mind of ...the defendant that the defense of entrapment comes into play. Respondent's concession in the Court of Appeals that the jury finding as to predisposition was supported by the evidence is, therefore, fatal to his claim of entrapment." U.S. v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 436 (1973).

My understanding of the case is that Mohamud actually attempted to set off a (fake) bomb by dialing a cell phone. I'm pretty sure that's a crime (though Napolitano appears to disagree). The only questions to ask, it seems to me, are whether the government "implant[ed] the criminal design" or whether he was predisposed to do it. I think those are two sides of the same coin.

[Fredom101]

Well, this whole discussion is not getting to the root at all.
Why would there even be a muslim in the US who wants to kill random people? That's the question that needs to be asks that isn't. The kid could have simply been mentally disturbed and the FBI indeed was able to talk him into it. The kid could have found out that one of the US bombs killed one of his family members and wanted to do some blowback.

What is the root of this?

The O'Reilly/Judge discussion is meaningless if we can't discuss root causes here.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

FUCK IT! WE'LL DO IT LIVE!!!

Bill O has this incredible inferiority complex when it comes to people like The Judge who can beat him at his own game or radio guys that destroy his ratings. Just look at how Stern calls him out on his jealousy. Or maybe it's the hairline...

YouTube - Bill O'Reilly: Howard Stern interview Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3hVhmX1jOE)

[mczerone]

According to a good friend of mine at one of the top law schools in the country:

The illegallity of the act isn't clear cut, and it depends on the specific charges laid against him. Intent crimes may be punishable despite possibility, if the impossibility was the result of extrinsic factors.

So he may be guilty of attempted murder or similar, but then only if it is determined that the actions he undertook could have resulted in the crime but for some external factor that made his actions ineffective. So where a victim wasn't sleeping where the criminal thought he would be when he shot through a window to kill him, the criminal was still guilty of attempted murder. But a "witch doctor" that truly attempted to kill an enemy by pushing pins into a symbolic doll would not be guilty of attempted murder, even though the intent was present.

This case seems to lie somewhere in the middle: there was no bomb, even though he thought there was. His actions could not have resulted in serious bodily harm. But the only factor that made this the case was the lying of the FBI agents, who led him to believe that the van was filled with active explosives. The issue that the defense lawyers must raise is that there was an intrinsic reason the plan failed, and that was that there was no means for successfully carrying out his intent. But the Prosecutors will argue that the intent was present, and the only reason for failure was the extrinsic factor that the FBI had not used real explosives.

I happen to agree with the Judge, but there is room to argue.

[jmdrake]

Bill O'Reilly: Let's assume what the Feds say is true. That they ha...
Judge: We can't.
Bill: Let's assume...do you know what the word assume means?
Judge: You're leaning with your chin there!

(For those who missed the joke - Assume means make an ass out of u and me.)

[dannno]

The guy was a lunatic who had made multiple attempts to join terrorist organizations. The FBI merely put him in a place where he could act out his intentions without hurting anyone.

If you think sending him a present or being nice to him was going to deter him, then I’d say you really don’t understand the motivation behind western bread terrorists. There have been numerous examples of perfectly normal teenagers living good lives in western countries who turned into violent terrorists. Sending them an Xbox wasn't going to make them change their ways.

If the guy was trying to get his hands on a gun in order to shoot people, the FBI provided him with blanks and a dummy to shoot at. His actions are 100% his own.

LOL.. he made multiple attempts to join FAKE terrorist organizations..

You obviously don't get it, let me help you out here.

What percentage of people in the US hate Obama enough that if you put them behind a sniper gun already aimed at the his head, all you have to do is press the trigger, and they have a free and clear path to freedom for you after you pull the trigger.. what percentage of Americans would pull that trigger? I've heard people say 1% or less.. I would think lower, I would hope.. but what seems reasonable, .5%? .25%? .1% .01%?

Ok, so is it the JOB OF THE US GOVERNMENT... to go out and find these people who they think might do it, and put them in the situation, give them a sniper gun with blanks and surround the building with agents?

[Teaser Rate]

LOL.. he made multiple attempts to join FAKE terrorist organizations..

You obviously don't get it, let me help you out here.

What percentage of people in the US hate Obama enough that if you put them behind a sniper gun already aimed at the his head, all you have to do is press the trigger, and they have a free and clear path to freedom for you after you pull the trigger.. what percentage of Americans would pull that trigger? I've heard people say 1% or less.. I would think lower, I would hope.. but what seems reasonable, .5%? .25%? .1% .01%?

Ok, so is it the JOB OF THE US GOVERNMENT... to go out and find these people who they think might do it, and put them in the situation, give them a sniper gun with blanks and surround the building with agents?

There's a difference between having a homicidal fantasy and actively making plans to purse it; I agree that the line where the government should get involved is a gray area, but in this case, the facts were clear. The guy had been trying to go abroad to train in terrorist camps, had gotten in touch with an Al Qaeda representative, and had written multiple articles for their propaganda journal. He was so far along on the terrorist ladder that his own father sought help from authorities because he couldn't find any other way to deal with him.

Here are a few choice quotes from the thwarted terrorist:

"I want whoever is attending that event to leave, to leave either dead or injured"

"You know what I like to see? Is when I see the enemy of Allah then, you know, their bodies are torn everywhere"

"Do you remember when 9/11 happened when those people were jumping from skyscrapers ... I thought that was awesome."

In this case, I don't think there is an argument to be made that the FBI acted inappropriately.

[Matt Collins]

(For those who missed the joke - Assume means make an ass out of u and me.)Yes, and it was great because Andy made an ass out of the Leprechaun.

But notice that as soon as the Leprechaun says "let's assume" the Judge starts to grin because he knows that the Leprechaun is already making an ass out of himself :D

[ElCount]

Nothing is better than O'Reilly having his ass handed to him for all the right reasons.

I get sick of the MSNBC folks beating him like a Pinata over things when it's purely Democrat-Aligned spin that they're promoting.

Nothing makes the hypocrisy more apparent than attacking the right from the right and the left from the left.

I'm happy the Judge smashed him.

[Rancher]

Does anybody know where this guy got the money to do this alleged crime?

[dannno]

There's a difference between having a homicidal fantasy and actively making plans to purse it; I agree that the line where the government should get involved is a gray area, but in this case, the facts were clear. The guy had been trying to go abroad to train in terrorist camps, had gotten in touch with an Al Qaeda representative, and had written multiple articles for their propaganda journal. He was so far along on the terrorist ladder that his own father sought help from authorities because he couldn't find any other way to deal with him.


The connection for the explosives was a cooperative intelligence effort between the CIA and the Pakistani ISI, there WAS NO PAKISTANI CONNECTION, it was a farce.

This guy had nothing, no training, he had absolutely no way to pull this off on his own. Obviously they should have been watching him if he was in fact making threats on innocent Americans, but they don't need to come up with some elaborate plan, put it into his head and train him on it for 2 years. It is now an intellectually dishonest talking point in the media that can be used to take away more of our freedoms, because this kid had no way of doing what they are accusing him of doing.

You have to realize that the reason they did all of that stuff, training him for this elaborate plan, was ultimately an effort to expand the DHS and had nothing to do with the safety of the American people.

[Teaser Rate]

The connection for the explosives was a cooperative intelligence effort between the CIA and the Pakistani ISI, there WAS NO PAKISTANI CONNECTION, it was a farce.

This guy had nothing, no training, he had absolutely no way to pull this off on his own. Obviously they should have been watching him if he was in fact making threats on innocent Americans, but they don't need to come up with some elaborate plan, put it into his head and train him on it for 2 years. It is now an intellectually dishonest talking point in the media that can be used to take away more of our freedoms, because this kid had no way of doing what they are accusing him of doing.

You have to realize that the reason they did all of that stuff, training him for this elaborate plan, was ultimately an effort to expand the DHS and had nothing to do with the safety of the American people.

Once you agree with the principle that the state has the right and authority to monitor potential threats on its citizens, then what measure of surveillance they should use must be determined by the specifics of a situation. Had they not acted so proactively, he might have flown to Yemen and have blown up a plane on an American airline by now, or he might have given up on the idea and lived a normal life; the point is that we don't know and have no way of knowing.

The point of having an FBI is to have a place where specialized knowledge of these kinds of threats can be aggregated into one place and transposed into appropriate enforcement.

If you don't trust the FBI to make these kinds of calls, then there's no point in having an FBI or a government agency to deal with potential terrorist threats.

Now, I totally respect the argument of live free or die, but it isn't the case you are making. All things being equal, you and I are safer that the FBI took out the would-be terrorist the way they did.


PS: I don't buy the argument that the government is deliberately trying to scare us into accepting a police state. I think political incentives often lead them to go overboard on safety (see the TSA measures, FDA drug-approval) but I don't think that's what happened here.

[awake]

O'Reilly doesn't scare me... the people who watch him nightly do.

[jclay2]

Does anybody know where this guy got the money to do this alleged crime?

Your inclinations were not wrong.


Feds close inIn addition to discussing the plot, the agents directed Mohamud to purchase what they said would be components of the bomb. He spent roughly $110 of FBI money at a Radio Shack.
Mohamud was also given $2,700 to rent an apartment to assist in his escape from the US after the bombing.

My guess is there was more where that came from as well. Man the levels these fbi people will go to to justify their salary. Lets make a criminal out of a nobody and then pick the christmas tree lighting event to make the arrest. That way, they can say it was for the children and the invasion of our privacy is assured and good for us.