This message was self-deleted by its author

[ancianita]

7. Thing is, though, that calling destruction of property 'terrorism' skews the original definition

of terrorism as destruction to strike fear in humans toward a political end.
MAGA will try to make a case that he's not a terrorist because he tried only to destroy property or strike fear into a business entity.

Maybe for that reason I'm not as impressed by the label here. Because this isn't as easy a terrorism conviction as it looks. Prosecutors will still have to prove that this guy's motive was to kill humans and not just to destroy property.

Glad the FBI probably saved human lives indirectly, and one hopes that saving human lives should be what drives the FBI to prevent property destruction.

MAGA terrorism is real, as Wray has said under oath.
But if a terrorism upgrade in sentencing hasn't been all that successful in Jan 6 sentencings, I'd think that any conviction might be overturned if there isn't more terrorist convictions that have held on appeal through Jan 6 courts. If defense teams can show that prosecution can't prove motive, they can help MAGAts wiggle out of a terrorism charge.

Now the courts have to build a body of precedent -- I can't find the terrorism enhancement sentencing stats yet, so maybe they have -- so that future charges/convictions will hold with MAGA.

Invoking the terrorism enhancement typically adds about 15 years in prison to a defendant’s recommended sentence, sets the minimum calculation at 17 and a half years, and also flips the person charged into the criminal-history category used for serial offenders.

While prosecutors have yet to actually call for the enhancement at a sentencing for a Capitol riot defendant, the terrorism-related provision is playing a significant role behind the scenes.

At pretrial hearings, defense attorneys have indicated that they were unwilling to consider plea deals for their clients because prosecutors would not agree to refrain from seeking the domestic terrorism charges. In other cases, prosecutors seem to have dropped the enhancement, in exchange for cooperation from particular defendants.

Critics say giving prosecutors the authority to pursue or not pursue the massive sentence booster in cases stemming from political protests gives too much power to prosecutors in the process of negotiating a plea.

“It’s just lying there as a cudgel if they want it,” said Karen Greenberg, director of Fordham University law school’s Center on National Security. “It can be used so many different ways.”

Indeed, the range of crimes that can trigger the sentencing enhancement is sprawling. Under current law, 57 offenses are on the list, including such crimes as hostage-taking, destroying an aircraft, using fire or explosives to destroy a buildingband computer hacking that creates a public health or safety threat or impacts national security systems. Some of the so-called predicate offenses are quite obscure, including producing smallpox virus or assaulting a Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspector.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/04/doj-domestic-terrorism-sentences-jan-6-526407