Was Obama “assassination plot” a government op used to instigate race war and martial law?

Legal experts question US Attorney’s decision not to prosecute Obama ‘assassination plot’

Brad Jacobson
Raw Story
October 31, 2008

Interviews with numerous legal experts suggest that Colorado US Attorney Troy Eid misled reporters and diverged from state law when declining to prosecute any of the three men arrested in Denver for threatening to assassinate Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

Eid, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2006, declined to prosecute the three men on charges of threatening to assassinate Barack Obama during his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, saying that the suspects were “just a bunch of meth heads” and their words failed to meet the legal standard for “true threat.”

“When you talk about threatening presidential candidates, there’s a legal standard you got to meet,” Eid told reporters. “It’s got to be a credible threat as defined by the law. And that means that someone has a way to carry it out. And at this time we don’t have sufficient evidence that there was a true threat.”

He added, “They didn’t reveal a plan” and characterized the alleged threats and assassination plot as merely “the racist rantings of drug users” and “one meth head talking to another about life.”

But multiple legal experts interviewed by RAW STORY — including criminal and constitutional law scholars, former Assistant US Attorneys and Denver-area defense lawyers also familiar with Colorado state law — agreed that voluntary intoxication is not exculpatory and that such a claim, especially for a prosecutor, is unorthodox. While it may be presented in an effort to reduce a sentence after a conviction, experts say it is normally the domain of defense counsel.

“It’s very unusual,” says Scott Horton, a Columbia Law School professor who also writes for Harper’s Magazine. “Basically, you have a US Attorney trotting out the sort of arguments that defense counsel makes on a plea for reduced sentencing.”

Legal experts say that Eid’s definition of true threat directly conflicts with the statue covering threats to presidential candidates, 18 U.S.C. 879, which defines the threat as “whoever knowingly and willfully threatens to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm upon a major candidate for the office of President or Vice President, or a member of the immediate family of such candidate.”

While noting the statute must be weighed against First Amendment rights, they argued that because voluntary intoxication is not a viable defense the First Amendment does not protect a speaker’s threatening speech.

George Fisher, Stanford Law Professor and one of the nation’s top scholars of criminal law and evidence, explained, “Certainly when there’s a state of mind requirement in a crime, ‘knowingly,’ for example, you could say as a logical matter that somebody can’t do something knowingly while under the influence. But there are these other laws, sometimes in the form of statutes and sometimes in the form of case law, that will say, ‘But voluntary intoxication is no defense.’ And the Supreme Court many years ago upheld those laws as not being a violation of due process.”

Colorado defense attorneys agreed. They said Colorado state law does not differ from the Supreme Court’s ruling on voluntary intoxication.

READ ARTICLE