Men convicted of plotting to bomb Muslim refugees blame Trump rhetoric and Russian bots

The attorneys for the three men, who call themselves 'The Crusaders' have used President Donald Trump's tweets as examples

Three men are blaming Donald Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric and Russian propaganda for inspiring a plot to kill Somali refugees in Kansas.

The men, Patrick Stein, Curtis Allen and Gavin Wright, who referred to themselves as “The Crusaders,” planned to bomb an apartment complex housing many Muslim Somali refugees and its mosque about two years ago.

The FBI thwarted their plot after an eight month investigation. The men were arrested in October 2016. In April, the federal jury found them guilty, thus convicting them of one count of conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction and one count of conspiracy against civil rights. They face a maximum life sentence in prison.

Their attorneys are now fighting for a lighter sentence by asking the US District Court in Kansas to consider the “backdrop” to the bomb plot: President Trump.

“The court cannot ignore the circumstances of one of the most rhetorically mould-breaking, violent, awful, hateful and contentious presidential elections in modern history, driven in large measure by the rhetorical China shop bull who is now our president,” the sentencing memo read. “Trump’s brand of rough-and-tumble verbal pummelling heightened the rhetorical stakes for people of all political persuasions.”

The attorneys cited a Pew Research Centre study that revealed Mr Trump’s presidential win resulted in an exponential increase of anti-Muslim violence. They also referred to several of the president’s tweets, including one where Mr Trump – void of any evidence – claimed the migrant caravan marching towards the US contained “criminals” and “unknown Middle Easterners”.

“As long as the White House with impunity calls Islam ‘a dangerous threat’, and paints average Americans as ‘victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad,’ a mixed signal gets sent,” the memo added.

The White House did not respond to The Independent’s request for comment.

The attorneys argued that although Mr Trump is a “speaker with the best bully pulpit in the world,” he is “never sanctioned for spreading fear and advocating harm.” They also attempted to make the case that a harsh sentence would not discourage other potential right-wing extremists from carrying out similar bias-motivated attacks.

“As long as the Executive Branch condemns Islam and commends and encourages violence against would-be enemies, then a sentence imposed by the Judicial Branch does little to deter people generally from engaging in such conduct, if they believe they are protecting their countries from enemies identified by their own Commander in Chief,” the attorneys wrote in the memo.

But as The Root pointed out, the purpose for harsh sentences is to punish criminals for the crimes they are convicted of doing – not to dissuade others from committing the crimes. Instead of life in prison, the attorneys are asking for a drastically lesser sentence: 15 years for Mr Stein, 10 years with each count served at the same time for Mr Allen, and time already served for Mr Wright.

In their own sentencing memo, federal prosecutors argued that a life sentence was “appropriate” for the three ex-militia men since their goal for the attack was more than just committing mass murder. They wanted to “incite other groups to ‘wake up’ and commit other acts of violence against Muslims, against landlords who rent to Muslims, and against the US government, and to spread the hateful message that Muslims should be, in the words of Defendant Stein, ‘eradicated’ from the United States.”

Mr Stein, Wright and Allen will be sentenced later this month.