NationStates

Suspected explosive devices were sent to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former US President Barack Obama, the US Secret Service has said.

It comes two days after a bomb was found at the home of liberal philanthropist and financier George Soros in the suburbs of New York City.

The devices were discovered by technicians who screen mail sent to the former US officials.

The Time Warner building in New York was also evacuated due to a package.

CNN, which is located in the Time Warner building, reported that it evacuated its newsroom over a suspicious package.

According to a statement from the US Secret Service, the first package was addressed to Mrs Clinton and was recovered late on 23 October.

"Early this morning, October 24, 2018, a second package addressed to the residence of Former President Barack Obama was intercepted by Secret Service personnel in Washington, DC," the statement adds.

"Both packages were intercepted prior to being delivered to their intended location. The protectees did not receive the packages nor were they at risk of receiving them."

A US official told the Associated Press that a "functional explosive device" was found during a screening of mail sent to the home of Mr and Mrs Clinton in Chappaqua, New York.

The FBI in New York said they were aware of the suspected packages, and are aiding in the investigation.

A spokeswoman for Mr Obama declined to comment on the incident, and referred reporters to the Secret Service statement.

The suspected explosive devices come two days after a confirmed pipe bomb was discovered in a mailbox at the home of Mr Soros.

Mr Soros has become a frequent target for criticism by right-wing groups due to his support for liberal causes.

Officials "proactively detonated" the device, and determined that it contained explosive powder and "had the components of a bomb".

White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders condemned the "attempted violent attacks" against the public figures.

"These terrorising acts are despicable, and anyone responsible will be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

"The United States Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies are investigating and will take all appropriate actions to protect anyone threatened by these cowards," she said.

The US President's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr, who received suspicious packages at his New York home earlier this year, tweeted: "As someone whose family has directly been the victim of these mail threats I condemn whoever did this regardless of party or ideology.

"This crap has to stop and I hope they end up in jail for a long time."

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45969100

UPDATE: A man has been arrested in connection with the mail bombs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45996655

Good on the technician

Targeting the Clintons I can understand, but targeting Obama is going way too far.
Whether you agree with his ideas and policies or not, Obama was a respectful man in office and never did anything too shady or outrageous, at least not that I've heard of.

Borinsa wrote:Targeting the Clintons I can understand

Hello, FBI? Yes, I think I know who tried to bomb the Clintons.

Borinsa wrote:Targeting the Clintons I can understand, but targeting Obama is going way too far.

Sending mail bombs to the Clintons is understandable?

Ifreann wrote:

Borinsa wrote:Targeting the Clintons I can understand

Hello, FBI? Yes, I think I know who tried to bomb the Clintons.

I didn't say it was the right thing to do, I just saying I could see why people don't like them.

The New California Republic wrote:

Borinsa wrote:Targeting the Clintons I can understand, but targeting Obama is going way too far.

Sending mail bombs to the Clintons is understandable?

What, I just think they're shady.

Borinsa wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Hello, FBI? Yes, I think I know who tried to bomb the Clintons.

I didn't say it was the right thing to do, I just saying I could see why people don't like them.

Saying something is "understandable" means far more than you seem to think that it does, it hints that you sympathize with the act in some way.

---

Borinsa wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Sending mail bombs to the Clintons is understandable?

What, I just think they're shady.

Forgive me, I didn't realize that attempting to murder "shady" people was OK.

I'm sorry I made this thread so awkward...

Borinsa wrote:Targeting the Clintons I can understand, but targeting Obama is going way too far.
Whether you agree with his ideas and policies or not, Obama was a respectful man in office and never did anything too shady or outrageous, at least not that I've heard of.

Found him, guys.

The New California Republic wrote:

Borinsa wrote:
I didn't say it was the right thing to do, I just saying I could see why people don't like them.

Saying something is "understandable" means far more than you seem to think that it does, it hints that you sympathize with the act in some way.

---

Borinsa wrote:
What, I just think they're shady.

Forgive me, I didn't realize that attempting to murder "shady" people was OK.

I'm just saying I don't care if anything happens to them, one of them if a corrupt politician and the other is a 1%er who funds NGOs
they aren't as respectable as Obama. He matters more, he just feels more innocent.

-Ocelot- wrote:

Borinsa wrote:Targeting the Clintons I can understand, but targeting Obama is going way too far.
Whether you agree with his ideas and policies or not, Obama was a respectful man in office and never did anything too shady or outrageous, at least not that I've heard of.

Found him, guys.

You guys are joking right?

Generation of Clinton hate propaganda culminating in people openly expressing indifference to the possibility of them being murdered? Color me shocked.

Borinsa wrote:Targeting the Clintons I can understand, but targeting Obama is going way too far.
Whether you agree with his ideas and policies or not, Obama was a respectful man in office and never did anything too shady or outrageous, at least not that I've heard of.

Targeting people isnt ok, even if they are crooks.

I reiterate my sentiments in the other thread, but louder

Ahem,

DONT SEND MAIL BOMBS TO PEOPLE

Borinsa wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Saying something is "understandable" means far more than you seem to think that it does, it hints that you sympathize with the act in some way.

---

Forgive me, I didn't realize that attempting to murder "shady" people was OK.

I'm just saying I don't care if anything happens to them, one of them if a corrupt politician and the other is a 1%er who funds NGOs
they aren't as respectable as Obama. He matters more, he just feels more innocent.

So now the Clintons are somehow guilty and somehow deserving of having bombs sent to them?

Stop. Please. I implore you. You are just digging the hole deeper and deeper.

Borinsa wrote:

-Ocelot- wrote:
Found him, guys.

You guys are joking right?

They're giving you guff cuz they want to sic' the mods on you and watch you burn for not thinking like they do.

They also don't want to admit that if anything did happen, literally nobody here would cry over it.

Empathizing with how one side feels and understanding their manner of logic behind their actions is not admission of advocating for the Clinton family to be blown up.

I can understand why ISIL would be angry enough to want America destroyed. But I certainly don't agree with it and wouldn't go about calling for the slaughter of American soldiers at the hands of ISIL members.

NSG is a vicious circle, kiddo. Don't let them get to you.

Holy Tedalonia wrote:

Borinsa wrote:Targeting the Clintons I can understand, but targeting Obama is going way too far.
Whether you agree with his ideas and policies or not, Obama was a respectful man in office and never did anything too shady or outrageous, at least not that I've heard of.

Targeting people isnt ok, even if they are crooks.

Yeah, being a crook would just get you in jail, not the death penalty.

So can we call this a right-wing nutbag now?

Vassenor wrote:So can we call this a right-wing nutbag now?

They could be a anarchist for all I know and care

Vassenor wrote:So can we call this a right-wing nutbag now?

What happened to not making assumptions Vass?

Vassenor wrote:So can we call this a right-wing nutbag now?

The guy who sent the bomb? Of course.
There is no reason why a leftist would do this.
If it was an anarchist they'd target the current executives of federal and state governments.
If it was a muslim...I actually don't know who'd they'd target, anyone important would do probably.

Harelia wrote:

Borinsa wrote:
You guys are joking right?

They're giving you guff cuz they want to sic' the mods on you and watch you burn for not thinking like they do.

They also don't want to admit that if anything did happen, literally nobody here would cry over it.

Empathizing with how one side feels and understanding their manner of logic behind their actions is not admission of advocating for the Clinton family to be blown up.

I can understand why ISIL would be angry enough to want America destroyed. But I certainly don't agree with it and wouldn't go about calling for the slaughter of American soldiers at the hands of ISIL members.

NSG is a vicious circle, kiddo. Don't let them get to you.

Or because he implied the Clintons deserve to be murdered because they're accused of being corrupt without proof.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Vassenor wrote:So can we call this a right-wing nutbag now?

What happened to not making assumptions Vass?

Antifa obviously hate Soros, the Clintons and Obama. Right wingers are being unjustly blamed here. :^]

Borinsa wrote:Targeting the Clintons I can understand, but targeting Obama is going way too far.
Whether you agree with his ideas and policies or not, Obama was a respectful man in office and never did anything too shady or outrageous, at least not that I've heard of.

I don't disagree with you... but then again everyone who visited this thread now is going to have two bullet holes in the back of the head and it'll be ruled as a suicide.